| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Church History, Vol. 3 of 3
Author: Kurtz, J. H. (Johann Heinrich), 1809-1890
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Church History, Vol. 3 of 3" ***
Church History
By
Professor J. H. Kurtz
Authorized Translation From Latest Revised Edition by the
Rev. John MacPherson, M.A.
In Three Volumes. Vol. III.
Second Edition
London: Hodder and Stoughton
1893
CONTENTS
Second Section. Church History Of The Seventeenth Century.
I. Relations between the Different Churches.
§ 152. East and West.
§ 153. Catholicism and Protestantism.
§ 154. Lutheranism and Calvinism.
§ 155. Anglicanism and Puritanism.
II. The Roman Catholic Church.
§ 156. The Papacy, Monkery, and Foreign Missions.
§ 157. Quietism and Jansenism.
§ 158. Science and Art in the Catholic Church.
III. The Lutheran Church.
§ 159. Orthodoxy and its Battles.
§ 160. The Religious Life.
IV. The Reformed Church.
§ 161. Theology and its Battles.
§ 162. The Religious Life.
V. Anti- and Extra-Ecclesiastical Parties.
§ 163. Sects and Fanatics.
§ 164. Philosophers and Freethinkers.
Third Section. Church History Of The Eighteenth Century.
I. The Catholic Church in East and West.
§ 165. The Roman Catholic Church.
§ 166. The Oriental Churches.
II. The Protestant Churches.
§ 167. The Lutheran Church before “the Illumination.”
§ 168. The Church of the Moravian Brethren.
§ 169. The Reformed Church before the “Illumination.”
§ 170. New Sects and Fanatics.
§ 171. Religion, Theology, and Literature of the “Illumination.”
§ 172. Church Life in the Period of the “Illumination.”
Fourth Section. Church History Of The Nineteenth Century.
I. General and Introductory.
§ 173. Survey of Religious Movements of Nineteenth Century.
§ 174. Nineteenth Century Culture in Relation to Christianity and
the Church.
§ 175. Intercourse and Negotiations between the Churches.
II. Protestantism in General.
§ 176. Rationalism and Pietism
§ 177. Evangelical Union and Lutheran Separation.
§ 178. Evangelical Confederation.
§ 179. Lutheranism, Melanchthonianism, and Calvinism.
§ 180. The “Protestantenverein.”
§ 181. Disputes about Forms of Worship.
§ 182. Protestant Theology in Germany.
§ 183. Home Missions.
§ 184. Foreign Missions.
III. Catholicism in General.
§ 185. The Papacy and the States of the Church.
§ 186. Various Orders and Associations.
§ 187. Liberal Catholic Movements.
§ 188. Catholic Ultramontanism.
§ 189. The Vatican Council.
§ 190. The Old Catholics.
§ 191. Catholic Theology, especially in Germany.
IV. Relation of Church to the Empire and to the States.
§ 192. The German Confederation.
§ 193. Prussia.
§ 194. The North German smaller States.
§ 195. Bavaria.
§ 196. The South German Smaller States and Rhenish Alsace and
Lorraine.
§ 197. The so-called Kulturkampf in the German Empire.
§ 198. Austria-Hungary.
§ 199. Switzerland.
§ 200. Holland and Belgium.
§ 201. The Scandinavian Countries.
§ 202. Great Britain and Ireland.
§ 203. France.
§ 204. Italy.
§ 205. Spain and Portugal.
§ 206. Russia.
§ 207. Greece and Turkey.
§ 208. The United States of America.
§ 209. The Roman Catholic States of South America.
V. Opponents of Church and of Christianity.
§ 210. Sectarians and Enthusiasts in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox
Russian Domains.
§ 211. Sectaries and Enthusiasts in the Protestant Domain.
§ 212. Antichristian Socialism and Communism.
Chronological Tables.
Index.
Footnotes
SECOND SECTION. CHURCH HISTORY OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
I. Relations between the Different Churches.
§ 152. East and West.
The papacy formed new plans for conquest in the domain of the Eastern
church, but with at most only transient success. Still more illusory were
the hopes entertained for a while in Geneva and London in regard to the
Calvinizing of the Greek church.
1. _Roman Catholic Hopes._—The Jesuit missions among the Turks and
schismatic Greeks failed, but among the Abyssinians some progress was
made. By promising Spanish aid, the Jesuit Paez succeeded, in A.D. 1621,
in inducing the Sultan Segued to abjure the Jacobite heresy. Mendez was
made Abyssinian patriarch by Urban VIII. in A.D. 1626, but the clergy and
people repeatedly rebelled against sultan and patriarch. In A.D. 1642 the
next sultan drove the Jesuits out of his kingdom, and in it henceforth no
traces of Catholicism were to be found.—In Russia the false Demetrius, in
A.D. 1605, working in Polish Catholic interests, sought to catholicize the
empire; but this only convinced the Russians that he was no true czar’s
son. When his Catholic Polish bride entered Moscow with 200 Poles, a riot
ensued, in which Demetrius lost his life.(1)
2. _Calvinistic Hopes._—_Cyril Lucar_, a native of Crete, then under
Venetian rule, by long residence in Geneva had come to entertain a strong
liking to the Reformed church. Expelled from his situation as rector of a
Greek seminary at Ostrog by Jesuit machinations, he was made Patriarch of
Alexandria in A.D. 1602 and of Constantinople in A.D. 1621. He maintained
a regular correspondence with Reformed divines in Holland, Switzerland,
and England. In A.D. 1628 he sent the famous Codex Alexandrinus as a
present to James I. He wrought expressly for a union of the Greek and
Reformed churches, and for this end sent, in A.D. 1629, to Geneva an
almost purely Calvinistic confession. But the other Greek bishops opposed
his union schemes, and influential Jesuits in Constantinople accused him
of political faults. Four times the sultan deposed and banished him, and
at last, in A.D. 1638, he was strangled as a traitor and cast into the
sea.—One of his Alexandrian clergy, Metrophanes Critopulus, whom in A.D.
1616 he had sent for his education to England, studied several years at
Oxford, then at German Protestant universities, ending with Helmstadt,
where, in A.D. 1625, he composed in Greek a confession of the faith of the
Greek Orthodox Church. It was pointedly antagonistic to the Romish
doctrine, conciliatory toward Protestantism, while abandoning nothing
essential in the Greek Orthodox creed, and showing signs of the possession
of independent speculative power. Afterwards Metrophanes became Patriarch
of Alexandria, and in the synod, presided over by Lucar’s successor, Cyril
of Berrhoë, at Constantinople in A.D. 1638, gave his vote for the formal
condemnation of the man who had been already executed.(2)
3. _Orthodox Constancy._—The Russian Orthodox church, after its
emancipation from Constantinople and the erection of an independent
patriarchate at Moscow in A.D. 1589 (§ 73, 4), had decidedly the
pre-eminence over the Greek Orthodox church, and the Russian czar took the
place formerly occupied by the East Roman emperor as protector of the
whole Orthodox church. The dangers to the Orthodox faith threatened by
schemes of union with Catholics and Protestants induced the learned
metropolitan, Peter Mogilas of Kiev, to compose a new confession in
catechetical form, which, in A.D. 1643, was formally authorized by the
Orthodox patriarchs as Ὀρθόδοξος ὁμολογία τῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς
ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἀνατολικῆς.—Thirty years later a controversy on the
eucharist broke out between the Jansenists Nicole and Arnauld, on the one
side, and the Calvinists Claude and Jurieu, on the other (§ 157, 1), in
which both claimed to be in agreement with the Greek church. A synod was
convened under _Dositheus of Jerusalem_ in A.D. 1672, at the instigation
of French diplomatists, where the questions raised by Cyril were again
taken into consideration. Maintaining a friendly attitude toward the
Romish church, it directed a violent polemic against Calvinism. In order
to save the character of the Constantinopolitan chair for constant
Orthodoxy, Cyril’s confession of A.D. 1629 was pronounced a spurious,
heretical invention, and a confession composed by Dositheus, in which
Cyril’s Calvinistic heresies were repudiated, was incorporated with the
synod’s acts.
§ 153. Catholicism and Protestantism.
The Jesuit counter-reformation (§ 151) was eminently successful during the
first decades of the century in Bohemia. The Westphalian Peace restrained
its violence, but did not prevent secret machinations and the open
exercise of all conceivable arts of seduction. Next to the conversion of
Bohemia, the greatest triumph of the restoration was won in France in the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Besides such victories the Catholics
were able to glory in the conversion of several Protestant princes. New
endeavours at union were repeatedly made, but these in every case proved
as fruitless as former attempts had done.
1. _Conversions of Protestant Princes._—The first reigning prince who
became a convert to Romanism was the Margrave _James III. of Baden_. He
went over in A.D. 1590 (§ 144, 4), but as his death occurred soon after,
his conduct had little influence upon his people. Of greater consequence
was the conversion, in A.D. 1614, of the Count-palatine Wolfgang William
of Neuburg, as it prepared the way for the catholicizing of the whole
Palatinate, which followed in A.D. 1685. Much was made of the passing over
to the Catholic church of _Christina of Sweden_, the highly gifted but
eccentric daughter of Gustavus Adolphus. As she had resigned the crown,
the pope gained no political advantage from his new member, and Alexander
VII. had even to contribute to her support. The Elector of Saxony,
_Frederick Augustus II._, passed over to the Roman Catholic church in A.D.
1697, in order to qualify himself for the Polish crown; but the rights of
his Protestant subjects were carefully guarded. An awkwardness arose from
the fact that the prince was pledged by the directory of the Regensburg
Diet of A.D. 1653 to care for the interests of the evangelical church. Now
that he had become a Catholic, he still formally promised to do so, but
had his duties discharged by a commissioner. Subsequently this officer was
ordered to take his directions from the evangelical council of Dresden.
2. _The Restoration in Germany and the Neighbouring States (§ 151,
1)._—Matthias having, in violation of the royal letter of his predecessor
Rudolph II. (§ 139, 19), refused to allow the Protestants of Bohemia to
build churches, was driven out; the Jesuits also were expelled, and the
Calvinistic Elector-palatine Frederick V. was chosen as prince in A.D.
1619. Ferdinand II. (A.D. 1619-1637) defeated him, tore up the royal
letter, restored the Jesuits, and expelled the Protestant pastors. Efforts
were made by Christian IV. of Denmark and other Protestant princes to save
Protestantism, but without success. Ferdinand now issued his _Restitution
Edict_ of A.D. 1629, which deprived Protestants of their privileges, and
gave to Catholic nobles unrestricted liberty to suppress the evangelical
faith in their dominions. It was then that Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, in
religious not less than political interests, made his appearance as the
saviour of Protestantism.(3) The unhappy war was brought to an end in A.D.
1648 by the publication at Münster and Osnabrück of the _Peace of
Westphalia_, which Innocent X. in his bull “_Zelo Domus Dei_” of A.D. 1651
pronounced “null and void, without influence on past, present, and
future.” Germany lost several noble provinces, but its intellectual and
religious freedom was saved. Under Swedish and French guarantee the
Augsburg Religious Peace was confirmed and even extended to the Reformed,
as related to the Augsburg Confession. The church property was to be
restored on January 1st, A.D. 1624. The political equality of Protestants
and Catholics throughout Germany was distinctly secured. In _Bohemia_,
however, Protestantism was thoroughly extirpated, and in the other
Austrian states the oppression continued down to the time of Joseph II. In
_Silesia_, from the passing of the Restitution Edict, over a thousand
churches had been violently taken from the evangelicals. No compensation
was now thought of, but rather the persecution continued throughout the
whole century (§ 165, 4), and many thousands were compelled to migrate,
for the most part to Upper Lusatia.
3. Also in _Livonia_, from A.D. 1561 under Polish rule, the Jesuits gained
a footing and began the restoration, but under Gustavus Adolphus from A.D.
1621 their machinations were brought to an end.—The ruthless _Valteline
Massacre_ of A.D. 1620 may be described as a Swiss St. Bartholomew on a
small scale. All Protestants were murdered in one day. The conspirators at
a signal from the clock tower in the early morning broke into the houses
of heretics, and put all to death, down to the very babe in the cradle.
Between four and five hundred were slaughtered.—In _Hungary_, at the close
of the preceding century only three noble families remained Catholic, and
the Protestant churches numbered 2,000; but the Jesuits, who had settled
there under the protection of Rudolph II. in 1579, resumed their
intrigues, and the Archbishop of Gran, Pazmany, wrought hard for the
restoration of Catholicism. Rakoczy of Transylvania, in the Treaty of Linz
of A.D. 1645, concluded a league offensive and defensive with Sweden and
France, which secured political and religious liberty for Hungary; but of
the 400 churches of which the Protestants had been robbed only ninety were
given back. The bigoted Leopold I., from A.D. 1655 king of Hungary,
inaugurated a yet more severe persecution, which continued until the
publication of the Toleration Edict of Joseph II. in A.D. 1781. The 2,000
Protestant congregations were by this time reduced to 105.
4. _The Huguenots in France (§ 139, 17)._—Henry IV. faithfully fulfilled
the promises which he made in the Edict of Nantes; but under Louis XIII.,
A.D. 1610-1643, the oppressions of the Huguenots were renewed, and led to
fresh outbreaks. Richelieu withdrew their political privileges, but
granted them religious toleration in the Edict of Nismes, A.D. 1629. Louis
XIV., A.D. 1643-1715, at the instigation of his confessors, sought to
atone for his sins by purging his land of heretics. When bribery and court
favour had done all that they could do in the way of conversions, the
fearful dragonnades began, A.D. 1681. The formal _Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes_ followed in A.D. 1685, and persecution raged with the utmost
violence. Thousands of churches were torn down, vast numbers of confessors
were tortured, burnt, or sent to the galleys. In spite of the terrible
penal laws against emigrating, in spite of the watch kept over the
frontiers, hundreds of thousands escaped, and were received with open arms
as _refugees_ in Brandenburg, Holland, England, Denmark, and Switzerland.
Many fled into the wilds of the Cevennes, where under the name of
Camisards they maintained a heroic conflict for years, until at last
exterminated by an army at least ten times their strength. The struggle
reached the utmost intensity of bitterness on both sides in A.D. 1702,
when the fanatical and inhumanly cruel inquisitor, the Abbé du Chaila, was
slain. At the head of the Camisard army was a young peasant, Jean
Cavalier, who by his energetic and skilful conduct of the campaign
astonished the world. At last the famous Marshal Villars, by promising a
general amnesty, release of all prisoners, permission to emigrate with
possessions, and religious toleration to those who remained, succeeded in
persuading Cavalier to lay down his arms. The king ratified this bargain,
only refusing the right of religious freedom. Many, however, submitted;
while others emigrated, mostly to England. Cavalier entered the king’s
service as colonel; but distrusting the arrangements fled to Holland, and
afterwards to England, where in A.D. 1740 he died as governor of Jersey.
In A.D. 1707 a new outbreak took place, accompanied by prophetic
fanaticism, in consequence of repeated dragonnades, but it was put down by
the stake, the gallows, the axe, and the wheel. France had lost half a
million of her most pious, industrious, and capable inhabitants, and yet
two millions of Huguenots deprived of all their rights remained in the
land.(4)
5. _The Waldensians in Piedmont (§ 139, 25)._—Although in A.D. 1654 the
Duke of Savoy confirmed to the Waldensians their privileges, by Easter of
the following year a bloody persecution broke out, in which a Piedmontese
army, together with a horde of released prisoners and Irish refugees,
driven from their native land by Cromwell’s severities, to whom the duke
had given shelter in the valleys, perpetrated the most horrible cruelties.
Yet in the desperate conflict the Waldensians held their ground. The
intervention of the Protestant Swiss cantons won for them again a measure
of toleration, and liberal gifts from abroad compensated them for their
loss of property. Cromwell too sent to the relief of the sufferers the
celebrated Lord Morland in A.D. 1658. While in the valleys he got
possession of a number of MSS. (§ 108, 11), which he took home with him
and deposited in the Cambridge Library. In A.D. 1685 the persecution and
civil war were again renewed at the instigation of Louis XIV. The soldiers
besieged the valleys, and more than 14,000 captives were consigned to
fortresses and prisons. But the rest of the Waldensians plucked up
courage, inflicted many defeats upon their enemy, and so moved the
government in A.D. 1686 to release the prisoners and send them out of the
country. Some found their way to Germany, others fled to Switzerland.
These last, aided by Swiss troops, and led by their own pastor, Henry
Arnaud, made an attack upon Piedmont in A.D. 1689, and conquered again
their own country. They continued in possession, notwithstanding all
attempts to dislodge them.
6. _The Catholics in England and Ireland._—When James I., A.D. 1603-1625,
the son of Mary Stuart, ascended the English throne (§ 139, 11), the
Catholics expected from him nothing short of the complete restoration of
the old religion. But great as James’ inclination towards Catholicism may
have been, his love of despotic authority was still greater. He therefore
rigorously suppressed the Jesuits, who disputed the royal supremacy over
the church; and the bitterness of the Catholics now reached its height.
They organized the so-called _Gunpowder Plot_, with the intention of
blowing up the royal family and the whole Parliament at the first meeting
of the house. At the head of the conspiracy stood Rob. Catesby, Thomas
Percy of Northumberland, and Guy Fawkes, an English officer in the Spanish
service. The plan was discovered shortly before the day appointed for its
execution. On November 5th, A.D. 1605, Fawkes, with lantern and matches,
was seized in the cellar. The rest of the conspirators fled, but, after a
desperate struggle, in which Catesby and Percy fell, were arrested, and,
together with two Jesuit accomplices, executed as traitors. Great
severities were then exercised toward the Catholics, not only in England,
but also in Ireland, where the bulk of the population was attached to the
Romish faith. James I. completed the transference of ecclesiastical
property to the Anglican church, and robbed the Irish nobles of almost all
their estates, and gifted them over to Scottish and English favourites.
All Catholics, because they refused to take the oath of supremacy, _i.e._
to recognise the king as head of the church, were declared ineligible for
any civil office. These oppressions at last led to the fearful _Irish
massacre_. In October, A.D. 1641, a desperate outbreak of the Catholics
took place throughout the country. It aimed at the destruction of all
Protestants in Ireland. The conspirators rushed from all sides into the
houses of the Protestants, murdered the inhabitants, and drove them naked
and helpless from their homes. Many thousands died on the roadside of
hunger and cold. In other places they were driven in crowds into the
rivers and drowned, or into empty houses, which were burnt over them. The
number of those who suffered is variously estimated from 40,000 to
400,000. Charles I., A.D. 1625-1649, was suspected as instigator of this
terrible deed, and it may be regarded as his first step toward the
scaffold (§ 155, 1). After the execution of Charles, Oliver Cromwell, in
A.D. 1649, at the call of Parliament, took fearful revenge for the Irish
crime. In the two cities which he took by storm he had all the citizens
cut down without distinction. Panic-stricken, the inhabitants of the other
cities fled to the bogs. Within nine months the whole island was
reconquered. Hundreds of thousands, driven from their native soil,
wandered as homeless fugitives, and their lands were divided among English
soldiers and settlers. During the time of the English Commonwealth, A.D.
1649-1660, all moderate men, even those who had formerly demanded
religious toleration, not only for all Christian sects, but also for Jews
and Mohammedans, and even atheists, were now at one in excluding Catholics
from its benefit, because they all saw in the Catholics a party ready at
any moment to prove traitors to their country at the bidding of a foreign
sovereign.—The Restoration under Charles II. could not greatly ameliorate
the calamities of the Irish. Religious persecution indeed ceased, but the
property taken from the Catholic church and native owners still remained
in the hands of the Anglican church and the Protestant occupiers. To
counterbalance the Catholic proclivities of Charles II. (§ 155, 3), the
English Parliament of A.D. 1673 passed the _Test Act_, which required
every civil and military officer to take the test oaths, condemning
transubstantiation and the worship of the saints, and to receive the
communion according to the Anglican rite as members of the State church.
The statements of a certain Titus Oates, that the Jesuits had organized a
plot for murdering the king and restoring the papacy, led to fearful riots
in A.D. 1678 and many executions. But the reports were seemingly
unfounded, and were probably the fruit of an intrigue to deprive the
king’s Catholic brother, James II., of the right of succession. When James
ascended the throne, in A.D. 1685, he immediately entered into
negotiations with Rome, and filled almost all offices with Catholics. At
the invitation of the Protestants, the king’s son-in-law, William III. of
Orange, landed in England in A.D. 1688, and on James’ flight was declared
king by the Parliament. The Act of Toleration, issued by him in A.D. 1689,
still withheld from Papists the privileges now extended to Protestant
dissenters (§ 155, 3).(5)
7. _Union Efforts._—(1) Although _Hugo Grotius_ distinctly took the side
of the Remonstrants (§ 160, 2), his whole disposition was essentially
irenical. He attempted, but in vain, not only the reconciliation of the
Arminians and Calvinists, but also the union of all Protestant sects on a
common basis. Toward Catholicism he long maintained a decidedly hostile
attitude. But through intimate intercourse with distinguished Catholics,
especially during his exile in France, his feelings were completely
changed. He now invariably expressed himself more favourably in regard to
the faith and the institutions of the Catholic church. Its
semi-Pelagianism was acceptable to him as a decided Arminian. In his
“_Votum pro Pace_” he recommended as the only possible way to restore
ecclesiastical union, a return to Catholicism, on the understanding that a
thorough reform should be made. But that he was himself ready to pass
over, and was hindered only by his sudden death in A.D. 1645, is merely an
illusion of Romish imagination.(6)—(2) King Wladislaus IV. of Poland
thought a union of Protestants and Catholics in his dominions not
impossible, and with this end in view arranged the _Religious Conference
of Thorn_ in A.D. 1645. Prussia and Brandenburg were also invited to take
part in it. The elector sent his court preacher, John Berg, and asked from
the Duke of Brunswick the assistance of the Helmstadt theologian, George
Calixt. The chief representatives of the Lutheran side were Abraham Calov,
of Danzig, and John Hülsemann, of Wittenberg. That Calixt, a Lutheran,
took the part of the Reformed, intensified the bitterness of the Lutherans
at the outset. The result was to increase the split on all sides. The
Reformed set forth their opinions in the “_Declaratio Thorunensis_,” which
in Brandenburg obtained symbolical rank.—(3) _J. B. Bossuet_, who died in
A.D. 1704, Bishop of Meaux, used all his eloquence to prepare a way for
the return of Protestants to the church in which alone is salvation. In
several treatises he gave an idealized exposition of the Catholic
doctrine, glossed over what was most offensive to Protestants, and sought
by subtlety and sophistry to represent the Protestant system as
contradictory and untenable.(7) During the same period the Spaniard
_Spinola_, Bishop of Neustadt, who had come into the country as father
confessor of the empress, proposed a scheme of union at the imperial
court. The controverted points were to be decided at a free council, but
the primacy of the pope and the hierarchical system, as founded _jure
humano_, were to be retained. In prosecuting his scheme, with the secret
support of Leopold I., Spinola, between A.D. 1676 and 1691, travelled
through all Protestant Germany. He found most success, out of respect for
the emperor, in Hanover, where the Abbot of Loccum, Molanus, zealously
advocated the proposed union, in which on the Catholic side Bossuet, on
the Protestant side the great philosopher _Leibnitz_, took part. But the
negotiations ended in no practical result. That Leibnitz had himself been
already secretly inclined to Catholicism, some think to have proved by a
manuscript, found after his death, entitled in another’s hand, “_Systema
Theologicum Leibnitii_.” Favourably disposed as Leibnitz was to
investigate and recognise what was profound and true even in Catholicism,
so that he reached the conviction that neither of the two churches had
given perfect and adequate expression to Christian truth, he has
apparently sought in this work to make clear to himself what and how much
of specifically Catholic doctrines were justifiable, and to sketch out a
system of doctrine occupying a place superior to both confessions. In this
treatise many doctrines are expressed in a manner quite divergent from
that of the Tridentine creed, while several expressions show how clearly
he perceived the contradiction between his own Protestant faith and the
Romish system, amid all his attempts to effect a reconciliation.
8. _The Lehnin Prophecy._—The hope entertained, about the end of the
seventeenth century, by Catholics throughout Germany of the speedy
restoration of the mother church was expressed in the so called
_Vaticinium Lehninense_. Professedly composed in the thirteenth century by
a monk called Hermann, of the cloister of Lehnin in Brandenburg, it
characterized with historical accuracy in 100 Leonine verses the
Brandenburg princes down to Frederick III., of whose coronation in A.D.
1701 it is ignorant, and after this proceeds in a purely fanciful and
arbitrary manner. From Joachim II., who openly joined the Reformation, it
enumerates eleven members, so that the history is just brought down to
Frederick William III. With the eleventh the Hohenzollern dynasty ends,
Germany is united, the Catholic church restored, and Lehnin raised again
to its ancient glory. Under Frederick William IV., the Catholics
diligently sought to prove the genuineness of the prophecy, and by
arbitrary methods to extend it so as to include this prince. Lately “the
deadly sin of Israel” spoken of in it has been pointed to as a prophecy of
the _Kulturkampf_ of our own day (§ 197). The first certain trace of the
poem is in A.D. 1693. Hilgenfeld thinks that its author was a fanatical
pervert, Andr. Fromm, who was previously a Protestant pastor in Berlin,
and died in A.D. 1685 as canon of Leitmeritz, in Bohemia.
§ 154. Lutheranism and Calvinism.
The Reformed church made its way into the heart of Lutheran Germany (§
144) by the Calvinizing of Hesse-Cassel and Lippe, and by the adherence of
the electoral house of Brandenburg. Renewed attempts to unite the two
churches were equally fruitless with the endeavours after a
Catholic-Protestant union.
1. _Calvinizing of Hesse-Cassel, _A.D._ 1605-1646._—Philip the
Magnanimous, died 1567, left to his eldest son, William IV., one half of
his territories, comprising Lower Hesse and Schmalcald, with residence at
Cassel; to Louis IV. a fourth part, _viz._ Upper Hesse, with residence at
Marburg; while his two youngest sons, Philip and George, were made counts,
with their residence at Darmstadt. Philip died in 1583 and Louis in 1604,
both childless; in consequence of which the greater part of Philip’s
territory and the northern half of Upper Hesse with Marburg fell to
Hesse-Cassel, and the southern half with Giessen to
Hesse-Darmstadt.—Landgrave _William IV._ of Hesse-Cassel sympathised with
his father’s union and levelling tendencies, and by means of general
synods wrought eagerly to secure acceptance for them throughout Hesse by
setting aside the _ubiquitous_ Christology (§ 142, 9) and the Formula of
Concord, while firmly maintaining the _Corpus Doctrinæ Philippicum_ (§
142, 10). The fourth and last of those general synods was held in 1582.
Further procedure was meanwhile rendered impossible by the increase of
opposition. For, on the one hand, Louis IV., under the influence of the
acute and learned but contentious Ægidius Hunnius, professor of theology
at Marburg, 1576-1592, became more and more decidedly a representative of
exclusive Lutheranism; and, on the other hand, William’s Calvinizing
schemes became from day to day more reckless. His son and successor
_Maurice_ went forward more energetically along the same lines as his
father, especially after the death of his uncle Louis in 1604, who
bequeathed to him the Marburg part of his territories. These had been
given him on condition that he should hold by the confession and its
apology as guaranteed by Charles V. in 1530. But in 1605 he forbad the
Marburg theologians to set forth the ubiquity theology; and when they
protested, issued a formal prohibition of the dogma with its
presuppositions and consequences, and insisted on the introduction of the
Reformed numbering of the commandments of the decalogue, and the breaking
of bread at the communion, and the removal of the remaining images from
the churches (§ 144, 2). The theologians again protested, and were
deprived of their offices. The result was the outbreak of a popular tumult
at Marburg, which Maurice suppressed by calling in the military. When in
several places in Upper and even in Lower Hesse opposition was persisted
in, and the resisting clergy could not be won over either by persuasion
and threatening or by persecution, Maurice in 1607 convened consultative
diocesan synods at Cassel, Eschwege, Marburg, St. Goar, and soon after a
general synod at Cassel, which, giving expression on all points to the
will of the landgrave, drew up, besides a new hymnbook and catechism, a
new “Christian and correct confession of faith,” by which they openly and
decidedly declared their attachment to the Reformed church. Soon Hesse
accepted these conclusions, but not the rest of the state, where the
opposition of the nobles, clergy, and people, in spite of all attempts to
enforce this acceptance by military power, imprisonment, and deposition,
could not be altogether overcome.—Meanwhile George’s son and successor,
_Louis V._, 1596-1626, had been eagerly seeking to make capital of those
troubles in his cousin’s domains in favour of the Darmstadt dynasty. He
gave his protection to the professors expelled from Marburg in 1605,
founded in 1607 a Lutheran university at Giessen, and made accusations
against his cousin before the imperial supreme court, which in 1623, on
the basis of the will of Louis IV. and the Religious Peace of Augsburg (§
137, 5), declared the inheritance forfeited, and entrusted the electors of
Cologne and Saxony with the execution of the sentence. These in
conjunction with the troops of the league under Tilly attacked Upper and
Lower Hesse; the Lutheran University of Giessen was transferred to
Marburg, and Upper Hesse, after the banishment of the Reformed pastors,
went over wholly to the Lutheran confession. Maurice, completely broken
down, resigned in favour of his son _William V._, who was obliged to make
an agreement, according to which he made over Upper Hesse, Schmalcald, and
Katzenelnbogen to _George II._ of Hesse-Darmstadt, the successor of Louis
V. In consequence of his attachment to Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty
Years’ War the ban of the empire was pronounced upon William. He died in
1637. His widow, _Amalie Elizabeth_, undertook the government on behalf of
her young son William VI., and in 1646, after repeated victories over
George’s troops, made a new agreement with him, by which the territories
taken away in 1627 were restored to Hesse-Cassel, under a guarantee,
however, that the _status quo_ in matters of religion should be preserved,
and that they should continue predominantly Lutheran. The university
property was divided; Giessen obtained a Lutheran, Marburg a Reformed
institution, and Lower Hesse received a moderately but yet essentially
Reformed ecclesiastical constitution.
2. _Calvinizing of Lippe, _A.D._ 1602._—Count Simon VI. of Lippe, in his
eventful life, was brought into close relations with the Reformed
Netherlands and with Maurice of Hesse. His dominions were thoroughly
Lutheran, but from A.D. 1602 Calvinism was gradually introduced under the
patronage of the prince. The chief promoter of this innovation was
Dreckmeyer, chosen general superintendent in A.D. 1599. At a visitation of
churches in A.D. 1602, the festivals of Mary and the apostles, exorcism,
the sign of the cross, the host, burning candles, and Luther’s catechism
were rejected. Opposing pastors were deposed, and Calvinists put in their
place. The city Lemgo stood out longest, and persevered in its adherence
to the Lutheran confession during an eleven years’ struggle with its
prince, from A.D. 1606 to 1617. After the death of Simon VI., his
successor, Simon VII., allowed the city the free exercise of its Lutheran
religion.
3. _The Elector of Brandenburg becomes Calvinist, _A.D._ 1613._—John
Sigismund, A.D. 1608-1619, had promised his grandfather, John George, to
maintain his connexion with the Lutheran church. But his own inclination,
which was strengthened by his son’s marriage with a princess of the
Palatinate, and his connexion with the Netherlands, made him forget his
promise. Also his court preacher, the crypto-Calvinist Solomon Fink,
contributed to the same result. On Christmas Day, A.D. 1613, he went over
to the Reformed church. In order to share in the Augsburg Peace, he still
retained the Augsburg Confession, naturally in the form known as the
_Variata_. In A.D. 1624, he issued a Calvinist confession of his own, the
_Confessio Sigismundi_ or _Marchica_, which sought to reconcile the
universality of grace with the particularity of election (§ 168, 1). His
people, however, did not follow the prince, not even his consort, Anne of
Prussia. The court preacher, Gedicke, who would not retract his invectives
against the prince and the Reformed confession, was obliged to flee from
Berlin, as also another preacher, Mart. Willich. But when altars, images,
and baptismal fonts were thrown out of the Berlin churches, a tumult
arose, in A.D. 1615, which was not suppressed without bloodshed. In the
following year the elector forbade the teaching of the _communicatio
idiomatum_ and the _ubiquitas corporis_ (§ 141, 9) at the University of
Frankfort-on-the-Oder. In A.D. 1614, owing to the publication of a keen
controversial treatise of Hutter (§ 158, 5) he forbade any of his subjects
going to the University of Wittenberg, and soon afterwards struck out the
Formula of Concord from the collection of the symbolical books of the
Lutheran church of his realm.—Continuation, § 169, 1.
4. _Union Attempts._—Hoë von Hoënegg, of an old Austrian family, was from
A.D. 1612 chief court preacher at Dresden, and as spiritual adviser of the
elector, John George, on the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, got
Lutheran Saxony to take the side of the Catholic emperor against the
Calvinist Frederick V. of the Palatinate, elected king of Bohemia. In A.D.
1621, he had proved that “on ninety-nine points the Calvinists were in
accord with the Arians and the Turks.” At the Religious Conference of
Leipzig of A.D. 1631 a compromise was accepted on both sides; but no
practical result was secured. The Religious Conference of Cassel, in A.D.
1661, was a well meant endeavour by some Marburg Reformed theologians and
Lutherans of the school of Calixt (§ 158, 2); but owing to the agitation
caused by the Synergist controversy, no important advance toward union
could be accomplished. The union efforts of Duke William of Brandenburg,
A.D. 1640-1688, were opposed by Paul Gerhardt, preacher in the church of
St. Nicholas in Berlin. On refusing to abstain from attacks on the
Reformed doctrine he was deposed from his office. He was soon appointed
pastor at Lübben in Lusatia, where he died in A.D. 1676.—The most zealous
apostle of universal Protestant union, embracing even the Anglican church,
was the Scottish Presbyterian John Durie. From A.D. 1628 when he
officiated as pastor of an English colony at Elbing, till his death at
Cassel in A.D. 1640, he devoted his energies unweariedly to this one task.
He repeatedly travelled through Germany, Sweden, Denmark, England, and the
Netherlands, formed acquaintance with clerical and civil authorities, had
intercourse with them by word and letter, published a multitude of tracts
on this subject; but at last could only look back with bitter complaints
over the lost labours of a lifetime.(8)—Continuation, § 169, 1.
§ 155. Anglicanism and Puritanism.(9)
On the outbreak of the English Revolution, occasioned by the despotism of
the first two Stuarts, crowds of Puritan exiles returned from Holland and
North America to their old home. They powerfully strengthened their secret
sympathisers in their successful struggle against the episcopacy of the
State church (§ 131, 6); but, breaking up into rival parties, as
Presbyterians and Independents (§ 143, 3, 4), gave way to fanatical
extravagances. The victorious party of Independents also split into two
divisions: the one, after the old Dutch style, simple and strict believers
in Scripture; the other, first in Cromwell’s army, fanatical enthusiasts
and visionary saints (§ 161, 1). The Restoration, under the last two
Stuarts, sought to re-introduce Catholicism. It was William of Orange, by
his Act of Toleration of A.D. 1689, who first brought to a close the
Reformation struggles within the Anglican church. It guaranteed, indeed,
all the pre-eminent privileges of an establishment to the Anglican and
Episcopal church, but also granted toleration to dissenters, while
refusing it to Catholics.
1. _The First Two Stuarts._—_James I._, dominated by the idea of the royal
supremacy, and so estranged from the Presbyterianism in which he was
brought up (§ 139, 11), as king of England, A.D. 1603-1625, attached
himself to the national Episcopal church, persecuted the English Puritans,
so that many of them again fled to Holland (§ 143, 4), and forced
Episcopacy upon the Scotch. _Charles I._, A.D. 1625-1649, went beyond his
father in theory and practice, and thus incurred the hatred of his
Protestant subjects. William Laud, from A.D. 1633 Archbishop of
Canterbury, was the recklessly zealous promoter of his despotic ideas,
representing the Episcopacy, by reason of its Divine institution and
apostolic succession, as the foundation of the church and the pillar of an
absolute monarchy. Laud used his position as primate to secure the
introduction of his own theory into the public church services, among
other things making the communion office an imitation as near as possible
of the Romish mass. But when he attempted to force upon the Scotch such
“Baal-worship” by the command of the king, they formed a league in A.D.
1638 for the defence of Presbyterianism, the so called Great Covenant, and
emphasised their demand by sending an army into England. The king, who had
ruled for eleven years without a Parliament, was obliged now to call
together the representatives of the people. Scarcely had the Long
Parliament, A.D. 1640-1653, in which the Puritan element was supreme,
pacified the Scotch, than oil was anew poured on the flames by the Irish
massacre of A.D. 1641 (§ 153, 6). The Lower House, in spite of the
persistent opposition of the court, resolved on excluding the bishops from
the Upper House and formally abolishing Episcopacy; and in A.D. 1643,
summoned the Westminster Assembly to remodel the organization of the
English church, at which Scotch representatives were to have a seat. After
long and violent debates with an Independent minority, till A.D. 1648, the
Assembly drew up a Presbyterian constitution with a Puritan service, and
in the Westminster Confession a strictly Calvinistic creed. But only in
Scotland were these decisions heartily accepted. In England,
notwithstanding their confirmation by the Parliament, they received only
partial and occasional acceptance, owing to the prevalence of Independent
opinions among the people.—Since A.D. 1642, the tension between court and
Parliament had brought about the Civil War between Cavaliers and
Roundheads. In A.D. 1645, the royal troops were cut to pieces at Naseby by
the parliamentary army under Fairfax and Cromwell. The king fled to the
Scotch, by whom he was surrendered to the English Parliament in A.D. 1647.
But when now the fanatical Independents, who formed a majority in the
army, began to terrorise the Parliament, it opened negotiations for peace
with the king. He was now ready to make almost any sacrifice, only on
religious and conscientious grounds he could not agree to the
unconditional abandonment of Episcopacy. Even the Scotch, whose
Presbyterianism was now threatened by the Independents, as before it had
been by the Episcopalians, longed for the restoration of royalty, and to
aid in this sent an army into England in A.D. 1648. But they were defeated
by Cromwell, who then dismissed the Parliament and had all its
Presbyterian members either imprisoned or driven into retirement. The
Independent remnant, known as the Rump Parliament, A.D. 1648-1653, tried
the king for high treason and sentenced him to death. On January 30th,
A.D. 1649, he mounted the scaffold, on which Archbishop Laud had preceded
him in A.D. 1645, and fell under the executioner’s axe.(10)
2. _The Commonwealth and the Protector._—Ireland had never yet atoned for
its crime of A.D. 1641 (§ 153, 6), and as it refused to acknowledge the
Commonwealth, Cromwell took terrible revenge in A.D. 1649. In A.D. 1650 at
Dunbar, and in A.D. 1651 at Worcester, he completely destroyed the army of
the Scots, who had crowned Charles II., son of the executed king, drove
out, in April A.D. 1653, the Rump of the Long Parliament, which had come
to regard itself as a permanent institution, and in July opened, with a
powerful speech, two hours in length, on God’s ways and judgments, the
Short or Barebones’ Parliament, composed of “pious and God-fearing men”
selected by himself. In this new Parliament which, with prayer and
psalm-singing, wrought hard at the re-organization of the executive, the
bench, and the church, the two parties of Independents were represented,
the fanatical enthusiasts indeed predominating, and so victorious in all
matters of debate. To this party Cromwell himself belonged. His attachment
to it, however, was considerably cooled in consequence of the excesses of
the Levellers (§ 161, 2), and the fantastic policy of the parliamentarian
Saints disgusted him more and more. When therefore, on December 12th, A.D.
1653, after five months’ fruitless opposition to the radical demands of
the extravagant majority, all the most moderate members of the Parliament
had resigned their seats and returned their mandates into Cromwell’s
hands, he burst in upon the psalm-singing remnant with his soldiers, and
entered upon his life-long office of the Protector of the Commonwealth
with a new constitution. He proclaimed toleration of all religious sects,
Catholics only being excepted on political grounds (§ 153, 6), giving
equal rights to Presbyterians, and offering no hindrance to the revival of
Episcopacy. He yet remained firmly attached to his early convictions. He
believed in a kingdom of the saints embracing the whole earth, and looked
on England as destined for the protection and spread of Protestantism.
Zürich greeted him as the great Protestant champion, and he showed himself
in this _rôle_ in the valleys of Piedmont (§ 153, 5), in France, in
Poland, and in Silesia. He joined with all Protestant governments into a
league, offensive and defensive, against fanatical attempts of Papists to
recover their lost ground. When Spain and France sued for his alliance, he
made it a condition with the former that, besides allowing free trade with
the West Indies, it should abolish the Inquisition; and of France he
required an assurance that the rights of Huguenots should be respected.
And when in Germany a new election of emperor was to take place, he urged
the great electors that they should by no means allow the imperial throne
to continue with the Catholic house of Austria. Meanwhile his path at home
was a thorny one. He was obliged to suppress fifteen open rebellions
during five years of his reign, countless secret plots threatened his life
every day, and his bitterest foes were his former comrades in the camp of
the the saints. After refusing the crown offered him in A.D. 1657, without
being able thereby to quell the discontents of parties, he died on
September 3rd, A.D. 1658, the anniversary of his glorious victories of
Dunbar and Worcester.(11)
3. _The Restoration and the Act of Toleration._—The Restoration of royalty
under _Charles II._, A.D. 1660-1685, began with the reinstating of the
Episcopal church in all the privileges granted to it under Elizabeth. The
Corporation Act of December, A.D. 1661, was the first of a series of
enactments for this purpose. It required of all magistrates and civil
officers that they should take an oath acknowledging the royal supremacy
and communicate in the Episcopal church. The Act of Uniformity of May,
A.D. 1662, was still more oppressive. It prohibited any clergyman entering
the English pulpit or discharging any ministerial function, unless he had
been ordained by a bishop, had signed the Thirty-nine Articles, and
undertook to conduct worship exactly in accordance with the newly revised
Book of Common Prayer. More than 2,000 Puritan ministers, who could not
conscientiously submit to those terms, were driven out of their churches.
Then in June, A.D. 1664, the Conventicle Act was renewed, enforcing
attendance at the Episcopal church, and threatening with imprisonment or
exile all found in any private religious meeting of more than five
persons. In the following year the Five Mile Act inflicted heavy fines on
all nonconformist ministers who should approach within five miles of their
former congregation or indeed of any city. All these laws, although
primarily directed against all Protestant dissenters, told equally against
the Catholics, whom the king’s Catholic sympathies would willingly have
spared. When now his league with Catholic France against the Protestant
Netherlands made it necessary for him to appease his Protestant subjects,
he hoped to accomplish this and save the Catholics by his “Declaration of
Indulgence” of A.D. 1672, issued with the consent of Parliament, which
suspended all penal laws hitherto in force against dissenters. But the
Protestant nonconformists saw through this scheme, and the Parliament of
A.D. 1673 passed the anti-Catholic Test Act (§ 153, 6). Equally vain were
all later attempts to secure greater liberties and privileges to the
Catholics. They only served to develop the powers of Parliament and to
bring the Episcopalians and nonconformists more closely together. After
spending his whole life oscillating between frivolous unbelief and
Catholic superstition, Charles II., on his death-bed, formally went over
to the Romish church, and had the communion and extreme unction
administered by a Catholic priest. His brother and successor _James II._,
A.D. 1685-1688, who was from A.D. 1672 an avowed Catholic, sent a
declaration of obedience to Rome, received a papal nuncio in London, and
in the exercise of despotic power issued, in A.D. 1687, a “Declaration of
Freedom of Conscience,” which, under the fair colour of universal
toleration and by the setting aside of the test oath, enabled him to fill
all civil and military offices with Catholics. This act proved equally
oppressive to the Episcopalians and to Protestant dissenters. This
intrigue cost him his throne. He had, as he himself said, staked three
kingdoms on a mass, and lost all the three. _William III._ of Orange, A.D.
1689-1702, grandson of Charles I. and son-in-law of James II., gave a
final decision to the rights of the national Episcopal church and the
position of dissenters in the _Act of Toleration_ of A.D. 1689, which he
passed with consent of the Parliament. All penal laws against the latter
were abrogated, and religious liberty was extended to all with the
exception of Catholics and Socinians. The retention of the Corporation and
Test Acts, however, still excluded them from the exercise of all political
rights. They were also still obliged to pay tithes and other church dues
to the Episcopal clergy of their dioceses, and their marriages and
baptisms had to be administered in the parish churches. Their ministers
were also obliged to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, with reservation
of those points opposed to their principles. The Act of Union of A.D.
1707, passed under Queen Anne, a daughter of James II., which united
England and Scotland into the one kingdom of Great Britain, gave
legitimate sanction to a separate ecclesiastical establishment for each
country. In Scotland the Presbyterian churches continued the established
church, while the Episcopal was tolerated as a dissenting body.
Congregationalism, however, has been practically limited to England and
North America,(12)—Continuation, § 202, 5.
II. The Roman Catholic Church.
§ 156. The Papacy, Monkery, and Foreign Missions.
Notwithstanding the regeneration of papal Catholicism since the middle of
the sixteenth century, Hildebrand’s politico-theocratic ideal was not
realized. Even Catholic princes would not be dictated to on political
matters by the vicar of Christ. The most powerful of them, France,
Austria, and Spain, during the sixteenth century, and subsequently also
Portugal, had succeeded in the claim to the right of excluding
objectionable candidates in papal elections. Ban and interdict had lost
their power. The popes, however, still clung to the idea after they had
been obliged to surrender the reality, and issued from time to time
powerless protestations against disagreeable facts of history. Several new
monkish orders were instituted during this century, mostly for teaching
the young and tending the sick, but some also expressly for the promoting
of theological science. Of all the orders, new and old, the Jesuits were
by far the most powerful. They were regarded with jealousy and suspicion
by the other orders. In respect of doctrine the Dominicans were as far
removed from them as possible within the limits of the Tridentine Creed.
But notwithstanding any such mutual jealousies, they were all animated by
one yearning desire to oppose, restrict, and, where that was possible, to
uproot Protestantism. With similar zeal they devoted themselves with
wonderful success to the work of foreign missions.
1. _The Papacy._—_Paul V._, A.D. 1605-1621, equally energetic in his civil
and in his ecclesiastical policy, in a struggle with Venice, was obliged
to behold the powerlessness of the papal interdict. His successor,
_Gregory XV._, A.D. 1621-1623, founded the Propaganda, prescribed a secret
scrutiny in papal elections, and canonized Loyola, Xavier, and Neri. He
enriched the Vatican Library by the addition of the valuable treasures of
the Heidelberg Library, which Maximilian I. of Bavaria sent him on his
conquest of the Palatinate. _Urban VIII._, A.D. 1623-1644, increased the
Propaganda, improved the Roman “Breviary” (§ 56, 2), condemned Jansen’s
_Augustinus_ (§ 156, 5), and compelled Galileo to recant. But on the other
hand, through his onesided ecclesiastical policy he was led into
sacrificing the interests of the imperial house of Austria. Not only did
he fail to give support to the emperor, but quite openly hailed Gustavus
Adolphus, the saviour of German Protestantism, as the God-sent saviour
from the Spanish-Austrian tyranny. For this he was pronounced a heretic at
the imperial court, and threatened with a second edition of the sack of
Rome (§ 132, 2). At the same time his soul was so filled with fanatical
hatred against Protestantism, that in a letter of 1631 he congratulated
the Emperor Ferdinand II. on the destruction of Magdeburg as an act most
pleasing to heaven and reflecting the highest credit upon Germany, and
expressed the hope that the glory of so great a victory should not be
restricted to the ruins of a single city. On receiving the news of the
death of Gustavus Adolphus in 1632 he broke out into loud jubilation,
saying that now “the serpent was slain which with its poison had sought to
destroy the whole world.” His successor, _Innocent X._, A.D. 1644-1655,
though vigorously protesting against the Peace of Westphalia (§ 153, 2),
was, owing to his abject subserviency to a woman, his own sister-in-law,
reproached with the title of a new _Johanna Papissa_. _Alexander VII._,
A.D. 1655-1667, had the expensive guardianship of his godchild Christina
of Sweden (§ 153, 1), and fanned into a flame the spark kindled by his
predecessor in the Jansenist controversy (§ 156, 5), so that his
successor, _Clement IX._, A.D. 1667-1670, could only gradually extinguish
it. _Clement X._, A.D. 1670-1676, by his preference for Spain roused the
French king Louis XIV., who avenged himself by various encroachments on
the ecclesiastical administration in his dominions. _Innocent XI._, A.D.
1676-1689, was a powerful pope, zealously promoting the weal of the church
and the Papal States by introducing discipline among the clergy and
attacking the immorality that prevailed among all classes of society. He
unhesitatingly condemned sixty-five propositions from the lax Jesuit code
of morals. Against the arrogant ambassador of Louis XIV., he energetically
maintained his sovereign rights in his own domains, while he unreservedly
refused the claims of the French clergy, urged by the king on the ground
of the exceptional constitution of the Gallican church. _Alexander VIII._,
A.D. 1689-1691, continued the fight against Gallicanism, and condemned the
Jesuit distinction between theological and philosophical sin (§ 149, 10).
_Innocent XII._, A.D. 1691-1700, could boast of having secured the
complete subjugation of the Gallican clergy after a hard struggle. He too
wrought earnestly for the reform of abuses in the curia. Specially
creditable to him is the stringent bull “_Romanum decet pontificem_”
against nepotism, which extirpated the evil disease, so that it was never
again openly practised as an acknowledged right.—Continuation, § 165, 1.
2. _The Jesuits and the Republic of Venice._—Venice was one of the first
of the Italian cities to receive the Jesuits with open arms, A.D. 1530.
But the influence obtained by them over public affairs through school and
confessional, and their vast wealth accumulated from bequests and
donations, led the government, in A.D. 1605, to forbid their receiving
legacies or erecting new cloisters. In vain did Paul V. remonstrate. He
then put Venice under an interdict. The Jesuits sought to excite the
people against the government, and for this were banished in A.D. 1606.
The pious and learned historian of the Council of Trent and adviser of the
State, Paul Sarpi, proved a vigorous supporter of civil rights against the
assumptions of the curia and the Jesuits. When in A.D. 1607 he refused a
citation of Inquisition, he was dangerously wounded by three dagger stabs,
inflicted by hired bandits, in whose stilettos he recognised the _stilum
curiæ_. He died in A.D. 1623. After a ten months’ vain endeavour to
enforce the interdict, the pope at last, through French mediation,
concluded a peace with the republic, without, however, being able to
obtain either the abolition of the objectionable ecclesiastico-political
laws or permission for the return of the Jesuits. Only after the republic
had been weakened through the unfortunate Turkish war of A.D. 1645 was it
found willing to submit. Even in A.D. 1653 it refused the offer of 150,000
ducats from the Jesuit general for the Turkish campaign; but when
Alexander VII. suppressed several rich cloisters, their revenues were
thankfully accepted for this purpose. In A.D. 1657, on the pope’s promise
of further pecuniary aid, the decree of banishment was withdrawn. The
Jesuit fathers now returned in crowds, and soon regained much of their
former influence and wealth. No pope has ever since issued an interdict
against any country.(13)
3. _The Gallican Liberties._—Although _Louis XIV._ of France, A.D.
1643-1715, as a good Catholic king, powerfully supported the claims of
papal dogmatics against the Jansenists (§§ 156, 5; 164, 7), he was by no
means unfaithful to the traditional ecclesiastical polity of his house (§§
96, 21; 110, 1, 9, 13, 14), and was often irritated to the utmost pitch by
the pope’s opposition to his political interests. He rigorously insisted
upon the old customary right of the Crown to the income of certain vacant
ecclesiastical offices, the _jus regaliæ_, and extended it to all
bishoprics, burdened church revenues with military pensions, confiscated
ecclesiastical property, etc. Innocent XI. energetically protested against
such exactions. The king then had an assembly of the French called
together in Paris on March 19th, A.D. 1682, which issued the famous _Four
Propositions of the Gallican Clergy_, drawn up by Bishop Bossuet of Meaux.
These set forth the fundamental rights of the French church: (1) In
secular affairs the pope has no jurisdiction over princes and kings, and
cannot release their subjects from their allegiance; (2) The spiritual
power of the pope is subject to the higher authority of the general
councils; (3) For France it is further limited by the old French
ecclesiastical laws; and, (4) Even in matters of faith the judgment of the
pope without the approval of a general assembly of the church is not
unalterable. Innocent consequently refused to institute any of the newly
appointed bishops. He was not even appeased by the Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes in A.D. 1685. He was pleased indeed, and praised the deed, and
celebrated it by a _Te Deum_, but objected to the violent measures for the
conversion of Protestants as contrary to the teaching of Christ. Then also
there arose a keen struggle against the mischievous extension of the right
of asylum on the part of foreign embassies at Rome. On the pope’s
representation all the powers but France agreed to a restriction of the
custom. The pope tolerated the nuisance till the death of the French
ambassador in A.D. 1687, but then insisted on its abolition under pain of
the ban. In consequence of this Louis sent his new ambassador into Rome
with two companies of cavaliers, threw the papal nuntio in France into
prison, and laid siege to the papal state of Avignon (§ 110, 4). But
Innocent was not thus to be terrorized, and the French ambassador was
obliged, after eighteen months’ vain demonstrations, to quit Rome.
Alexander VIII. repeated the condemnation of the Four Propositions, and
Innocent XIII. also stood firm. The French episcopate, on the pope’s
persistent refusal to install bishops nominated by the king, was at last
constrained to submit. “Lying at the feet of his holiness,” the bishops
declared that everything concluded in that assembly was null and void; and
even Louis XIV., under the influence of Madame de Maintenon (§ 157, 3),
wrote to the pope in A.D. 1693, saying that he recalled the order that the
Four Propositions should be taught in all the schools. There still,
however, survived among the French clergy a firm conviction of the
Gallican Liberties, and the _droit de régale_ continued to have the force
of law.(14)—Continuation, § 197, 1.
4. _Galileo and the Inquisition._—Galileo Galilei, professor of
mathematics at Pisa and Padua, who died in A.D. 1642, among his many
distinguished services to the physical, mathematical, and astronomical
sciences, has the honour of being the pioneer champion of the Copernican
system. On this account he was charged by the monks with contradicting
Scripture. In A.D. 1616 Paul V., through Cardinal Bellarmine, threatened
him with the Inquisition and prison unless he agreed to cease from
vindicating and lecturing upon his heretical doctrine. He gave the
required promise. But in A.D. 1632 he published a dialogue, in which three
friends discussed the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, without any formal
conclusion, but giving overwhelming reasons in favour of the latter. Urban
VIII., in A.D. 1636, called upon the Inquisition to institute a process
against him. He was forced to recant, was condemned to prison for an
indefinite period, but was soon liberated through powerful influence. How
far the old man of seventy-two years of age was compelled by torture to
retract is still a matter of controversy. It is, however, quite evident
that it was forced from him by threats. But that Galileo went out after
his recantation, gnashing his teeth and stamping his feet, muttering,
“Nevertheless it moves!” is a legend of a romancing age. This, however, is
the fact, that the Congregation of the Index declared the Copernican
theory to be false, irrational, and directly contrary to Scripture; and
that even in A.D. 1660 Alexander VII., with apostolic authority, formally
confirmed this decree and pronounced it _ex cathedrâ_ (§ 149, 4)
irrevocable. It was only in A.D. 1822 that the curia set it aside, and in
a new edition of the Index (§ 149, 14) in A.D. 1835 omitted the works of
Galileo as well as those of Copernicus.(15)
5. _The Controversy on the Immaculate Conception_ (§ 112, 4) received a
new impulse from the nun _Mary of Jesus, died 1665, of Agreda_, in Old
Castile, superior of the cloister there of the Immaculate Conception,
writer of the “Mystical City of God.” This book professed to give an
inspired account of the life of the Virgin, full of the strangest
absurdities about the immaculate conception. The Sorbonne pronounced it
offensive and silly; the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and Rome forbad
the reading of it; but the Franciscans defended it as a divine revelation.
A violent controversy ensued, which Alexander VII. silenced in A.D. 1661
by expressing approval of the doctrine of the immaculate conception set
forth in the book.—Continuation, § 185, 2.
6. _The Devotion of the Sacred Heart of Jesus._—The nun _Margaret
Alacoque_, in the Burgundian cloister of _Paray le Monial_, born A.D.
1647, recovering from a painful illness when but three years old, vowed to
the mother of God, who frequently appeared to her, perpetual chastity, and
in gratitude for her recovery adopted the name of Mary, and when grown up
resisted temptations by inflicting on herself the severest discipline,
such as long fasts, sharp flagellations, lying on thorns, etc. Visions of
the Virgin no longer satisfied her. She longed to lavish her affections on
the Redeemer himself, which she expressed in the most extravagant terms.
She took the Jesuit _La Colombière_ as her spiritual adviser in A.D. 1675.
In a new vision she beheld the side of her Beloved opened, and saw his
heart glowing like a sun, into which her own was absorbed. Down to her
death in A.D. 1690 she felt the most violent burning pains in her side. In
a second vision she saw her Beloved’s heart burning like a furnace, into
which were taken her own heart and that of her spiritual adviser. In a
third vision he enjoined the observance of a special “Devotion of the
Sacred Heart” by all Christendom on the Friday after the octave of the
_Corpus Christi_ festival and on the first Friday of every month. La
Colombière, being made director, put forth every effort to get this
celebration introduced throughout the church, and on his death the idea
was taken up by the whole Jesuit order. Their efforts, however, for fully
a century proved unavailing. At this point, too, their most bitter
opponents were the Dominicans. But even without papal authority the
Jesuits so far succeeded in introducing the absurdities of this cult, and
giving expression to it in word and by images, that by the beginning of
the eighteenth century there were more than 300 male and female societies
engaged in this devotion, and at last, in A.D. 1765, _Clement XIII._, the
great friend of the Jesuits, gave formal sanction to this special
celebration.—Continuation, § 188, 12.
7. _New Congregations and Orders._—(1) At the head of the new orders of
this century stands the _Benedictine Congregation of St. Banne_ at Verdun,
founded by Didier de la Cour. Elected Abbot of St. Banne in A.D. 1596, he
gave his whole strength to the reforming of this cloister, which had
fallen into luxurious and immoral habits. By a papal bull of A.D. 1604 all
cloisters combining with St. Banne into a congregation were endowed with
rich privileges. Gradually all the Benedictine monasteries of Lorraine and
Alsace joined the union. Didier’s reforms were mostly in the direction of
moral discipline and asceticism; but in the new congregation scholarship
was represented by Calmet, Ceillier, etc., and many gave themselves to
work as teachers in the schools.—(2) Much more important for the promotion
of theological science, especially for patristics and church history, was
another Benedictine congregation founded in France in A.D. 1618 by
Laurence Bernard, that of _St. Maur_, named after a disciple of St.
Benedict. The members of this order devoted themselves exclusively to
science and literary pursuits. To them belonged the distinguished names,
Mabillon, Montfaucon, Reinart, Martène, D’Achery, Le Nourry, Durand,
Surius, etc. They showed unwearied diligence in research and a noble
liberality of judgment. The editions of the most celebrated Fathers issued
by them are the best of the kind, and this may also be said of the great
historical collections which we owe to their diligence.—(3) _The Fathers
of the Oratory of Jesus_ are an imitation of the Priests of the Oratory
founded by Philip Neri (§ 149, 7). Peter of Barylla, son of a member of
parliament, founded it in A.D. 1611 by building an oratory at Paris. He
was more of a mystic than of a scholar, but his order sent out many
distinguished and brilliant theologians; _e.g._ Malebranche, Morinus,
Thomassinus, Rich, Simon, Houbigant.—(4) _The Piarists_, _Patres scholarum
piarum_, were founded in Rome in A.D. 1607 by the Spaniard Joseph
Calasanza. The order adopted as a fourth vow the obligation of gratuitous
tuition. They were hated by the Obscurantist Jesuits for their successful
labours for the improvement of Catholic education, especially in Poland
and Austria, and also because they objected to all participation in
political schemes.—(5) _The Order of the Visitation of Mary_, or _Salesian
Nuns_, instituted in A.D. 1610 by the mystic Francis de Sales and
Francisca Chantal (§ 157, 1). They visited the poor and sick in imitation
of Elizabeth’s visit to the Virgin (Luke i. 39); but the papal rescript of
A.D. 1618 gave prominence to the education of children.
8.—(6) _The Priests of the Missions and Sisters of Charity_ were both
founded by Vincent de Paul. Born of poor parents, he was, after completing
his education, captured by pirates, and as a slave converted his renegade
master to Christianity. As domestic chaplain to the noble family of Gondy
he was characterized in a remarkable degree for unassuming humility, and
he wrought earnestly and successfully as a home missionary. In A.D. 1618
he founded the order of Sisters of Mercy, who became devoted nurses of the
sick throughout all France, and in A.D. 1627 that of the Priests of the
Missions, or Lazarists, who travelled the country attending to the
spiritual and bodily wants of men. After the death of the Countess Gondy
in A.D. 1625, he placed at the head of the Sisters of Mercy the widow
Louise le Gras, distinguished equally for qualities of head and heart.
Vincent died in A.D. 1660, and was subsequently canonized.(16)—(7) _The
Trappists_, founded by De Rancé, a distinguished canon, who in A.D. 1664
passed from the extreme of worldliness to the extreme of fanatical
asceticism. The order got its name from the Cistercian abbey La Trappe in
Normandy, of which Rancé was commendatory abbot. Amid many difficulties he
succeeded, in A.D. 1665, in thoroughly reforming the wild monks, who were
called “the bandits of La Trappe.” His rule enjoined on the monks
perpetual silence, only broken in public prayer and singing and in
uttering the greeting as they met, _Memento mori_. Their bed was a hard
board with some straw; their only food was bread and water, roots, herbs,
some fruit and vegetables, without butter, fat, or oil. Study was
forbidden, and they occupied themselves with hard field labour. Their
clothing was a dark-brown cloak worn on the naked body, with wooden shoes.
Very few cloisters besides La Trappe submitted to such severities (§ 185,
2).—(8) _The English Nuns_, founded at St. Omer, in France, by Mary Ward,
the daughter of an English Catholic nobleman, for the education of girls.
Originally composed of English maidens, it was afterwards enlarged by
receiving those of other nationalities, with establishments in Germany,
Italy, and the Netherlands. It did not obtain papal confirmation, and in
A.D. 1630 Urban VIII., giving heed to the calumnies of enemies, formally
dissolved it on account of arrogance, insubordination, and heresy. All its
institutions and schools were then closed, while Mary herself was
imprisoned and given over to the Inquisition in Rome. Urban was soon
convinced of her innocence and set her free. Her scattered nuns were now
collected again, but succeeded only in A.D. 1703 in obtaining confirmation
from Clement XI. Their chief tasks were the education of youth and care of
the sick. They were arranged in three classes, according to their rank in
life, and were bound by their vows for a year or at the most three years,
after which they might return to the world and marry. Their chief centre
was Bavaria with the mother cloister in Munich.—Continuation, § 165, 2.
9. _The Propaganda._—Gregory XV. gave unity and strength to the efforts
for conversion of heretics and heathens by instituting, in A.D. 1662, the
_Congregatio de Propaganda Fide_. Urban VIII. in A.D. 1627 attached to it
a missionary training school, recruited as far as possible from natives of
the respective countries, like Loyola’s _Collegium Germanicum_ founded in
A.D. 1552 (§ 151, 1). He was thus able every Epiphany to astonish Romans
and foreigners by what seemed a repetition of the pentecostal miracle of
tongues. At this institute training in all languages was given, and
breviaries, mass and devotional books, and handbooks were printed for the
use of the missions. It was also the centre from which all missionary
enterprises originated.—Continuation, § 204, 2.
10. _Foreign Missions._—Even during this century the Jesuits excelled all
others in missionary zeal. In A.D. 1608 they sent out from Madrid mission
colonies among the wandering Indians of South America, and no Spaniard
could settle there without their permission. The most thoroughly organized
of these was that of _Paraguay_, in which, according to their own reports,
over 100,000 converted savages lived happily and contented under the mild,
patriarchal rule of the Jesuits for 140 years, A.D. 1610-1750; but
according to another well informed, though perhaps not altogether
impartial, account, that of Ibagnez, a member of the mission, expelled for
advising submission to the decree depriving it of political independence,
the paternal government was flavoured by a liberal dose of slave-driver
despotism. It was at least an undoubted fact, notwithstanding the boasted
patriarchal idyllic character of the Jesuit state, that the order amassed
great wealth from the proceeds of the industry of their
_protégés_.—Continuation, § 165, 3.
11. _In the East Indies_ (§ 150, 1) the Jesuits had uninterrupted success.
In A.D. 1606, in order to make way among the Brahmans, the Jesuit Rob.
Nobili assumed their dress, avoided all contact with even the converts of
low caste, giving them the communion elements not directly, but by an
instrument, or laying them down for them outside the door, and as a
Christian Brahman made a considerable impression upon the most exclusive
classes.—In _Japan_ the mission prospects were dark (§ 150, 2). Mendicants
and Jesuits opposed and mutually excommunicated one another. The Catholic
Spaniards and Portuguese were at feud among themselves, and only agreed in
intriguing against Dutch and English Protestants. When the land was opened
to foreign trade, it became the gathering point of the moral scum of all
European countries, and the traffic in Japanese slaves, especially by the
Portuguese, brought discredit on the Christian cause. The idea gained
ground that the efforts at Christianization were but a prelude to conquest
by the Spaniards and Portuguese. In the new organization of the country by
the _shiogun_ Ijejasu all governors were to vow hostility to Christians
and foreigners. In A.D. 1606 he forbad the observance of the Christian
religion anywhere in the land. When the conspiracy of a Christian daimio
was discovered, he caused, in A.D. 1614, whole shiploads of Jesuits,
mendicants, and native priests to be sent out of the country. But as many
of the banished returned, death was threatened against all who might be
found, and in A.D. 1624 all foreigners, with the exception of Chinese and
Dutch, were rigorously driven out. And now a bloody persecution of native
Christians began. Many thousands fled to China and the neighbouring
islands; crowds of those remaining were buried alive or burnt on piles
made up of the wood of Christian crosses. The victims displayed a martyr
spirit like those of the early days. Those who escaped organized in A.D.
1637 an armed resistance, and held the fortress of Arima in face of the
_shiogun’s_ army sent against them. After a three months’ siege the
fortress was conquered by the help of Dutch cannon; 37,000 were massacred
in the fort, and the rest were hurled down from high rocks. The most
severe enactments were passed against Christians, and the edicts filled
with fearful curses against “the wicked sect” and “the vile God” of the
Christians were posted on all the bridges, street corners, and squares.
Christianity now seemed to be completely stamped out. The recollection of
this work, however, was still retained down to the nineteenth century. For
when French missionaries went in A.D. 1860 to Nagasaki, they found to
their surprise in the villages around thousands (?) who greeted them
joyfully as the successors of the first Christian missionaries.
12. _In China_, after Ricci’s death (§ 150, 1), the success of the mission
continued uninterrupted. In A.D. 1628 a German Jesuit, Adam Schell, went
out from Cologne, who gained great fame at court for his mathematical
skill. Louis XIV. founded at Paris a missionary college, which sent out
Jesuits thoroughly trained in mathematics. But Dominicans and Franciscans
over and over again complained to Rome of the Jesuits. They never allowed
missionaries of other orders to come near their own establishments, and
actually drove them away from places where they had begun to work. They
even opposed priests, bishops, and vicars-apostolic sent by the
Propaganda, declared their papal briefs forgeries, forbad their
congregations to have any intercourse with those “heretics,” and under
suspicion of Jansenism brought them before the Inquisition of Goa. Clement
X. issued a firm-toned bull against such proceedings; but the Jesuits gave
no heed to it, and attended only to their own general. The papal
condemnation a century later of the Jesuits’ accommodation scheme, and
their permission of heathen rites and beliefs to the new converts,
complained against by the Dominicans, was equally fruitless. In A.D. 1645
Innocent X. forbad this practice on pain of excommunication; but still
they continued it till the decree was modified by Alexander VII. in A.D.
1656. After persistent complaints by the Dominicans, Innocent XII.
appointed a new congregation in Rome to investigate the question, but
their deliberations yielded no result for ten years. At last Clement XI.
confirmed the first decree of Innocent X., condemned anew the so called
Chinese rites, and sent the legate Thomas of Tournon in A.D. 1703 to
enforce his decision. Tournon, received at first by the emperor at Pekin
with great consideration, fell into disfavour through Jesuit intrigues,
was banished from the capital, and returned to Nankin. But as he continued
his efforts from this point, and an attempt to poison him failed in A.D.
1707, he went to Macao, where he was put in prison by the Portuguese, in
which he died in A.D. 1710. Clement XI., in A.D. 1715, issued his decree
against the Chinese rites in a yet severer form; but the Franciscan who
proclaimed the papal bull was put in prison as an offender against the
laws of the country, and, after being maltreated for seventeen months, was
banished. So proudly confident had the Jesuits become, that in A.D. 1720
they treated with scorn and contempt the papal legate Mezzabarba,
Patriarch of Alexandria, who tried by certain concessions to move them to
submit. A more severe decree of Clement XII. of A.D. 1735 was scoffed at
by being proclaimed only in the Latin original. Benedict XIV. succeeded
for the first time, in A.D. 1742, in breaking down their opposition, after
the charges had been renewed by the Capuchin Norbert. All the Jesuit
missionaries were now obliged by oath to exclude all pagan customs and
rites; but with this all the glory and wonderful success of their Asiatic
missions came to an end.—Continuation, § 165, 3.
13. _Trade and Industry of the Jesuits._—As Christian missions generally
deserve credit, not only for introducing civilization and culture along
with the preaching of the gospel into far distant heathen lands, but also
for having greatly promoted the knowledge of countries, peoples, and
languages among their fellow countrymen at home, opening up new fields for
colonization and trade, these ends were also served by the world-wide
missionary enterprises of the Jesuits, and were in perfect accordance with
the character and intention of this order, which aimed at universal
dominion. In carrying out these schemes the Jesuits abandoned the
ascetical principles of their founder and their vow of poverty, amassing
enormous wealth by securing in many parts a practical monopoly of trade.
Their fifth general, Aquaviva (§ 149, 8), secured from Gregory XIII.,
avowedly in favour of the mission, exclusive right to trade with both
Indies. They soon erected great factories in all parts of the world, and
had ships laden with valuable merchandise on all seas. They had mines,
farms, sugar plantations, apothecary shops, bakeries, etc., founded banks,
sold relics, miracle-working amulets, rosaries, healing Ignatius- and
Xavier-water (§ 149, 11), etc., and in successful legacy-hunting excelled
all other orders. Urban VIII. and Clement XI. issued severe bulls against
such abuses, but only succeeded in restricting them to some
extent.—Continuation, § 165, 9.
14. _An Apostate to Judaism._—Gabriel, or as he was called after
circumcision, _Uriel Acosta_, was sprung from a noble Portuguese family,
originally Jewish. Doubting Christianity in consequence of the traffic in
indulgences, he at last repudiated the New Testament in favour of the Old.
He refused rich ecclesiastical appointments, fled to Amsterdam, and there
formally went over to Judaism. Instead of the biblical Mosaism, however,
he was disappointed to find only Pharisaic pride and Talmudic
traditionalism, against which he wrote a treatise in A.D. 1623. The Jews
now denounced him to the civil authorities as a denier of God and
immortality. The whole issue of his book was burnt. Twice the synagogue
thundered its ban against him. The first was withdrawn on his recantation,
and the second, seven years after, upon his submitting to a severe
flagellation. In spite of all he held to his Sadducean standpoint to his
end in A.D. 1647, when he died by his own hand from a pistol shot, driven
to despair by the unceasing persecution of the Jews.
§ 157. Quietism and Jansenism.
Down to the last quarter of the seventeenth century the Spanish Mystics (§
149, 16), and especially those attached to Francis de Sales, were
recognised as thoroughly orthodox. But now the Jesuits appeared as the
determined opponents of all mysticism that savoured of enthusiasm. By
means of vile intrigues they succeeded in getting Molinos, Guyon, and
Fénelon condemned, as “Quietist” heretics, although the founder of their
party had been canonized and his doctrine solemnly sanctioned by the pope.
Yet more objectionable to the Jesuits was that reaction toward
Augustinianism which, hitherto limited to the Dominicans (§ 149, 13), and
treated by them as a theological theory, was now spreading among other
orders in the form of French Jansenism, accompanied by deep moral
earnestness and a revival of the whole Christian life.
1. _Francis de Sales and Madame Chantal._—Francis Count de Sales, from
A.D. 1602 Bishop of Geneva, _i.e._ _in partibus_, with Annecy as his
residence, had shown himself a good Catholic by his zeal in rooting out
Protestantism in Chablais, on the south of the Genevan lake. In A.D. 1604
meeting the young widowed Baroness de Chantal, along with whom at a later
period he founded the Order of the Visitation of Mary (§ 156, 7), he
proved a good physician to her amid her sorrow, doubts, and temptations.
He sought to qualify himself for this task by reading the writings of St.
Theresa. Teacher and scholar so profited by their mystical studies, that
in A.D. 1665 Alexander VII. deemed the one worthy of canonization and the
other of beatification. In A.D. 1877 Pius IX. raised Francis to the
dignity of _doctor ecclesiæ_. His “Introduction to the Devout Life”
affords a guide to laymen to the life of the soul, amid all the
disturbances of the world resting in calm contemplation and unselfish love
of God. In the Catholic Church, next to À Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ,”
it is the most appreciated and most widely used book of devotion. In his
“_Theotime_” he leads the reader deeper into the yearnings of the soul
after fellowship with God, and describes the perfect peace which the soul
reaches in God.(17)
2. _Michael Molinos._—After Francis de Sales a great multitude of male and
female apostles of the new mystical gospel sprang up, and were favourably
received by all the more moderate church leaders. The reactionaries,
headed by the Jesuits, sought therefore all the more eagerly to deal
severely with the Spaniard Michael Molinos. Having settled in Rome in A.D.
1669, he soon became the most popular of father confessors. His “Spiritual
Guide” in A.D. 1675 received the approval of the Holy Office, and was
introduced into Protestant Germany through a Latin translation by Francke
in A.D. 1687, and a German translation in A.D. 1699 by Arnold. In it he
taught those who came to the confessional that the way to the perfection
of the Christian life, which consists in peaceful rest in the most
intimate communion with God, is to be found in spiritual conference,
secret prayer, active and passive contemplation, in rigorous destruction
of all self-will, and in disinterested love of God, fortified, wherever
that is possible, by daily communion. The success of the book was
astonishing. It promptly influenced all ranks and classes, both men and
women, lay and clerical, not only in Italy, but also by means of
translations in France and Spain. But soon a reaction set in. As early as
A.D. 1681 the famous Jesuit _Segneri_ issued a treatise, in which he
charged Molinos’ contemplative mysticism with onesidedness and
exaggeration. He was answered by the pious and learned Oratorian
_Petrucci_. A commission, appointed by the Inquisition to examine the
writings of both parties, pronounced the views of Molinos and Petrucci to
be in accordance with church doctrine and Segneri’s objections to be
unfounded. All that Jesuitism reckoned as foundation, means, and end of
piety was characterized as purely elementary. No hope could be entertained
of winning over Innocent XI., the bitter enemy of the Jesuits. But Louis
XIV. of France, at the instigation of his Jesuit father confessor,
Lachaise, expressed through his ambassador his surprise that his holiness
should, not only tolerate, but even encourage and support so dangerous a
heretic, who taught all Christendom to undervalue the public services of
the Church. In A.D. 1685 Innocent referred the matter to the tribunal of
the Inquisition. Throughout the two years during which the investigation
proceeded all arts were used to secure condemnation. Extreme statements of
fanatical adherents of Molinos were not rarely met with, depreciating the
public ordinances and ceremonies, confession, hearing of mass, church
prayers, rosaries, etc. The pope, facile with age, amid groans and
lamentations, allowed things to take their course, and at last confirmed
the decree of the Inquisition of August 28th, A.D. 1687, by which Molinos
was found guilty of spreading godless doctrine, and sixty-eight
propositions, partly from his own writings, partly from the utterances of
his adherents, were condemned as heretical and blasphemous. The heretic
was to abjure his heresies publicly, clad in penitential garments, and was
then consigned to lifelong solitary confinement in a Dominican cloister,
where he died in A.D. 1697.(18)
3. _Madame Guyon and Fénelon._—After her husband’s death, _Madame Guyon_,
in company with her father confessor, the Barnabite _Lacombe_, who had
been initiated during a long residence at Rome into the mysteries of
Molinist mysticism, spent five years travelling through France,
Switzerland, Savoy, and Piedmont. Though already much suspected, she won
the hearts of many men and women among the clergy and laity, and enkindled
in them by personal conference, correspondence, and her literary work, the
ardour of mystical love. Her brilliant writings are indeed disfigured by
traces of foolish exaggeration, fanaticism and spiritual pride. She calls
herself the woman of Revelation xii. 1, and the _mère de la grace_ of her
adherents. The following are the main distinguishing characteristics of
her mysticism: The necessity of turning away from everything creaturely,
rejecting all earthly pleasure and destroying every selfish interest, as
well as of turning to God in passive contemplation, silent devotion, naked
faith, which dispensed with all intellectual evidence, and pure
disinterested love, which loves God for Himself alone, not for the eternal
salvation obtained through Him. On her return to Paris with Lacombe in
A.D. 1686 the proper martyrdom of her life began. Her chief persecutor was
her step-brother, the Parisian superior of the Barnabites, La Mothe, who
spread the most scandalous reports about his half-sister and Lacombe, and
had them both imprisoned by a royal decree in A.D. 1688. Lacombe never
regained his liberty. Taken from one prison to another, he lost his
reason, and died in an asylum in A.D. 1699. Madame Guyon, however, by the
influence of Madame de Maintenon, was released after ten months’
confinement. The favour of this royal dame was not of long continuance.
Warned on all sides of the dangerous heretic, she broke off all
intercourse with her in A.D. 1693, and persuaded the king to appoint a new
commission, in A.D. 1694, with Bishop _Bossuet_ of Meaux at its head, to
examine her suspected writings. This commission meeting at Issy, had
already, in February, A.D. 1695, drawn up thirty test articles, when
_Fénelon_, tutor of the king’s grandson, and now nominated to the
archbishopric of Cambray, was ordered by the king to take part in the
proceedings. He signed the articles, though he objected to much in them,
and had four articles of his own added. Madame Guyon also did so, and
Bossuet at last testified for her that he had found her moral character
stainless and her doctrine free from Molinist heresy. But the bigot
Maintenon was not satisfied with this. Bossuet demanded the surrender of
this certificate that he might draw up another; and when Madame Guyon
refused, on the basis of a statement by the crazed Lacombe, she was sent
to the Bastile in A.D. 1696. In A.D. 1697 Fénelon had written in her
defence his “_Explication des Maximes des Saintes sur la Vie Intérieur_,”
showing that the condemned doctrines of passive contemplation, secret
prayer, naked faith, and disinterested love, had all been previously
taught by St. Theresa, John of the Cross, Francis de Sales, and other
saints. He sent this treatise for an opinion to Rome. A violent
controversy then arose between Bossuet and Fénelon. The pious,
well-meaning pope, _Innocent XII._, endeavoured vainly to bring about a
good understanding. Bossuet and the all-powerful Maintenon wished no
reconciliation, but condemnation, and gave the king and pope no rest till
very reluctantly he prohibited the objectionable book by a brief in A.D.
1699, and condemned twenty-three propositions from it as heretical.
Fénelon, strongly attached to the church, and a bitter persecutor of
Protestants, made an unconditional surrender, as guilty of a defective
exposition of the truth. But Madame Guyon continued in the Bastile till
A.D. 1701, when she retired to Blois, where she died in A.D. 1717. Bossuet
had died in A.D. 1704, and Fénelon in A.D. 1715. She published only two of
her writings: “An Exposition of the Song,” and the “_Moyen Court et très
Facile de faire Oraison_.” Many others, including her translation and
expositions of the Bible, were during her lifetime edited in twenty
volumes by her friend, the Reformed preacher of the Palatinate, Peter
Poiret.(19)
4. _Mysticism Tinged with Theosophy and Pantheism._—_Antoinette
Bourignon_, the daughter of a rich merchant of Lille, in France, while
matron of a hospital in her native city, had in A.D. 1662 gathered around
her a party of believers in her theosophic and fantastic revelations. She
was obliged to flee to the Netherlands, and there, by the force of her
eloquence in speech and writing, spread her views among the Protestants.
Among them she attracted the great scientist Swammerdam. But when she
introduced politics, she escaped imprisonment only by flight. Down to her
death in A.D. 1680 she earnestly and successfully prosecuted her mission
in north-west Germany. Peter Poiret collected her writings and published
them in twenty-one volumes at Amsterdam, in A.D. 1679.—Quite of another
sort was the pantheistic mysticism of _Angelus Silesius_. Originally a
Protestant physician at Breslau, he went over to the Romish church in A.D.
1653, and in consequence received from Vienna the honorary title of
physician to the emperor. He was made priest in A.D. 1661, and till his
death in A.D. 1677 maintained a keen polemic against the Protestant church
with all a pervert’s zeal. Most of his hymns belong to his Protestant
period. As a Catholic he wrote his “_Cherubinischer Wandersmann_,” a
collection of rhymes in which, with childish _naïveté_ and hearty, gushing
ardour, he merges self into the abyss of the universal Deity, and develops
a system of the most pronounced pantheism.
5. _Jansenism in its first Stage._—Bishop Cornelius Jansen, of Ypres, who
died in A.D. 1638, gave the fruits of his lifelong studies of Augustine in
his learned work, “_Augustinus s. doctr. Aug. de humanæ Naturæ Sanitate,
Ægritudine, et Medicina adv. Pelagianos et Massilienses_,” which was
published after his death in three volumes, Louvain, 1640. The Jesuits
induced Urban VIII., in A.D. 1642, to prohibit it in his bull _In
eminenti_. Augustine’s numerous followers in France felt themselves hit by
this decree. Jansen’s pupil at Port Royal from A.D. 1635, Duvergier de
Hauranne, usually called St. Cyran, from the Benedictine monastery of
which he was abbot, was the bitter foe of the Jesuits and Richelieu, who
had him cast into prison in A.D. 1638, from which he was liberated after
the death of the cardinal in A.D. 1643, and shortly before his own.
Another distinguished member of the party was Antoine Arnauld, doctor of
the Sorbonne, who died in A.D. 1694, the youngest of twenty children of a
parliamentary advocate, whose powerful defence of the University of Paris
against the Jesuits called forth their hatred and lifelong persecution.
His mantle, as a vigorous polemist, had fallen upon his youngest son. Very
important too was the influence of his much older sister, Angelica
Arnauld, Abbess of the Cistercian cloister of Port Royal des Champs, six
miles from Paris, which under her became the centre of religious life and
effort for all France. Around her gathered some of the noblest, most
pious, and talented men of the time: the poet Racine, the mathematician
and apologist Pascal, the Bible translator De Sacy, the church historian
Tillemont, all ardent admirers of Augustine and determined opponents of
the lax morality of the Jesuits. Arnauld’s book, “_De la fréquente
Communion_,” was approved by the Sorbonne, the Parliament, and the most
distinguished of the French clergy; but in A.D. 1653 Innocent X. condemned
five Jansenist propositions in it as heretical. The Augustinians now
maintained that these doctrines were not taught in the sense attributed to
them by the pope. Arnauld distinguished the _question du fait_ from the
_question du droit_, maintaining that the latter only were subject to the
judgment of the Holy See. The Sorbonne, now greatly changed in composition
and character, expelled him on account of this position from its
corporation in A.D. 1656. About this time, at Arnauld’s instigation,
Pascal, the profound and brilliant author of “_Pensées sur la Religion_,”
began, under the name of Louis de Montalte to publish his famous
“Provincial Letters,” which in an admirable style exposed and lashed with
deep earnestness and biting wit the base moral principles of Jesuit
casuistry. The truly annihilating effect of these letters upon the
reputation of the powerful order could not be checked by their being burnt
by order of Parliament by the hangman at Aix in A.D. 1657, and at Paris in
A.D. 1660. But meanwhile the specifically Jansenist movement entered upon
a new phase of its development. Alexander VII. had issued in A.D. 1656 a
bull which denounced the application of the distinction _du fait_ and _du
droit_ to the papal decrees as derogatory to the holy see, and affirmed
that Jansen taught the five propositions in the sense they had been
condemned. In order to enforce the sentence, Annal, the Jesuit father
confessor of Louis XIV., obtained in 1661 a royal decree requiring all
French clergy, monks, nuns, and teachers to sign a formula unconditionally
accepting this bull. Those who refused were banished, and fled mostly to
the Netherlands. The sorely oppressed nuns of Port Royal at last
reluctantly agreed to sign it; but they were still persecuted, and in A.D.
1664 the new archbishop, Perefixe, inaugurated a more severe persecution,
placed this cloister under the interdict, and removed some of the nuns to
other convents. In A.D. 1669, Alexander’s successor, Clement IX., secured
the submission of Arnauld, De Sacy, Nicole, and many of the nuns by a
policy of mild connivance. But the hatred of the Jesuits was still
directed against their cloister. In A.D. 1705 Clement XI. again demanded
full and unconditioned acceptance of the decree of Alexander VII., and
when the nuns refused, the pope, in A.D. 1708, declared this convent an
irredeemable nest of heresy, and ordered its suppression, which was
carried out in A.D. 1709. In A.D. 1710 cloister and church were levelled
to the ground, and the very corpses taken out of their
graves.(20)—Continuation, § 165, 7.
§ 158. Science and Art in the Catholic Church.
Catholic theology flourished during the seventeenth century as it had
never done since the twelfth and thirteenth. Especially in the liberal
Gallican church there was a vigorous scientific life. The Parisian
Sorbonne and the orders of the Jesuits, St. Maur, and the Oratorians,
excelled in theological, particularly in patristic and historical,
learning, and the contemporary brilliancy of Reformed theology in France
afforded a powerful stimulus. But the best days of art, especially Italian
painting, were now past. Sacred music was diligently cultivated, though in
a secularized style, and many gifted hymn-writers made their appearance in
Spain and Germany.
1. _Theological Science (§ 149, 14)._—The parliamentary advocate, Mich. le
Jay, published at his own expense the Parisian Polyglott in ten folio
vols., A.D. 1629-1645, which, besides complete Syriac and Arabic
translations, included also the Samaritan. The chief contributor was the
Oratorian _Morinus_, who edited the LXX. and the Samaritan texts, which he
regarded as incomparably superior to the Masoretic text corrupted by the
Jews. The Jansenists produced a French translation of the Bible with
practical notes, condemned by the pope, but much read by the people. It
was mainly the work of the brothers _De Sacy_. The New Testament was
issued in A.D. 1667 and the Old Testament somewhat later, called the Bible
of Mons from the fictitious name of the place of publication. _Richard
Simon_, the Oratorian, who died in A.D. 1712, treated Scripture with a
boldness of criticism never before heard of within the church. While
opposed by many on the Catholic side, the curia favoured his work as
undermining the Protestant doctrine of Scripture. _Cornelius à Lapide_,
who died A.D. 1637, expounded Scripture according to the fourfold
sense.—In systematic theology the old scholastic method still held sway.
Moral theology was wrought out in the form of casuistry with unexampled
lasciviousness, especially by the Jesuits (§ 149, 10). The work of the
Spaniard _Escobar_, who died in A.D. 1669, ran through fifty editions, and
that of _Busembaum_, professor in Cologne and afterwards rector of
Münster, who died A.D. 1668, went through seventy editions. On account of
the attempted assassination of Louis XV. by Damiens in A.D. 1757, with
which the Jesuits and their doctrine of tyrannicide were charged, the
Parliament of Toulouse in A.D. 1757, and of Paris in A.D. 1761, had
Busembaum’s book publicly burnt, and several popes, Alexander VII., VIII.,
and Innocent XI., condemned a number of propositions from the moral
writings of these and other Jesuits. Among polemical writers the most
distinguished were _Becanus_, who died in A.D. 1624, and _Bossuet_ (§ 153,
7). Among the Jansenists the most prominent controversialists were
_Nicole_ and _Arnauld_, who, in order to escape the reproach of Calvinism,
sought to prove the Catholic doctrine of the supper to be the same as that
of the apostles, and were answered by the Reformed theologians Claude and
Jurieu. In apologetics the leading place is occupied by _Pascal_, with his
brilliant “_Pensées_.” _Huetius_, a French bishop and editor of Origen,
who died in A.D. 1721, replied to Spinoza’s attacks on the Pentateuch, and
applying to reason itself the Cartesian principle, that philosophy must
begin with doubt, pointed the doubter to the supernatural revealed truths
in the Catholic church as the only anchor of salvation. The learned Jesuit
_Dionysius Petavius_, who died in A.D. 1652, edited Epiphanius and wrote
gigantic chronological works and numerous violent polemics against
Calvinists and Jansenists. His chief work is the unfinished
patristic-dogmatic treatise in five vols. folio, A.D. 1680, “_De
theologicis Dogmatibus_.” The Oratorian _Thomassinus_ wrote an able
archæological work: “_Vetus et Nova Eccl. Disciplina circa Beneficia et
Beneficiarios_.”
2. In church history, besides those named in § 5, 2, we may mention Pagi,
the keen critic and corrector of Baronius. The study of sources was
vigorously pursued. We have collections of mediæval writings and documents
by Sirmond, D’Achery, Mabillon, Martène, Baluzius; of acts of councils by
Labbé and Cossart, those of France by _Jac. Sirmond_, and of Spain by
Aguirre; acts of the martyrs by _Ruinart_; monastic rules by _Holstenius_,
a pervert, who became Vatican librarian, and died at Rome A.D. 1661.
_Dufresne Ducange_, an advocate, who died in A.D. 1688, wrote glossaries
of the mediæval and barbarous Latin and Greek, indispensable for the study
of documents belonging to those times. The greatest prodigy of learning
was _Mabillon_, who died in A.D. 1707, a Benedictine of St. Maur, and
historian of his order. _Pet. de Marca_, who died Archbishop of Paris A.D.
1662, wrote the famous work on the Gallican liberties “_De Concordia
Sacerdotii et Imperii_.” The Jansenist doctor of the Sorbonne, _Elias du
Pin_, who died A.D. 1719, wrote “_Nouvelle Bibliothèque des Auteurs
Eccles._” in forty-seven vols. The Jesuit Maimbourg, died A.D. 1686,
compiled several party histories of Wiclifism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism;
but as a Gallican was deprived of office by the pope, and afterwards
supported by a royal pension. The Antwerp Jesuits Bolland, Henschen,
Papebroch started, in A.D. 1643, the gigantic work “_Acta Sanctorum_,”
carried on by the learned members of their order in Belgium, known as
_Bollandists_. It was stopped by the French invasion of A.D. 1794, when it
had reached October 15th with the fifty-third folio vol. The Belgian
Jesuits continued the work from A.D. 1845-1867, reaching in six vols. the
end of October, but not displaying the ability and liberality of their
predecessors. In Venice _Paul Sarpi_ (§ 155, 2) wrote a history of the
Tridentine Council, one of the most brilliant historical works of any
period. _Leo Allatius_, a Greek convert at Rome, who died in A.D. 1669,
wrote a work to show the agreement of the Eastern and Western churches.
Cardinal _Bona_ distinguished himself as a liturgical writer.—In France
pulpit eloquence reached the highest pitch in such men as Flechier,
Bossuet, Bourdaloue, Fénelon, Massillon, and Bridaine. In Vienna _Abraham
à St. Clara_ inveighed in a humorous, grotesque way against the corruption
of manners, with an undercurrent of deep moral earnestness. Similar in
style and spirit, but much more deeply sunk in Catholic superstition, was
his contemporary the Capuchin _Martin of Cochem_, who missionarized the
Rhine Provinces and western Germany for forty years, and issued a large
number of popular religious tracts.—Continuation, § 165, 14.
3. _Art and Poetry (§ 149, 15)._—The greatest master of the musical school
founded by Palestrina was _Allégri_, whose _Miserere_ is performed yearly
on the Wednesday afternoon of Passion Week in the Sistine Chapel in Rome.
The oratorio originated from the application of the lofty music of this
school to dramatic scenes drawn from the Bible, for purely musical and not
theatrical performance. Philip Neri patronized this music freely in his
oratory, from which it took the name. This new church music became
gradually more and more secularized and approximated to the ordinary opera
style.—In _ecclesiastical architecture_ the Renaissance style still
prevailed, but debased with senseless, tasteless ornamentation.—In the
Italian school of _painting_ the decline, both in creative power and
imitative skill, was very marked from the end of the sixteenth century. In
Spain during the seventeenth century religious painting reached a high
point of excellence in Murillo of Seville, who died in A.D. 1682, a master
in representing calm meditation and entranced felicity.—The two greatest
_poets_ of Spain, the creators of the Spanish drama, _Lope de Vega_ (died
A.D. 1635) and _Pedro Calderon_ (died A.D. 1681), both at first soldiers
and afterwards priests, flourished during this century. The elder excelled
the younger, not only in fruitfulness and versatility (1,500 comedies, 320
autos, § 115, 12, etc.), but also in poetic genius and patriotism.
Calderon, with his 122 dramas, 73 festival plays, 200 preludes, etc.,
excelled De Vega in artistic expression and beauty of imagery. Both alike
glorify the Inquisition, but occasionally subordinate Mary and the saints
to the great redemption of the cross.—Specially deserving of notice is the
noble German Jesuit _Friedr. von Spee_, died A.D. 1635. His spiritual
songs show deep love to the Saviour and a profound feeling for nature,
approaching in some respects the style of the evangelical hymn-writers.
Spee was a keen but unsuccessful opponent of witch prosecution. Another
eminent poetic genius of the age was the Jesuit _Jac. Balde_ of Munich,
who died in A.D. 1688. He is at his best in lyrical poetry. A deep
religious vein runs through all his Latin odes, in which he
enthusiastically appeals to the Virgin to raise him above all earthly
passions. To Herder belongs the merit of rescuing him from oblivion.
III. The Lutheran Church.
§ 159. Orthodoxy and its Battles.(21)
The Formula of Concord commended itself to the hearts and intelligences of
Lutherans, and secured a hundred years’ supremacy of orthodoxy,
notwithstanding two Christological controversies. Gradually, however, a
new dogmatic scholasticism arose, which had the defects as well as the
excellences of the mediæval system. The orthodoxy of this school
deteriorated, on the one hand, into violent polemic on confessional
differences, and, on the other, into undue depreciation of outward forms
in favour of a spiritual life and personal piety. These tendencies are
represented by the Syncretist and Pietist controversies.
1. _Christological Controversies._—(1) _The Cryptist and Kenotist
Controversy_ between the Giessen and Tübingen theologians, in A.D. 1619,
about Christ’s state of humiliation, led to the publication of many
violent treatises down to A.D. 1626. The Kenotists of Giessen, with
Mentzer and Feuerborn at their head, assigned the humiliation only to the
human nature, and explained it as an actual κένωσις, _i.e._ a complete but
voluntary resigning of the omnipresence and omnipotence immanent in His
divinity (κτῆσις, but not χρῆσις), yet so that He could have them at His
command at any moment, _e.g._ in His miracles. The Cryptists of Tübingen,
with Luc. Osiander and Thumm at their head, ascribed humiliation to both
natures, and taught that all the while Christ, even _secundum carnem_, was
omnipresent and ruled both in heaven and earth, but in a hidden way; the
humiliation is no κένωσις, but only a κρύψις. After repeated unsuccessful
attempts to bring about a reconciliation, John George, Elector of Saxony,
in A.D. 1623, accepted the Kenotic doctrine. But the two parties still
continued their strife.(22)—2. _The Lütkemann Controversy_ on the humanity
of Christ in death was of far less importance. Lütkemann, a professor of
philosophy at Rostock, affirmed that in death, because the unity of soul
and body was broken, Christ was not true man, and that to deny this was to
destroy the reality and the saving power of his death. He held that the
incarnation of Christ lasted through death, because the divine nature was
connected, not only with the soul, but also with the body. Lütkemann was
obliged to quit Rostock, but got an honourable call to Brunswick as
superintendent and court preacher, and there died in A.D. 1655. Later
Lutherans treated the controversy as a useless logomachy.
2. _The Syncretist Controversy._—Since the Hofmann controversy (§ 141, 15)
the University of Helmstadt had shown a decided humanistic tendency, and
gave even greater freedom in the treatment of doctrines than the Formula
of Concord, which it declined to adopt. To this school belonged _George
Calixt_, and from A.D. 1614 for forty years he laboured in promoting its
interests. He was a man of wide culture and experience, who had obtained a
thorough knowledge of church history, and acquaintance with the most
distinguished theologians of all churches, during his extensive foreign
travels, and therewith a geniality and breadth of view not by any means
common in those days. He did not indeed desire any formal union between
the different churches, but rather a mutual recognition, love, and
tolerance. For this purpose he set, as a secondary principle of Christian
theology, besides Scripture, as the primary principle, the consensus of
the first five centuries as the common basis of all churches, and sought
to represent later ecclesiastical differences as unessential or of less
consequence. This was denounced by strict Lutherans as Syncretism and
Cryptocatholicism. In A.D. 1639 the Hanoverian preacher Buscher charged
him with being a secret Papist. After the Thorn Conference of A.D. 1645, a
violent controversy arose, which divided Lutherans into two camps. On the
one side were the universities of Helmstadt and Königsberg; on the other
hand, the theologians of the electorate of Saxony, Hülsemann of Leipzig,
Waller of Dresden, and Abr. Calov, who died professor in Wittenberg in
A.D. 1686. Calov wrote twenty-six controversial treatises on this subject.
Jena vainly sought to mediate between the parties. In the _Theologorum
Sax. Consensus repetitus Fidei vera Lutheranæ_ of A.D. 1655, for which the
Wittenberg divines failed to secure symbolical authority, the following
sentiments were branded as Syncretist errors: That in the Apostles’ Creed
everything is taught that is necessary to salvation; that the Catholic and
Reformed systems retain hold of fundamental truths; that original sin is
of a merely privative nature; that God _indirecte, improprie, et per
accidens_ is the cause of sin; that the doctrine of the Trinity was first
clearly revealed in the New Testament, etc. Calixt died A.D. 1656 in the
midst of most violent controversies. His son Ulrich continued these, but
had neither the ability nor moderation of his father. Even the peaceably
disposed Conference of Cassel of A.D. 1661 (§ 154, 4) only poured oil on
the flames. The strife lost itself at last in actions for damages between
the younger Calixt and his bitter opponent Strauch of Wittenberg. Wearied
of these fruitless discussions, theologians now turned their attention to
the rising movement of Pietism.(23)
3. _The Pietist Controversy in its First Stage._—_Philip Jacob Spener_
born in Alsace in A.D. 1635, was in his thirty-first year, on account of
his spirituality, distinguished gifts, and singularly wide scholarship,
made president of a clerical seminary at Frankfort-on-Main. In A.D. 1686
he became chief court preacher at Dresden, and provost of Berlin in A.D.
1691, when, on account of his intense earnestness in pastoral work, he had
been expelled from Dresden. He died in Berlin in A.D. 1705. His year’s
attendance at Geneva after the completion of his curriculum at Strassburg
had an important influence on his whole future career. He there learned to
value discipline for securing purity of life as well as of doctrine, and
was also powerfully impressed by the practical lectures of Labadie (§ 163,
7) and the reading of the “Practice of Piety” and other ascetical writings
of the English Puritans (§ 162, 3). Though strongly attached to the
Lutheran church, he believed that in the restoration of evangelical
doctrine by the Wittenberg Reformation, “not by any means had all been
accomplished that needed to be done,” and that Lutheranism in the form of
the orthodoxy of the age had lost the living power of the reformers, and
was in danger of burying its talent in dead and barren service of the
letter. There was therefore a pressing need of a new and wider
reformation. In the Lutheran church, as the depository of sound doctrine,
he recognised the fittest field for the development of a genuinely
Christian life; but he heartily appreciated any true spiritual movement in
whatsoever church it arose. He went back from scholastic dogmatics to Holy
Scripture as the living source of saving knowledge, substituted for the
external orthodox theology the theology of the heart, demanded evidence of
this in a pious Christian walk: these were the means by which he sought to
promote his reformation. A whole series of Lutheran theologians of the
seventeenth century (§ 159) had indeed contributed to this same end by
their devotional works, hymns, and sermons. What was new in Spener was the
conviction of the insufficiency of the hitherto used means and the undue
prominence given to doctrine, and his consequent effort vigorously made to
raise the tone of the Christian life. In his childlike, pious humility he
regarded himself as by no means called to carry out this work, but felt it
his duty to insist upon the necessity of it, and indicate the means that
should be used to realize it. This he did in his work of A.D. 1675, “_Pia
Desideria_.” As it was his aim to recommend biblical practical
Christianity to the heart of the individual Christian, he revived the
almost forgotten doctrine “Of Spiritual Priesthood” in a separate
treatise. In A.D. 1670 he began to have meetings in his own house for
encouraging Christian piety in the community, which soon were imitated in
other places. Spener’s influence on the Lutheran church became greater and
wider through his position at Dresden. Stirred up by his spirit, three
young graduates of Leipzig. A. H. Francke, Paul Anton, and J. K. Schade,
formed in A.D. 1686 a private _Collegia Philobiblica_ for practical
exposition of Scripture and the delivery of public exegetical lectures at
the university in the German language. But the Leipzig theological
faculty, with J. B. Carpzov II. at its head, charged them with despising
the public ordinances as well as theological science, and with favouring
the views of separatists. The _Collegia Philobiblica_ was suppressed, and
the three friends obliged to leave Leipzig in A.D. 1690. This marked the
beginning of the Pietist controversies. Soon afterwards Spener was
expelled from Dresden; but in his new position at Berlin he secured great
influence in the appointments to the theological faculty of the new
university founded at Halle by the peace-loving elector Frederick III. of
Brandenburg, in opposition to the contentious universities of Wittenberg
and Leipzig. Francke, Anton, and Breithaupt were made professors of
theology. Halle now won the position which Wittenberg and Geneva had held
during the Reformation period, and the Pietist controversy thus entered
upon a second, more general, and more critical epoch of its
history.(24)—Continuation, § 166, 1.
4. _Theological Literature (§ 142, 6)._—The “_Philologia Sacra_” of _Sol.
Glassius_ of Jena, published in A.D. 1623, has ranked as a classical work
for almost two centuries. From A.D. 1620 till the end of the century, a
lively controversy was carried on about the Greek style of the New
Testament, in which Lutherans, and especially the Reformed, took part. The
purists maintained that the New Testament idiom was pure and classical,
thinking that its inspiration would otherwise be endangered. The first
historico-critical introduction to the Scriptures was the “_Officina
Biblica_” of Walther in A.D. 1636. _Pfeiffer_ of Leipzig gained
distinction in biblical criticism and hermeneutics by his “_Critica
Sacra_” of A.D. 1680 and “_Hermeneutica_” of A.D. 1684. Exegesis now made
progress, notwithstanding its dependence on traditional interpretations of
doctrinal proof passages and its mechanical theory of inspiration. The
most distinguished exegetes were _Erasmus Schmidt_ of Wittenberg, who died
in A.D. 1637: he wrote a Latin translation of New Testament with admirable
notes, and a very useful concordance of the Greek New Testament, under the
title Ταμεῖον, which has been revised and improved by Bruder; _Seb.
Schmidt_ of Strassburg, who wrote commentaries on several Old Testament
books and on the Pauline epistles; and _Abr. Calov_ of Wittenberg, who
died in A.D. 1686, in his 74th year, whose “_Biblia Illustrata_” in four
vols., is a work of amazing research and learning, but composed wholly in
the interests of dogmatics.—Little was done in the department of church
history. Calixt awakened a new enthusiasm for historical studies, and
_Gottfried Arnold_ (§ 159, 2), pietist, chiliast, and theosophist,
bitterly opposed to every form of orthodoxy, and finding true Christianity
only in sects, separatists, and heretics, set the whole theological world
astir by his “_Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzer-historie_,” in A.D. 1699
(§ 5, 3).
5. The orthodox school applied itself most diligently to dogmatics in a
strictly scholastic form. _Hutter_ of Wittenberg, who died in A.D. 1616,
wrote “_Loci communes theologici_” and “_Compendium Loc. Theol._” _John
Gerhard_ of Jena, who died in A.D. 1637, published in A.D. 1610 his “_Loc.
Theologici_” in nine folio vols., the standard of Lutheran orthodoxy. _J.
Andr. Quenstedt_ of Wittenberg, who died A.D. 1688, exhibited the best and
worst of Lutheran scholasticism in his “_Theol. didactico-polemica_.” The
most important dogmatist of the Calixtine school was Conrad Horneius.
Calixt himself is known as a dogmatist only by his lectures; but to him we
owe the generally adopted distinction between morals and dogmatics as set
forth in his “_Epitome theol. Moralis_.”—Polemics were carried on
vigorously. _Hoë von Hoënegg_ of Dresden (§ 154, 3, 4) and _Hutter_ of
Wittenberg were bitter opponents of Calvinism and Romanism. Hutter was
styled by his friends _Malleus Calvinistorum_ and _Redonatus Lutherus_.
The ablest and most dignified polemic against Romanism was that of _John
Gerhard_ in his “_Confessio Catholica_.” _Nich. Hunnius_, son of Ægid.
Hunnius, and Hutter’s successor at Wittenberg, from A.D. 1623
superintendent at Lübeck, distinguished himself as an able
controversialist against the papacy by his “_Demonstratio Ministerii
Lutherani Divini atque Legitimi_.” Against the Socinians he wrote his
“_Examen Errorum Photinianorum_,” and against the fanatics a “Chr.
Examination of the new Paracelsist and Weigelian Theology.” His principal
work is his “_Διάσκεψις de Fundamentali Dissensu Doctrinæ Luth. et
Calvin_.” His “_Epitome Credendorum_” went through nineteen editions. The
most incessant controversialist was _Abr. Calov_, who wrote against
Syncretists, Papists, Socinians, Arminians, etc.—Continuation, § 167, 4.
§ 160. The Religious Life.
The attachment of the Lutheran church of this age to pure doctrine led to
a one-sided over-estimation of it, often ending in dead orthodoxy. But a
succession of able and learned theologians, who recognised the importance
of heart theology as well as sound doctrine, corrected this evil tendency
by Scripture study, preaching, and faithful pastoral work. A noble and
moderate mysticism, which was thoroughly orthodox in its beliefs, and
opposing orthodoxy only where that had become external and mechanical, had
many influential representatives throughout the whole country, especially
during the first half of it. But also separatists, mystics, and
theosophists made their appearance, who were decidedly hostile to the
church. Sacred song flourished afresh amid the troubles of the Thirty
Years’ War; but gradually lost its sublime objective church character,
which was poorly compensated by a more flowing versification, polished
language, and elegant form. A corresponding advance was also made in
church music.
1. _Mysticism and Asceticism._—At the head of the orthodox mystics stands
_John Arndt_. His “True Christianity” and his “_Paradiesgärtlein_” are the
most widely read Lutheran devotional books, but called forth the bitter
hostility of those devoted to the maintenance of a barren orthodoxy. He
died in A.D. 1621, as general superintendent at Celle. He had been
expelled from Anhalt because he would not condemn exorcism as godless
superstition, and was afterwards in Brunswick publicly charged by his
colleague Denecke and other Lutheran zealots with Papacy, Calvinism,
Osiandrianism, Flacianism, Schwenckfeldism, Paracelsism, Alchemism, etc.
As men of a similar spirit, anticipators of the school of Spener, may be
named _John Gerhard_ of Jena, with his “_Meditationes Sacræ_” and “_Schola
pietatis_” and _Christian Scriver_, whose “Gotthold’s Emblems” is well
known to English readers. _Rahtmann_ of Danzig maintained that the word of
God in Scripture has not in itself the power to enlighten and convert men
except through the gracious influence of God’s Spirit. He was supported,
after a long delay, in A.D. 1626 by the University of Rostock, but opposed
by Königsberg, Jena, and Wittenberg. In A.D. 1628, the Elector of Saxony
obtained the opinion of the most famous theologians of his realm against
Rahtmann; but his death, which soon followed, brought the controversy to a
close.—The Württemberg theologian, _John Valentine Andreä_, grandson of
one of the authors of the Formula of Concord, was a man of striking
originality, famous for his satires on the corruptions of the age. His
“Order of Rosicrucians,” published at Cassel in A.D. 1614, ridiculed the
absurdities of astrology and alchemy in the form of a satirical romance.
His influence on the church of his times was great and wholesome, so that
even Spener exclaimed: “Had I the power to call any one from the dead for
the good of the church, it would be J. V. Andreä.” His later devotional
work was almost completely forgotten until attention was called to it by
Herder.(25)
2. _Mysticism and Theosophy._—A mystico-theosophical tendency, partly in
outward connexion with the church, partly without and in open opposition
to it, was fostered by the alchemist writings of Agrippa and Paracelsus,
the theosophical works of Weigel (§ 146, 2) and by the profound
revelations of the inspired shoemaker of Görlitz, _Jacob Boehme_,
_philosophus teutonicus_, the most talented of all the theosophists. In a
remarkable degree he combined a genius for speculation with the most
unfeigned piety that held firmly by the old Lutheran faith. Even when an
itinerant tradesman, he felt himself for a period of seven days in calm
repose, surrounded by the divine light. But he dates his profound
theosophical enlightenment from a moment in A.D. 1594, when as a young
journeyman and married, thrown into an ecstasy, he obtained a knowledge of
the divine mysteries down to the ultimate principles of all things and
their inmost quality. His theosophy, too, like that of the ancient
gnostics, springs out of the question about the origin of evil. He solves
it by assuming an emanation of all things from God, in whom fire and
light, bitter and sweet qualities, are thoroughly tempered and perfectly
combined, while in the creature derived by emanation from him they are in
disharmony, but are reconciled and reduced to godlike harmony through
regeneration in Christ. Though opposed by Calov, he was befriended by the
Dresden consistory. Boehme died in A.D. 1624, in retirement at Görlitz, in
the arms of his family.(26)—In close connexion with Boehmists,
separatists, and Pietists, yet differing from them all, _Gottfried Arnold_
abused orthodoxy and canonized the heretics of all ages. In A.D. 1700 he
wrote “The Mystery of the Divine Sophia.” When Adam, originally man and
woman, fell, his female nature, the heavenly Sophia, was taken from him,
and in his place a woman of flesh was made for him out of a rib; in order
again to restore the paradisiacal perfection Christ brought again the male
part into a virgin’s womb, so that the new creature, the regenerate,
stands before God as a “male-virgin”; but carnal love destroys again the
connexion thus secured with the heavenly Sophia. But the very next year he
reached a turning-point in his life. He not only married, but in
consequence accepted several appointments in the Lutheran church, without,
however, signing the Formula of Concord, and applied his literary skill to
the production of devotional tracts.
3. _Sacred Song (§ 142, 3)._—The first epoch of the development of sacred
song in this century corresponds to the period of the Thirty Years’ War,
A.D. 1618-1648. The Psalms of David were the model and pattern of the
sacred poets, and the profoundest songs of the cross and consolation bear
the evident impress of the times, and so individual feeling comes more
into prominence. The influence of Opitz was also felt in the church song,
in the greater attention given to correctness and purity of language and
to the careful construction of verse and rhyme. Instead of the rugged
terseness and vigour of earlier days, we now find often diffuse and
overflowing utterances of the heart. _John Hermann_ of Glogau, who died in
A.D. 1647, composed 400 songs, embracing these: “Alas! dear Lord, what
evil hast Thou done?”; “O Christ, our true and only Light”; “Ere yet the
dawn hath filled the skies”; “O God, thou faithful God.” _Paul Flemming_,
a physician in Holstein, who died in A.D. 1640, wrote on his journey to
Persia, “Where’er I go, whate’er my task.” _Matthew Meyffart_, professor
and pastor at Erfurt, who died in A.D. 1642, wrote “Jerusalem, thou city
fair and high.” _Martin Rinkart_, pastor at Eilenburg in Saxony, who died
A.D. 1648, wrote, “Now thank we all our God.” _Appelles von Löwenstern_,
who died A.D. 1648, composed, “When anguished and perplexed, with many a
sigh and tear.” _Joshua Stegmann_, superintendent in Rinteln, who died
A.D. 1632, wrote, “Abide among us with thy grace.” _Joshua Wegelin_,
pastor in Augsburg and Pressburg, wrote, “Since Christ is gone to heaven,
his home.” _Justus Gesenius_, superintendent in Hanover, who died in A.D.
1673, wrote, “When sorrow and remorse.” _Tob. Clausnitzer_, pastor in the
Palatinate, who died A.D. 1648, wrote, “Blessed Jesus, at thy word.” The
poets named mostly belong to the first Silesian school gathered round
Opitz. A more independent position, though not uninfluenced by Opitz, is
taken up by _John Rist_, who died in A.D. 1667. He composed 658 sacred
songs, of which many are remarkable for their vigour, solemnity, and
elevation; _e.g._ “Arise, the kingdom is at hand”; “Sink not yet, my soul,
to slumber”; “O living Bread from heaven”; “Praise and thanks to Thee be
sung.” At the head of the Königsberg school of the same age stood _Simon
Dach_, professor of poetry at Königsberg, who died in A.D. 1659. He
composed 150 spiritual songs, among which the best known are, “O how
blessed, faithful souls, are ye!” “Wouldest thou inherit life with Christ
on high?” The most distinguished members of this school are: _Henry
Alberti_, organist at Königsberg, author of “God who madest earth and
heaven”; and _George Weissel_, pastor in Königsberg, who died in A.D.
1655, author of “Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates.”
4. From the middle of the seventeenth century sacred song became more
subjective, and so tended to fall into a diversity of groups. No longer
does the church sing through its poets, but the poets give direct
expression to their individual feelings. Confessional songs are less
frequent, and their place is taken by hymns of edification with reference
to various conditions of life; songs of death, the cross and consolation,
and hymns for the family become more numerous. With objectivity special
features of the church song disappear in the hymns of the period; but some
of its essential characteristics remain, especially the popular form and
contents, the freshness, liveliness, and simplicity of diction, the truths
of personal experience, the fulness of faith, etc. We distinguish three
groups: (1) _The Transition Group_, passing from objectivity to
subjectivity. Its greatest masters, indeed after Luther the greatest
sacred poet of the evangelical church, is undoubtedly _Paul Gerhardt_, who
died A.D. 1676, the faith witness of the Lutheran faith under the wars and
in persecution (§ 154, 4). In him we find the new subjective tendency in
its noblest form; but there is also present the old objective style,
giving immediate expression to the consciousness of the church, adhering
tenaciously to the confession, and a grand popular ring that reminds us of
the fulness and power of Luther. His 131 songs, if not all church songs in
the narrower sense, are almost all genuine poems: _e.g._ “All my heart
this night rejoices”; “Cometh sunshine after rain”; “Go forth, my heart,
and seek delight”; “Be thou content: be still before”; “O world, behold
upon the tree”; “Now all the woods are sleeping”; and “Ah, wounded head,
must thou?” based on Bernard’s _Salve, caput cruentatum_. To this school
also belongs _George Neumark_, librarian at Weimar, who died in A.D. 1681,
author of “Leave God to order all thy ways.” Also _John Franck_,
burgomaster at Guben in Lusatia, who died A.D. 1677, next to Gerhardt the
greatest poet of his age. His 110 songs are less popular and hearty, but
more melodious than Gerhardt’s; _e.g._ “Redeemer of the nations, come”;
“Ye heavens, oh haste your dews to shed”; “Deck thyself, my soul, with
gladness.” _George Albinus_, pastor at Naumburg, died A.D. 1679, wrote:
“Not in anger smite us, Lord”; “World, farewell! Of thee I’m tired.”—(2)
The _next stage_ of the sacred song took the Canticles instead of the
Psalter as its model. The spiritual marriage of the soul is its main
theme. Feeling and fancy are predominant, and often degenerate into
sentimentality and trifling. It obtained a new impulse from the addition
of a mystical element. _Angelus Silesius_ (§ 156, 4) was the most
distinguished representative of this school, and while Protestant he
composed several beautiful songs; _e.g._ “O Love, who formedst me to
wear”; “Thou holiest Love, whom most I love”; “Loving Shepherd, kind and
true.” _Christian Knorr v. Rosenroth_, who died at Sulzbach A.D. 1689,
wrote “Dayspring of eternity.” _Ludämilie Elizabeth_, Countess of
Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, who died in A.D. 1672, wrote 215 “Songs of Jesus.”
_Caspar Neumann_, professor and pastor at Breslau, died A.D. 1715, wrote,
“Lord, on earth I dwell in pain.”—(3) _Those of Spener’s Time and Spirit_,
men who longed for the regeneration of the church by practical
Christianity. Their hymns are for the most part characterized by healthy
piety and deep godliness. Spener’s own poems are of slight importance. _J.
Jac. Schütz_, Spener’s friend, a lawyer in Frankfort, who died A.D. 1690,
composed only one, but that a very beautiful hymn: “All praise and thanks
to God most high.” _Samuel Rodigast_, rector in Berlin, died A.D. 1708,
wrote, “Whate’er my God ordains is right.” _Laurentius Laurentii_, musical
director at Bremen, died A.D. 1722, wrote, “Is my heart athirst to know?”
“O thou essential Word.”—_Gottfried Arnold_, died A.D. 1714, wrote, “Thou
who breakest every chain”; “How blest to all thy followers, Lord, the
road!”—In Denmark, where previously translations of German hymns were
used, _Thomas Kingo_, from A.D. 1677 Bishop of Fünen, died A.D. 1703, was
the much-honoured founder of Danish national hymnology.(27)—Continuation,
§ 166, 6.
5. _Sacred Music (§ 142, 5)._—The church music in the beginning of the
seventeenth century was affected by the Italian school, just as church
song was by the influence of Opitz. The greatest master during the
transition stage was _John Crüger_, precentor in the church of St.
Nicholas in Berlin, died A.D. 1662. He was to the chorale what Gerhardt
was to the church song. We have seventy-one new melodies of his, admirably
adapted to Gerhardt’s, Hunnius’s, Franck’s, Dach’s, and Rinkart’s songs,
and used in the church till the present time. With the second half of the
century we enter on a new period, in which expression and musical
declamation perish. Choir singing now, to a great extent, supersedes
congregational singing. _Henry Schütz_, organist to the Elector of Saxony,
died A.D. 1672, is the great master of this Italian sacred concert style.
He introduced musical compositions on passages selected from the Psalms,
Canticles, and prophets, in his “_Symphoniæ Sacræ_” of A.D. 1629. After a
short time a radical reform was made by _John Rosenmüller_, organist of
Wolfenbüttel, died A.D. 1686. A reaction against the exclusive adoption of
the Italian style was made by _Andr. Hammerschmidt_, organist at Zittau,
died A.D. 1675, one of the noblest and most pious of German musicians. By
working up the old church melodies in the modern style, he brought the old
hymns again into favour, and set hymns of contemporary poets to bright
airs suited to modern standards of taste. The accomplished musician _Rud.
Ahle_, organist and burgomaster at Mühlhausen, died A.D. 1673, introduced
his own beautiful airs into the church music for Sundays and festivals.
His sacred airs are distinguished for youthful freshness and power,
penetrated by a holy earnestness, and quite free from that secularity and
frivolousness which soon became unpleasantly conspicuous in such
music.—Continuation, § 167, 7.
6. _The Christian Life of the People._—The rich development of sacred
poetry proves the wonderful fulness and spirituality of the religious life
of this age, notwithstanding the many chilling separatistic controversies
that prevailed during the terrible upheaval of the Thirty Years’ War. The
abundance of devotional literature of permanent worth witnesses to the
diligence and piety of the Lutheran pastors. Ernest the Pious of
Saxe-Gotha, who died A.D. 1675, stands forth as the ideal of a Christian
prince. For the Christian instruction of his people he issued, in the
midst of the confusion and horrors of the war, the famous Weimar or
Ernestine exposition of the Bible, upon which John Gerhard wrought
diligently, along with other distinguished Jena theologians. It appeared
first in A.D. 1641, and by A.D. 1768 had gone through fourteen large
editions. A like service was done for South Germany by the “Württemberg
Summaries,” composed by three Württemberg theologians at the request of
Duke Eberhard III., a concise, practical exposition of all the books of
Scripture, which for a century and a half formed the basis of the weekly
services (_Bibelstunden_) at Württemberg.—Continuation, § 167, 8.
7. _Missions._—In the Lutheran church, missionary enterprise had rather
fallen behind (§ 142, 8). Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden carried on the Lapp
mission with new zeal, and Denmark, too, gave ready assistance. A
Norwegian pastor, Thomas Westen, deserves special mention as the apostle
of the mission. A German, Peter Heyling of Lübeck, went on his own account
as a missionary to Abyssinia in A.D. 1635, while several of his friends at
the same time went to other eastern lands. Of these others no trace
whatever has been found. An Abyssinian abbot who came to Europe brought
news of Heyling. At first he was hindered by the machinations of the
Jesuits; but when these were expelled, he found favour at court, became
minister to the king, and married one of the royal family. What finally
came of him and his work is unknown. Toward the end of the century two
great men, the philosopher Leibnitz and the founder of the Halle
Orphanage, A. H. Francke, warmly espoused the cause of foreign missions.
The ambitious and pretentious schemes of the philosopher ended in nothing,
but Francke made his orphanages, training colleges and centres from which
the German Lutheran missions to the heathens were vigorously organized and
successfully wrought.—Continuation, § 167, 9.
IV. The Reformed Church.
§ 161. Theology and its Battles.
The Reformed scholars of France vied with those of St. Maur and the
Oratory, and the Reformed theologians of the Netherlands, England, and
Switzerland were not a whit behind. But an attempt made at a general synod
at Dort to unite all the Reformed national churches under one confession
failed. Opposition to Calvin’s extreme theory of predestination introduced
a Pelagianizing current into the Reformed church, which was by no means
confined to professed Arminians. In the Anglican church this tendency
appeared in the forms of latitudinarianism and deism (§ 164, 3); while in
France it took a more moderate course, and approximated rather to the
Lutheran doctrine. It was a reaction of latent Zwinglianism against the
dominant Calvinism. The Voetian school successfully opposed the
introduction of the Cartesian philosophy, and secured supremacy to a
scholasticism which held its own alongside of that of the Lutherans. In
opposition to it, the Cocceian federal school undertook to produce a
purely biblical system of theology in all its departments.
1. _Preliminaries of the Arminian Controversy._—In the _Confessio Belgica_
of A.D. 1562 the Protestant Netherlands had already a strictly Calvinistic
symbol, but Calvinism had not thoroughly permeated the church doctrine and
constitution. There were more opponents than supporters of the doctrine of
predestination, and a Melanchthonian-synergistic (§ 141, 7), or even an
Erasmian-semipelagian, (§ 125, 3) doctrine, of the freedom of the will and
the efficacy of grace, was more frequently taught and preached than the
Augustinian-Calvinistic doctrine. So also Zwingli’s view of the relation
of church and state was in much greater favour than the Calvinistic
Presbyterial church government with its terrorist discipline. But the
return of the exiles in A.D. 1572, who had adopted strict Calvinistic
views in East Friesland and on the Lower German Rhine, led to the adoption
of a purely Calvinistic creed and constitution. The keenest opponent of
this movement was Coornhert, notary and secretary for the city of Haarlem,
who combated Calvinism in numerous writings, and depreciated doctrine
generally in the interests of practical living Christianity. Political as
well as religious sympathies were enlisted in favour of this freer
ecclesiastical tendency. The Dutch War of Independence was a struggle for
religious freedom against Spanish Catholic fanaticism. The young republic
therefore became the first home of religious toleration, which was
scarcely reconcilable with a strict and exclusive Calvinism.—Meanwhile
within the Calvinistic church a controversy arose, which divided its
adherents in the Netherlands into two parties. In opposition to the strict
Calvinists, who as supralapsarians held that the fall itself was included
in the eternal counsels of God, there arose the milder infralapsarians,
who made predestination come in after the fall, which was not
predestinated but only foreseen by God.
2. _The Arminian Controversy._—In A.D. 1588, James Arminius (born A.D.
1560), a pupil of Beza, but a declared adherent of the Ramist philosophy
(§ 143, 6), was appointed pastor in Amsterdam, and ordered by the
magistrates to controvert Coornhert’s universalism and the
infralapsarianism of the ministers of Delft. He therefore studied
Coornhert’s writings, and by them was shaken in his earlier beliefs. This
was shown first in certain sermons on passages from Romans, which made him
suspected of Pelagianism. In A.D. 1603 he was made theological professor
of Leyden, where he found a bitter opponent in his supralapsarian
colleague, Francis Gomarus. From the class-rooms the controversy spread to
the pulpits, and even into domestic circles. A public disputation in A.D.
1608, led to no pacific result, and Arminius continued involved in
controversies till his death in A.D. 1609. Although decidedly inclined
toward universalism, he had directed his polemic mainly against
supralapsarianism, as making God himself the author of sin. But his
followers went beyond these limits. When denounced by the Gomarists as
Pelagians, they addressed to the provincial parliament of Holland and West
Friesland, in A.D. 1610, a remonstrance, which in five articles repudiates
supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, and the doctrines of the
irresistibility of grace, and of the impossibility of the elect finally
falling away from it, and boldly asserts the universality of grace. They
were hence called Remonstrants and their opponents Contraremonstrants.
Parliament, favourably inclined toward the Arminians, pronounced the
difference non-fundamental, and enjoined peace. When Vorstius, who was
practically a Socinian, was appointed successor to Arminius, Gomarus
charged the Remonstrants with Socinianism. Their ablest theological
representative was Simon Episcopius, who succeeded Gomarus at Leyden in
A.D. 1612, supported by the distinguished statesman, Oldenbarneveldt, and
the great jurist, humanist, and theologian, Hugo Grotius of Rotterdam.
Maurice of Orange, too, for a long time sided with them, but in A.D. 1617
formally went over to the other party, whose well-knit unity, strict
discipline, and rigorous energy commended them to him as the fittest
associates in his struggle for absolute monarchy. The republican-Arminian
party was conquered, Oldenbarneveldt being executed in 1619, Grotius
escaping by his wife’s strategem. _The Synod of Dort_ was convened for the
purpose of settling doctrinal disputes. It held 154 sessions, from Nov.
13th, 1618, to May 9th, 1619. Invitations were accepted by twenty-eight
theologians from England, Scotland, Germany, and Switzerland. Brandenburg
took no part in it (§ 154, 3), and French theologians were refused
permission to go. Episcopius presented a clear and comprehensive apology
for the Remonstrants, and bravely defended their cause before the synod.
Refusing to submit to the decisions of the synod, they were at the
fifty-seventh session expelled, and then excommunicated and deprived of
all ecclesiastical offices. The Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic
Confession were unanimously adopted as the creed and manual of orthodox
teaching. In the discussion of the five controverted points, the
opposition of the Anglican and German delegates prevented any open and
manifest insertion of supralapsarian theses, so that the synodal canons
set forth only an essentially infralapsarian theory of
predestination.—Remonstrant teachers were now expelled from most of the
states of the union. Only after Maurice’s death in A.D. 1625 did they
venture to return, and in A.D. 1630 they were allowed by statute to erect
churches and schools in all the states. A theological seminary at
Amsterdam, presided over by Episcopius till his death, in A.D. 1643, rose
to be a famous seat of learning and nursery of liberal studies. The number
of congregations, however, remained small, and their importance in church
history consists rather in the development of an independent church life
than in the revival of a semipelagian and rationalistic type of
doctrine.(28)
3. _Consequences of the Arminian Controversy._—The Dort decrees were not
accepted in Brandenburg, Hesse, and Bremen, where a moderate Calvinism
continued to prevail. In England and Scotland the Presbyterians
enthusiastically approved of the decrees, whereas the Episcopalians
repudiated them, and, rushing to the other extreme of latitudinarianism,
often showed lukewarm indifferentism in the way in which they
distinguished articles of faith as essential and non-essential. The
worthiest of the latitudinarians of this age was Chillingworth, who sought
an escape from the contentions of theologians in the Catholic church, but
soon returned to Protestantism, seeking and finding peace in God’s word
alone. Archbishop Tillotson was a famous pulpit orator, and Gilbert
Burnet, who died A.D. 1715, was author of a “History of the English
Reformation.” In the French Reformed church, where generally strict
Calvinism prevailed, _Amyrault_ of Saumur, who died A.D. 1664, taught a
_universalismus hypotheticus_, according to which God by a _decretum
universale et hypotheticum_ destined all men to salvation through Jesus
Christ, even the heathen, on the ground of a _fides implicita_. The only
condition is that they believe, and for this all the means are afforded in
_gratia resistibilis_, while by a _decretum absolutum et speciale_ only to
elect persons is granted the _gratia irresistibilis_. The synods of
Alençon, A.D. 1637, and Charenton, A.D. 1644, supported by Blondel,
Daillé, and Claude, declared these doctrines allowable; but Du Moulin of
Sedan, Rivetus and Spanheim of Leyden, Maresius of Groningen, and others,
offered violent opposition. Amyrault’s colleague, _De la Place_, or
_Placæus_, who died A.D. 1655, went still further, repudiating the
unconditional imputation of Adam’s sin, and representing original sin
simply as an evil which becomes guilt only as our own actual
transgression. The synods just named condemned this doctrine. Somewhat
later Claude _Pajon_ of Saumur, who died A.D. 1685, roused a bitter
discussion about the universality of grace, by maintaining that in
conversion divine providence wrought only through the circumstances of the
life, and the Holy Spirit through the word of God. Several French synods
condemned this doctrine, and affirmed an immediate as well as a mediate
operation of the Spirit and providence.—Genuine Calvinism was best
represented in Switzerland, as finally expressed in the _Formula
Consensus_ _Helvetica_ of Heidegger of Zürich, adopted in A.D. 1675 by
most of the cantons. It was, like the _Formula Concordiæ_, a manual of
doctrine rather than a confession. In opposition to Amyrault and De la
Place, it set forth a strict theory of predestination and original sin,
and maintained with the Buxtorfs, against Cappellus of Saumur, the
inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points.
4. _The Cocceian and Cartesian Controversies._—If not the founder,
certainly the most distinguished representative in the Netherlands of that
scholasticism which sought to expound and defend orthodoxy, was _Voetius_,
who died A.D. 1676, from A.D. 1607 pastor in various places, and from A.D.
1634 professor at Utrecht. A completely different course was pursued by
_Cocceius_ of Bremen, who died A.D. 1669, professor at Franeker in A.D.
1636, and at Leyden in A.D. 1650. The famous Zürich theologian, Bullinger
(§ 138, 7), had in his “_Compend. Rel. Chr._” of A.D. 1556, viewed the
whole doctrine of saving truth from the point of view of a covenant of
grace between God and man; and this idea was afterwards carried out by
Olevianus of Heidelberg (§ 144, 1) in his “_De Substantia Fœderis_,” of
A.D. 1585. This became the favourite method of distribution of doctrine in
the whole German Reformed church. In the Dutch church it was regarded as
quite unobjectionable. In England it was adopted in the Westminster
Confession of A.D. 1648 (§ 155, 1), and in Switzerland in A.D. 1675, in
the _Formula Consensus_. Cocceius is therefore not the founder of the
federal theology. He simply gave it a new and independent development, and
freed it from the trammels of scholastic dogmatics. He distinguished a
twofold covenant of God with man: the _fœdus operum s. naturæ_ before, and
the _fœdus gratiæ_ after the fall. He then subdivided the covenant of
grace into three economies: before the law until Moses; under the law
until Christ; and after the law in the Christian church. The history of
the kingdom of God in the Christian era was arranged in seven periods,
corresponding to the seven apocalyptic epistles, trumpets, and seals. In
his treatment of his theme, he repudiated philosophy, scholasticism, and
tradition, and held simply by Scripture. He is thus the founder of a
purely biblical theology. He attached himself as closely as possible to
the prevailing predestinationist orthodoxy, but only externally. In his
view the sacred history in its various epochs adjusted itself to the needs
of human personality, and to the growing capacity for appropriating it.
Hence it was not the idea of election, but that of grace, that prevailed
in his system. Christ is the centre of all history, spiritual,
ecclesiastical, and civil; and so everything in Scripture, history,
doctrine, and prophecy, necessarily and immediately stands related to him.
The O.T. prophecies and types point to the Christ that was to come in the
flesh, and all history after Christ points to his second coming; and O.
and N.T. give an outline of ecclesiastical and civil history down to the
end of time. Thus typology formed the basis of the Cocceian theology. In
exegesis, however, Cocceius avoided all arbitrary allegorizing. It was
with him an axiom in hermeneutics, _Id significan verba, quod significare
possunt in integra oratione, sic ut omnino inter se conveniant_. Yet his
typology led him, and still more many of his adherents, into fantastic
exegetical errors in the prophetic treatment of the seven apocalyptic
periods.
5. A controversy, occasioned by Cocceius’ statement, in his commentary on
Hebrews in A.D. 1658, that the Sabbath, as enjoined by the O.T. ceremonial
law, was no longer binding, was stopped in A.D. 1659 by a State
prohibition. Voetius had not taken part in it. But when Cocceius, in A.D.
1665, taught from Romans iii. 25, that believers under the law had not
full “ἄφεσις,” only a “πάρεσις,” he felt obliged to enter the lists
against this “Socinian” heresy. The controversy soon spread to other
doctrines of Cocceius and his followers, and soon the whole populace
seemed divided into Voetians and Cocceians (§ 162, 5). The one hurled
offensive epithets at the other. The Orange political party sought and
obtained the favour of the Voetians, as before they had that of the
Gomarists; while the liberal republican party coalesced with the
Cocceians. Philosophical questions next came to be mixed up in the
discussion. The philosophy of the French Catholic _Descartes_ (§ 164, 1),
settled in A.D. 1629 in Amsterdam, had gained ground in the Netherlands.
It had indeed no connexion with Christianity or church, and its
theological friends wished only to have it recognised as a formal branch
of study. But its fundamental principle, that all true knowledge starts
from doubt, appeared to the representatives of orthodoxy as threatening
the church with serious danger. Even in A.D. 1643 Voetius opposed it, and
mainly in consequence of his polemic, the States General, in A.D. 1656,
forbad it being taught in the universities. Their common opposition to
scholasticism, however, brought Cocceians and Cartesians more closely to
one another. Theology now became influenced by Cartesianism. Roëll,
professor at Franeker and Utrecht, who died A.D. 1718, taught that the
divinity of the Scriptures must be proved to the reason, since the
_testimonium Spir. s. internum_ is limited to those who already believe,
rejected the doctrine of the imputation of original sin, the doctrine that
death is for believers the punishment of sin, and the application of the
idea of eternal “generation” to the Logos, to whom the predicate of
sonship belongs only in regard to the decree of redemption and
incarnation. Another zealous Cartesian, Balth. Bekker, not only repudiated
the superstitions of the age about witchcraft (§ 117, 4), but also denied
the existence of the devil and demons. The Cocceians were in no way
responsible for such extravagances, but their opponents sought to make
them chargeable for these. The stadtholder, William III., at last issued
an order, in A.D. 1694, which checked for a time the violence of the
strife.
6. _Theological Literature._—Biblical oriental philology flourished in the
Reformed church of this age. _Drusius_ of Franeker, who died A.D. 1616,
was the greatest Old Testament exegete of his day. The two _Buxtorfs_ of
Basel, the father died A.D. 1629, the son A.D. 1664, the greatest
Christian rabbinical scholars, wrote Hebrew and Chaldee grammars,
lexicons, and concordances, and maintained the antiquity and even
inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points against Cappellus of Saumur.
_Hottinger_ of Zürich, who died A.D. 1667, vied with both in his knowledge
of oriental literature and languages, and wrote extensively on biblical
philology, and besides found time to write a comprehensive and learned
church history. _Cocceius_, too, occupies a respectable place among Hebrew
lexicographers. In England, both before and after the Restoration,
scholarship was found, not among the controversial Puritans, but among the
Episcopal clergy. _Brian Walton_, who died A.D. 1661, aided by the English
scholars, issued an edition of the “London Polyglott” in six vols., in
A.D. 1657, which, in completeness of material and apparatus, as well as in
careful textual criticism, leaves earlier editions far behind. _Edm.
Castellus_ of Cambridge in A.D. 1669 published his celebrated “_Lexicon
Heptaglottum_.” The Elzevir printing-house at Amsterdam and Leyden, boldly
assuming the prerogatives of the whole body of theological scholars,
issued a _textus receptus_ of the N.T. in A.D. 1624. The best established
exegetical results of earlier times were collected by Pearson in his great
compendium, the “_Critici Sacri_,” nine vols. fol., London, 1660; and
Matthew Pool in his “_Synopsis Criticorum_,” five vols. fol., London,
1669. Among the exegetes of this time the brothers, J. Cappellus of Sedan,
who died A.D. 1624, and Louis Cappellus II. of Saumur, who died A.D. 1658,
were distinguished for their linguistic knowledge and liberal criticism.
_Pococke_ of Oxford and _Lightfoot_ of Cambridge were specially eminent
orientalists. _Cocceius_ wrote commentaries on almost all the books of
Scripture, and his scholar _Vitringa_ of Franeker, who died A.D. 1716,
gained great reputation by his expositions of Isaiah and the Apocalypse.
Among the Arminians the famous statesman _Grotius_, who died A.D. 1645,
was the greatest master of grammatico-historical exposition in the
century, and illustrated Scripture from classical literature and
philology. The Reformed church too gave brilliant contributions to
biblical archæology and history. _John Selden_ wrote “_De Syndriis Vett.
Heb._,” “_De diis Syris_,” etc. _Goodwin_ wrote “Moses and Aaron.”
_Ussher_ wrote “_Annales V. et N.T._” _Spencer_ wrote “_De Legibus Heb._”
The Frenchman _Bochart_, in his “_Hierozoicon_” and “_Phaleg_,” made
admirable contributions to the natural history and geography of the Bible.
7. Dogmatic theology was cultivated mainly in the Netherlands.
_Maccovius_, a Pole, who died A.D. 1644, a professor at Franeker,
introduced the scholastic method into Reformed dogmatics. The Synod of
Dort cleared him of the charge of heresy made against him by Amesius, but
condemned his method. Yet it soon came into very general use. Its chief
representatives were Maresius of Groningen, Voetius and Mastricht of
Utrecht, Hoornbeck of Leyden, and the German Wendelin, rector of Zerbst.
Among the Cocceians the most distinguished were Heidanus of Leyden, Alting
of Groningen, and, above all, Hermann Witsius of Franeker, whose “Economy
of the Covenants” is written in a conciliatory spirit. The most
distinguished Arminian dogmatist after Episcopius was _Phil. Limborch_ of
Amsterdam, who died A.D. 1712, in high repute also as an apologist,
exegete, and historian. The greatest dogmatist of the Anglican church was
_Pearson_, who died A.D. 1686, author of “An Exposition of the Creed.” The
Frenchman _Peyrerius_ obtained great notoriety from his statement, founded
on Romans v. 12, that Adam was merely the ancestor of the Jews (Gen. ii.
7), while the Gentiles were of pre-Adamite origin (Gen. i. 26), and also
by maintaining that the flood had been only partial. He gained release
from prison by joining the Catholic church and recanted, but still held by
his earlier views.—Ethics, consisting hitherto of little more than an
exposition of the decalogue, was raised by _Amyrault_ into an independent
science. Amesius dealt with cases of conscience. _Grotius_, in his “_De
Veritate Relig. Chr._” and _Abbadie_, French pastor at Berlin, and
afterwards in London, who died A.D. 1727, in his “_Vérité de la Rel.
Chrét._,” distinguished themselves as apologists. _Claude_ and _Jurieu_
gained high reputation as controversialists against Catholicism and its
persecution of the Huguenots.—The Reformed church also in the interests of
polemics pursued historical studies. Hottinger of Zürich, Spanheim of
Leyden, Sam. Basnage of Zütpfen, and Jac. Basnage of the Hague, produced
general church histories. Among the numerous historical monographs the
most important are _Hospinian’s_ “_De Templis_,” “_De Monachis_,” “_De
Festis_,” “_Hist. Sacramentaria_,” “_Historia Jesuitica_”; _Blondel’s_
“_Ps.-Isidorus_,” “_De la Primauté de l’Egl._,” “_Question si une Femme a
été Assisse au Siège Papal_” (§ 82, 6), “_Apologia sent. Hieron. de
Presbyt._” Also _Daillé_ of Saumur on the non-genuineness of the
“Apostolic Constitutions” and the Ps.-Dionysian writings, and his “_De Usu
Patrum_” in opposition to Cave’s Catholicizing over-estimation of the
Fathers. We have also the English scholar _Ussher_, who died A.D. 1656,
“_Brit. Ecclesiarum Antiquitates_”; H. Dodwell, who died A.D. 1711,
“_Diss. Cyprianicæ_,” etc.; Wm. Cave, who died A.D. 1713, “Hist. of App.
and Fathers,” “_Scriptorum Ecclst. Hist. Literaria_,” etc.—Special mention
should be made of _Eisenmenger_, professor of oriental languages at
Heidelberg. In his “_Entdecktes Judenthum_,” two vols. quarto, moved by
the over-bearing arrogance of the Jews of his day, he made an immense
collection of absurdities and blasphemies of rabbinical theology from
Jewish writings. At his own expense he printed 2,000 copies; for these the
Jews offered him 12,000 florins, but he demanded 30,000. They now
persuaded the court at Venice to confiscate them before a single copy was
sold. Eisenmenger died in A.D. 1704, and his heirs vainly sought to have
the copies of his work given up to them. Even the appeal of Frederick I.
of Prussia was refused. Only when the king had resolved, in A.D. 1711, at
his own expense to publish an edition from one copy that had escaped
confiscation, was the Frankfort edition at last given back.
8. _The Apocrypha Controversy (§ 136, 4)._—In A.D. 1520 Carlstadt raised
the question of the books found only in the LXX., and answered it in the
style of Jerome (§ 59, 1). Luther gave them in his translation as an
appendix to the O.T. with the title “Apocrypha, _i.e._ Books, not indeed
of Holy Scripture, but useful and worthy to be read.” Reformed confessions
took up the same position. The Belgic Confession agreed indeed that these
books should be read in church, and proof passages taken from them, in so
far as they were in accord with the canonical Scriptures. The Anglican
Book of Common Prayer gives readings from these books. On the other hand,
although at the Synod of Dort the proposal to remove at least the
apocryphal books of Ezra or Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Bel and the Dragon, was
indeed rejected, it was ordered that in future all apocryphal books should
be printed in smaller type than the canonical books, should be separately
paged, with a special title, and with a preface and marginal notes where
necessary. Their exclusion from all editions of the Bible was first
insisted on by English and Scotch Puritans. This example was followed by
the French, but not by the German, Swiss, and Dutch Reformed
churches.—Continuation, § 182, 4.
§ 162. The Religious Life.(29)
The religious life in the Reformed church is characterized generally by
harsh legalism, rigorous renunciation of the world, and a thorough
earnestness, coupled with decision and energy of will, which nothing in
the world can break or bend. It is the spirit of Calvin which impresses on
it this character, and determines its doctrine. Only where Calvin’s
influence was less potent, _e.g._ in the Lutheranized German Reformed, the
catholicized Anglican Episcopal Church, and among the Cocceians, is this
tendency less apparent or altogether wanting. On the other hand, often
carried to the utmost extreme, it appears among the English Puritans (§§
143, 3; 155, 1) and the French Huguenots (§ 153, 4), where it was fostered
by persecution and oppression.
1. _England and Scotland._—During the period of the English Revolution (§
155, 1, 2), after the overthrow of Episcopacy, Puritanism became dominant;
and the incongruous and contradictory elements already existing within it
assumed exaggerated proportions (§ 143, 3, 4), until at last the opposing
parties broke out into violent contentions with one another. The ideal of
Scottish and English _Presbyterianism_ was the setting up of the kingdom
of Christ as a theocracy, in which church and state were blended after the
O.T. pattern. Hence all the institutions of church and state were to be
founded on Scripture models, while all later developments were set aside
as deteriorations from that standard. The ecclesiastical side of this
ideal was to be realized by the establishment of a spiritual aristocracy
represented in presbyteries and synods, which, ruling the presbyteries
through the synods, and the congregations through the presbyteries,
regarded itself as called and under obligation to inspect and supervise
all the details of the private as well as public life of church members,
and all this too by Divine right. Regarding their system as alone having
divine institution, Presbyterians could not recognise any other religious
or ecclesiastical party, and must demand uniformity, not only in regard to
doctrine and creed, but also in regard to constitution, discipline, and
worship.(30)—On the other hand, _Independent Congregationalism_, inasmuch
as it made prominent the N.T. ideas of the priesthood of all believers and
spiritual freedom, demanded unlimited liberty to each separate
congregation, and unconditional equality for all individual church
members. It thus rejected the theocratic ideal of Presbyterianism, strove
after a purely democratic constitution, and recognised toleration of all
religious views as a fundamental principle of Christianity. Every attempt
to secure uniformity and stability of forms of worship was regarded as a
repressing of the Spirit of God operating in the church, and so alongside
of the public services private conventicles abounded, in which believers
sought to promote mutual edification. But soon amid the upheavals of this
agitated period a fanatical spirit spread among the various sects of the
Independents. The persecutions under Elizabeth and the Stuarts had
awakened a longing for the return of the Lord, and the irresistible
advance of Cromwell’s army, composed mostly of Independents, made it
appear as if the millennium was close at hand. Thus chiliasm came to be a
fundamental principle of Independency, and soon too prophecy made its
appearance to interpret and prepare the way for that which was coming.
From the _Believers_ of the old Dutch times we now come to the _Saints_ of
the early Cromwell period. These regarded themselves as called, in
consequence of their being inspired by God’s Spirit, to form the “kingdom
of the saints” on earth promised in the last days, and hence also, from
Daniel ii. and vii., they were called Fifth Monarchy Men. The so called
Short Parliament of A.D. 1653, in which these Saints were in a majority,
had already laid the first stones of this structure by introducing civil
marriage, with the strict enforcement, however, of Matthew v. 32, as well
as by the abolition of all rights of patronage and all sorts of
ecclesiastical taxes, when Cromwell dissolved it. The Saints had not and
would not have any fixed, formulated theological system. They had,
however, a most lively interest in doctrine, and produced a great
diversity of Scripture expositions and dogmatic views, so that their
deadly foes, the Presbyterians, could hurl against them old and new
heretical designations by the hundred. The fundamental doctrine of
predestination, common to all Puritans, was, even with them, for the most
part, a presupposition of all theological speculation.
2. At the same time with the _Saints_ there appeared among the
Independents the _Levellers_, political and social revolutionists, rather
than an ecclesiastical and religious sect. They were unjustly charged with
claiming an equal distribution of goods. Over against the absolutist
theories of the Stuarts, all the Independents maintained that the king,
like all other civil magistrates, is answerable at all times and in all
circumstances to the people, to whom all sovereignty originally and
inalienably belongs. This principle was taken by the Levellers as the
starting-point of their reforms. As their first regulative principle in
reconstructing the commonwealth and determining the position of the church
therein they did not take the theocratic constitution of the O.T., as the
Presbyterians did, nor the biblical revelation of the N.T., as the
moderate Independents did, nor even the modern professed prophecy of the
“Saints,” but the law of nature as the basis of all revelation, and
already grounded in creation, with the sovereignty of the people as its
ultimate foundation. While the rest of the Independents held by the idea
of a Christian state, and only claimed that all Christian denominations,
with the exception of the Catholics (§ 153, 6), should enjoy all political
rights, the Levellers demanded complete separation of church and state.
This therefore implied, on the one hand, the non-religiousness of the
state, and, on the other, again with the exception of Catholics, the
absolute freedom, independence, and equality of all religious parties,
even non-Christian sects and atheists. Yet all the while the Levellers
themselves were earnestly and warmly attached to Christian truth as held
by the other Independents.—Roger Williams (§ 163, 3), a Baptist minister,
in A.D. 1631 transplanted the first seeds of Levellerism from England to
North America, and by his writings helped again to spread those views in
England. When he returned home in A.D. 1651 he found the sect already
flourishing. The ablest leader of the English Levellers was John Lilburn.
In A.D. 1638, when scarcely twenty years old, he was flogged and sentenced
to imprisonment for life, because he had printed Puritan writings in
Holland and had them circulated in England. Released on the outbreak of
the Revolution, he joined the Parliamentary army, was taken prisoner by
the Royalists and sentenced to death, but escaped by flight. He was again
imprisoned for writing libels on the House of Lords. Set free by the Rump
Parliament, he became colonel in Cromwell’s army, but was banished the
country when it was found that the spread of radicalism endangered
discipline. Till the dissolution of the Short Parliament his followers
were in thorough sympathy with the Saints. Afterwards their ways went more
and more apart; the Saints drifted into Quakerism (§ 163, 4), while the
Levellers degenerated into deism (§ 164, 3).
3. Out of the religious commotion prevailing in England before, during,
and after the Revolution there sprang up a voluminous _devotional
literature_, intended to give guidance and directions for holy living. Its
influence was felt in foreign lands, especially in the Reformed churches
of the continent, and even German Lutheran Pietism was not unaffected by
it (§ 159, 3). That this movement was not confined to the Puritans, among
whom it had its origin, is seen from the fact that during the seventeenth
century many such treatises were issued from the University Press of
Cambridge. _Lewis Bayly_, Bishop of Bangor A.D. 1616-1632, wrote one of
the most popular books of this kind, “The Practice of Piety,” which was in
A.D. 1635 in its thirty-second and in A.D. 1741 in its fifty-first
edition, and was also widely circulated in Dutch, French, German,
Hungarian, and Polish translations.—Out of the vast number of important
personages of the Revolution period we name the following three: (1) In
_John Milton_, the highly gifted poet as well as eloquent and powerful
politician, born A.D. 1608, died A.D. 1674, we find, on the basis of a
liberal classical training received in youth, all the motive powers of
Independency, from the original Puritan zeal for the faith and Reformation
to the politico-social radicalism of the Levellers, combined in full and
vigorous operation. From Italy, the beloved land of classical science and
artistic culture, he was called back to England in A.D. 1640 at the first
outburst of freedom-loving enthusiasm (§ 155, 1), and made the thunder of
his controversial treatises ring over the battlefield of parties. He
fought against the narrowness of Presbyterian control of conscience not
less energetically than against the hierarchism of the Episcopal church;
vindicates the permissibility of divorce (in view, no doubt, of his own
first unhappy marriage); advanced in his “_Areopagitica_” of A.D. 1644 a
plea for the unrestricted liberty of the press; pulverized in his
“_Iconoclastes_” of A.D. 1649 the Εἰκὼν βασιλικηή, ascribed to Charles I.;
in several tracts, “_Defensio pro Populo Anglicano_” etc., justified the
execution of the king against Salmasius’s “_Defensio Regia pro Carolo
I._”; and, even after he had in A.D. 1652 become incurably blind, he
continued unweariedly his polemics till silenced by the Restoration. The
“_Iconoclastes_” and “_Defensio_” were burned by the hangman, but he
himself was left unmolested. He now devoted himself to poetry. “Paradise
Lost” appeared in A.D. 1665, and “Paradise Regained” in A.D. 1671. To this
period, when he had probably turned his back on all existing religious
parties, belongs the composition of his “_De doctrina Christiana_,” a
first attempt at a purely biblical theology, Arian in its Christology and
Arminian in its soteriology.(31)—(2) _Richard Baxter_, born A.D. 1615,
died A.D. 1691, was quite a different sort of man, and showed throughout a
decidedly ironical tendency. At once attracted and repelled by the
Independent movement in Cromwell’s army, he joined the force in A.D. 1645
as military chaplain, hoping to moderate, if not to check, their
extravagances. A severe illness obliged him to withdraw in A.D. 1647.
After his recovery he returned to his former post as assistant-minister at
Kidderminster in Worcestershire, and there remained till driven out by the
Act of Uniformity of A.D. 1662 (§ 155, 3). Those fourteen years formed the
period of his most successful labours. He then composed most of his
numerous devotional works, three of which, “The Saint’s Everlasting Rest,”
“The Reformed Pastor,” “A Call to the Unconverted,” are still widely read
in the original and in translations. At first he hoped much from the
Restoration; but when, on conscientious grounds, he refused a bishopric,
he met only with persecution, ill treatment, and imprisonment. Through
William’s Act of Toleration of A.D. 1689, he was allowed to pass the last
year of his life in London. On the doctrine of predestination he took the
moderate position of Amyrault (§ 161, 3). His ideal church constitution
was a blending of Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, by restoring the
original episcopal constitution of the second century, when even the
smaller churches had each its own bishop with a presbytery by his
side.(32)—(3) _John Bunyan_, born A.D. 1628, died A.D. 1688, was in his
youth a tinker or brazier, and as such seems to have led a rough, wild
life. On the outbreak of the Civil War in A.D. 1642, he was drafted into
the Parliamentary army.(33) At the close of the war he married a poor girl
from a Puritan family, whose only marriage portion consisted in two
Puritan books of devotion. It was now that the birthday of a new spiritual
life began to dawn in him. He joined the Baptist Independents, the most
zealous of the Saints of that time, was baptized by them in A.D. 1655, and
travelled the country as a preacher, attracting thousands around him
everywhere by his glorious eloquence. In A.D. 1660 he was thrown into
prison, from which he was released by the Indulgence of A.D. 1672 (§ 155,
3). He now settled in Bedford, and from this time till his death, amid
persecution and oppression, continued his itinerant preaching with
ever-increasing zeal and success. “The Pilgrim’s Progress” was written by
him in prison. It is an allegory of the freshest and most lively form,
worthy to rank alongside the “Imitation of Christ” (§ 114, 7). In it the
fanatical endeavour of the Saints to rear a millennial kingdom on earth is
transfigured into a struggle overcoming all hindrances to secure an
entrance into the heavenly Zion above. It has passed through numberless
editions, and has been translated into almost all known languages.(34)
4. _The Netherlands._—From England the Reformed Pietism was transplanted
to the Netherlands, where _William Teellinck_ may be regarded as its
founder. After finishing his legal studies he resided for a while in
England, where he made the acquaintance of the Puritans and their
writings, and was deeply impressed with their earnest and pious family
life. He then went to Leyden to study theology, and in A.D. 1606 began a
ministry that soon bore fruit. He was specially blessed at Middelburg in
Zealand, where he died A.D. 1629. His writings, larger and smaller, more
than a hundred in number, in which a peculiar sweetness of mystical love
for the Redeemer is combined with stern Calvinistic views, after the style
of St. Bernard, were circulated widely in numerous editions, eagerly read
in many lands, and for fully a century exerted a powerful influence
throughout the whole Reformed church. Teellinck in no particular departed
from the prevailing orthodoxy, but unwittingly toned down its harshness in
his tracts, and with the gentleness characteristic of him counselled
brotherly forbearance amid the bitterness of the Arminian controversy. In
spite of much hostility, which his best efforts could not prevent, many
university theologians stood by his side as warm admirers of his writings.
It will not be wondered at that among these was the pious Amesius of
Franeker (§ 161, 7), the scholar of the able Perkins (§ 143, 5); but it is
more surprising to find here the powerful champion of scholastic
orthodoxy, Voetius of Utrecht, and his vigorous partisan, Hoornbeeck of
Leyden. _Voetius_ especially, who even in his preacademic career as a
pastor had pursued a peculiarly exemplary and godly life, styled Teellinck
the Reformed Thomas à Kempis, and owned his deep indebtedness to his
devout writings. He opened his academic course in A.D. 1634 with an
introductory discourse, “_De Pietate cum Scientia conjungenda_,” and year
after year gave lectures on ascetical theology, out of which grew his
treatise published in A.D. 1664, “_Τὰ Ἀσκητικὰ s. Exercita Pietatis in
usum Juventutis Acad._,” which is a complete exposition of evangelical
practical divinity in a thoroughly scholastic form.
5. During the controversy in the Dutch Reformed Church between _Voetians
and Cocceians_, beginning in A.D. 1658, the former favoured the pietistic
movement. In the German Pietist controversy the Cocceians were with the
Pietists in their biblical orthodoxy joined with confessional
indifferentism, but with the orthodox in their liberality and breadth on
matters of life and conduct. The earnest, practical piety of the Voetians,
again, made them sympathise with the Lutheran Pietists, and their zeal for
pure doctrine and the Church confession brought them into relation with
the orthodox Lutherans. As discord between the theologians arose over the
obligation of the Sabbath law, so the difference among the people arose
out of the question of Sabbath observance. The Voetians maintained that
the decalogue prohibition of any form of work on Sabbath was still fully
binding, while the Cocceians, on the ground of Mark ii. 27, Galatians iv.
9, Colossians ii. 16, etc., denied its continued obligation, their wives
often, to the annoyance of the Voetians, sitting in the windows after
Divine service with their knitting or sewing. But the opposition did not
stop there; it spread into all departments of life. The Voetians set great
value upon fasting and private meditation, avoided all public games and
plays, dressed plainly, and observed a simple, pious mode of life; their
pastors wore a clerical costume, etc. The Cocceians, again, fell in with
the customs of the time, mingled freely in the mirth and pastimes of the
people, went to public festivals and entertainments, their women dressed
in elegant, stylish attire, their pastors were not bound by hard and fast
symbols, but had full Scripture freedom, etc.—Continuation, § 169, 2.
6. _France, Germany, and Switzerland._—The Reformed church of _France_ has
gained imperishable renown as a martyr-church. Fanatical excesses,
however, appeared among the prophets of the Cevennes (§ 153, 4), the
fruits of which continued down into the eighteenth century, and appeared
now and again in England, Holland, and Germany (§ 160, 2, 7).—In _Germany_
the Reformed church, standing side by side with the numerically far larger
Lutheran church, had much of the sternness and severity that characterized
the Romanic-Calvinistic party in doctrine, worship, and life greatly
modified; but where the Reformed element was predominant, as in the Lower
Rhine, it was correspondingly affected by a contrary influence. The
Reformed church in Germany in its service of praise kept to the psalms of
Marot and Lobwasser (§ 143, 2). Maurice of Hesse published Lobwasser’s in
A.D. 1612, accompanied by some new bright melodies, for the use of the
churches in the land. Lutheran hymns, however, gradually found their way
into the Reformed church, which also produced two gifted poets of its own.
_Louisa Henrietta_, Princess of Orange, wife of the great elector, and
Paul Gerhardt’s sovereign, wrote “Jesus my Redeemer lives”; and _Joachim
Neander_, pastor in Bremen, wrote, “Thou most Highest! Guardian of
mankind,” “To heaven and earth and sea and air,” “Here behold me, as I
cast me.”—In German _Switzerland_ the noble _Breitinger_ of Zürich, who
died A.D. 1645, the greatest successor of Zwingli and Bullinger, wrought
successfully during a forty years’ ministry, and did much to revive and
quicken the church life. That the spirit of Calvin and Beza still breathed
in the church of Geneva is proved by the reception given there to such men
as Andreä (§ 160, 1), Labadie (§ 163, 7), and Spener (§ 159, 3).
7. _Foreign Missions._—From two sides the Reformed church had outlets for
its Christian love in the work of foreign missions; on the one side by the
cession of the Portuguese East Indian colonies to the Netherlands in the
beginning of the seventeenth century, and on the other side by the
continuous formation of English colonies in North America throughout the
whole century. In regard to missionary effort, the Dutch government
followed in the footsteps of her Portuguese predecessors. She insisted
that all natives, before getting a situation, should be baptized and have
signed the Belgic Confession, and many who fulfilled these conditions
remained as they had been before. But the English Puritans settled in
America showed a zeal for the conversion of the Indians more worthy of the
Protestant name. John Eliot, who is rightly styled the apostle of the
Indians, devoted himself with unwearied and self-denying love for half a
century to this task. He translated the Bible into their language, and
founded seventeen Indian stations, of which during his lifetime ten were
destroyed in a bloody war. Eliot’s work was taken up by the Mayhew family,
who for five generations wrought among the Indians. The last of the noble
band, Zacharias Mayhew, died on the mission field in A.D. 1803, in his
87th year.(35)—Continuation, § 172, 5.
V. Anti- and Extra-Ecclesiastical Parties.
§ 163. Sects and Fanatics.
Socinianism during the first decades of the century made extraordinary
progress in Poland, but then collapsed under the persecution of the
Jesuits. Related to the continental Anabaptists were the English Baptists,
who rejected infant baptism; while the Quakers, who adopted the old
fanatical theory of an inner light, set baptism and the Lord’s supper
entirely aside. In the sect of the Labadists we find a blending of
Catholic quietist mysticism and Calvinistic Augustinianism. Besides those
regular sects, there were various individual enthusiasts and separatists.
These were most rife in the Netherlands, where the free civil constitution
afforded a place of refuge for all exiles on account of their faith. Here
only was the press free enough to serve as a thoroughgoing propaganda of
mysticism and theosophy. Finally the Russian sects, hitherto little
studied, call for special attention.
1. _The Socinians (§ 148, 4)._—The most important of the Socinian
congregations in _Poland_, for the most part small and composed almost
exclusively of the nobility, was that at Racau in the Sendomir Palatinate.
Founded in 1569, this city, since 1600 under James Sieninski, son of the
founder, recognised Socinianism as the established religion; and an
academy was formed there which soon occupied a distinguished position, and
gave such reputation to the place that it could be spoken of as “the
Sarmatian Athens.” But the congregation at Lublin, next in importance to
that of Racau, was destroyed as early as 1627 by the mob under fanatical
excitement caused by the Jesuits. The same disaster befell Racau itself
eleven years later. A couple of idle schoolboys had thrown stones at a
wooden crucifix standing before the city gate, and had been for this
severely punished by their parents, and turned out of school. The
Catholics, however, made a complaint before the senate, where the Jesuits
secured a sentence that the school should be destroyed, the church taken
from “the Arians,” the printing press closed, but the ministers and
teachers outlawed and branded with infamy. And the Jesuits did not rest
until the Reichstag at Warsaw in 1658 issued decrees of banishment against
“all Arians,” and forbad the profession of “Arianism” under pain of
death.—The Davidist non-adoration party of _Transylvanian_ Unitarians (§
148, 3) was finally overcome, and the endeavours after conformity with the
Polish Socinians prevailed at the Diet of Deesch in 1638, where all
Unitarian communities engaged to offer worship to Christ, and to accept
the baptismal formula of Matthew xxviii. 19. And under the standard of
this so called _Complanatio Deesiana_ 106 Unitarian congregations, with a
membership of 60,000 souls, exist in Transylvania to this day.—In
_Germany_ Socinianism had, even in the beginning of the century, a secret
nursery in the University of Altdorf, belonging to the territory of the
imperial city of Nuremberg. Soner, professor of medicine, had been won
over to this creed by Socinians residing at Leyden, where he had studied
in 1597, 1598, and now used his official position at Altdorf for, not only
instilling his Unitarian doctrines by means of private philosophical
conversations into the minds of his numerous students, who flocked to him
from Poland, Transylvania, and Hungary, but also for securing the adhesion
of several German students. Only after his death in 1612 did the Nuremberg
council come to know about this propaganda. A strict investigation was
then made, all Poles were expelled, and all the Socinian writings that
could be discovered were burned.—The later Polish Exultants sought and
found refuge in Germany, especially in Silesia, Prussia, and Brandenburg,
as well as in the Reformed Palatinate, and also founded some small
Unitarian congregations, which, however, after maintaining for a while a
miserable existence, gradually passed out of view. They had greater
success and spread more widely in the _Netherlands_, till the
states-general of 1653, in consequence of repeated synodal protests, and
on the ground of an opinion given by the University of Leyden, issued a
strict edict against the Unitarians, who now gradually passed over to the
ranks of the Remonstrants (§ 161, 2) and the Collegiants. Also in
_England_, since the time of Henry VIII., antitrinitarian confessors and
martyrs were to be found. Even in 1611, under James I., three of them had
been consigned to the flames. The Polish Socinians took occasion from this
to send the king a Racovian Catechism; but in 1614 it was, by order of
parliament, burned by the hands of the hangman. The Socinians were also
excluded from the benefit of the Act of Toleration of 1689, which was
granted to all other dissenters (§ 155, 3). The progress of deism,
however, among the upper classes (§§ 164, 3; 171, 1) did much to prevent
the extreme penal laws being carried into execution.—The following are the
most distinguished among the numerous learned theologians of the Augustan
age of Socinian scholarship, who contributed to the extending,
establishing, and vindicating of the system of their church by exegetical,
dogmatic, and polemical writings: John Crell, died 1631; Jonas
Schlichting, died 1661; Von Wolzogen, died 1661; and Andr. Wissowatius, a
grandson of Faustus Socinus, died 1678; and with these must also be ranked
the historian of Polish Socinianism, Stanislaus Lubienicki, died 1675,
whose “_Hist. Reformat. Polonicæ_,” etc., was published at Amsterdam in
1685.
2. _The Baptists of the Continent._—(1) _The Dutch Baptists_ (§ 147, 2).
Even during Menno’s lifetime the Mennonites had split into the _Coarse_
and the _Fine_. The _Coarse_, who had abandoned much of the primitive
severity of the sect, and were by far the most numerous, were again
divided during the Arminian controversy into Remonstrants and
Predestinationists. The former, from their leader, were called Galenists,
and from having a lamb as the symbol of their Church, Lambists. The latter
were called Apostoolers from their leader, and Sunists because their
churches had the figure of the sun as a symbol. The Lambists, who
acknowledged no confession of faith, were most numerous. In A.D. 1800,
however, a union of the two parties was effected, the Sunists adopting the
doctrinal position of the Lambists.—During the time when Arminian pastors
were banished from the Netherlands, three brothers Van der Kodde founded a
sect of _Collegiants_, which repudiated the clerical office, assigned
preaching and dispensation of sacraments to laymen, and baptized only
adults by immersion. Their place of baptism was Rhynsburg on the Rhine,
and hence they were called Rhynsburgers. Their other name was given them
from their assemblies, which they styled _collegia_.—(2) _The Moravian
Baptists_ (§ 147, 3). The Thirty Years’ War ruined the flourishing Baptist
congregations in Moravia, and the reaction against all non-Catholics that
followed the battle of the White Mountain near Prague, in A.D. 1620, told
sorely against them. In A.D. 1622 a decree for their banishment was
issued, and these quiet, inoffensive men were again homeless fugitives.
Remnants of them fled into Hungary and Transylvania, only to meet new
persecutions there. A letter of protection from Leopold I., A.D. 1659,
secured them the right of settling in three counties around Pressburg. But
soon these rigorous persecutions broke out afresh; they were beset by
Jesuits seeking to convert them, and when this failed they were driven out
or annihilated. At last, by A.D. 1757-1762, they were completely broken
up, and most of them had joined the Roman Catholic church. A few families
preserved their faith by flight into South Russia, where they settled in
Wirschenka. When the Toleration Edict of Joseph II., of A.D. 1781, secured
religious freedom to Protestants in Austria, several returned again to the
faith of their fathers, in the hope that the toleration would be extended
to them; but they were bitterly disappointed. They now betook themselves
to Russia, and together with their brethren already there, settled in the
Crimea, where they still constitute the colony of Hutersthal.
3. _The English Baptists._—The notion that infant baptism is objectionable
also found favour among the English Independents. Owing to the slight
importance attached to the sacraments generally, and more particularly to
baptism, in the Reformed church, especially among the Independents, the
supporters of the practice of the church in regard to baptism to a large
extent occupied common ground with its opponents. The separation took
place only after the rise of the fanatical prophetic sects (§ 161, 1). We
must, however, distinguish from the continental Anabaptists the English
Baptists, who enjoyed the benefit of the Toleration Act of William III.,
of A.D. 1689, along with the other dissenters, by maintaining their
Independent-Congregationalist constitution (§ 155, 3). In A.D. 1691, over
the Arminian question, they split up into Particular and General, or
Regular and Free Will, Baptists. The former, by far the more numerous,
held by the Calvinistic doctrine of _gratia particularis_, while the
latter rejected it. The Seventh-Day Baptists, who observed the seventh
instead of the first day of the week, were founded by Bampfield in A.D.
1665.(36)—From England the Baptists spread to North America, in A.D. 1630,
where Roger Williams (§ 162, 2), one of their first leaders, founded the
little state of Rhode Island, and organized it on thoroughly
Baptist-Independent principles.(37)—Continuation, § 170, 6.
4. _The Quakers._—_George Fox_, born A.D. 1624, died A.D. 1691, was son of
a poor Presbyterian weaver in Drayton, Leicestershire. After scant
schooling he went to learn shoemaking at Nottingham, but in A.D. 1643
abandoned the trade. Harassed by spiritual conflicts, he wandered about
seeking peace for his soul. Upon hearing an Independent preach on 2 Peter
i. 19, he was moved loudly to contradict the preacher. “What we have to do
with,” he said, “is not the word, but the Spirit by which those men of God
spake and wrote.” He was seized as a disturber of public worship, but was
soon after released. In A.D. 1649 he travelled the country preaching and
teaching, addressing every man as “thou,” raising his hat to none,
greeting none, attracting thousands by his preaching, often imprisoned,
flogged, tortured, hunted like a wild beast. The core of his preaching
was, not Scripture, but the Spirit, not Christ without but Christ within,
not outward worship, not churches, “steeple-houses,” and bells, not
doctrines and sacraments, but only the inner light, which is kindled by
God in the conscience of every man, renewed and quickened by the Spirit of
Christ, which suddenly lays hold upon it. The number of his followers
increased from day to day. In A.D. 1652 he found, along with his friends,
a kindly shelter in the house of Thomas Fell, of Smarthmore near Preston,
and in his wife Margaret a motherly counsellor, who devoted her whole life
to the cause. They called themselves “The Society of Friends.” The name
Quaker was given as a term of reproach by a violent judge, whom Fox bad
“quake before the word of God.” After the overthrow of the hopes of the
Saints through the dissolution of the Short Parliament and Cromwell’s
apostasy (§ 155, 2), many of them joined the Quakers, and led them into
revolutionary and fanatical excesses. Confined hitherto to the northern
counties, they now spread in London and Bristol, and over all the south of
England. In January, A.D. 1655, they held a fortnight’s general meeting at
Swannington, in Leicestershire. Crowds of apostles went over into Ireland,
to North America and the West Indies, to Holland, Germany, France, and
Italy, and even to Constantinople. They did not meet with great success.
In Italy they encountered the Inquisition, and in North America the
severest penal laws were passed against them. In A.D. 1656 James Naylor,
one of their most famous leaders, celebrated at Bristol the second coming
of Christ “in the Spirit,” by enacting the scene of Christ’s triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. But the king of the new Israel was scourged, branded
on the forehead with the letter B as a blasphemer, had his tongue pierced
with a redhot iron, and was then cast into prison. Many absurd
extravagances of this kind, which drew down upon them frequent
persecutions, as well as the failure of their foreign missionary
enterprises, brought most of the Quakers to adopt more sober views. The
great mother Quakeress, Margaret Fell, exercised a powerful influence in
this direction. George Fox, too, out of whose hands the movement had for a
long time gone, now lent his aid. Naylor himself, in A.D. 1659, issued a
recantation, addressed “to all the people of the Lord,” in which he made
the confession, “My judgment was turned away, and I was a captive under
the power of darkness.”
5. The movement of Quakerism in the direction of sobriety and common sense
was carried out to its fullest extent during the Stuart Restoration, A.D.
1660-1688. Abandoning their revolutionary tendencies through dislike to
Cromwell’s violence, and giving up most of their fanatical extravagances,
the Quakers became models of quiet, orderly living. Robert Barclay, by his
“_Catechesis et Fidei Confessio_,” of A.D. 1673, gave a sort of symbolic
expression to their belief, and vindicated his doctrinal positions in his
“_Theologiæ vere Christianæ Apologia_” of A.D. 1676. During this period
many of them laid down their lives for their faith. On the other side of
the sea they formed powerful settlements, distinguished for religious
toleration and brotherly love. The chief promoter of this new departure
was _William Penn_, A.D. 1644-1718, son of an English admiral, who, while
a student at Oxford, was impressed by a Quaker’s preaching, and led to
attend the prayer and fellowship meetings of the Friends. In order to
break his connexion with this party, his father sent him, in A.D. 1661, to
travel in France and Italy. The frivolity of the French court failed to
attract him, but for a long time he was spellbound by Amyrault’s
theological lectures at Saumur. On his return home, in A.D. 1664, he
seemed to have completely come back to a worldly life, when once again he
was arrested by a Quaker’s preaching. In A.D. 1668 he formally joined the
society. For a controversial tract, _The Sandy Foundation Shaken_, he was
sent for six months to the Tower, where he composed the famous tract, _No
Cross, no Crown_, and a treatise in his own vindication, “Innocency with
her Open Face.” His father, who, shortly before his death in A.D. 1670,
was reconciled to his son, left him a yearly income of £1,500, with a
claim on Government for £16,000. In spite of continued persecution and
oppression he continued unweariedly to promote the cause of Quakerism by
speech and pen. In A.D. 1677, in company with Fox and Barclay, he made a
tour through Holland and Germany. In both countries he formed many
friendships, but did not succeed in establishing any societies. His hopes
now turned to North America, where Fox had already wrought with success
during the times of sorest persecution, A.D. 1671, 1672, In lieu of his
father’s claim, he obtained from Government a large tract of land on the
Delaware, with the right of colonizing and organizing it under English
suzerainty. Twice he went out for this purpose himself, in A.D. 1682 and
1699, and formed the Quaker state of Pennsylvania, with Philadelphia as
its capital. The first principle of its constitution was universal
religious toleration, even to Catholics.(38)
6. _The Quaker Constitution_, as fixed in Penn’s time, was strictly
democratic and congregationalist, with complete exclusion of a clerical
order. At their services any man or woman, if moved by the Spirit, might
pray, teach, or exhort, or if no one felt so impelled they would sit on in
silence. Their meeting-houses had not the form or fittings of churches,
their devotional services had neither singing nor music. They repudiated
water baptism, alike of infants and adults, and recognised only baptism of
the Spirit. The Lord’s supper, as a symbolical memorial, is no more needed
by those who are born again. Monthly gatherings of all independent
members, quarterly meetings of deputies of a circuit, and a yearly synod
of representatives of all the circuits, administered or drew up the
regulations for the several societies. _The Doctrinal Belief of the
Quakers_ is completely dominated by its central dogma of the “inner
light,” which is identified with reason and conscience as the common
heritage of mankind. Darkened and weakened by the fall, it is requickened
in us by the Spirit of the glorified Christ, and possesses us as an inner
spiritual Christ, an inner Word of God. The Bible is recognised as the
outer word of God, but is useful only as a means of arousing the inner
word. The Calvinistic doctrine of election is decidedly rejected, and also
that of vicarious satisfaction. But also the doctrines of the fall,
original sin, justification by faith, as well as that of the Trinity, are
very much set aside in favour of an indefinite subjective theology of
feeling. The operation of the Holy Spirit in man’s redemption and
salvation outside of Christendom is frankly admitted. On the other hand,
the ethical-practical element, as shown in works of benevolence, in the
battle for religious freedom, for the abolition of slavery, etc., is
brought to the front. In regard to _life and manners_, the Quakers have
distinguished themselves in all domestic, civil, industrial, and
mercantile movements by quiet, peaceful industry, strict integrity, and
simple habits, so that not only did they amass great wealth, but gained
the confidence and respect of those around. They refused to take oaths or
to serve as soldiers, or to engage in sports, or to indulge in any kind of
luxury. In social intercourse they declined to acknowledge any titles of
rank, would not bow or raise the hat to any, but addressed all by the
simple “thou.” Their men wore broad-brimmed hats, a plain, simple coat,
without collar or buttons, fastened by hooks. Their women wore a simple
gray silk dress, with like coloured bonnet, without ribbon, flower, or
feathers, and a plain shawl. Wearing mourning dress was regarded as a
heathenish custom.(39)—Continuation, § 211, 3.
7. _Labadie and the Labadists._—Jean de Labadie, the scion of an ancient
noble family, born A.D. 1610, was educated in the Jesuit school at
Bordeaux, entered the order, and became a priest, but was released from
office at his own wish in A.D. 1639, on account of delicate health. Even
in the Jesuit college the principles that manifested themselves in his
later life began to take root in him. By Scripture study he was led to
adopt almost Augustinian views of sin and grace, as well as the conviction
of the need of a revival of the church after the apostolic pattern. This
tendency was confirmed and deepened by the influence of Spanish Quietism,
which even the Jesuits had favoured to some extent. In the interest of
these views he wrought laboriously for eleven years as Catholic priest in
Amiens, Paris, and other places, amid the increasing hostility of the
Jesuits. Their persecution, together with a growing clearness in his
Augustinian convictions, led him formally to go over to the Reformed
church in A.D. 1650. He now laboured for seven years as Reformed pastor at
Montauban. In A.D. 1657, owing to political suspicions against him spread
by the Jesuits, he withdrew from Montauban, and, after two years’ labour
at Orange, settled at Geneva, where his preaching and household
visitations bore abundant fruit. In A.D. 1666 he accepted a call to
Middelburg, in Zealand. There he was almost as successful as he had been
in Geneva; but there too it began to appear that in him there burned a
fire strange to the Reformed church. The French Reformed synod took great
offence at his refusal to sign the Belgic Confession. It was found that at
many points he was not in sympathy with the church standards, that he had
written in favour of chiliasm and the Apokatastasis, that in regard to the
nature and idea of the church and its need of a reformation he was not in
accord with the views of the Reformed church. The synod in 1668 suspended
him from office, and, as he did not confess his errors, in the following
year deposed him. Labadie then saw that what he regarded as his lifework,
the restoration of the apostolic church, was as little attainable within
the Reformed as within the Catholic church. He therefore organized his
followers into a separate denomination, and was, together with them,
banished by the magistrate. The neighbouring town of Veere received them
gladly, but Middelburg now persuaded the Zealand council to issue a decree
banishing them from that town also. The people of Veere were ready to defy
this order, but Labadie thought it better to avoid the risk of a civil war
by voluntary withdrawal; and so he went, in August, A.D. 1669, with about
forty followers, to Amsterdam, where he laid the foundations of an
apostolic church. This new society consisted of a sort of monastic
household consisting only of the regenerate. They hired a commodious
house, and from thence sent out spiritual workers as missionaries, to
spread the principles of the “new church” throughout the land. Within a
year they numbered 60,000 souls. They dispensed the sacrament according to
the Reformed rite, and preached the gospel in conventicles. The most
important gain to the party was the adhesion of Anna Maria von Schürman,
born at Cologne A.D. 1607 of a Reformed family, but settled from A.D. 1623
with her mother in Utrecht, celebrated for her unexampled attainment in
languages, science, and art. When in A.D. 1670, the government, urged by
the synod, forbad attendance on the Labadists’ preaching, the accomplished
and pious Countess-palatine Elizabeth, sister of the elector-palatine, and
abbess of the rich cloister of Herford, whose intimate friend Schürman had
been for forty years, gave them an asylum in the capital of her little
state.
8. In Herford “the Hollanders” met with bitter opposition from the
Lutheran clergy, the magistracy, and populace, and were treated by the mob
with insult and scorn. They themselves also gave only too good occasion
for ridicule. At a sacramental celebration, the aged Labadie and still
older Schürman embraced and kissed each other and began to dance for joy.
In his sermons and writings Labadie set forth the Quietist doctrines of
the limitation of Christ’s life and sufferings in the mortification of the
flesh, the duty of silent prayer, the sinking of the soul into the depths
of the Godhead, the community of goods, etc. Special offence was given by
the private marriage of the three leaders, Labadie, Yvon, and Dulignon
with young wealthy ladies of society, and their views of marriage among
the regenerate as an institution for raising up a pure seed free from
original sin and brought forth without pain. The Elector of Brandenburg,
hitherto favourable, as guardian of the seminary was obliged, in answer to
the complaints of the Herford magistracy, to appoint a commission of
inquiry. Labadie wrote a defence, which was published in Latin, Dutch, and
German, in which he endeavoured to harmonize his mystical views with the
doctrines of the Reformed church. But in A.D. 1671 the magistrates
obtained a mandate from the imperial court at Spires, which threatened the
abbess with the ban if she continued to harbour the sectaries. In A.D.
1672 Labadie settled in Altona, where he died in A.D. 1674. His followers,
numbering 160, remained here undisturbed till the war between Denmark and
Sweden broke out in A.D. 1675. They then retired to the castle of Waltha
in West Friesland, the property of three sisters belonging to the party.
Schürman died in A.D. 1678, Dulignon in A.D. 1679, and Yvon, who now had
sole charge, was obliged in A.D. 1688 to abolish the institution of the
community of goods, after a trial of eighteen years, being able to pay
back much less than he had received. After his death in A.D. 1707 the
community gradually fell off, and after the property had gone into other
hands on the death of the last of the sisters in A.D. 1725, the society
finally broke up.
9. During this age various _fanatical sects_ sprang up. In Thuringia,
_Stiefel_ and his nephew _Meth_ caused much trouble to the Lutheran clergy
in the beginning of the century by their fanatical enthusiasm, till
convinced, after twenty years, of the errors of their ways. _Drabicius_,
who had left the Bohemian Brethren owing to differences of belief, and
then lived in Hungary as a weaver in poor circumstances, boasted in A.D.
1638 of having Divine revelations, prophesied the overthrow of the
Austrian dynasty in A.D. 1657, the election of the French king as emperor,
the speedy fall of the Papacy, and the final conversion of all heathens;
but was put to death at Pressburg in A.D. 1671 as a traitor with cruel
tortures. Even Comenius, the noble bishop of the Moravians, took the side
of the prophets, and published his own and others’ prophecies under the
title “_Lux in Tenebris_.”—_Jane Leade_ of Norfolk, influenced by the
writings of Böhme, had visions, in which the Divine Wisdom appeared to her
as a virgin. She spread her Gnostic revelations in numerous tracts,
founded in A.D. 1670 the Philadelphian Society in London, and died in A.D.
1704, at the age of eighty-one. The most important of her followers was
_John Pordage_, preacher and physician, whose theological speculation
closely resembles that of Jac. Böhme. To the Reformed church belonged also
_Peter Poiret_ of Metz, pastor from A.D. 1664 in Heidelburg, and
afterwards of a French congregation in the Palatine-Zweibrücken.
Influenced by the writings of Bourignon and Guyon, he resigned his
pastorate, and accompanied the former in his wanderings in north-west
Germany till his death in 1680. At Amsterdam in A.D. 1687 he wrote his
mystical work, “_L’Économie Divine_” in seven vols., which sets forth in
the Cocceian method the mysticism and theosophy of Bourignon. He died at
Rhynsburg in A.D. 1719.—From the Lutheran church proceeded Giftheil of
Württemburg, Breckling of Holstein, and Kuhlmann, who went about
denouncing the clergy, proclaiming fanatical views, and calling for
impracticable reforms. Of much greater importance was _John George
Gichtel_, an eccentric disciple of Jac. Böhme, who in A.D. 1665 lost his
situation as law agent in his native town of Regensburg, his property, and
civil rights, and suffered imprisonment and exile from the city for his
fanatical ideas. He died in needy circumstances in Amsterdam in A.D. 1710.
He had revelations and visions, fought against the doctrine of
justification, and denounced marriage as fornication which nullifies the
spiritual marriage with the heavenly Sophia consummated in the new birth,
etc. His followers called themselves Angelic Brethren, from Matthew xxii.
20, strove after angelic sinlessness by emancipation from all earthly
lusts, toils, and care, regarded themselves as a priesthood after the
order of Melchizedec for propitiating the Divine wrath.—Continuation, §
170.
10. _Russian Sects._—A vast number of sects sprang up within the Russian
church, which are all included under the general name _Raskolniks_ or
apostates. They fall into two great classes in their distinctive
character, diametrically opposed the one to the other. (1) The
_Starowerzi_, or Old Believers. They originated in A.D. 1652, in
consequence of the liturgical reform of the learned and powerful patriarch
Nikon, which called forth the violent opposition of a large body of the
peasantry, who loved the old forms. Besides stubborn adhesion to the old
liturgy, they rejected all modern customs and luxuries, held it sinful to
cut the beard, to smoke tobacco, to drink tea and coffee, etc. The
Starowerzi, numbering some ten millions, are to this day distinguished by
their pure and simple lives, and are split up into three parties: (i.)
_Jedinowerzi_, who are nearest to the orthodox church, recognise its
priesthood, and are different only in their religious ceremonies and the
habits of their social life; (ii.) The _Starovbradzi_, who do not
recognise the priesthood of the orthodox church; and (iii.) the
_Bespopowtschini_, who have no priests, but only elders, and are split up
into various smaller sects. Under the peasant Philip Pustosiwät, a party
of Starowerzi, called from their leader Philippius, fled during the
persecution of A.D. 1700 from the government of Olonez, and settled in
Polish Lithuania and East Prussia, where to the number of 1,200 souls they
live to this day in villages in the district of Gumbinnen, engaged in
agricultural pursuits, and observing the rites of the old Russian
church.—(2) At the very opposite pole from the Starowerzi stand the
HERETICAL SECTS, which repudiate and condemn everything in the shape of
external church organization, and manifest a tendency in some cases toward
fanatical excess, and in other cases toward rationalistic spiritualism. As
the sects showing the latter tendency did not make their appearance till
the eighteenth century (§ 166, 2), we have here to do only with those of
the former class. The most important of these sects is that of the _Men of
God_, or Spiritual Christians, who trace their origin from a peasant,
Danila Filipow, of the province of Wladimir. In 1645, say they, the divine
Father, seated on a cloud of flame, surrounded by angels, descended from
heaven on Mount Gorodin in a chariot of fire, in order to restore true
Christianity in its original purity and spirituality. For this purpose he
incarnated himself in Filipow’s pure body. He commanded his followers, who
in large numbers, mainly drawn from the peasant class, gathered around
him, not to marry, and if already married to put away their wives, to
abstain from all intoxicating drinks, to be present neither at marriages
nor baptisms, but above all things to believe that there is no other god
besides him. After some years he adopted as his son another peasant, Ivan
Suslow, who was said to have been born of a woman a hundred years old, by
communicating to him in his thirtieth year his own divine nature. Ivan, as
a new Christ, sent out twelve apostles to spread his doctrine. The Czar
Alexis put him and forty of his adherents into prison; but neither the
knout nor the rack could wring from them the mysteries of their faith and
worship. At last, on a Friday, the czar caused the new Christ to be
crucified; but on the following Sunday he appeared risen again among his
disciples. After some years the imprisoning, crucifying, and resurrection
were repeated. Imprisoned a third time in 1672, he owed his liberation to
an edict of grace on the occasion of the birth of the Prince Peter the
Great. He now lived at Moscow along with the divine father Filipow, who
had hitherto consulted his own safety by living in concealment in the
enjoyment of the adoration of his followers unmolested for thirty years,
supported by certain wealthy merchants. Filipow is said to have ascended
up in the presence of many witnesses, in 1700, into the seventh and
highest heaven, where he immediately seated himself on the throne as the
“Lord of Hosts,” and the Christ, Suslow, also returned thither in 1716,
after both had reached the hundredth year of the human existence. As
Suslow’s successor appeared a new Christ in Prokopi Lupkin, and, after his
death, in 1732, arose Andr. Petrow. The last Christ manifestation was
revealed in the person of the unfortunate Czar Peter III., dethroned by
his wife Catharine II. in 1762, who, living meanwhile in secret, shall
soon return, to the terrible confusion of all unbelievers. With this the
historical tradition of the earlier sect of the Men of God is brought to a
close, and in the Skopsen, or Eunuchs, who also venerate the Czar Peter
III. as the Christ that is to come again, a new development of the sect
has arisen, carrying out its principles more and more fully (§ 210, 4).
Other branches of the same party, among which, as also among the Skopsen,
the fanatical endeavour to mortify the flesh is carried to the most
extravagant length, are the Morelschiki or Self-Flagellators, the Dumbies,
who will not, even under the severest tortures, utter a sound, etc. The
ever-increasing development of this sect-forming craze, which found its
way into several monasteries and nunneries, led to repeated judicial
investigations, the penitent being sentenced for their fault to
confinement in remote convents, and the obdurate being visited with severe
corporal punishments and even with death. The chief sources of information
regarding the history, doctrine, and customs of the “Men of God” and the
Skopsen are their own numerous spiritual songs, collected by Prof. Ivan
Dobrotworski of Kasan, which were sung in their assemblies for worship
with musical accompaniment and solemn dances. On these occasions their
prophets and prophetesses were wont to prophesy, and a kind of sacramental
supper was celebrated with bread and water. The sacraments of the Lord’s
supper and baptism, as administered by the orthodox church, are repudiated
and scorned, the latter as displaced by the only effectual baptism of the
Spirit. They have, indeed, in order to avoid persecution, been obliged to
take part in the services of the orthodox national church, and to confess
to its priests, avoiding, however, all reference to the sect.(40)
§ 164. Philosophers and Freethinkers.(41)
The mediæval scholastic philosophy had outlived itself, even in the
pre-Reformation age; yet it maintained a lingering existence side by side
with those new forms which the modern spirit in philosophy was preparing
for itself. We hear an echo of the philosophical ferment of the sixteenth
century in the Italian Dominican Campanella, and in the Englishman Bacon
of Verulam we meet the pioneer of that modern philosophy which had its
proper founder in Descartes. Spinoza, Locke, and Leibnitz were in
succession the leaders of this philosophical development. Alongside of
this philosophy, and deriving its weapons from it for attack upon theology
and the church, a number of freethinkers also make their appearance.
These, like their more radical disciples in the following century,
regarded Scripture as delusive, and nature and reason as alone trustworthy
sources of religious knowledge.
1. _Philosophy._—_Campanella_ of Stilo in Calabria entered the Dominican
order, but soon lost taste for Aristotelian philosophy and scholastic
theology, and gave himself to the study of Plato, the Cabbala, astrology,
magic, etc. Suspected of republican tendencies, the Spanish government put
him in prison in A.D. 1599. Seven times was he put upon the rack for
twenty-four hours, and then confined for twenty-seven years in close
confinement. Finally, in A.D. 1626, Urban VIII. had him transferred to the
prison of the papal Inquisition. He was set free in A.D. 1629, and
received a papal pension; but further persecutions by the Spaniards
obliged him to fly to his protector Richelieu in France, where in A.D.
1639 he died. He composed eighty-two treatises, mostly in prison, the most
complete being “_Philosophia Rationalis_,” in five vols. In his
“_Atheismus Triumphatus_” he appears as an apologist of the Romish system,
but so insufficiently, that many said _Atheismus Triumphans_ was the more
fitting title. His “_Monarchia Messiæ_” too appeared, even to the
Catholics, an abortive apology for the Papacy. In his “_Civitas Solis_,”
an imitation of the “Republic” of Plato, he proceeded upon communistic
principles.—_Francis Bacon of Verulam_, long chancellor of England, died
A.D. 1626, the great spiritual heir of his mediæval namesake (§ 103, 8),
was the first successful reformer of the plan of study followed by the
schoolmen. With a prophet’s marvellous grasp of mind he organized the
whole range of science, and gave a forecast of its future development in
his “_De Augmentis_” and “_Novum Organon_.” He rigidly separated the
domain of _knowledge_, as that of philosophy and nature, grasped only by
experience, from the domain of _faith_, as that of theology and the
church, reached only through revelation. Yet he maintained the position:
_Philosophia obiter libata a Deo abducit, plene hausta ad Deum reducit_.
He is the real author of empiricism in philosophy and the realistic
methods of modern times. His public life, however, is clouded by
thanklessness, want of character, and the taking of bribes. In A.D. 1621
he was convicted by his peers, deprived of his office, sentenced to
imprisonment for life in the Tower, and to pay a fine of £40,000; but was
pardoned by the king.(42)—The French Catholic _Descartes_ started not from
experience, but from self-consciousness, with his “_Cogito, ergo sum_” as
the only absolutely certain proposition. Beginning with doubt, he rose by
pure thinking to the knowledge of the true and certain in things. The
imperfection of the soul thus discovered suggests an absolutely perfect
Being, to whose perfection the attribute of being belongs. This is the
ontological proof for the being of God.—His philosophy was zealously taken
up by French Jansenists and Oratorians and the Reformed theologians of
Holland, while it was bitterly opposed by such Catholics as Huetius and
such Reformed theologians as Voetius.(43)—_Spinoza_, an apostate Jew in
Holland, died A.D. 1677, gained little influence over his own generation
by his profound pantheistic philosophy, which has powerfully affected
later ages. A violent controversy, however, was occasioned by his
“_Tractatus Theologico-politicus_,” in which he attacked the Christian
doctrine of revelation and the authenticity of the O.T. books, especially
the Pentateuch, and advocated absolute freedom of thought.(44)
2. _John Locke_, died A.D. 1704, with his sensationalism took up a
position midway between Bacon’s empiricism and Descartes’ rationalism, on
the one hand, and English deism and French materialism, on the other. His
“Essay concerning Human Understanding” denies the existence of innate
ideas, and seeks to show that all our notions are only products of outer
or inner experience, of sensation or reflection. In this treatise, and
still more distinctly in his tract, “The Reasonableness of Christianity,”
intended as an apology for Christianity, and even for biblical visions and
miracles, as well as for the messianic character of Christ, he openly
advocated pure Pelagianism that knows nothing of sin and
atonement.(45)—_Leibnitz_, a Hanoverian statesman, who died A.D. 1716,
introduced the new German philosophy in its first stage. The philosophy of
Leibnitz is opposed at once to the theosophy of Paracelsus and Böhme and
to the empiricism of Bacon and Locke, the pantheism of Spinoza, and the
scepticism and manichæism of Bayle. It is indeed a Christian philosophy
not fully developed. But inasmuch as at the same time it adopted, improved
upon, and carried out the rationalism of Descartes, it also paved the way
for the later theological rationalism. The foundation of his philosophy is
the theory of monads wrought out in his “_Theodicée_” against Bayle and in
his “_Nouveaux Essais_,” against Locke. In opposition to the atomic theory
of the materialists, he regarded all phenomena in the world as
eccentricities of so called monads, _i.e._ primary simple and indivisible
substances, each of which is a miniature of the whole universe. Out of
these monads that radiate out from God, the primary monad, the world is
formed into a harmony once for all admired of God: the theory of
pre-established harmony. This must be the best of worlds, otherwise it
would not have been. In opposition to Bayle, who had argued in a manichæan
fashion against God’s goodness and wisdom from the existence of evil,
Leibnitz seeks to show that this does not contradict the idea of the best
of worlds, nor that of the Divine goodness and wisdom, since finity and
imperfection belong to the very notion of creature, a metaphysical evil
from which moral evil inevitably follows, yet not so as to destroy the
pre-established harmony. Against Locke he maintains the doctrine of innate
ideas, contests Clarke’s theory of indeterminism, maintains the agreement
of philosophy with revelation, which indeed is above but not contrary to
reason, and hopes to prove his system by mathematical
demonstration.(46)—Continuation, § 171, 10.
3. _Freethinkers._—The tendency of the age to throw off all positive
Christianity first showed itself openly in England as the final outcome of
Levellerism (§ 162, 2). This movement has been styled naturalism, because
it puts natural in place of revealed religion, and deism, because in place
of the redeeming work of the triune God it admits only a general
providence of the one God. On philosophic grounds the English deists
affirmed the impossibility of revelation, inspiration, prophecy, and
miracle, and on critical grounds rejected them from the Bible and history.
The simple religious system of deism embraced God, providence, freedom of
the will, virtue, and the immortality of the soul. The Christian doctrines
of the Trinity, original sin, satisfaction, justification, resurrection,
etc., were regarded as absurd and irrational. Deism in England spread
almost exclusively among upper-class laymen; the people and clergy stood
firmly to their positive beliefs. Theological controversial tracts were
numerous, but their polemical force was in great measure lost by the
latitudinarianism of their authors.—The principal English deists of the
century were (1) _Edward Herbert of Cherbury_, A.D. 1581-1648, a nobleman
and statesman. He reduced all religion to five points: Faith in God, the
duty of reverencing Him, especially by leading an upright life, atoning
for sin by genuine repentance, recompense in the life eternal.—(2) _Thomas
Hobbes_, A.D. 1588-1679, an acute philosophical and political writer,
looked on Christianity as an oriental phantom, and of value only as a
support of absolute monarchy and an antidote to revolution. The state of
nature is a _bellum omnium contra omnes_; religion is the means of
establishing order and civilization. The state should decide what religion
is to prevail. Every one may indeed believe what he will, but in regard to
churches and worship he must submit to the state as represented by the
king. His chief work is “Leviathan; or, The Matter, Form, and Power of a
Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil.”—(3) _Charles Blount_, who died a
suicide in A.D. 1693, a rabid opponent of all miracles as mere tricks of
priests, wrote “Oracles of Reason,” “_Religio Laici_,” “Great is Diana of
the Ephesians,” that translated Philostratus’ “Life of Apollonius of
Tyana.”—(4) _Thomas Browne_, A.D. 1635-1682, a physician, who in his
“_Religio Medici_” sets forth a mystical supernaturalism, took up a purely
deistic ground in his “Vulgar Errors,” published three years later.—Among
the opponents of deism in this age the most notable are Richard Baxter (§
162, 3) and Ralph Cudworth, A.D. 1617-1688, a latitudinarian and
Platonist, who sought to prove the leading Christian doctrines by the
theory of innate ideas. He wrote “Intellectual System of the Universe” in
A.D. 1678. The pious Irish scientist, Robert Boyle, founded in London, in
A.D. 1691, a lectureship of £40 a year for eight discourses against
deistic and atheistic unbelief.(47)—Continuation, § 171, 1.
4. A tendency similar to that of the English deists was represented in
Germany by _Matthias Knutzen_, who sought to found a freethinking sect.
The Christian “Coran” contains only lies; reason and conscience are the
true Bible; there is no God, nor hell nor heaven; priests and magistrates
should be driven out of the world, etc. The senate of Jena University on
investigation found that his pretension to 700 followers was a vain
boast.—In France the brilliant and learned sceptic _Peter Bayle_, A.D.
1647-1706, was the apostle of a light-hearted unbelief. Though son of a
Reformed pastor, the Jesuits got him over to the Romish church, but in a
year and a half he apostatised again. He now studied the Cartesian
philosophy, as Reformed professor at Sedan, vindicated Protestantism in
several controversial tracts, and as refugee in Holland composed his
famous “_Dictionnaire Historique et Critique_,” in which he avoided indeed
open rejection of the facts of revelation, but did much to unsettle by his
easy treatment of them.—Continuation, § 171, 3.
THIRD SECTION. CHURCH HISTORY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.(48)
I. The Catholic Church in East and West.
§ 165. The Roman Catholic Church.
During the first half of the century the Roman hierarchy suffered severely
at the hand of Catholic courts, while in the second half storms gathered
from all sides, threatening its very existence. Portugal, France, Spain,
and Italy rested not till they got the pope himself to strike the
deathblow to the Jesuits, who had been his chief supporters indeed, but
who had now become his masters. Soon after the German bishops threatened
to free themselves and their people from Rome, and what reforms they could
not effect by ecclesiastical measures the emperor undertook to effect by
civil measures. Scarcely had this danger been overcome when the horrors of
the French Revolution broke out, which sought, along with the Papacy, to
overthrow Christianity as well. But, on the other hand, during the early
decades of the century Catholicism had gained many victories in another
way by the counter-reformation and conversions. Its foreign missions,
however, begun with such promise of success, came to a sad end, and even
the home missions faded away, in spite of the founding of various new
orders. The Jansenist controversy in the beginning of the century entered
on a new stage, the Catholic church being driven into open
semi-Pelagianism, and Jansenism into fanatical excesses. The church
theology sank very low, and the Catholic supporters of “_Illumination_”
far exceeded in number those who had fallen away to it from Protestantism.
1. _The Popes._—_Clement XI._, 1700-1721, protested in vain against the
Elector Frederick III. of Brandenburg assuming the crown as King Frederick
I. of Prussia, on Jan. 18th, A.D. 1701. In the Spanish wars of succession
he sought to remain neutral, but force of circumstances led him to take up
a position adverse to German interests. The new German emperor, Joseph I.,
A.D. 1705-1711, scorned to seek confirmation from the pope, and Clement
consequently had the usual prayer for the emperor omitted in the church
services. The relations became yet more strained, owing to a dispute about
the _jus primarum precum_, Joseph claiming the right to revenues of
vacancies as the patron. In A.D. 1707, the pope had the joy of seeing the
German army driven out, not only of northern Italy, but also of Naples by
the French. Again they came into direct conflict over Parma and Piacenza,
Clement claiming them as a papal, the emperor claiming them as an
imperial, fief. No pope since the time of Louis the Bavarian had issued
the ban against a German emperor, and Clement ventured not to do so now.
Refusing the invitation of Louis XIV. to go to Avignon, he was obliged
either unconditionally to grant the German claims or to try the fortune of
war. He chose the latter alternative. The miserable papal troops, however,
were easily routed, and Clement was obliged, in A.D. 1708, to acknowledge
the emperor’s brother, the Grand-duke Charles, as king of Spain, and
generally to yield to Joseph’s very moderate demands. Clement was the
author of the constitution _Unigenitus_, which introduced the second stage
in the history of Jansenism. After the short and peaceful pontificate of
_Innocent XIII._ A.D. 1721-1724, came _Benedict XIII._, A.D. 1724-1730, a
pious, well-meaning, narrow-minded man, ruled by a worthless favourite,
Cardinal Coscia. He wished to canonize Gregory VII., in the fond hope of
thereby securing new favour to his hierarchical views, but this was
protested against by almost all the courts. All the greater was the number
of monkish saints with which he enriched the heavenly firmament. He
promised to all who on their death-bed should say, “Blessed be Jesus
Christ,” a 2,000 years’ shortening of purgatorial pains. His successor
_Clement XII._, A.D. 1730-1740, deprived the wretched Coscia of his
offices, made him disgorge his robberies, imposed on him a severe fine and
ten years’ imprisonment, but afterwards resigned the management of
everything to a greedy, grasping nephew. He was the first pope to condemn
freemasonry, A.D. 1736. _Benedict XIV._, A.D. 1740-1758, one of the
noblest, most pious, learned, and liberal of the popes, zealous for the
faith of his church, and yet patient with those who differed, moderate and
wise in his political procedure, mild and just in his government,
blameless in life. He had a special dislike of the Jesuits (§ 155, 12),
and jestingly he declared, if, as the curialists assert, “all law and all
truth” lie concealed in the shrine of his breast, he had not been able to
find the key. He wrote largely on theology and canon law, founded
seminaries for the training of the clergy, had many French and English
works translated into Italian, and was a liberal patron of art. To check
popular excesses he tried to reduce the number of festivals, but without
success.—Continuation, in Paragraphs 9, 10, 13.
2. _Old and New Orders._—Among the old orders that of _Clugny_ had amassed
enormous wealth, and attempts made by its abbots at reformation led only
to endless quarrels and divisions. The abbots now squandered the revenues
of their cloisters at court, and these institutions were allowed to fall
into disorder and decay. When, in A.D. 1790, all cloisters in France were
suppressed, the city of Clugny bought the cloister and church for £4,000,
and had them both pulled down.—The most important new orders were: (1)
_The Mechitarist Congregation_, originated by Mechitar the Armenian, who,
at Constantinople in A.D. 1701, founded a society for the religious and
intellectual education of his countrymen; but when opposed by the Armenian
patriarch, fled to the Morea and joined the United Armenians (§ 72, 2). In
A.D. 1712 the pope confirmed the congregation, which, during the war with
the Turks was transferred to Venice, and in A.D. 1717 settled on the
island St. Lazaro. Its members spread Roman Catholic literature in Armenia
and Armenian literature in the West. At a later time there was a famous
Mechitarist college in Vienna, which did much by writing and publishing
for the education of the Catholic youth.—(2) _Frères Ignorantins_, or
Christian Brothers, founded in A.D. 1725 by De la Salle, canon of Rheims,
for the instruction of children, wrought in the spirit of the Jesuits
through France, Belgium, and North America. After the expulsion of the
Jesuits from France in A.D. 1724, they took their place there till
themselves driven out by the Revolution in A.D. 1790.(49)—(3) The
_Liguorians or Redemptorists_, founded in A.D. 1732 by Liguori, an
advocate, who became Bishop of Naples in A.D. 1762. He died in A.D. 1787
in his ninety-first year, was beatified by Pius VII. in A.D. 1816, and
canonized by Gregory XVI. in A.D. 1839, and proclaimed _doctor ecclesiæ_
by Pius IX. in A.D. 1871 as a zealous defender of the immaculate
conception and papal infallibility. His devotional writings, which exalt
Mary by superstitious tales of miracles, were extremely popular in all
Catholic countries. His new order was to minister to the poor. He declared
the pope’s will to be God’s, and called for unquestioning obedience. Only
after the founder’s death did it spread beyond Italy.—Continuation, § 186,
1.
3. _Foreign Missions._—In the accommodation controversy (§ 156, 12), the
Dominicans prevailed in A.D. 1742; but the abolishing of native customs
led to a sore persecution in China, from which only a few remnants of the
church were saved. The Italian Jesuit Beschi, with linguistic talents of
the highest order, sought in India to make use of the native literature
for mission purposes and to place alongside of it a Christian literature.
Here the Capuchins opposed the Jesuits as successfully as the Dominicans
had in China. These strifes and persecutions destroyed the missions.—The
Jesuit state of Paraguay (§ 156, 10) was put an end to in A.D. 1750 by a
compact between Portugal and Spain. The revolt of the Indians that
followed, inspired and directed by the Jesuits, which kept the combined
powers at bay for a whole year, was at last quelled, and the Jesuits
expelled the country in A.D. 1758.—Continuation § 186, 7.
4. _The Counter-Reformation_ (§ 153, 2).—Charles XII. of Sweden, in A.D.
1707, forced the Emperor Joseph I. to give the Protestants of _Silesia_
the benefits of the Westphalian Peace and to restore their churches. But
in _Poland_ in A.D. 1717, the Protestants lost the right of building new
churches, and in A.D. 1733 were declared disqualified for civil offices
and places in the diet. In the Protestant city of Thorn the insolence of
the Jesuits roused a rebellion which led to a fearful massacre in A.D.
1724. The Dissenters sought and obtained protection in Russia from A.D.
1767, and the partition of Poland between Russia, Austria, and Prussia in
A.D. 1772 secured for them religious toleration. In _Salzburg_ the
archbishop, Count Firmian, attempted in A.D. 1729 a conversion of the
evangelicals by force, who had, with intervals of persecution in the
seventeenth century, been tolerated for forty years as quiet and
inoffensive citizens. But in A.D. 1731 their elders swore on the host and
consecrated salt (2 Chron. xiii. 5) to be true to their faith. This
“covenant of salt” was interpreted as rebellion, and in spite of the
intervention of the Protestant princes, all the evangelicals, in the
severe winter of A.D. 1731, 1732, were driven, with inhuman cruelty, from
hearth and home. About 20,000 of them found shelter in Prussian Lithuania;
others emigrated to America. The pope praised highly “the noble”
archbishop, who otherwise distinguished himself only as a huntsman and a
drinker, and by maintaining a mistress in princely splendour.
5. In _France_ the persecution of the Huguenots continued (§ 153, 4). The
“pastors of the desert” performed their duties at the risk of their lives,
and though many fell as martyrs, their places were quickly filled by
others equally heroic. The first rank belongs to Anton Court, pastor at
Nismes from A.D. 1715; he died at Lausanne A.D. 1760, where he had founded
a theological seminary. He laboured unweariedly and successfully in
gathering and organizing the scattered members of the Reformed church, and
in overcoming fanaticism by imparting sound instruction. Paul Rabaut, his
successor at Nismes, was from A.D. 1780 to 1785 the faithful and capable
leader of the martyr church. The judicial murder of _Jean Calas_ at
Toulouse in A.D. 1762 presents a hideous example of the fanaticism of
Catholic France. One of his sons had hanged himself in a fit of passion.
When the report spread that it was the act of his father, in order to
prevent the contemplated conversion of his son, the Dominicans canonized
the suicide as a martyr to the Catholic faith, roused the mob, and got the
Toulouse parliament to put the unhappy father to the torture of the wheel.
The other sons were forced to abjure their faith, and the daughters were
shut up in cloisters. Two years later Voltaire called attention to the
atrocity, and so wrought on public opinion that on the revision of the
proceedings by the Parisian parliament, the innocence of the ill-used
family was clearly proved. Louis XV. paid them a sum of 30,000 livres; but
the fanatical accusers, the false witnesses, and the corrupt judges were
left unpunished. This incident improved the position of the Protestants,
and in A.D. 1787 Louis XVI. issued the Edict of Versailles, by which not
only complete religious freedom but even a legal civil existence was
secured them, which was confirmed by a law of Napoleon in A.D. 1802.
6. _Conversions._—Pecuniary interests and prospect of marriage with a rich
heiress led to the conversion, in A.D. 1712, of Charles Alexander while in
the Austrian service; but when he became Duke of Württemburg he solemnly
undertook to keep things as they were, and to set up no Catholic services
in the country save in his own court chapel. Of other converts Winckelmann
and Stolberg are the most famous. While Winckelmann, the greatest of art
critics, not a religious but an artistic ultramontane, was led in A.D.
1754 through religious indifference into the Romish church, the warm heart
of Von Stolberg was induced, mainly by the Catholic Princess Gallitzin (§
172, 2) and a French emigrant, Madame Montague, to escape the chill of
rationalism amid the incense fumes of the Catholic services.—Continuation,
§ 175, 7.
7. _The Second Stage of Jansenism (_§ 157, 5_)._—_Pasquier Quesnel_,
priest of the Oratory at Paris, suspected in 1675 of Gallicanism, because
of notes in his edition of the works of Leo the Great, fled into the
Netherlands, where he continued his notes on the N.T. Used and recommended
by Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, and other French bishops, this
“Jansenist” book was hated by the Jesuits and condemned by a brief of
Clement XI. in A.D. 1708. The Jesuit confessor of Louis XIV., Le Tellier,
selected 101 propositions from the book, and induced the king to urge
their express condemnation by the pope. In the _Constitution Unigenitus_
of A.D. 1713, Clement pronounced these heretical, and the king required
the expulsion from parliament and church of all who refused to adopt this
bull, which caused a division of the French church into _Acceptants_ and
_Appellants_. As many of the condemned propositions were quoted literally
by Quesnel from Augustine and other Fathers, or were in exact agreement
with biblical passages, Noailles and his party called for an explanation.
Instead of this the pope threatened them with excommunication. In A.D.
1715 the king died, and under the Duke of Orleans’ regency in A.D. 1717,
four bishops, with solemn appeal to a general council, renounced the papal
constitution as irreconcilable with the Catholic faith. They were soon
joined by the Sorbonne and the universities of Rheims and Nantes,
Archbishop Noailles, and more than twenty bishops, all the congregations
of St. Maur and the Oratorians with large numbers of the secular clergy
and the monks, especially of the Lazarists, Dominicans, Cistercians, and
Camaldulensians. The pope, after vainly calling them to obey, thundered
the ban against the Appellants in A.D. 1718. But the parliament took the
matter up, and soon the aspect of affairs was completely changed. The
regent’s favourite, Dubois, hoping to obtain a cardinal’s hat, took the
side of the Acceptants and carried the duke with him, who got the
parliament in 1720 to acknowledge the bull, with express reservation,
however, of the Gallican liberties, and began a persecution of the
Appellants. Under Louis XV. the persecution became more severe, although
in many ways moderated by the influence of his former tutor, Cardinal
Fleury. Noailles, who died in 1729, was obliged in 1728 to submit
unconditionally, and in A.D. 1730 the parliament formally ratified the
bull. Amid daily increasing oppression, many of the more faithful
Jansenists, mostly of the orders of St. Maur and the Oratory, fled to the
Netherlands, where they gave way more and more to fanaticism. In 1727 a
young Jansenist priest, Francis of Paris, died with the original text of
the appeal in his hands. His adherents honoured him as a saint, and
numerous reports of miracles, which had been wrought at his grave in
Medardus churchyard at Paris, made this a daily place of pilgrimage to
thousands of fanatics. The excited enthusiasts, who fell into convulsions,
and uttered prophecies about the overthrow of church and state, grew in
numbers and, with that mesmeric power which fanaticism has been found in
all ages to possess powerfully influenced many who had been before
careless and profane. One of these was the member of parliament De
Montgeron, who, from being a frivolous scoffer, suddenly, in 1732, fell
into violent convulsions, and in a three-volumed work, “_La Vérité des
Miracles Opérés par l’Intercession de François de Paris_,” 1737, came
forward as a zealous apologist of the party. The government, indeed, in
1732 ordered the churchyard to be closed, but portions of earth from the
grave of the saint continued to effect convulsions and miracles. Thousands
of convulsionists throughout France were thrown into prison, and in 1752,
Archbishop Beaumont of Paris, with many other bishops, refused the last
sacrament to those who could not prove that they had accepted the
constitution. The grave of “St. Francis,” however, was the grave of
Jansenism, for fanatical excess contains the seeds of dissolution and
every manifestation of it hastens the catastrophe. Yet remnants of the
party lingered on in France till the outbreak of the Revolution, of which
they had prophesied.
8. _The Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands._—The first Jesuits
appeared in Holland in A.D. 1592. The form of piety fostered by superior
and inferior clergy in the Catholic church there, a heritage from the
times of the Brethren of the Common Life (§ 112, 9), was directed to the
deepening of Christian thought and feeling; and this, as well as the
liberal attitude of the Archbishop of Utrecht, awakened the bitter
opposition of the Jesuits. At the head of the local clergy was Sasbold
Vosmeer, vicar-general of the vacant archiepiscopal see of Utrecht. Most
energetically he set himself to thwart the Jesuit machinations, which
aimed at abolishing the Utrecht see and putting the church of Holland
under the jurisdiction of the papal nuncio at Cologne. On the ground of
suspicions of secret conspiracy Vosmeer was banished. But his successors
refused to be overruled or set aside by the Jesuits. Meanwhile in France
the first stage of the Jansenist controversy had been passed through. The
Dutch authorities had heartily welcomed the condemned book of their pious
and learned countryman; but when the five propositions were denounced,
they agreed in repudiating them, without, however, admitting that they had
been taught in the sense objected to by Jansen. The Jesuits, therefore,
charged them with the Jansenist heresy, and issued in A.D. 1697 an
anonymous pamphlet full of lying insinuations about the origin and
progress of Jansenism in Holland. Its beginning was traced back to a visit
of Arnauld to Holland in A.D. 1681, and its effects were seen in the
circulation of prayer-books, tracts, and sermons, urging diligent reading
of Scripture, in the depreciation of the worship of Mary, of indulgences,
of images of saints and relics, rosaries and scapularies (§ 188, 20),
processions and fraternities, in the rigoristic strictness of the
confessional, the use of the common language of the country in baptism,
marriage, and extreme unction, etc. The archbishop of that time, Peter
Codde, in order to isolate him, was decoyed to Rome, and there flattered
with hypocritical pretensions of goodwill, while behind his back his
deposition was carried out, and an apostolic vicar nominated for Utrecht
in the person of his deadly foe Theodore de Cock. But the chapter refused
him obedience, and the States of Holland forbad him to exercise any
official function, and under threat of banishment of all Jesuits demanded
the immediate return of the archbishop. Codde was now sent down with the
papal blessing, but a formal decree of deposition followed him. Meanwhile
the government pronounced on his rival De Cock, who avoided a trial for
high treason by flight, a sentence of perpetual exile. But Codde, though
persistently recognised by his chapter as the rightful archbishop,
withheld on conscientious grounds from discharging official duties down to
his death in A.D. 1710. Amid these disputes the Utrecht see remained
vacant for thirteen years. The flock were without a chief shepherd, the
inferior clergy without direction and support, the people were wrought
upon by Jesuit emissaries, and the vacant pastorates were filled by the
nuncio of Cologne. Thus it came about that of the 300,000 Catholics
remaining after the Reformation, only a few thousands continued faithful
to the national party, while the rest became bitter and extreme
ultramontanes, as the Catholic church of Holland still is. Finally, in
A.D. 1723, the Utrecht chapter took courage and chose a new archbishop in
the person of Cornelius Steenowen. Receiving no answer to their request
for papal confirmation, the chapter, after waiting a year and a half, had
him and also his three successors consecrated by a French missionary
bishop, Varlet, who had been driven away by the Jesuits. But in order to
prevent the threatened loss of legitimate consecration for future bishops
after Varlet’s death in A.D. 1742, a bishop elected at Utrecht was in that
same year ordained to the chapter of Haarlem, and in A.D. 1758 the newly
founded bishopric of Deventer was so supplied. All these, like all
subsequent elections, were duly reported to Rome, and a strictly Catholic
confession from electors and elected sent up; but each time, instead of
confirmation, a frightful ban was thundered forth. This, however, did not
deter the Dutch government from formally recognising the
elections.—Meanwhile the second and last act of the Jansenist tragedy had
been played in France. Many of the persecuted Appellants sought refuge in
Holland, and the welcome accorded them seemed to justify the long
cherished suspicion of Jansenism against the people of Utrecht. They
repelled these charges, however, by condemning the five propositions and
the heresies of Quesnel’s book; but they expressly refused the bull of
Alexander VII. and its doctrine of papal infallibility. This put a stop to
all attempts at reconciliation. The church of Utrecht meanwhile prospered.
At a council held at Utrecht in A.D. 1765 it styled itself “The Old Roman
Catholic Church of the Netherlands,” acknowledged the pope, although under
his anathema, as the visible head of the Christian church, accepted the
Tridentine decrees as their creed, and sent this with all the acts of
council to Rome as proof of their orthodoxy. The Jesuits did all in their
power to overturn the formidable impression which this at first made
there; and they were successful. Clement XIII. declared the council null,
and those who took part in it hardened sons of Belial. But their church at
this day contains, under one archbishop and two bishops, twenty-six
congregations, numbering 6,000 souls.(50)—Continuation, § 200, 3.
9. _Suppression of the Order of Jesuits, _A.D._ 1773._—The Jesuits had
striven with growing eagerness and success after worldly power, and
instead of absolute devotion to the interests of the papacy, their chief
aim was now the erection of an independent political and hierarchical
dominion. Their love of rule had sustained its first check in the
overthrow of the Jesuit state of Paraguay; but they had secured a great
part of the world’s trade (§ 156, 13), and strove successfully to control
European politics. The Jansenist controversy, however, had called forth
against them much popular odium; Pascal had made them ridiculous to all
men of culture, the other monkish orders were hostile to them, their
success in trade roused the jealousy of other traders, and their
interference in politics made enemies on every hand. The Portuguese
government took the first decided step. A revolt in Paraguay and an
attempt on the king’s life were attributed to them and the minister
Pombal, whose reforms they had opposed, had them banished from Portugal in
A.D. 1759, and their goods confiscated. _Clement XIII._, A.D. 1758-1769,
chosen by the Jesuits and under their influence, protected them by a bull;
but Portugal refused to let the bull be proclaimed, led the papal nuncio
over the frontier, broke off all relations with Rome, and sent whole
shiploads of Jesuits to the pope. France followed Portugal’s example when
the general Ricci had answered the king’s demand for a reform of his
orders: _Sint ut sunt, aut non sint_. For the enormous financial failure
of the Jesuit La Valette, the whole order was made responsible, and at
last, in A.D. 1764, banished from France as dangerous to the state. Spain,
Naples, and Parma, too, soon seized all the Jesuits and transported them
beyond the frontiers. The new papal election on the death of Clement XIII.
was a life and death question with the Jesuits, but courtly influences and
fears of a schism prevailed. The pious and liberal Minorite Ganganelli
mounted the papal throne as _Clement XIV._, A.D. 1769-1774. He began with
sweeping administrative reforms, forbad the reading of the bull _In cœna
Domini_ (§ 117, 3), and, pressed by the Bourbon court, issued in A.D. 1773
the bull _Dominus ac Redemtor Noster_ suppressing the Jesuit order. The
order numbered 22,600 members and the pope felt, in granting the bull,
that he endangered his own life. Next year he died, not without suspicion
of poisoning. All the Catholic courts, even Austria, put the decree in
force. But the heretic Frederick II. tolerated the order for a long time
in Silesia, and Catherine II. and Paul I. in their Polish provinces.—_Pius
VI._, A.D. 1775-1799, in many respects the antithesis of his predecessor,
was the secret friend of the exiled and imprisoned ex-Jesuits. After the
outbreak of the French Revolution, a proposal was made at Rome, in A.D.
1792, for the formal restoration of the order, as a means of saving the
seriously imperilled church, but it did not find sufficient encouragement.
10. _Anti-hierarchical Movements in Germany and Italy._—Even before Joseph
II. could carry out his reforms in ecclesiastical polity, the noble
elector _Maximilian Joseph III._, A.D. 1745-1777, with greater moderation
but complete success, effected a similar reform in the Jesuit-overrun
Bavaria. Himself a strict Catholic, he asserted the supremacy of the state
over a foreign hierarchy, and by reforming the churches, cloisters, and
schools of his country he sought to improve their position. But under his
successor, Charles Theodore, A.D. 1777-1799, everything was restored to
its old condition.—Meanwhile a powerful voice was raised from the midst of
the German prelates that aimed a direct blow at the hierarchical papal
system. _Nicholas von Hontheim_, the suffragan Bishop of Treves, had under
the name _Justinus Febronius_ published, in A.D. 1763, a treatise _De
Statu Ecclesiæ_, in which he maintained the supreme authority of general
councils and the independence of bishops in opposition to the hierarchical
pretensions of the popes. It was soon translated into German, French,
Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. The book made a great impression, and
Clement XIII. could do nothing against the bold defender of the liberties
of the church. In A.D. 1778, indeed, Pius VI. had the poor satisfaction of
extorting a recantation from the old man of seventy-seven years, but he
lived to see yet more deadly storms burst upon the church. Urged by
Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, the pope, in A.D. 1785, had made
Munich the residence of a nuncio. The episcopal electors of Mainz,
Cologne, and Treves, and the Archbishop of Salzburg, seeing their
archiepiscopal rights in danger, met in congress at Ems in A.D. 1786, and
there, on the basis of the Febronian proofs, claimed, in the so called
_Punctation of Ems_, practical independence of the pope and the
restoration of an independent German national Catholic church. But the
German bishops found it easier to obey the distant pope than the near
archbishops. So they united their opposition with that of the pope, and
the undertaking of the archbishops came to nothing.—More threatening still
for the existence of the hierarchy was the reign of _Joseph II._ in
Austria. German emperor from A.D. 1765, and co-regent with his mother
Maria Theresa, he began, immediately on his succession to sole rule in
A.D. 1780, a radical reform of the whole ecclesiastical institutions
throughout his hereditary possessions. In A.D. 1781 he issued his _Edict
of Toleration_, by which, under various restrictions, the Protestants
obtained civil rights and liberty of worship. Protestant places of worship
were to have no bells or towers, were to pay stole dues to the Catholic
priests, in mixed marriages the Catholic father had the right of educating
all his children and the Catholic mother could claim the education at
least of her daughters. By stopping all episcopal communications with the
papal curia, and putting all papal bulls and ecclesiastical edicts under
strict civil control, the Catholic church was emancipated from Roman
influences, set under a native clergy, and made serviceable in the moral
and religious training of the people, and all her institutions that did
not serve this end were abolished. Of the 2,000 cloisters, 606 succumbed
before this decree, and those that remained were completely sundered from
all connexion with Rome. In vain the bishops and Pius VI. protested. The
pope even went to Vienna in A.D. 1782; but though received with great
respect, he could make nothing of the emperor. Joseph’s procedure had been
somewhat hasty and inconsiderate, and a reaction set in, led by interested
parties, on the emperor’s early death in A.D. 1790.—The Grand-duke
_Leopold of Tuscany_, Joseph’s brother, with the aid of the pious Bishop
Scipio von Ricci, inclined to Jansenism, sought also in a similar way to
reform the church of his land at the Synod of Pistoia, in A.D. 1786. But
here too at last the hierarchy prevailed.
11. _Theological Literature._—The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, A.D.
1685, gave the deathblow to the French Reformed theology, but it also
robbed Catholic theology in _France_ of its spur and incentive. The
Huguenot polemic against the papacy, and that of Jansenism against the
semi-pelagianism of the Catholic church, were silenced; but now the most
rabid naturalism, atheism, and materialism held the field and the church
theology was so lethargic that it could not attempt any serious
opposition. Yet even here some names are worthy of being recorded. Above
all, _Bernard de Montfaucon_ of St. Maur, the ablest antiquarian of
France, besides his classical works, issued admirable editions of
Athanasius, Chrysostom, Origen’s “_Hexapla_,” and the “_Collectio Nova
Patrum_.” _E. Renaudot_, a learned expert in the oriental languages, wrote
several works in vindication of the “_Perpétuité de la Foi cath._,” a
history of the Jacobite patriarchs of Alexandria, etc., and compiled a
“_Collectio liturgiarum Oriental_,” in two vols. Of permanent worth is the
“_Bibliotheca Sacra_” of the Oratorian _Le Long_, which forms an admirable
literary-historical apparatus for the Bible. The learned Jesuit
_Hardouin_, who pronounced all Greek and Latin classics, with few
exceptions, to be monkish products of the thirteenth century, and denied
the existence of all pre-Tridentine general councils, edited a careful
collection of Acts of Councils in twelve vols. folio in Paris, 1715, and
compiled an elaborate chronology of the Old Testament. His pupil, the
Jesuit _Berruyer_, wrote a romancing “_Hist. du Peuple de Dieu_,” which,
though much criticised, was widely read. Incomparably more important was
the Benedictine _Calmet_, died A.D. 1757, whose “_Dictionnaire de la
Bible_” and “_Commentaire Littéral et Critique_” on the whole Bible are
really most creditable for their time. And, finally, the Parisian
professor of medicine, _Jean Astruc_, deserves to be named as the founder
of the modern Pentateuch criticism, whose “_Conjectures sur les Mémoires
Originaux_,” etc., appeared in Brussels A.D. 1753.—Within the limits of
the French Revolution the noble theosophist _St. Martin_, died A.D. 1805,
a warm admirer of Böhme, wrote his brilliant and profound treatises.
12. _In Italy_ the most important contributions were in the department of
history. _Mansi_, in his collection of Acts of Councils in thirty-one
vols. folio, A.D. 1759 ff., and _Muratori_, in his “_Scriptores Rer.
Italic._,” in twenty-eight vols., and “_Antiquitt. Ital. Med. Ævi_,” in
six vols., show brilliant learning and admirable impartiality. _Ugolino_,
in a gigantic work, “_Thesaurus Antiquitt. ss._,” thirty-four folio vols.,
A.D. 1744 ff., gathers together all that is most important for biblical
archæology. The three _Assemani_, uncle and two nephews, cultured
Maronites in Rome, wrought in the hitherto unknown field of Syrian
literature and history. The uncle, Joseph Simon, librarian at the Vatican,
wrote “_Bibliotheca Orientalis_,” in four vols., A.D. 1719 ff., and edited
Ephraem’s works in six vols. The elder nephew, Stephen Evodius, edited the
“_Acta ss. Martyrum Orient. et Occid._,” in two vols., and the younger,
Joseph Aloysius, a “_Codex Liturgicus Eccles. Univ._,” in thirteen vols.
Among dogmatical works the “_Theologia hist.-dogm.-scholastica_,” in eight
vols. folio, Rome, 1739, of the Augustinian _Berti_ deserves mention.
_Zaccaria_ of Venice, in some thirty vols., proved an indefatigable
opponent of Febronianism, Josephinism, and such-like movements, and a
careful editor of older Catholic works. The Augustinian _Florez_, died
A.D. 1773, did for _Spain_ what Muratori had done for Italy in making
collections of ancient writers, which, with the continuations of the
brethren of his order, extended to fifty folio volumes.—In _Germany_ the
greatest Catholic theologian of the century was _Amort_. Of his seventy
treatises the most comprehensive is the “_Theologia Eclectica, Moralis et
Scholastica_,” in four vols. folio, A.D. 1752. He conducted a conciliatory
polemic against the Protestants, contested the mysticism of Maria von
Agreda (§ 156, 5), and vigorously controverted superstition,
miracle-mongering, and all manner of monkish extravagances. To the time of
Joseph II. belongs the liberal, latitudinarian supernaturalist _Jahn_ of
Vienna, whose “Introduction to the Old Testament,” and “Biblical
Antiquities” did much to raise the standard of biblical learning. For his
anti-clericalism he was deprived of his professorship in A.D. 1805, and
died in A.D. 1816 a canon in Vienna. To this century also belongs the
greatly blessed literary labours of the accomplished mystic, _Sailer_,
beginning at Ingolstadt in A.D. 1777, and continued at Dillingen from A.D.
1784. Deprived in A.D. 1794 of his professorship on pretence of his
favouring the Illuminati, it was not till A.D. 1799 that he was allowed to
resume his academic work in Ingolstadt and Landshut. By numerous
theological, ascetical, and philosophical tracts, but far more powerfully
by his lectures and personal intercourse, he sowed the seeds of
rationalism, which bore fruit in the teachings of many Catholic
universities, and produced in the hearts of many pupils a warm and deep
and at the same time a gentle and conciliatory Catholicism, which heartily
greeted, even in pious Protestants, the foundations of a common faith and
life. Compare § 187, 1.—Continuation, § 191.
13. _The German-Catholic Contribution to the Illumination._—The Catholic
church of Germany was also carried away with the current of “the
Illumination,” which from the middle of the century had overrun Protestant
Germany. While the exorcisms and cures of Father Gassner in Regensburg
were securing signal triumphs to Catholicism, though these were of so
dubious a kind that the bishops, the emperor, and finally even the curia,
found it necessary to check the course of the miracle worker, _Weishaupt_,
professor of canon law in Ingolstadt, founded, in A.D. 1776, the secret
society of the _Illuminati_, which spread its deistic ideas of culture and
human perfectibility through Catholic South Germany. Though inspired by
deadly hatred of the Jesuits, Weishaupt imitated their methods, and so
excited the suspicion of the Bavarian government, which, in A.D. 1785,
suppressed the order and imprisoned and banished its leaders.—Catholic
theology too was affected by the rationalistic movement. But that the
power of the church to curse still survived was proved in the case of the
Mainz professor, _Laurence Isenbiehl_, who applied the passage about
Immanuel, in Isaiah vii. 14, not to the mother of Christ, but to the wife
of the prophet, for which he was deposed in A.D. 1774, and on account of
his defective knowledge of theology was sent back for two years to the
seminary. When in A.D. 1778 he published a learned treatise on the same
theme, he was put in prison. The pope too condemned his exposition as
pestilential, and Isenbiehl “as a good Catholic” retracted. _Steinbühler_,
a young jurist of Salzburg, having been sentenced to death in A.D. 1781
for some contemptuous words about the Catholic ceremonies, was pardoned,
but soon after died from the ill-treatment he had received. The
rationalistic movement got hold more and more of the Catholic
universities. In Mainz, _Dr. Blau_, professor of dogmatics, promulgated
with impunity the doctrine that in the course of centuries the church has
often made mistakes. In the Austrian universities, under the protection of
the Josephine edict, a whole series of Catholic theologians ventured to
make cynically free criticisms, especially in the field of church history.
At Bonn University, founded in A.D. 1786 by the Elector-archbishop of
Cologne, there were teachers like _Hedderich_, who sportively described
himself on the title page of a dissertation as “_jam quater Romæ
damnatus_,” _Dereser_, previously a Carmelite monk, who followed Eichhorn
in his exposition of the biblical miracles, and _Eulogius Schneider_, who,
after having made Bonn too hot for him by his theological and poetical
recklessness, threw himself into the French Revolution, for two years
marched through Alsace with the guillotine as one of the most dreaded
monsters, and finally, in A.D. 1794, was made to lay his own head on the
block.—At the Austrian universities, under the protection of the tolerant
Josephine legislation, a whole series of Catholic theologians, Royko,
Wolff, Dannenmayr, Michl, etc., criticised, often with cynical plainness,
the proceedings and condition of the Catholic church. To this class also,
in the first stage of his remarkably changeful and eventful career,
belongs Ign. Aur. _Fessler_. From 1773, a Capuchin in various cloisters,
last of all in Vienna, he brought down upon himself the bitter hatred of
his order by making secret reports to the emperor about the ongoings that
prevailed in these convents. He escaped their enmity by his appointment,
in 1784, as professor of the oriental languages and the Old Testament at
Lemberg, but was in 1787 dismissed from this office on account of various
charges against his life, teaching, and poetical writings. In Silesia, in
1791, he went over to the Protestant church, joined the freemasons, held
at Berlin the post of a councillor in ecclesiastical and educational
affairs for the newly won Catholic provinces of Poland, and, after losing
this position in consequence of the events of the war of 1806, found
employment in Russia in 1809; first, as professor of oriental languages at
St. Petersburg, and afterwards, when opposed and persecuted there also on
suspicion of entertaining atheistical views, as member of a legal
commission in South Russia. Meanwhile having gradually moved from a
deistical to a vague mystical standpoint, he was in 1819 made
superintendent and president of the evangelical consistory at Saratov,
with the title of an evangelical bishop, and after the abolition of that
office in 1833 he became general superintendent at St. Petersburg, where
he died in 1839. His romances and tragedies as well as his theological and
religious writings are now forgotten, but his “Reminiscences of his
Seventy Years’ Pilgrimage,” published in 1824, are still interesting, and
his “History of Hungary,” in ten volumes, begun in 1812, is of permanent
value.
14. _The French Contribution to the Illumination._—The age of Louis XIV.,
with the morals of its Jesuit confessors, the lust, bigotry, and hypocrisy
of its court, its dragonnades and Bastille polemic against revivals of a
living Christianity among Huguenots, mystics, and Jansenists, its prophets
of the Cevennes and Jansenist convulsionists, etc., called forth a spirit
of freethinking to which Catholicism, Jansenism, and Protestantism
appeared equally ridiculous and absurd. This movement was essentially
different from English deism. The principle of the English movement was
_common sense_, the universal moral consciousness in man, with the
powerful weapon of rational criticism, maintaining the existence of an
ideal and moral element in men, and holding by the more general principles
of religion. French naturalism, on the other hand, was a philosophy of the
_esprit_, that essentially French lightheartedness which laughed away
everything of an ideal sort with scorn and wit. Yet there was an intimate
relationship between the two. The philosophy of common sense came to
France, and was there travestied into a philosophy _d’esprit_. The organ
of this French philosophy was the “_Encyclopédie_” of Diderot and
D’Alembert, and its most brilliant contributors, Montesquieu, Helvetius,
Voltaire, and Rousseau. _Montesquieu_, A.D. 1689-1755, whose “_Esprit des
Lois_” in two years passed through twenty-two editions, wrote the
“_Lettres Persanes_,” in which with biting wit he ridiculed the political,
social, and ecclesiastical condition of France. _Helvetius_, A.D.
1715-1771, had his book, “_De l’Esprit_,” burnt in A.D. 1759 by order of
parliament, and was made to retract, but this only increased his
influence. _Voltaire_, A.D. 1694-1778, although treating in his writings
of philosophical and theological matters, gives only a hash of English
deism spiced with frivolous wit, showing the same tendency in his
historical and poetical works, giving a certain eloquence to the commonest
and filthiest subjects, as in his “_Pucelle_” and “_Candide_.” He
obtained, however, an immense influence that extended far past his own
days. To the same class belongs _Jean Jacques Rousseau_, A.D. 1712-1778,
belonging to the Roman Catholic church only as a pervert for seventeen
years in the middle of his life. Of a nobler nature than Voltaire, he yet
often sank into deep immorality, as he tells without reserve, but also
without any hearty penitence, in his _Confessions_. His whole life was
taken up with the conflict for his ideals of freedom, nature, human
rights, and human happiness. In his “_Contrat Social_” of A.D. 1762, he
commends a return to the natural condition of the savage as the ideal end
of man’s endeavour. His “_Emile_” of A.D. 1761 is of epoch-making
importance in the history of education, and in it he eloquently sets forth
his ideal of a natural education of children, while he sent all his own
(natural) children to a foundling hospital.—The physician _De la Mettrie_,
who died at the court of Frederick the Great in A.D. 1751, carried
materialism to its most extreme consequences, and the German-Frenchman
Baron _Holbach_, A.D. 1723-1789, wrote the “_Système de la Nature_,” which
in two years passed through eighteen editions.(51)
15. These seeds bore fruit in the _French Revolution_. Voltaire’s cry
“_Écrasez l’infame_,” was directed against the church of the Inquisition,
the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the dragonnades, and Diderot had
exclaimed that the world’s salvation could only come when the last king
had been strangled with the entrails of the last priest. The
constitutional National Assembly, A.D. 1789-1791, wished to set aside, not
the faith of the people, but only the hierarchy, and to save the state
from a financial crisis by the goods of the church. All cloisters were
suppressed and their property sold. The number of bishops was reduced to
one half, all ecclesiastical offices without a pastoral sphere were
abolished, the clergy elected by the people paid by the state, and liberty
of belief recognised as an inalienable right of man. The legislative
National Assembly, A.D. 1791, 1792, made all the clergy take an oath to
the constitution on pain of deposition. The pope forbad it under the same
threat. Then arose a schism. Some 40,000 priests who refused the oath
mostly quitted the country. Avignon (§ 110, 4) had been incorporated in
the French territory. The terrorist National Convention, A.D. 1792-1795,
which brought the king to the scaffold on January 21st, A.D. 1793, and the
queen on October 16th, prohibited all Christian customs, on 5th October
abolished the Christian reckoning of time, and on November 7th
Christianity itself, laid waste 2,000 churches and converted _Notre Dame_
into a _Temple de la Raison_, where a ballet-dancer represented the
goddess of reason. Stirred up by the fanatical baron, “Anacharsis” Cloots,
“the apostle of human freedom and the personal enemy of Jesus Christ,” the
Archbishop Gobel, now in his sixtieth year, came forward, proclaiming his
whole past life a fraud, and owning no other religion than that of
freedom. On the other hand, the noble Bishop Gregoire of Blois, the first
priest to support the constitution, who voted for the abolition of
royalty, but not the execution of the king, was not driven by the
terrorism of the convention, of which he was a member, from a bold and
open profession of Christianity, appearing in his clerical dress and
unweariedly protesting against the vandalism of the Assembly.
Robespierre(52) himself said, “_Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait
l’inventer_,” passed in A.D. 1794 the resolution, _Le peuple français
reconnait l’Être suprême et l’immortalité de l’âme_, and issued an order
to celebrate the _fête de l’Être suprême_. The Directory, A.D. 1795-1799,
restored indeed Christian worship, but favoured the deistical sect of the
_Theophilanthropists_, whose high-swelling phrases soon called forth
public scorn, while in A.D. 1802 the first consul banished their worship
from all churches. But meanwhile, in A.D. 1798, in order to nullify the
opposition of the pope, French armies had overrun Italy and proclaimed the
Church States a Roman Republic. _Pius VI._ was taken prisoner to France,
and died in A.D. 1799 at Valence under the rough treatment of the French,
without having in the least compromised himself or his office.(53)
16. _The Pseudo-Catholics._—(1) _The Abrahamites or Bohemian Deists._ When
Joseph II. issued his edict of toleration in A.D. 1781, a sect which had
hitherto kept itself secret under the mask of Catholicism made its
appearance in the Bohemian province of Pardubitz. The Abrahamites were
descended from the old Hussites, and professed to follow the faith of
Abraham before his circumcision. Their fundamental doctrine was deistic
monotheism, and of the Bible they accepted only the ten commandments and
the Lord’s Prayer. But as they would neither attend the Jewish synagogue
nor the churches of any existing Christian sect, the emperor refused them
religious toleration, drove them from their homes, and settled them in
A.D. 1783 on the eastern frontiers. Many of them, in consequence of
persecution, returned to the Catholic church, and even those who remained
steadfast did not transmit their faith to their children.
17. (2) _The Frankists._—Jacob Leibowicz, the son of a Jewish rabbi in
Galicia, attached himself in Turkey, where he assumed the name of _Frank_,
to the Jewish sect of the Sabbatarians, who, repudiating the Talmud,
adopted the cabbalistic book Sohar as the source of their more profound
religious teaching. Afterwards in Podolia, which was then still Polish, he
was esteemed among his numerous adherents as a Messiah sent of God.
Bitterly hated by the rabbinical Jews, and accused of indulging in vile
orgies in their assemblies, many of those Soharists were thrown into
prison at the instigation of Bishop Dembowski of Kaminetz. But when they
turned and accused their opponents of most serious crimes against
Christendom, and, at Frank’s suggestion, pointing out what they alleged to
be an identity between the book Sohar and the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity and incarnation, made it known that they were inclined to become
converts, they won the favour of the bishop. He arranged a disputation
between the two parties, pronounced the Talmudists beaten, confiscated all
available copies of the Talmud, dragged them through the streets tied to
the tail of a horse, and then burnt them. Dembowski, however, died soon
after in A.D. 1757, and the cathedral chapter expelled the Soharists from
Kaminetz. They appealed to King Augustus III. and to Archbishop Lubienski
of Lemberg, renewing their profession of faith in the Trinity, and
promising to be subject to the pope. In a disputation with the Talmudists
lasting three days they sought to prove that the Talmudists used Christian
blood in their services, which afterwards led to the death of five of the
Jews thus accused. By Frank’s advice, who took part neither in this nor in
the former disputation, but was the secret leader of the whole movement,
they now formally applied for admission into the Catholic church, and
their leader now entered Lemberg in great state. They actually submitted
to be thus driven by him, and 1,000 of his adherents were baptized at
Lemberg. Frank was baptized at Warsaw under the name of _Joseph_, the king
himself acting as sponsor. In all Catholic journals this event was
celebrated as a signal triumph for the Catholic church. But Frank among
his own disciples continued to play the _rôle_ of a miracle-working
Messiah. Hence in A.D. 1760 the Inquisition stepped in. Some of his
followers were imprisoned, others banished, and he himself as a heresiarch
condemned to confinement for life with hard labour, from which after
thirteen years he was liberated on the first partition of Poland in A.D.
1772, through the favour of Catherine II., who employed him as secret
political agent. Feeling that his life was insecure in Poland, he went to
Moravia, and at Brünn reorganized his numerous and attached followers into
a well-knit society, by which he was revered as the incarnation of the
Deity, and his beautiful daughter Eva, brought up by her noble godmother,
as “the divine Emuna.” How he was permitted, under the protection of the
Catholic church, to continue here for sixteen years, playing the _rôle_ of
a Messiah, and to amass such wealth as enabled him to purchase, in A.D.
1788, from the impoverished prince of Homburg-Birstein his castle at
Offenbach, with all the privileges attached to it, is an insoluble
mystery. He now called himself Baron von Frank, formed with his followers
from Moravia and Poland a brilliant establishment, which outwardly adhered
to the Roman Catholic church, although he very seldom attended the
Catholic services. Frank died in A.D. 1791, and was buried with great
pomp, but without the presence of the Catholic clergy. His daughter Eva
was able to maintain the extravagant establishment of her father for
twenty-six years, when the debt resting on the castle reached three
million florins. At last, in A.D. 1817, the long-threatened catastrophe
occurred. Eva died suddenly, and a coffin said to contain her body was
actually with all decorum laid in the grave.
§ 166. The Oriental Churches.
The oppressed condition of the orthodox church in the Ottoman empire
continued unchanged. It had a more vigorous development in Russia, where
its ascendency was unchallenged. Although the Russian church, from the
time of its obtaining an independent patriarchate at Moscow, in A.D. 1589,
was constitutionally emancipated from the mother church of Constantinople,
it yet continued in close religious affinity with it. This was intensified
by the adoption of the common confession, drawn up shortly before by Peter
Mogilas (§ 152, 3). The patriarchal constitution in Russia, however, was
but short-lived, for Peter I., in 1702, after the death of the Patriarch
Hadrian, abolished the patriarchate, arrogated to himself as emperor the
highest ecclesiastical office, and in A.D. 1721 constituted “the Holy
Synod,” to which, under the supervision of a procurator guarding the
rights of the state, he assigned the supreme direction of spiritual and
ecclesiastical affairs. To these proposals the Patriarch of Constantinople
gave his approval. In this reform of the church constitution Theophanes
Procopowicz, Metropolitan of Novgorod, was the emperor’s right hand.—The
monophysite church of Abyssinia was again during this period the scene of
Christological controversies.
1. _The Russian State Church._—From the time of the liturgical reformation
of the Patriarch Nikon (§ 163, 10) a new and peculiar service of song took
the place of the old unison style that had previously prevailed in the
Russian church. Without instrumental accompaniment, it was sustained
simply by powerful male voices, and was executed, at least in the chief
cities, with musical taste and charming simplicity. Among the
_theologians_, the above-named Procopowicz, who died in A.D. 1736,
occupied a prominent position. His “Handbook of Dogmatics,” without
departing from the doctrines of his church, is characterized by learning,
clearness of exposition, and moderation. From the middle of the century,
however, especially among the superior clergy, there crept in a Protestant
tendency, which indeed held quite firmly by the old theology of the
œcumenical synods of the Greek Church, but set aside or laid little stress
upon later doctrinal developments. Even the celebrated and widely used
catechism, drawn up originally for the use of the Grand-duke Paul
Petrovich, by his tutor, the learned Platón, afterwards Metropolitan of
Moscow, was not quite free from this tendency. It found yet more decided
expression in the dogmatic handbook of Theophylact, archimandrite of
Moscow, published in A.D. 1773.—Continuation, § 206, 1.
2. _Russian Sects._—To the sects of the seventeenth century (§ 163, 10)
are to be added spiritualistic gnostics of the eighteenth, in which we
find a blending of western ideas with the old oriental mysticism. Among
those were the _Malakanen_, or consumers of milk, because, in spite of the
orthodox prohibition, they used milk during the fasts. They rejected all
anointings, even chrism and priestly consecration, and acknowledged only
spiritual anointing by the doctrine of Christ. They also volatilized the
idea of baptism and the Lord’s supper into that of a merely spiritual
cleansing and nourishing by the word of the gospel. Otherwise they led a
quiet and honourable life. More important still in regard to numbers and
influence were the _Duchoborzen_. Although belonging exclusively to the
peasant class, they had a richly developed theological system of a
speculative character, with a notable blending of theosophy, mysticism,
Protestantism, and rationalism. They idealized the doctrine of the
sacraments after the style of the Quakers, would have no special places of
worship or an ordained clergy, refused to take oaths or engage in military
service, and led peaceable and useful lives. They made their first
appearance in Moscow in the beginning of the eighteenth century under
Peter the Great, and spread through other cities of Old
Russia.—Continuation, § 210, 3.
3. _The Abyssinian Church_ (§§ 64, 1; 73, 2).—About the middle of the
century a monk appeared, proclaiming that, besides the commonly admitted
twofold birth of Christ, the eternal generation of the Father and the
temporal birth of the Virgin Mary, there was a third birth through
anointing with the Holy Spirit in the baptism in Jordan. He thus convulsed
the whole Abyssinian church, which for centuries had been in a state of
spiritual lethargy. The _abuna_ with the majority of his church held by
the old doctrine, but the new also found many adherents. The split thus
occasioned has continued till the present time, and has played no
unimportant part in the politico-dynastic struggles of the last ten years
(§ 184, 9).
II. The Protestant Churches.
§ 167. The Lutheran Church before “the Illumination.”
By means of the founding of the University of Halle in A.D. 1694 a fresh
impulse was given to the pietist movement, and too often the whole German
Church was embroiled in violent party strifes, in which both sides failed
to keep the happy mean, and laid themselves open to the reproach of the
adversaries. Spener died in A.D. 1705, Francke in A.D. 1727, and
Breithaupt in A.D. 1732. After the loss of these leaders the Halle pietism
became more and more gross, narrow, unscientific, regardless of the Church
confession, frequently renouncing definite beliefs for hazy pious feeling,
and attaching undue importance to pious forms of expression and
methodistical modes of life. The conventionalism encouraged by it became a
very Pandora’s box of sectarianism and fanaticism (§ 170, 1). But it had
also set up a ferment in the church and in theology which created a
wholesome influence for many years. More than 6,000 theologians from all
parts of Germany had down to Francke’s death received their theological
training in Halle, and carried the leaven of his spirit into as many
churches and schools. A whole series of distinguished teachers of theology
now rose in almost all the Lutheran churches of the German states, who,
avoiding the onesidedness of the pietists and their opponents, taught and
preached pure doctrine and a pious life. From Calixt they had learnt to be
mild and fair towards the Reformed and Catholic churches, and by Spener
they had been roused to a genuine and hearty piety. Gottfried Arnold’s
protest, onesided as it was, had taught them to discover, even among
heretics and sectaries, partial and distorted truths; and from Calov and
Löscher they had inherited a zeal for pure doctrine. Most eminent among
these were Albert Bengel, of Württemberg, who died in A.D. 1752, and Chr.
Aug. Crusius of Leipzig, who died in A.D. 1775. But when the flood of “the
Illumination” came rushing in upon the German Lutheran Church about the
middle of the century, it overflowed even the fields sown by these noble
men.
1. _The Pietist Controversies after the Founding of the Halle University_
(§ 159, 3).—Pietism, condemned by the orthodox universities of Leipzig and
Wittenberg, was protected and encouraged in Halle. The crowds of students
flocking to this new seminary roused the wrath of the orthodox. The
Wittenberg faculty, with Deutschmann at its head, issued a manifesto in
A.D. 1695, charging Spener with no less than 264 errors in doctrine. Nor
were those of Leipzig silent, Carpzov going so far as to style the mild
and peace-loving Spener a _procella ecclesiæ_. Other leading opponents of
the pietists were Schelwig of Dantzig, Mayer of Wittenberg, and Fecht of
Rostock. When Spener died in A.D. 1705 his opponents gravely discussed
whether he could be thought of as in glory. Fecht of Rostock denied that
it could be. Among the later champions of pure doctrine the worthiest and
ablest was the learned Löscher, superintendent at Dresden, A.D. 1709-1747,
who at least cannot be reproached with dead orthodoxy. His “_Vollständiger
Timotheus Verinus_,” two vols., 1718, 1721, is by far the most important
controversial work against pietism.(54) Francis Buddeus of Jena for a long
time sought ineffectually to bring about a reconciliation between Löscher
and the pietists of Halle. In A.D. 1710 Francke and Breithaupt obtained a
valorous colleague in Joachim Lange; but even he was no match for Löscher
in controversy. Meanwhile pietism had more and more permeated the life of
the people, and occasioned in many places violent popular tumults. In
several states conventicles were forbidden; in others, _e.g._ Württemberg
and Denmark, they were allowed.
2. The orthodox regarded the pietists as a new sect, with dangerous errors
that threatened the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church; while the
pietists maintained that they held by pure Lutheran orthodoxy, and only
set aside its barren formalism and dead externalism for biblical practical
Christianity. The controversy gathered round the doctrines of the new
birth, justification, sanctification, the church, and the millennium.
(_a_) The new birth. The orthodox maintained that regeneration takes place
in baptism (§ 141, 13), every baptized person is regenerate; but the new
birth needs nursing, nourishment, and growth, and, where these are
wanting, reawakening. The pietists identified awakening or conversion with
regeneration, considered that it was effected in later life through the
word of God, mediated by a corporeal and spiritual penitential struggle,
and a consequent spiritual experience, and sealed by a sensible assurance
of God’s favour in the believer’s blessed consciousness. This inward
sealing marks the beginning, introduction into the condition of babes in
Christ. They distinguished a _theologia viatorum_, _i.e._ the symbolical
church doctrine, and a _theologia regenitorum_, which has to do with the
soul’s inner condition after the new birth. They have consequently been
charged with maintaining that a true Christian who has arrived at the
stage of spiritual manhood may and must in this life become free from
sin.—(_b_) Justification and Sanctification. In opposition to an only too
prevalent externalizing of the doctrine of justification, Spener has
taught that only living faith justifies, and if genuine must be operative,
though not meritorious. Only in faith proved to be living by a pious life
and active Christianity, but not in faith in the external and objective
promises of God’s word, lies the sure guarantee of justification obtained.
His opponents therefore accused him of confounding justification and
sanctification, and depreciating the former in favour of the latter. And,
though not by Spener, yet by many of his followers, justification was put
in the background, and in a onesided manner stress was laid upon practical
Christianity. Spener and Francke had expressly preached against worldly
dissipation and frivolity, and condemned dancing, the theatre,
card-playing, as detrimental to the progress of sanctification, and
therefore sinful; while the orthodox regarded them as matters of
indifference. Besides this, the pietists held the doctrine of a day of
grace, assigned to each one within the limit of his earthly life
(_terminism_).—(_c_) The Church and the Pastorate. Orthodoxy regarded word
and sacrament and the ministry which administered them as the basis and
foundation of the church; pietism held that the individual believers
determined the character and existence of the church. In the one case the
church was thought to beget, nurse, and nourish believers; in the other
believers, constituted, maintained, and renewed the church, accomplishing
this best by conventicles, in which living Christianity preserved itself
and diffused its influence abroad. The orthodox laid great stress upon
clerical ordination and the grace of office; pietists on the person and
his faith. Spener had taught that only he who has experienced in his own
heart the power of the gospel, _i.e._ he who has been born again, can be a
true preacher and pastor. Löscher maintained that the official acts of an
unconverted preacher, if only he be orthodox, may be blessed as well as
those of a converted man, because saving power lies not in the person of
the preacher, but in the word of God which he preaches, in its purity and
simplicity, and in the sacraments which he dispenses in accordance with
their institution. The pietists then went so far as absolutely to deny
that saving results could follow the preaching of an unconverted man. The
proclamation of forgiveness by the church without the inward sealing had
for them no meaning; yea, they regarded it as dangerous, because it
quieted conscience and made sinners secure. Hence they keenly opposed
private confession and churchly absolution. Of a special grace of office
they would know nothing: the true ordination is the new birth; each
regenerate one, and such a one only, is a true priest. The orthodox
insisted above all on pure doctrine and the church confession; the
pietists too regarded this as necessary, but not as the main thing. Spener
decidedly maintained the duty of accepting the church symbols; but later
pietists rejected them as man’s work, and so containing errors. Among the
orthodox, again, some went so far as to claim for their symbols absolute
immunity from error. Spener’s opposition to the compulsory use of fixed
Scripture portions, prescribed forms of prayer, and the exorcism formulary
occasioned the most violent contentions. On the other hand, his
reintroduction of the confirmation service before the first communion,
which had fallen into general desuetude, was imitated, and soon widely
prevailed, even among the orthodox.—(_d_) Eschatology. Spener had
interpreted the biblical doctrine of the 1,000 years’ reign as meaning
that, after the overthrow of the papacy and the conversion of heathens and
Jews, a period of the most glorious and undisturbed tranquillity would
dawn for the kingdom of Christ on earth as prelude to the eternal sabbath.
His opponents denounced this as chiliasm and fanaticism.—(_e_) There was,
finally, a controversy about Divine providence occasioned by the founding
of Francke’s orphan house at Halle. The pietists pointed to the
establishment and growth of this institution as an instance of immediate
divine providence; while Löscher, by indicating the common means employed
to secure success, reduced the whole affair to the domain of general and
daily providence, without denying the value of the strong faith in God and
the active love that characterized its founder, as well as the importance
of the Divine blessing which rested upon the work.(55)
3. _Theology_ (§ 159, 4).—The last two important representatives of the
_Old Orthodox School_ were _Löscher_, who, besides his polemic against
pietism, made learned contributions to biblical philology and church
history; and his companion in arms, _Cyprian_ of Gotha, who died in A.D.
1745, the ablest combatant of Arnold’s “_Ketzerhistorie_,” and opponent of
union efforts and of the papacy.—The _Pietist School_, more fruitful in
practical than scientific theology, contributed to devotional literature
many works that will never be forgotten. The learned and voluminous writer
_Joachim Lange_, who died A.D. 1744, the most skilful controversialist
among the Halle pietists, author of the “Halle Latin Grammar,” which
reached its sixtieth edition in A.D. 1809, published a commentary on the
whole Bible in seven folio vols. after the Cocceian method. Of importance
as a historian of the Reformation was _Salig_ of Wolfenbüttel, who died in
A.D. 1738. _Christian Thomasins_ at first attached himself to the pietists
as an opponent of the rigid adherence to the letter of the orthodox, but
was repudiated by them as an indifferentist. To him belongs the honour of
having turned public opinion against the persecution of witches (§ 117,
4). Out of the contentions of pietists and orthodox there now rose a
_third school_, in which Lutheran theology and learning were united with
genuine piety and profound thinking, decided confessionalism with
moderation and fairness. Its most distinguished representatives were
_Hollaz_ of Pomerania, died 1713 (“_Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum_”);
_Buddeus_ of Jena, died 1729 (“_Hist. Ecclst. V.T._,” “_Instit. Theol.
Dogma_,” “_Isagoge Hist. Theol. Univ._”); _J. Chr. Wolf_ of Homburg, died
1739 (“_Biblioth. Hebr._,” “_Curæ Philol. et Crit. in N.T._”); _Weismann_
of Tübingen, died 1747 (“_Hist. Ecclst._”); _Carpzov_ of Leipzig, died
A.D. 1767 as superintendent at Lübeck (“_Critica s. V.T._,” “_Introductio
ad Libros cen. V.T._,” “_Apparatus Antiquitt. s. Codicis_”); _J. H.
Michaelis_ of Halle, died 1731 (“_Biblia. Hebr. c. Variis Lectionibus et
Brev. Annott._,” “_Uberiores Annott. in Hagiograph._”); assisted in both
by his learned nephew _Chr. Ben. Michaelis_ of Halle, died 1764; _J. G.
Walch_ of Jena, died 1755 (“_Einl. in die Religionsstreitigkeiten_,”
“_Biblioth. Theol. Selecta_,” “_Biblioth. Patristica_,” “_Luther’s
Werke_”); _Chr. Meth. Pfaff_ of Tübingen, died 1760 (“_K. G., K. Recht,
Dogmatik, Moral_”); _L. von Mosheim_ of Helmstädt and Göttingen, died
1755, the father of modern church history (“_Institt. Hist. Ecclst._,”
“_Commentarii Rebus Christ. ante Constant. M._,” “_Dissertationes_,”
etc.); _J. Alb. Bengel_ of Stuttgart, died 1752 (“_Gnomon N.T._,” a
commentary on the N.T. distinguished by pregnancy of expression and
profundity of thought; from his interpretation of Revelation he expected
the millennium to begin in A.D. 1836); and _Chr. A. Crusius_ of Leipzig,
died 1775 (“_Hypomnemata ad Theol. Propheticam._”)—A _fourth_ theological
school arose out of the application of the mathematical method of
demonstration by the philosopher _Chr. von Wolff_ of Halle, who died A.D.
1754. Wolff attached himself to the philosophical system of Leibnitz, and
sought to unite philosophy and Christianity; but under the manipulation of
his logico-mathematical method of proof he took all vitality out of the
system, and the pre-established harmony of the world became a purely
mechanical clockwork. He looked merely to the logical accuracy of
Christian truths, without seeking to penetrate their inner meaning, gave
formal exercise to the understanding, while the heart was left empty and
cold; and thus inevitably revelation and mystery made way for a mere
natural theology. Hence the charge brought against the system of tending
to fatalism and atheism, not only by narrow pietists like Lange, but by
able and liberal theologians like Buddeus and Crusius, was quite
justifiable. By a cabinet order of Frederick William I. in A.D. 1723 Wolff
was deposed, and ordered within two days, on pain of death, to quit the
Prussian states. But so soon as Frederick II. ascended the throne, in A.D.
1740, he recalled the philosopher to Halle from Marburg, where he had
meanwhile taught with great success.(56) _Sig. Jac. Baumgarten_, the pious
and learned professor in Halle, who died in A.D. 1757, was the first to
introduce Wolff’s method into theology. In respect of contents his
theology occupies essentially the old orthodox ground. The ablest promoter
of the system was _John Carpov_ of Weimar, who died in A.D. 1768 (“_Theol.
Revelata Meth. Scientifica Adornata_”). When applied to sermons, the
Wolffian method led to the most extreme insipidity and absurdity.
4. _Unionist Efforts._—The distinguished theologian Chr. Matt. Pfaff,
chancellor of the University of Tübingen, who, without being numbered
among the pietists, recognised in pietism a wholesome reaction against the
barren worship of the letter which had characterized orthodoxy, regarded a
union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches on their common beliefs,
which in importance far exceeded the points of difference, as both
practicable and desirable; and in A.D. 1720 expressed this opinion in his
“_Alloquium Irenicum ad Protestantes_,” in which he answered the challenge
of the “_Corpus Evangelicorum_” at Regensburg (§ 153, 1). His proposal,
however, found little favour among Lutheran theologians. Not only Cyprian
of Gotha, but even such conciliatory theologians as Weismann of Tübingen
and Mosheim of Helmstädt, opposed it. But forty years later a Lutheran
theologian, Heumann of Göttingen, demonstrated that “the Reformed doctrine
of the supper is true,” and proposed, in order to end the schism, that
Lutherans should drop their doctrine of the supper and the Reformed their
doctrine of predestination. This pamphlet, edited after the author’s death
by Sack of Berlin, in A.D. 1764, produced a great sensation, and called
forth a multitude of replies on the Lutheran side, the best of which were
those of Walch of Jena and Ernesti of Leipzig. Even within the Lutheran
church, however, it found considerable favour.
5. _Theories of Ecclesiastical Law._—Of necessity during the first century
of the Protestant church its government was placed in the hands of the
princes, who, because there were no others to do so, dispensed the _jura
episcopalia_ as _præcipua membra ecclesiæ_. What was allowed at first in
the exigency of these times came gradually to be regarded as a legal
right. Orthodox theology and the juristic system associated with it,
especially that of Carpzov, justified this assumption in what is called
the _episcopal system_. This theory firmly maintains the mediæval
distinction between the spiritual and civil powers as two independent
spheres ordained of God; but it installs the prince as _summus episcopus_,
combining in his person the highest spiritual with the highest civil
authority. In lands, however, where more than one confession held sway, or
where a prince belonging to a different section of the church succeeded,
the practical difficulties of this theory became very apparent; as,
_e.g._, when a Reformed or Romish prince had to be regarded as _summus
episcopus_ of a Lutheran church. Driven thus to seek another basis for the
claims of royal supremacy, a new theory, that of the _territorial system_,
was devised, according to which the prince possessed highest
ecclesiastical authority, not as _præcipuum membrum ecclesiæ_, but as
sovereign ruler in the state. The headship of the church was therefore not
an independent prerogative over and above that of civil government, but an
inherent element in it: _cujus regio, illius et religio_. The historical
development of the German Reformation gave support to this theory (§ 126,
6), as seen in the proceedings of the Diet of Spires in A.D. 1526, in the
Augsburg and Westphalian Peace. A scientific basis was given it by
Puffendorf of Heidelberg, died A.D. 1694, in alliance with Hobbes (§ 163,
3). It was further developed and applied by Christian Thomasius of Halle,
died A.D. 1728, and by the famous J. H. Böhmer in his “_Jus Ecclesiasticum
Protestantium_.” Thomasius’ connexion with the pietists and his
indifference to confessions secured for the theory a favourable reception
in that party. Spener himself indeed preferred the Calvinistic
presbyterial constitution, because only in it could equality be given to
all the three orders, _ministerium ecclesiasticum_, _magistratus
politicus_, _status œconomicus_. This protest by Spener against the two
systems was certainly not without influence upon the construction of a
third theory, the _collegial system_, proposed by Pfaff of Tübingen, died
A.D. 1760. According to this scheme there belonged to the sovereign as
such only the headship of the church, _jus circa sacra_, while the _jura
in sacra_, matters pertaining to doctrine, worship, ecclesiastical law and
its administration, installation of clergy, and excommunication, as _jura
collegialia_, belonged to the whole body of church members. The normal
constitution therefore required the collective vote of all the members
through their synods. But outward circumstances during the Reformation age
had necessitated the relegating the discharge of these collegial rights to
the princes, which in itself was not unallowable, if only the position be
maintained that the prince acts _ex commisso_, and is under obligation to
render an account to those who have commissioned him. This system, on
account of its democratic character, found hearty supporters among the
later rationalists. But as a matter of fact nowhere was any of the three
systems consistently carried out. The constitution adopted in most of the
national churches was a weak vacillation between all the three.(57)
6. _Church Song_ (§ 159, 3) received, during the first half of the
century, many valuable contributions. Two main groups of singers may be
distinguished: (1) The pietistic school, characterized by a biblical and
practical tendency. The spiritual life of believers, the work of grace in
conversion, growth in holiness, the varying conditions and experiences of
the religious life, were favourite themes. They were fitted, not so much
for use in the public services, as for private devotion, and few
comparatively have been retained in collections of church hymns. The later
productions of this school sank more and more into sentimentalism and
allegorical and fanciful play of words. We may distinguish among the Halle
pietists an older school, A.D. 1690-1720, and a younger, A.D. 1720-1750.
The former, coloured by the fervent piety of Francke, produced simple,
hearty, and often profound songs. The most distinguished representatives
were _Freylinghausen_, died A.D. 1739, Francke’s son-in-law, and director
of the Halle Orphanage, editor in A.D. 1717 of a hymn-book widely used
among the pietists, was author of the hymns “Pure Essence, spotless Fount
of Light,” “The day expires”; _Chr. Fr. Richter_, physician to the
Orphanage, died A.D. 1711, author of thirty-three beautiful hymns,
including “God, whom I as Love have known”; _Emilia Juliana_, Countess of
Schwarzburg Rudolstadt, died A.D. 1706, who wrote 586 hymns, including
“Who knows how near my end may be?” _Schröder_, pastor in Magdeburg, died
A.D. 1728, wrote “One thing is needful: Let me deem”; _Winckler_,
cathedral preacher of Magdeburg, died A.D. 1722, author of “Strive, when
thou art called of God”; _Dessler_, rector of Nuremburg, died A.D. 1722,
composer of “I will not let Thee go, Thou help in time of need,” “O Friend
of souls, how well is me;” _Gotter_, died A.D. 1735, who wrote, “O Cross,
we hail thy bitter reign”; _Cresselius_, pastor in Dusseldorf, author of
“Awake, O man, and from thee shake.” The younger Halle school represents
pietism in its period of decay. Its best representatives are _J. J.
Rambach_, professor at Giessen, died A.D. 1735, who wrote “I am baptized
into thy name”; _Allendorf_, court preacher at Cöthen, died A.D. 1773,
editor of a collection of poetic renderings from the Canticles.—(2) The
poets of the orthodox party, although opposed to the pietists, are all
more or less touched by the fervent piety of Spener. _Neumeister_, pastor
at Hamburg, died A.D. 1756, was an orthodox hymn-writer of thoroughly
conservative tendencies, zealously opposing the onesidedness of pietism,
with a strong, ardent faith in the orthodox creed, but without much
significance as a poet. _Schmolck_, pastor at Schweidnitz, died A.D. 1737,
wrote over 1,000 hymns, including “Blessed Jesus, here we stand,” “Hosanna
to the Son of David! Raise,” “Welcome, thou Victor in the strife.” _Sol.
Franck_, secretary to the consistory at Weimar, died A.D. 1725, wrote over
300 hymns, including “Rest of the weary, thou thyself art resting now.”
The mediating party between pietism and orthodoxy, represented by Bengel
and Crusius in theology, is represented among hymn-writers by _J. Andr.
Rothe_, died A.D. 1758, and by _Mentzer_, died A.D. 1784, composer of “Oh,
would I had a thousand tongues!” In A.D. 1750 J. Jac. von Moser collected
a list of 50,000 spiritual songs printed in the German
language.—Continuation, § 171, 1.
7. _Sacred Music (_§ 159, 5_)._—Decadence of musical taste accompanied the
lowering of the poetic standard, and pietists went even further than the
orthodox in their imitation and adaptation of operatic airs.
_Freylinghausen_, not only himself composed many such melodies, but made a
collection from various sources in A.D. 1704, retaining some of the more
popular of the older tunes.—There now arose, amid all this depravation of
taste, a noble musician, who, like the good householder, could bring out
of his treasure things new and old. _J. Seb. Bach_, the most perfect
organist who ever lived, was musical director of the School of St. Thomas,
Leipzig, and died A.D. 1750. He turned enthusiastically to the old
chorale, which no one had ever understood and appreciated as he did. He
harmonized the old chorales for the organ, made them the basis for
elaborate organ studies, gave expression to his profoundest feelings in
his musical compositions and in his recitatives, duets, and airs,
reproduced at the sacred concerts many fine old chorales wedded to most
appropriate Scripture passages. He is for all times the unrivalled master
in fugue, harmony, and modulation. In his passion music we have expression
given to the profoundest ideas of German Protestantism in the noblest
music. After Bach comes a master in oratorio music hitherto unapproached,
_G. Fr. Handel_ of Halle, who, from A.D. 1710 till his death in A.D. 1759,
lived mostly in England. For twenty-five years he wrought for the
opera-house, and only in his later years gave himself to the composing of
oratorios. His operas are forgotten, but his oratorios will endure to the
end of time. His most perfect work is the “Messiah,” which Herder
describes as a Christian epic in music. Of his other great compositions,
“Samson,” “Judas Maccabæus,” and “Jephtha” may be mentioned.(58)
8. _The Christian Life and Devotional Literature._—Pietism led to a
powerful revival of religious life among the people, which it sustained by
zealous preaching and the publication of devotional works. A similar
activity displayed itself among the orthodox. Francke began his charitable
labours with seven florins; but with undaunted faith he started his
Orphanage, writing over its door the words of Isaiah xl. 31. In faith and
benevolence Woltersdorff was a worthy successor of Francke; and Baron von
Canstein applied his whole means to the founding of the Bible Institute of
Halle. Missions too were now prosecuted with a zeal and success which
witnessed to the new life that had arisen in the Lutheran church.—A
remarkable manifestation of the pietistic spirit of this age is seen in
_The Praying Children in Silesia_, A.D. 1707. Children of four years old
and upward gathered in open fields for singing and prayer, and called for
the restoration of churches taken away by the Catholics. The movement
spread over the whole land. In vain was it denounced from the pulpits and
forbidden by the authorities. Opposition only excited more and more the
zeal of the children. At last the churches were opened for their services.
The excitement then gradually subsided. It was, however, long a subject of
discussion between the pietists and the orthodox; the latter denouncing it
as the work of the devil, the former regarding it as a wonderful awakening
of God’s grace.—Best remembered of the many devotional writers of this
period are Bogatsky of Halle, died A.D. 1774, whose “Golden Treasury” is
still highly esteemed;(59) and Von Moser, died A.D. 1785, who lived a
noble and exemplary life at Stuttgart amid much sore persecution. The
great need of simple explanation of Scripture appears from the great sale
of such popular commentaries as those of Pfaff at Tübingen, 1730, Starke
at Leipzig, 1741, and the Halle Bible of S. J. Baumgarten, 1748.
9. _Missions to the Heathen._—The quickening of religious life by pietism
bore fruit in new missionary activity. Frederick IV. of Denmark founded in
his East Indian possessions the Tranquebar mission in A.D. 1706, under
Ziegenbalg and Plutschau. Ziegenbalg, who translated the New Testament
into Tamil, died in A.D. 1719. From the Danish possessions this mission
carried its work over into the English Indian territories. Able and
zealous workers were sent out from the Halle Institute, of whom the
greatest was Chr. Fr. Schwartz, who died in A.D. 1798, after nearly fifty
years of noble service in the mission field. In the last quarter of the
century, however, under the influence of rationalism, zeal for missions
declined, the Halle society broke up, and the English were allowed to reap
the harvest sown by the Lutherans. The Halle professor Callenberg founded
in A.D. 1728 a society for the conversion of the Jews, in the interests of
which Stephen Schultz travelled over Europe, Asia, and Africa, preaching
the Cross among the Jews. Christianity had been introduced among the
Eskimos in Greenland in the eleventh century (§ 93, 5), but the
Scandinavian colony there had been forgotten, and no trace of the religion
which it had taught any longer remained. This reproach to Christianity lay
sore on the heart of Hans Egede, a Norwegian pastor, and he found no rest
till, supported by a Danish-Norwegian trading house, he sailed with his
family in A.D. 1721 for these frozen and inhospitable shores. Amid almost
inconceivable hardships, and with at first but little success, he
continued to labour unweariedly, and even after the trading company
abandoned the field he remained. In A.D. 1733 he had the unexpected joy of
welcoming three Moravian missionaries, Christian David and the brothers
Stach. His joy was too soon dashed by the spiritual pride of the new
arrivals, who insisted on modelling everything after their own Moravian
principles, and separated themselves from the noble Egede, when he refused
to yield, as an unspiritual and unconverted man. Egede, on the other hand,
though deeply offended at their confounding justification and
sanctification, their contempt of pure doctrine, and their unscriptural
views and mode of speech, was ready to attribute all this to their
defective theological training. He rewarded their unkindness, when they
were stricken down in sore sickness, with unwearied, loving care. In A.D.
1736 he returned to Denmark, leaving his son Paul to carry on his work,
and continued director of the Greenland Mission Seminary in Copenhagen
till his death in A.D. 1758.(60)—Continuation, § 171, 5.
§ 168. The Church of the Moravian Brethren.(61)
The highly gifted Count Zinzendorf, inspired even as a boy, out of fervent
love to the Saviour, with the idea of gathering together the lovers of
Jesus, took occasion of the visit of some Moravian Exultants to his estate
to realize his cherished project. On the Hutberg he dropped the mustard
seed of the dream of his youth into fertile soil, where, under his fervent
care, it soon grew into a stately tree, whose branches spread over all
European lands, and thence through all parts of the habitable globe. The
society which he founded was called “The Society of the United Brethren.”
The fact that this society was not overwhelmed by the extravagances to
which for a time it gave way, that its fraternising with the fanatics, the
extravagant talk in which its members indulged about a special covenant
with the Saviour, and their not over-modest claims to a peculiar rank in
the kingdom of God, did not lead to its utter overthrow in the abyss of
fanaticism, and that on the slippery paths of its mystical marriage theory
it was able to keep its feet, presents a phenomenon, which stands alone in
church history, and more than anything else proves how deeply rooted
founder and followers were in the saving truths of the gospel. The count
himself laid aside many of his extravagances, and what still remained was
abandoned by his sensible and prudent successor Spangenberg, so far as it
was not necessarily involved in the fundamental idea of a special covenant
with the Saviour. The special service rendered by the society was the
protest which it raised against the generally prevailing apostasy. During
this period of declension it saved the faith of many pious souls,
affording them a welcome refuge, with rich spiritual nourishment and
nurture. With the reawakening of the religious life in the nineteenth
century, however, its adherents lost ground in Europe more and more, by
maintaining their old onesidedness in life and doctrine, their
depreciatory estimate of theological science, and the quarrelsome spirit
which they generally manifested. But in one province, that of missions to
the heathen, their energy and success have never yet been equalled. Their
thorough and well-organized system of education also deserves particular
mention. At present the Society of the Brethren numbers half a million,
distributed among 100 settlements or thereabout.
1. _The Founder of the Moravian Brotherhood_, Nic. Ludwig Count von
_Zinzendorf_ and Pottendorf, was born in Dresden in A.D. 1700. Spener was
one of his sponsors at baptism. His father dying early, and his mother
marrying a second time, the boy, richly endowed with gifts of head and
heart, was brought up by his godly pietistic grandmother, the Baroness von
Gersdorf. There in his earliest youth he learned to seek his happiness in
the closest personal fellowship with the Lord, and the tendency of his
whole future life to yield to the impulses of pious feeling already began
to assert itself. In his tenth year he entered the Halle Institute under
Francke, where the pietistic idea of the need of the _ecclesiolæ in
ecclesia_ took firm possession of his heart. Even in his fifteenth year he
sought its realization by founding among his fellow students “The Order of
the Grain of Mustard Seed” (Matt. xiii. 31). After completing his school
course, his uncle and guardian, in order to put an end to his pietistic
extravagances, sent him to study law at the orthodox University of
Wittenberg. Here he had at first to suffer a sort of martyrdom as a rigid
pietist swimming against the orthodox current. His residence at
Wittenberg, however, was beneficial to him in freeing him unconsciously of
the Halle pietism, which had restrained his spiritual development. He did
indeed firmly maintain the fundamental idea of pietism, _ecclesiolæ in
ecclesia_, but in his mind it gained a wider significance than pietism had
given it. His endeavours to secure a personal conference, and where
possible a union, between the Halle and Wittenberg leaders were
unsuccessful. In A.D. 1719 he left Wittenberg and travelled for two years,
visiting the most distinguished representatives of all confessions and
sects. This too fostered his idea of a grand gathering of all who love the
Lord Jesus. On his return home, in A.D. 1721, at the wish of his relatives
he entered the service of the Saxon government. But a religious genius
like Zinzendorf could find no satisfaction in such employment. And soon an
opportunity presented itself for carrying out the plan to which his
thoughts and longings were directed.(62)
2. _The Founding of the Brotherhood_, A.D. 1722-1727. The Schmalcald, and
still more the Thirty Years’ War, had brought frightful suffering and
persecution upon the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren. Many of them sought
refuge in Poland and Prussia. One of the refugees was the famous
educationist J. Amos Comenius, who died in A.D. 1671, after having been
bishop of the Moravians at Lissa in Posen from 1648. Those who remained
behind were, even after the Peace of Westphalia, subjected to the
cruellest oppression! Only secretly in their houses and at the risk of
their lives could they worship God according to the faith of their
fathers; and they were obliged publicly to profess their adherence to the
Romish church. Thus gradually the light of the gospel was extinguished in
the homes of their descendants, and only a tradition, becoming ever more
and more faint, remained as a memory of their ancestral faith. A Moravian
carpenter, Christian David, born and reared in the Romish church, but
converted by evangelical preaching, succeeded in the beginning of the
eighteenth century in fanning into a flame again in some families the
light that had been quenched. This little band of believers, under David’s
leading, went forth in A.D. 1722 and sought refuge on Zinzendorf’s estate
in Lusatia. The count was then absent, but the steward, with the hearty
concurrence of the count’s grandmother, gave them the Hutberg at
Berthelsdorf as a settlement. With the words of Psalm lxxxiv. 4 on his
lips, Christian David struck the axe into the tree for building the first
house. Soon the little town of Herrnhut had arisen, as the centre of that
Christian society which Zinzendorf now sought with all his heart and
strength to develop and promote. Gradually other Moravians dropped in, but
a yet greater number from far and near streamed in, of all sorts of
religious revivalists, pietists, separatists, followers of Schwenckfeld,
etc. Zinzendorf had no thought of separation from the Lutheran church. The
settlers were therefore put under the pastoral care of Rothe, the worthy
pastor of Berthelsdorf (§ 166, 6). To organize such a mixed multitude was
no easy task. Only Zinzendorf’s glorious enthusiasm for the idea of a
congregation of saints, his eminent organizing talents, the wonderful
elasticity and tenacity of his will, the extraordinary prudence,
circumspection, and wisdom of his management, made it possible to cement
the incongruous elements and avoid an open breach. The Moravians insisted
upon restoring their old constitution and discipline, and of the others,
each wished to have prominence given to whatever he thought specially
important. Only on one point were they all agreed, the duty of refusing to
conform to the Lutheran church and its pastor Rothe. The count, therefore,
felt obliged to form a new and separatist society. Personally he had no
special liking for the old Moravian constitution; but the lot decided in
its favour, while the idea of continuing a pre-Reformation martyr church
was not without a certain charm. Thus Zinzendorf drew up a constitution
with old Moravian forms and names, on the basis of which the colony was
established, August 13th, A.D. 1727, under the name of the United
Brotherhood.
3. _The Development of the Brotherhood down to Zinzendorf’s Death_, A.D.
1727-1760.—With great energy the new society proceeded to found
settlements in Germany, Holland, England, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, and
North America, as well as among German residents in other lands. In A.D.
1734, Zinzendorf submitted to examination at Tübingen as candidate for
license, and in A.D. 1737 received episcopal consecration from the Berlin
court preacher, Jablonsky, who was at the same time bishop of the Moravian
Brethren, which the same prelate had two years previously granted to Dr.
Nitschmann, another member of the society. The efforts of the Brethren to
spread their cause now attracted attention. The Saxon government in A.D.
1736 sent to Herrnhut a commission, of which Löscher was a member. But in
A.D. 1736, before it submitted its report, which on the whole was
favourable, Zinzendorf quitted the country, probably by the elector’s
command at the instigation of the Austrian government, which objected to
the harbouring of so many Bohemian and Moravian emigrants. Like all those
at this time persecuted on account of religion he took refuge in Wetterau
(§ 170, 2). With his little family of pilgrims he settled at Ronneburg
near Büdingen, founded the prosperous churches of Marienborn and
Herrnhaag, and travelled extensively in Europe and America. This period of
exile was the period when the society was most successful in spreading
outwardly, but it was also the period when it suffered most from troubles
and dissensions within. It was bitterly attacked by Lutheran theologians,
and much more venomously by apostates from its own fold. The Brethren at
this time afforded only too much ground for misunderstanding and reproach.
To this period belongs the famous fiction of a special covenant, the
Pandora-box of all other absurdities; the development of the count’s own
theological views and peculiar form of expression in his numerous works;
the composition and introduction of unsavoury spiritual songs, with their
silly conceits and many blasphemous and even obscene pictures and
analogies; the market-crier laudations of their church, the not always
pure methods of propaganda, the introduction of a marriage discipline
fitted to break down all modest restraints; and, finally, the so-called
_Niedlichkeiten_, or boisterous festivals. Even the pietists opposed these
antinomian excesses. Tersteegen, too (§ 169, 1), whose mystic tendency
inclined him strongly toward pietist views, reproached the Herrnhuters
with frivolity. This polemic, disagreeable as it was, exercised a
wholesome influence upon the society. The count became more guarded in his
language, and more prudent in his behaviour, while he set aside the most
objectionable excrescences of doctrine and practice that had begun to show
themselves in the community. At last, in A.D. 1747, the Saxon government
repeated the edict of banishment so far as the person of the founder was
concerned, and when, two years later, the society expressly accepted the
Augsburg Confession, it was formally recognised in Saxony. In this same
year, A.D. 1749, an English act of parliament recognised it as a church
with a pure episcopal succession on equal terms with the Anglican
episcopal church.—Zinzendorf continued down to his death to direct the
affairs of this church, which hung upon him with childlike affection,
reflecting his personality, not only in its excellences, but also in all
its extravagances. He died in A.D. 1760 in the full enjoyment of that
blessedness which his fervent love for the Saviour had brought him.
4. _Zinzendorf’s Plan and Work._—While Zinzendorf received his first
impulse from pietism, he soon perceived its onesidedness and narrowness.
He would have no conventicle, but one organized community; no ideal
invisible, but a real visible church; no narrow methodism, but a rich,
free administration of the Christian spirit. He did not, in the first
instance, aim at the conversion of the world, nor even at the reformation
of the church, but at gathering and preserving those belonging to the
Saviour. He hoped, however, to erect a reservoir in which he might collect
every little brooklet of living water, from which he might again water the
whole world. And when he succeeded in organizing a community, he was quite
convinced that it was the Philadelphia of the Apocalypse (iii. 7 ff.),
that it introduced “the Philadelphian period” of church history, of which
all prophets and apostles had prophesied. His plan had originally
reference to all Christendom, and he even took a step toward realizing
this universal idea. In order to build a bridge between the Catholic
church and his own community, he issued, in A.D. 1727, a Christo-Catholic
hymn-book and prayer-book, and had even sketched out a letter to the pope
to accompany a copy of his book. He also attempted, by a letter to the
patriarchs and then to Elizabeth, empress of Russia, to interest the Greek
church in his scheme, dwelling upon the Greek extraction of the church of
the Moravian Brethren (§ 79, 2). His gathering of members, however, was
practically limited to the Protestant churches. All confessions and sects
afforded him contingents. He was himself heartily attached to the
distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran church. But in a society whose
distinctive characteristic it was to be the gathering point for the pious
of all nationalities, doctrine and confession could not be the uniting
bond. It could be only a fellowship of love and not of creed, and the bond
a community of loving sentiment and loving deeds. The inmost principle of
Lutheranism, reconciliation by the blood of Christ, was saved, indeed was
made the characteristic and vital doctrine, the one point of union between
Moravians, Lutherans, and Reformed. Over the three parties stood the count
himself as _ordinarius_; but this gave an external and not a confessional
unity. The subsequent acceptance of the Augsburg Confession, in A.D. 1749,
was a political act, so as to receive a civil status, and had otherwise no
influence. Instead then of the confession, Zinzendorf made the
_constitution_ the bond of union. Its forms were borrowed from the old
Moravian church order, but dominated and inspired by Zinzendorf’s own
spirit. The old Moravian constitution was episcopal and clerical, and
proceeded from the idea of the church; while the new constitution of
Herrnhut was essentially presbyterial, and proceeded from the idea of the
community, and that as a communion of saints. The Herrnhut bishops were
only titular bishops; they had no diocese, no jurisdiction, no power of
excommunication. All these prerogatives belonged to the united eldership,
in which the lay element was distinctly predominant. Herrnhut had no
pastors, but only preaching brothers; the pastoral care devolved upon the
elders and their assistants. But beside these half-Lutheran and
pseudo-Moravian peculiarities, there was also a Donatist element at the
basis of the constitution. This lay in the fundamental idea of absolutely
true and pure children of God, and reached full expression in the
concluding of a _special covenant_ with the Saviour at London on Sept.
16th, A.D. 1741. Leonard Dober for some years administered the office of
an elder-general. But at the London synod it was declared that he had not
the requisite gifts for that office. Dober now wished to resign. While in
confusion as to whom they could appoint, it flashed into the minds of all
to appoint the Saviour Himself. “Our feeling and heart conviction was,
that He made a special covenant with His little flock, taking us as His
peculiar treasure, watching over us in a special way, personally
interesting Himself in every member of our community, and doing that for
us perfectly which our previous elders could only do imperfectly.”
5. Among the _numerous extravagances_ which Zinzendorf countenanced for a
time, the following may be mentioned. (1) The notion of the motherhood of
the Holy Spirit. Zinzendorf described the holy Trinity as “man, woman, and
child.” The Spirit is the mother in three respects: the eternal generation
of the Son of God, the conception of the Man Jesus, and the second birth
of believers. (2) The notion of the fatherhood of Jesus Christ (Isa. ix.
6). Creation is ascribed solely to the Son, hence Christ is our special,
direct Father. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is only, “in the
language of men, our father-in-law or grandfather.” (3) In reference to
our Lord’s life on earth, Zinzendorf delighted in using terms of contempt,
in order to emphasize the depths of His humiliation. (4) In like manner he
uses reproachful terms in speaking of the style of the sacred Scriptures,
and the inspired community prefers a living Bible. (5) The theory and
practice of mystical marriage, according to Ephesians v. 32. The community
and each member of it are spiritual brides of Christ, and the marriage
relation and begetting of children were set forth and spiritualized in a
singularly indelicate manner.
6. _Zinzendorf’s greatness_ lay in the fervency of his love of the
Saviour, and in the yearning desire to gather under the shadow of the
cross all who loved the Lord. His weakness consisted not so much in his
manifested extravagances, as in his idea that he had been called to found
a society. To the realizing of this idea he gave his life, talents, heart,
and means. The advantages of rank and culture he also gave to this one
task. He was personally convinced of his Divine call, and as he did not
recognise the authority of the written word, but only subjective
impressions, it is easily seen how he would drift into absurdities and
inconsistencies. The end contemplated seemed to him supremely important,
so that to realize it he did not scruple to depart from strict
truthfulness.—Zinzendorf’s writings, over one hundred in number, are
characterized by originality, brilliancy, and peculiar forms of
expression. Of his 2,000 hymns, mostly improvised for public services, 700
of the best were revised and published by Knapp. Two are still found in
most collections, and are more or less reproduced in our English hymns,
“Jesus still lead on,” and “Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness.”
7. _The Brotherhood under Spangenberg’s Administration._—For its present
form the Brotherhood is indebted to its wise and sensible bishop, _Aug.
Gottl. Spangenberg_, who died A.D. 1792. Born in 1704, he became
personally acquainted with Zinzendorf in 1727, after he had completed his
studies at Jena under Buddæus, and continued ever after on terms of close
intimacy with him and his community. Through the good offices of G. A.
Francke, son and successor of A. H. Francke, he was called in Sept., 1732,
to the office of an assistantship in the theological faculty at Halle, and
appointed school inspector of the Orphanage; but very soon offence was
taken at the brotherly fellowship which he had, not only with the society
of Herrnhut, but also with other separatists. The misunderstanding that
thus arose led in April, 1733, to his deprivation under a royal cabinet
order, and his expulsion by military power from Halle. He now formally
joined the communion of the Brethren. The first half of his signally
blessed ministry of sixty years among the Moravians was chiefly devoted to
foreign mission work, both in their colonies abroad and in their stations
in heathen lands. In Holland in 1734, in England and Denmark in 1735, he
obtained official permission for the founding of Moravian colonies in
Surinam, in the American state of Georgia, and in Santa Cruz, the forming
and management of which he himself undertook, besides directing the
mission work in these places. Returning from America in 1762, he won,
after Zinzendorf’s death, so complete an ascendency in the church in every
respect, that he may well be regarded as its second founder. At the Synod
of Marienborn, in A.D. 1764, the constitution was revised and perfected.
Zinzendorf’s monarchical prerogative was surrendered to the eldership, and
Spangenberg prudently secured the withdrawal of all excrescences and
extravagances. But the central idea of a special covenant was not touched,
and Sept. 16th is still held as a grand pentecost festival. In the fifth
section of the statutes of the United Brethren at Gnaden, 1819, it
distinguishes itself from all the churches as a “society of true children
of God; as a family of God, with Jesus as its head.” In the fourth section
of the “Historical Account of the Constitution of the United Brethren at
Gnaden, 1823,” the society is described as “a company of living members of
the invisible body of Jesus Christ”; and in its litany for Easter morning,
it adds as a fourth particular to the article of the creed: “I believe
that our brothers _N. N._, and our sisters _N. N._ have joined the church
above, and have entered into the joy of the Lord.” The synod of A.D. 1848
modified this article, and generally the society’s distinctive views are
not made so prominent. This liberal tendency had dogmatic expression given
to it in Spangenberg’s “_Idea Fidei Fratrum_.” Only a few new settlements
have been formed since Zinzendorf’s death, and none of any importance;
while the hitherto flourishing Moravian settlements in Wetterau were
destroyed and their members banished, in A.D. 1750, by the reigning
prince, Count von Isenburg-Büdingen, on account of their refusing to take
the oath of allegiance.—After the first attempt to establish societies
among the German emigrants in Livonia and Esthonia in A.D. 1729-1743 had
ended in the expulsion of the Herrnhuters, these regions proved in the
second half of the century a more fruitful field than any other. They
secured there a relation to the national church such as they never
attained unto elsewhere. They had in these parts formally organized a
church within the church, whose members, mostly peasants, felt convinced
that they had been called by the Lord’s own voice as His chosen little
flock, a proceeding which caused infinite trouble, especially in Livonia,
to the faithful pastors, who perceived the deadly mischief that was being
wrought, and witnessed against them from God’s word. This protest was too
powerful and convincing to be disregarded, and now, not only too late, but
also in too half-hearted a way, Herrnhut began, in A.D. 1857, to turn
back, so as to save its Livonian institute by inward regeneration from
certain overthrow.
8. _The doctrinal peculiarities of the Brotherhood_ cannot be quite
correctly described as un-Lutheran, or anti-Lutheran. Bengel smartly
characterized them in a single phrase: “They plucked up the stock of sound
doctrine, stripped oft what was most essential and vital, and retained the
half of it,” which not only then, but even still retains its truth and
worth. Salvation is regarded as proceeding purely from the Son, the
God-Man, so that the relation of the Father and of the Holy Spirit to
redemption is scarcely even nominal; and the redemption of the God-Man
again is viewed one-sidedly as consisting only in His sufferings and
death, while the other side, that is grounded on His life and
resurrection, is either carefully passed over, or its fruit is represented
as borrowed from the atoning death. Thus not only justification, but
sanctification is derived exclusively from the death of Christ, and this,
not so much as a forensic substitutionary satisfaction, although that is
not expressly denied, but rather as a Divine love-sacrifice which awakens
an answering love in us. The whole of redemption is viewed as issuing from
Christ’s blood and wounds; and since from this mode of viewing the subject
God’s grace and love are made prominent rather than His righteousness, we
hear almost exclusively of the gospel, and little or nothing of the law.
All preaching and teaching were avowedly directed to the awakening of
pious feelings of love to God, and thus tended to foster a kind of
religious sentimentalism.
9. _The peculiarities of worship among the Brethren_ were also directed to
the excitement of pious feeling; their sensuously sweet sacred music,
their church hymns, overcharged with emotion, their richly developed
liturgies, their restoration of the _agape_ with tea, biscuit, and
chorale-singing, the fraternal kiss at communion, in their earlier days
also washing of the feet, etc. The daily watchword from the O.T. and
doctrinal texts from the N.T. were regarded as oracles, and were intended
to give a special impress to the religious feelings of the day. As early
as A.D. 1727 they had a hymn-book containing 972 hymns. Most of these were
compositions of their own, a true reflection of their religious sentiments
at that period. It also contained Bohemian and Moravian hymns, translated
by Mich. Weiss, and also many old favourites of the evangelical church,
often sadly mutilated. By A.D. 1749 it had received twelve appendices and
four supplements. In these appendices, especially in the twelfth, the
one-sided tendency to give prominence to feeling was carried to the most
absurd lengths of caricature in the use of offensive and silly terms of
endearment as applied to the Saviour. Zinzendorf admitted the defects of
this production, and had it suppressed in 1751, and in London prepared a
new, expurgated edition of the hymn-book. Under Spangenberg’s presidency
Christian Gregor issued, in A.D. 1778, a hymn-book, containing 542 from
Zinzendorf’s book and 308 of his own pious rhymes. He also published a
chorale book in A.D. 1784. Among their sacred poets Zinzendorf stands
easily first. His only son, Christian Renatus, who died A.D. 1752, left
behind him a number of sacred songs. Their hymns were usually set to the
melodies of the Halle pietists.
10. In regard to the _Christian life_, the Brotherhood withdrew from
politics and society, adopted stereotyped forms of speech and peculiar
usages, even in their dress. They sought to live undisturbed by
controversy, in personal communion with the Saviour. Their separatism as a
covenanted people may be excused in view of the unbelief prevailing in the
Protestant church, but it has not been overcome by the reawakening of
spiritual life in the Church. As to their _ecclesiastical constitution_,
Christ Himself, as the Chief Elder of the church, should have in it the
direct government. The leaders, founding upon Proverbs xvi. 33 and Acts i.
26, held that fit expression was given to this principle by the use of the
lot; but soon opposition to this practice arose, and with its abandonment
the “special covenant” theory lost all its significance. The lot was used
in election of office-bearers, sending of missionaries, admission to
membership, etc. But in regard to marriage, it was used only by consent of
the candidates for marriage, and an adverse result was not enforced. The
administration of the affairs of the society lay with the conference of
the united elders. From time to time general synods with legislative power
were summoned. The membership was divided into groups of married, widowed,
bachelors, maidens, and children, with special duties, separate
residences, and also special religious services in addition to those
common to all. The church officers were bishops, presbyters, deacons,
deaconesses, and acolytes.
11. _Missions to the Heathen._—Zinzendorf’s meeting with a West Indian
negro in Copenhagen awakened in him at an early period the missionary
zeal. He laid the matter before the church, and in A.D. 1732 the first
Herrnhut missionaries, Dober and Nitschmann, went out to St. Thomas, and
in the following year missions were established in Greenland, North
America, almost all the West Indian islands, South America, among the
Hottentots at the Cape, the East Indies, among the Eskimos of Labrador,
etc. Their missionary enterprise forms the most brilliant and attractive
part of the history of the Moravians. Their procedure was admirably suited
to uncultured races, and only for such. In the East Indies, therefore,
they were unsuccessful. They were never wanting in self-denying
missionaries, who resigned all from love to the Saviour. They were mostly
pious, capable artisans, who threw themselves with all their hearts into
their new work, and devoted themselves with affectionate tenderness to the
advancement of the bodily and spiritual interests of those among whom they
laboured. One of the noblest of them all was the missionary patriarch
Zeisberger, who died in A.D. 1808, after toiling among the North American
Indians for sixty-three years. These missions were conducted at a
surprisingly small outlay. The Brethren also interested themselves in the
conversion of the Jews. In A.D. 1738 Dober wrought among the Jews of
Amsterdam; and with greater success in A.D. 1739, Lieberkühn, who also
visited the Jews in England and Bohemia, and was honoured by them with the
title of “rabbi.”(63)
§ 169. The Reformed Church before the “Illumination.”
The sharpness of the contest between Calvinism and Lutheranism was
moderated on both sides. The union efforts prosecuted during the first
decades of the century in Germany and Switzerland were always defeated by
Lutheran opposition. In the Dutch and German Reformed Churches, even
during the eighteenth century, Cocceianism was still in high repute. After
it had modified strict Calvinism, the opposition between Reformed
orthodoxy and Arminian heterodoxy became less pronounced, and more and
more Arminian tendencies found their way into Reformed theology. What
pietism and Moravianism were for the Lutheran church of Germany, Methodism
was, in a much greater measure, and with a more enduring influence, for
the episcopal church of England.
1. _The German Reformed Church._—The Brandenburg dynasty made unwearied
efforts to effect a union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches
throughout their territories (§ 154, 4). Frederick I. (III.) instituted
for this purpose in A.D. 1703 a _collegium caritativum_, under the
presidency of the Reformed court preacher Ursinus (ranked as bishop, that
he might officiate at the royal coronation), in which also, on the side of
the Reformed, Jablonsky, formerly a Moravian bishop, and, on the part of
the Lutherans, the cathedral preacher Winkler of Magdeburg and Lüttke,
provost of Cologne-on-the-Spree, took part. Spener, who wanted not a made
union but one which he himself was making, gave expression to his opinion,
and soon passed over. Lüttke after a few _sederunts_ withdrew, and when
Winkler in A.D. 1703 published a plan of union, _Arcanum regium_, which
the Lutheran church merely submitted for the approval of the Reformed
king, such a storm of opposition arose against the project, that it had to
be abandoned. In the following year the king took up the matter again in
another way. Jablonsky engaged in negotiations with England for the
introduction of the Anglican episcopal system into Prussia, in order by it
to build a bridge for the union with Lutheranism. But even this plan
failed, in consequence of the succession of Frederick William I. in A.D.
1713, whose shrewd sense strenuously opposed it.—The vacillating
statements of the _Confessio Sigismundi_ (§ 154, 3) regarding
_predestination_ made it possible for the Brandenburg Reformed theologians
to understand it as teaching the doctrine of particular as well as
universal grace, and so to make it correspond with Brandenburg Reformed
orthodoxy. The rector of the Joachimsthal Gymnasium in Berlin, Paul
Volkmann, in A.D. 1712, interpreted it as teaching universal grace, and so
in his _Theses theologicæ_ he constructed a system of theology, in which
the divine foreknowledge of the result, as the reconciling middle term
between the particularism and universalism of the call, was set forth in a
manner favourable to the latter. The controversy that was aroused over
this, in which even Jablonsky argued for the more liberal view, while on
the other side Barckhausen, Volkmann’s colleague, in his _Amica Collatio
Doctrinæ de Gratia, quam vera ref. confitetur Ecclesia, cum Doctr.
Volkmanni_, etc., came forward under the name of _Pacificus Verinus_ as
his most determined opponent, was put a stop to in A.D. 1719 by an edict
of Frederick William I., which enjoined silence on both parties, without
any result having been reached.—One of the noblest mystics that ever lived
was _Gerhard Tersteegen_, died A.D. 1769. He takes a high rank as a sacred
poet. Anxious souls made pilgrimages to him from far and near for comfort,
counsel, and refreshment. Though not exactly a separatist, he had no
strong attachment to the church.(64)—The prayer-book of _Conrad Mel_,
pastor and rector at Hersfeld in Hesse, died A.D. 1733, continues to the
present day a favourite in pious families of the Reformed communion.
2. _The Reformed Church in Switzerland._—_The Helvetic Confession_, with
its strict doctrine of predestination and its peculiar inspiration theory
(§ 161, 3), had been indeed accepted, in A.D. 1675, by all the Reformed
cantons as the absolute standard of doctrine in church and school; but
this obligation was soon felt to be oppressive to the conscience, and so
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the kings of England and Prussia
repeatedly interceded for its abrogation. In Geneva, though vigorously
opposed by a strictly orthodox minority, the _Vénérable Compagnie_
succeeded, in A.D. 1706, with the rector of the Academy at its head, J. A.
Turretin, whose father had been one of the principal authors of the
formula, in modifying the usual terms of subscription, _Sic sentio, sic
profiteor, sic docebo, et contrarium non docebo_, into _Sic docebo quoties
hoc argumentum tractandum suscipiam, contrarium non docebo, nec ore, nec
calamo, nec privatim, nec publice_; and afterwards, in A.D. 1725, it was
entirely set aside, and adhesion to the Scriptures of the O. and N.T., and
to the catechism of Calvin, made the only obligation. More persistent on
both sides was the struggle in Lausanne; yet even there it gradually lost
ground, and by the middle of the century it had no longer any authority in
Switzerland.—The _union efforts_ made by the Prussian dynasty found
zealous but unsuccessful advocates in the chancellor Pfaff of Lutheran
Württemberg (§ 167, 4), and in Reformed Switzerland in J. A. Turretin of
Geneva.
3. _The Dutch Reformed Church._—Toward the end of the seventeenth century,
in consequence of threats on the part of the magistrates, the passionate
violence of the _dispute between_ Voetians and Cocceians (§ 162, 5) was
moderated; but in the beginning of the eighteenth century the flames burst
forth anew, reaching a height in 1712, when a marble bust of Cocceius was
erected in a Leyden church. An obstinate Voetian, Pastor Fruytier of
Rotterdam, was grievously offended at this proceeding, and published a
controversial pamphlet full of the most bitter reproaches and accusations
against the Cocceians, which, energetically replied to by the accused, was
much more hurtful than useful to the interests of the Voetians. At last a
favourable hearing was given to a word of peace which a highly respected
Voetian, the venerable preacher of eighty years of age, _J. Mor. Mommers_,
addressed to the parties engaged in the controversy. He published in A.D.
1738, under the title of “_Eubulus_,” a tract in which he proved that
neither Cocceius himself nor his most distinguished adherents had in any
essential point departed from the faith of the Reformed church, and that
from them, therefore, in spite of all differences that had since arisen,
the hand of fellowship should not be withheld. In consequence of this, the
magistrates of Gröningen first of all decided, that forthwith, in filling
up vacant pastorates, a Cocceian and Voetian should be appointed
alternately; a principle which gradually became the practice throughout
the whole country. At the same time also care was now taken that in the
theological faculties both schools should have equal representation. But
meanwhile also new departures had been made in each of the two parties.
Among the Voetians, after the pattern formerly given them by Teellinck (§
162, 4), followed up by the Frisian preacher Theod. Brakel, died A.D.
1669, and further developed by Jodocus von Lodenstein of Utrecht, died
A.D. 1677, mysticism had made considerable progress; and the Cocceians, in
the person of Hermann Witsius, drew more closely toward the pietism of the
Voetians and the Lutherans. The most distinguished representative of this
conciliatory party was F. A. Lampe of Detmold, afterwards professor in
Utrecht, previously and subsequently pastor in Bremen, in high repute in
his church as a hymn-writer, but best known by his commentary on
John.—These conciliatory measures were frustrated by the publication, in
A.D. 1740, of a work by _Schortinghuis_ of Gröningen, which pronounced the
Scriptures unintelligible and useless to the natural man, but made
fruitful to the regenerate and elect by the immediate enlightenment of the
Holy Spirit, evidenced by deep groanings and convulsive writhings. It was
condemned by all the orthodox. The author now confined himself to his
pastorate, where he was richly blessed. He died in A.D. 1750. His notions
spread like an epidemic, till stamped out by the united efforts of the
civil and ecclesiastical authorities in A.D. 1752.
4. _Methodism._—_In the episcopal church of England_ the living power of
the gospel had evaporated into the formalism of scholastic learning and a
mechanical ritualism. A reaction was set on foot by _John Wesley_, born
A.D. 1703, a young man of deep religious earnestness and fervent zeal for
the salvation of souls. During his course at Oxford, in A.D. 1729, along
with some friends, including his brother Charles, he founded a society to
promote pious living.(65) Those thus leagued together were scornfully
called Methodists. From A.D. 1732, _George Whitefield_, born in A.D. 1714,
a youth burning with zeal for his own and his fellow men’s salvation,
wrought enthusiastically along with them. In A.D. 1735 the brothers Wesley
went to America to labour for the conversion of the Indians in Georgia. On
board ship they met Nitschmann, and in Savannah Spangenberg, who exercised
a powerful influence over them. John Wesley accepted a pastorate in
Savannah, but encountered so many hindrances, that he decided to return to
England in A.D. 1738. Whitefield had just sailed for America, but returned
that same year. Meanwhile Wesley visited Marienborn and Herrnhut, and so
became personally acquainted with Zinzendorf. He did not feel thoroughly
satisfied, and so declined to join the society. On his return he began,
along with Whitefield, the great work of his life. In many cities they
founded religious societies, preached daily to immense crowds in Anglican
churches, and when the churches were refused, in the open air, often to
20,000 or even 30,000 hearers. They sought to arouse careless sinners by
all the terrors of the law and the horrors of hell, and by a thorough
repentance to bring about immediate conversion. An immense number of
hardened sinners, mostly of the lower orders, were thus awakened and
brought to repentance amid shrieks and convulsions. Whitefield, who
divided his attentions between England and America, delivered in
thirty-four years 18,000 sermons; Wesley, who survived his younger
companion by twenty-one years, dying in A.D. 1791, and was wont to say the
world was his parish, delivered still more. Their association with the
Moravians had been broken off in A.D. 1740. To the latter, not only was
the Methodists’ style of preaching objectionable, but also their doctrine
of “Christian perfection,” according to which the true, regenerate
Christian can and must reach a perfect holiness of life, not indeed free
from temptation and error, but from all sins of weakness and sinful lusts.
Wesley in turn accused the Herrnhuters of a dangerous tendency toward the
errors of the quietists and antinomians. Zinzendorf came himself to London
to remove the misunderstanding, but did not succeed. The great Methodist
leaders were themselves separated from one another in A.D. 1741.
Whitefield’s doctrine of grace and election was Calvinistic; Wesley’s
Arminian.—From A.D. 1748 the _Countess of Huntingdon_ attached herself to
the Methodists, and secured an entrance for their preaching into
aristocratic circles. With all her humility and self-sacrifice she
remained aristocrat enough to insist on being head and organizer. Seeing
she could not play this _rôle_ with Wesley, she attached herself closely
to Whitefield. He became her domestic chaplain, and with other clergymen
accompanied her on her travels. Wherever she went she posed as a “queen of
the Methodists,” and was allowed to preach and carry on pastoral work. She
built sixty-six chapels, and in A.D. 1768 founded a seminary for training
preachers at Trevecca in Wales, under the oversight of the able and gentle
John Fletcher, reserving supreme control to herself. After Whitefield’s
death, in A.D. 1770, the opposition between the Calvinistic followers of
Whitefield and the Arminian Wesleyans burst out in a much more violent
form. Fletcher and his likeminded fellow labourers were charged with
teaching the horrible heresy of the universality of grace, and were on
that account discharged by the countess from the seminary of Trevecca.
They now joined Wesley, around whom the great majority of the Methodists
had gathered.
5. The Methodists did not wish to separate from the episcopal church, but
to work as a leaven within it. Whitefield was able to maintain this
connexion by the aid of his aristocratic countess and her relationship
with the higher clergy; but Wesley, spurning such aid, and trusting to his
great powers of organization, felt driven more and more to set up an
independent society. When the churches were closed against him and his
fellow workers, and preaching in the open air was forbidden, he built
chapels for himself.(66) The first was opened in Bristol, in A.D. 1739.
When his ordained associates were too few for the work, he obtained the
assistance of lay preachers. He founded two kinds of religious societies:
The _united societies_ embraced all, the _band societies_ only the tried
and proved of his followers. Then he divided the _united societies_ again
into _classes_ of from ten to twenty persons each, and the _class-leaders_
were required to give accurate accounts of the spiritual condition and
progress of those under their care. Each member of the _united_ as well as
the _band societies_ held a _society ticket_, which had to be renewed
quarterly. The outward affairs of the societies were managed by
_stewards_, who also took care of the poor. A number of local societies
constituted a _circuit_ with a superintendent and several itinerant
preachers.(67) Wesley superintended all the departments of oversight,
administration, and arrangement, supported from A.D. 1744 by an annual
conference. Daily preaching and devotional exercises in the chapels,
weekly class-meetings, monthly watchnights, quarterly fasts and
lovefeasts, an annual service for the renewing of the covenant, and a
great multiplication of prayer-meetings, gave a special character to
Methodistic piety. Charles Wesley composed hymns for their services. They
carefully avoided collision with the services of the state church. The
American Methodists, who had been up to this time supplied by Wesley with
itinerant missionaries, in A.D. 1784, after the War of Independence, gave
vigorous expression to their wish for a more independent ecclesiastical
constitution, which led Wesley, in opposition to all right order, to
ordain for them by his own hand several preachers, and to appoint, in the
person of Thomas Coke, a superintendent, who assumed in America the title
of bishop. Coke became the founder of the Methodist Episcopal Church of
America, which soon outstripped all other denominations in its zeal for
the conversion of sinners, and in consequent success. The breach with the
mother church was completed by the adoption of a creed in which the
Thirty-nine Articles were reduced to twenty-five. At the last conference
presided over by Wesley, A.D. 1790, it was announced that they had in
Britain 119 circuits, 313 preachers, and in the United States 97 circuits
and 198 preachers. After Wesley’s death, in A.D. 1791, his autocratic
supremacy devolved, in accordance with the Methodist “Magna Charta,” the
_Deed of Declaration_ of A.D. 1784, upon a fixed conference of 100
members, but its hierarchical organization has been the cause of many
subsequent splits and divisions.(68)
6. _Theological Literature_—_Clericus_, of Amsterdam, died A.D. 1736, an
Arminian divine, distinguished himself in biblical criticism,
hermeneutics, exegesis, and church history. _J. J. Wettstein_ was in A.D.
1730 deposed for heresy, and died in A.D. 1754 as professor at the
Remonstrant seminary at Amsterdam. His critical edition of the N.T. of
A.D. 1751 had a great reputation. _Schultens_ of Leyden, died A.D. 1750,
introduced a new era for O.T. philology by the comparative study of
related dialects, especially Arabic. He wrote commentaries on Job and
Proverbs. Of the Cocceian exegetes we mention, _Lampe_ of Bremen, died
A.D. 1729. “Com. on John,” three vols., etc., and _J. Marck_ of Leyden,
died A.D. 1731, “Com. on Minor Prophets.” In biblical antiquity, _Reland_
of Utrecht, died A.D. 1718, wrote “_Palæstina ex vett. __ monum. Illustr.
Antiquitt. ss._”; in ecclesiastical antiquity, Bingham, died A.D. 1723,
“Origines Ecclest.; or, Antiquities of the Christian Church,” ten vols.,
1724, a masterpiece not yet superseded. Of English apologists who wrote
against the deists, _Leland_, died A.D. 1766, “Advantage and Necessity of
the Christian Revelation”; _Stackhouse_, died A.D. 1752, “History of the
Bible.” Of dogmatists, _Stapfer_ of Bern, died A.D. 1775, and _Wyttenbach_
of Marburg, died A.D. 1779, who followed the Wolffian method. Among church
historians, _J. A. Turretin_ of Geneva, died A.D. 1757, and _Herm. Venema_
of Franeker, died A.D. 1787.—The most celebrated of the writers of sacred
songs in the English language was the Congregationalist preacher _Isaac
Watts_, died A.D. 1748, whose “Hymns and Spiritual Songs,” which first
appeared in A.D. 1707, still hold their place in the hymnbooks of all
denominations, and have largely contributed to overthrow the Reformed
prejudice against using any other than biblical psalms in the public
service of praise.
§ 170. New Sects and Fanatics.
The pietism of the eighteenth century, like the Reformation of the
sixteenth, was followed by the appearance of all sorts of fanatics and
extremists. The converted were collected into little companies, which, as
_ecclesiolæ in ecclesia_, preserved the living flame amid prevailing
darkness, and out of these arose separatists who spoke of the church as
Babylon, regarded its ordinances impure, and its preaching a mere jingle
of words. They obtained their spiritual nourishment from the mystical and
theosophical writings of Böhme, Gichtel, Guyon, Poiret, etc. Their chief
centre was Wetterau, where, in the house of Count Casimir von Berleburg,
all persecuted pietists, separatists, fanatics, and sectaries found
refuge. The count chose from them his court officials and personal
servants, although he himself belonged to the national Reformed church.
There was scarcely a district in Protestant Germany, Switzerland, and the
Netherlands where there were not groups of such separatists; some mere
harmless enthusiasts, others circulated pestiferous and immoral doctrines.
Quite apart from pietism Swedenborgianism made its appearance, claiming to
have a new revelation. Of the older sects the Baptists and the Quakers
sent off new swarms, and even predestinationism gave rise to a form of
mysticism allied to pantheism.
1. _Fanatics and Separatists in Germany._—_Juliana von Asseburg_, a young
lady highly esteemed in Magdeburg for her piety, declared that from her
seventh year she had visions and revelations, especially about the
millennium. She found a zealous supporter in Dr. J. W. Petersen,
superintendent of Lüneburg. After his marriage with Eleonore von Merlau,
who had similar revelations, he proclaimed by word and writing a fantastic
chiliasm and the restitution of all things. He was deposed in A.D. 1692,
and died in A.D. 1727.(69) _Henry Horche_, professor of theology at
Herborn, was the originator of a similar movement in the Reformed church.
He founded several Philadelphian societies (§ 162, 9) in Hesse, and
composed a “mystical and prophetical bible,” the so called “Marburg
Bible,” A.D. 1712. Of other fanatical preachers of that period one of the
most prominent was _Hochmann_, a student of law expelled from Halle for
his extravagances, a man of ability and eloquence, and highly esteemed by
Tersteegen. Driven from place to place, he at last found refuge at
Berleburg, and died there in A.D. 1721. In Württemberg the pious court
chaplain, _Hedinger_, of Stuttgart, died A.D. 1703, was the father of
pietism and separatism. The most famous of his followers were _Gruber_ and
_Rock_, who, driven from Württemberg, settled with other separatists at
Wetterau, renouncing the use of the sacraments and public worship. Of
those gathered together in the court of Count Casimir, the most eminent
were _Dr. Carl_, his physician, the French mystic _Marsay_, and _J. H.
Haug_, who had been expelled from Strassburg, a proficient in the oriental
languages. They issued a great number of mystical works, chief of all the
Berleburg Bible, in eight vols., 1726-1742, of which Haug was the
principal author. Its exposition proceeded in accordance with the
threefold sense; it vehemently contended against the church doctrine of
justification, against the confessional writings, the clerical order, the
dead church, etc. It showed occasionally profound insight, and made
brilliant remarks, but contained also many trivialities and absurdities.
The mysticism which is prominent in this work lacks originality, and is
compiled from the mystico-theosophical writings of all ages from Origen
down to Madame Guyon.
2. _The Inspired Societies in Wetterau._—After the unfortunate issue of
the Camisard War in A.D. 1705 (§ 153, 4) the chief of the prophets of the
Cevennes fled to England. They were at first well received, but were
afterwards excommunicated and cast into prison. In A.D. 1711 several of
them went to the Netherlands, and thence made their way into Germany.
Three brothers, students at Halle, named Pott, adopted their notion of the
gift of inspiration, and introduced it into Wetterau in A.D. 1714.
_Gruber_ and _Rock_, the leaders of the separatists there, were at first
opposed to the doctrine, but were overpowered by the Spirit, and soon
became its most enthusiastic champions. Prayer-meetings were organized,
immense lovefeasts were held, and by itinerant brethren an _ecclesia
ambulatoria_ was set on foot, by which spiritual nourishment was brought
to believers scattered over the land and the children of the prophets were
gathered from all countries. The “utterances” given forth in ecstasy were
calls to repentance, to prayer, to the imitation of Christ, revelations of
the divine will in matters affecting the communities, proclamations of the
near approach of the Divine judgment upon a depraved church and world, but
without fanatical-sensual chiliasm. Also, except in the contempt of the
sacraments, they held by the essentials of the church doctrine. In A.D.
1715 a split occurred between the _true_ and the _false_ among the
inspired. The true maintained a formal constitution, and in A.D. 1716
excluded all who would not submit to that discipline. By A.D. 1719 only
Rock claimed the gift of inspiration, and did so till his death in A.D.
1749. Gruber died in A.D. 1728, and with him a pillar of the society fell.
Rock was the only remaining prop. A new era of their history begins with
their intercourse with the Herrnhuters. Zinzendorf sent them a deputation
in A.D. 1730, and paid them a visit in person at Berleberg. Rock’s
profound Christian personality made a deep impression upon him. But he was
offended at their contempt of the sacraments, and at the convulsive
character of their utterances. This, however, did not hinder him from
expressing his reverence for their able leader, who in return visited
Zinzendorf at Herrnhut in A.D. 1732. In the interests of his own society
Zinzendorf shrank from identifying himself with those of Wetterau. Rock
denounced him as a new Babylon-botcher, and he retaliated by calling Rock
a false prophet. When the Herrnhuters were driven from Wetterau in A.D.
1750 (§ 168, 3, 7), the inspired communities entered on their inheritance.
But with Rock’s death in A.D. 1749 prophecy had ceased among them. They
sank more and more into insignificance, until the revival of spiritual
life, A.D. 1816-1821, brought them into prominence again. Government
interference drove most of them to America.
3. Quite a peculiar importance belongs to _J. C. Dippel_, theologian,
physician, alchemist, discoverer of Prussian blue and _oleum dippelii_, at
first an orthodox opponent of pietism, then, through Gottfr. Arnold’s
influence, an adherent of the pietists, and ultimately of the separatists.
In A.D. 1697, under the name of _Christianus Democritus_, he began to
write in a scoffing tone of all orthodox Christianity, with a strange
blending of mysticism and rationalism, but without any trace profound
Christian experience. Persecuted on every hand, exiled or imprisoned, he
went hither and thither through Germany, Holland, Denmark, and Sweden, and
found a refuge at last at Berleberg in A.D. 1729. Here he came in contact
with the inspired, who did everything in their power to win him over; but
he declared that he would rather give himself to the devil than to this
Spirit of God. He was long intimate with Zinzendorf, but afterwards poured
out upon him the bitterest abuse. He died in the count’s castle at
Berleberg in A.D. 1734.(70)
4. _Separatists of Immoral Tendency._—One of the worst was the _Buttlar
sect_, founded by Eva von Buttlar, a native of Hesse, who had married a
French refugee, lived gaily for ten years at the court of Eisenach, and
then joined the pietists and became a rigid separatist. Separated from her
husband, she associated with the licentiate Winter, and founded a
Philadelphian society at Allendorf in A.D. 1702, where the foulest
immoralities were practised. Eva herself was reverenced as the door of
paradise, the new Jerusalem, the mother of all, Sophia come from heaven,
the new Eve, and the incarnation of the Spirit. Winter was the incarnation
of the Father, and their son Appenfeller the incarnation of the Son. They
pronounced marriage sinful; sensual lusts must be slain in spiritual
communion, then even carnal association is holy. Eva lived with all the
men of the sect in the most shameless adultery. So did also the other
women of the community. Expelled from Allendorf after a stay of six weeks,
they sought unsuccessfully to gain a footing in various places. At Cologne
they went over to the Catholic church. Their immoralities reached their
climax at Lüde near Pyrmont. Winter was sentenced to death in A.D. 1706,
but was let off with scourging. Eva escaped the same punishment by flight,
and continued her evil practices unchecked for another year. She
afterwards returned to Altona, where with her followers leading outwardly
an honourable life, she attached herself to the Lutheran church, and died,
honoured and esteemed, in A.D. 1717.—In a similar way arose in A.D. 1789
the _Bordelum sect_, founded at Bordelum by the licentiates Borsenius and
Bär; and the _Brüggeler sect_, at Brüggeler in Canton Bern, where in A.D.
1748 the brothers Kohler gave themselves out as the two witnesses (Rev.
xi.). Of a like nature too was the _sect of Zionites_ at Ronsdorf in the
Duchy of Berg. Elias Eller, a manufacturer at Elberfeld, excited by
mystical writings, married in A.D. 1725 a rich old widow, but soon found
more pleasure in a handsome young lady, Anna von Buchel, who by a nervous
sympathetic infection was driven into prophetic ecstasy. She proclaimed
the speedy arrival of the millennium; Eller identified her with the mother
of the man-child (Rev. xii. 1). When his wife had pined away through
jealousy and neglect and died, he married Buchel. The first child she bore
him was a girl, and the second, a boy, soon died. When a strong opposition
arose in Elberfeld against the sect, he, along with his followers, founded
Ronsdorf, as a New Zion, in A.D. 1737. The colony obtained civil rights,
and Eller was made burgomaster. Anna having died in A.D. 1744, Eller gave
his colony a new mother, and practised every manner of deceit and tyranny.
After the infatuation had lasted a long time, the eyes of the Reformed
pastor Schleiermacher, grandfather of the famous theologian, were at last
opened. By flight to the Netherlands he escaped the fate of another
revolter, whom Eller persuaded the authorities at Düsseldorf to put to
death as a sorcerer. Every complaint against himself was quashed by
Eller’s bribery of the officials. After his death in A.D. 1750 his stepson
continued this Zion game for a long time.
5. _Swedenborgianism._—_Emanuel von Swedenborg_ was born at Stockholm, in
A.D. 1688, son of the strict Lutheran bishop of West Gothland, Jasper
Swedberg. He was appointed assessor of the School of Mines at Stockholm,
and soon showed himself to be a man of encyclopædic information and of
speculative ability. After long examination of the secrets of nature, in a
condition of magnetic ecstasy, in which he thought that he had intercourse
with spirits, sometimes in heaven, sometimes in hell, he became convinced,
in A.D. 1743, that he was called by these revelations to restore corrupted
Christianity by founding a church of the New Jerusalem as the finally
perfected church. He published the apocalyptic revelations as a new
gospel: “_Arcana Cœlestia in Scr. s. Detecta_,” in seven vols.; “_Vera
Chr. Rel._,” two vols. After his death, in A.D. 1772, his “_Vera
Christiana Religio_” was translated into Swedish, but his views never got
much hold in his native country. They spread more widely in England, where
John Clowes, rector of St. John’s Church, Manchester, translated his
writings, and himself wrote largely in their exposition and commendation.
Separate congregations with their own ministers, and forms of worship,
sprang up through England in A.D. 1788, and soon there were as many as
fifty throughout the country. From England the New Church spread to
America.—In Germany it was specially throughout Württemberg that it found
adherents. There, in A.D. 1765, Oetinger (§ 171, 9) recognised
Swedenborg’s revelations, and introduced many elements from them into his
theosophical system.—Swedenborg’s religious system was speculative
mysticism, with a physical basis and rationalizing results. The aim of
religion with him is the opening of an intimate correspondence between the
spiritual world and man, and giving an insight into the mystery of the
connexion between the two. The Bible (excluding the apostolic epistles, as
merely expository), pre-eminently the Apocalypse, is recognised by him as
God’s word; to be studied, however, not in its literal but in its
spiritual or inner sense. Of the church dogmas there is not one which he
did not either set aside or rationalistically explain away. He denounces
in the strongest terms the church doctrine of the Trinity. God is with him
only one Person, who manifests Himself in three different forms: the
Father is the principle of the manifesting God; the Son, the manifested
form; the Spirit, the manifested activity. The purpose of the
manifestation of Christ is the uniting of the human and Divine; redemption
is nothing more than the combating and overcoming of the evil spirits. But
angels and devils are spirits of dead men glorified and damned. He did not
believe in a resurrection of the flesh, but maintained that the spiritual
form of the body endures after death. The second coming of Christ will not
be personal and visible, but spiritual through a revelation of the
spiritual sense of Holy Scripture, and is realized by the founding of the
church of the New Jerusalem.(71)
6. _New Baptist Sects (_§ 163, 3_)._—In Wetterau about A.D. 1708 an
anabaptist sect arose called _Dippers_, because they did not recognise
infant baptism and insisted upon the complete immersion of adult
believers. They appeared in Pennsylvania in A.D. 1719, and founded
settlements in other states. Of the “perfect” they required absolute
separation from all worldly practices and enjoyments and a simple,
apostolic style of dress. To baptism and the Lord’s supper they added
washing the feet and the fraternal kiss and anointing the sick. The
_Seventh-day Baptists_ observe the seventh instead of the first day of the
week, and enjoin on the “perfect” celibacy and the community of goods. New
sects from England continued to spread over America. Of these were the
_Seed_ or _Sucker Baptists_, who identified the non-elect with the seed of
the serpent, and on account of their doctrine of predestination regarded
all instruction and care of children useless. A similar predestinarian
exaggeration is seen in the _Hard-shell Baptists_, who denounce all home
and foreign missions as running counter to the Divine sovereignty. Many,
sometimes called Campbellites from their founder, reject any party name,
claiming to be simply _Christians_, and acknowledge only so much in
Scripture as is expressly declared to be “the word of the Lord.” The
_Six-Principles-Baptists_ limit their creed to the six articles of Hebrews
vi. 1, 2. The brothers Haldane, about the middle of the eighteenth
century, founded in Scotland the Baptist sect of _Haldanites_, which has
with great energy applied itself to the practical cultivation of the
Christian life.—Continuation, §§ 208, 1; 211, 3.
7. _New Quaker Sects._—The _Jumpers_, who sprang up among the Methodists
of Cornwall about A.D. 1760, are in principle closely allied to the early
Quakers (§ 163, 4). They leaped and danced after the style of David before
the ark and uttered inarticulate howls. They settled in America, where
they have adherents still.—The _Shakers_ originated from the prophets of
the Cevennes who fled to England in A.D. 1705. They converted a Quaker
family at Bolton in Lancashire named Wardley, and the community soon grew.
In A.D. 1758 Anna Lee, wife of a farrier Stanley, joined the society, and,
as the apocalyptic bride, inaugurated the millennium. She taught that the
root of all sin was the relationship of the sexes. Maltreated by the mob,
she emigrated to America, along with thirty companions, in A.D. 1774.
Though persecuted here also, the sect increased and formed in the State of
New York the _Millennial Church_ or _United Society of Believers_. Anna
died in A.D. 1784; but her prophets declared that she had merely laid
aside the earthly garb and assumed the heavenly, so that only then the
veneration of “Mother Anna” came into force. As Christ is the Son of the
eternal Wisdom, Anna is the daughter; as Christ is the second Adam, she is
the second Eve, and spiritual mother of believers as Christ is their
father. Celibacy, community of goods, common labour (chiefly gardening),
as a pleasure, not a burden, common domestic life as brothers and sisters,
and constant intercourse with the spirit world, are the main points in her
doctrine. By the addition of voluntary proselytes and the adoption of poor
helpless children the sect has grown, till now it numbers 3,000 or 4,000
souls in eighteen villages. The capital is New Lebanon in the State of New
York. The name Shakers was given them from the quivering motion of body in
their solemn dances. In their services they march about singing “On to
heaven we will be going,” “March heavenward, yea, victorious band,” etc.
Like the Quakers (§ 163, 6) they have neither a ministry nor sacraments,
and their whole manner of life is modelled on that of the Quakers. The
purity of the relation of brothers and sisters has always been free from
suspicion.(72)
8. _Predestinarian-Mystical Sects._—The _Hebræans_, founded by Verschoor,
a licentiate of the Reformed church of Holland deposed under suspicion of
Spinozist views, in the end of the seventeenth century, hold it
indispensably necessary to read the word of God in the original. They were
fatalists, and maintained that the elect could commit no sin. True faith
consisted in believing this doctrine of their own sinlessness. About the
same time sprang up the _Hattemists_, followers of _Pontiaan von Hattem_,
a preacher deposed for heresy, with fatalistic views like the Hebræans,
but with a strong vein of pantheistic mysticism. True piety consisted in
the believer resting in God in a purely passive manner, and letting God
alone care for him. The two sects united under the name of Hattemists, and
continued to exist in Holland and Zealand till about A.D. 1760.
§ 171. Religion, Theology, and Literature of the “Illumination.”(73)
In England during the first half of the century deism had still several
active propagandists, and throughout the whole century efforts, not
altogether unsuccessful, were made to spread Unitarian views. From the
middle of the century, when the English deistic unbelief had died out, the
“Illumination,” under the name of rationalism, found an entrance into
Germany. Arminian pelagianism, recommended by brilliant scholarship,
English deism, spread by translations and refutations, and French
naturalism, introduced by a great and much honoured king, were the outward
factors in securing this result. The freemason lodges, carried into
Germany from England, a relic of mediævalism, aided the movement by their
endeavour after a universal religion of a moral and practical kind. The
inward factors were the Wolffian philosophy (§ 167, 3), the popular
philosophy, and the pietism, with its step-father separatism (§ 170),
which immediately prepared the soil for the sowing of rationalism.
Orthodoxy, too, with its formulas that had been outlived, contributed to
the same end. German rationalism is essentially distinguished from Deism
and Naturalism by not breaking completely with the Bible and the church,
but eviscerating both by its theories of accommodation and by its
exaggerated representations of the limitations of the age in which the
books of Scripture were written and the doctrines of Christianity were
formulated. It thus treats the Bible as an important document, and the
church as a useful religious institution. Over against rationalism arose
supernaturalism, appealing directly to revelation. It was a dilution of
the old church faith by the addition of more or less of the water of
rationalism. Its reaction was therefore weak and vacillating. The
temporary success of the vulgar rationalism lay, not in its own inherent
strength, but in the correspondence that existed between it and the
prevailing spirit of the age. The philosophy, however, as well as the
national literature of the Germans, now began a victorious struggle
against these tendencies, and though itself often indifferent and even
hostile to Christianity, it recognised in Christ a school-master.
Pestalozzi performed a similar service to popular education by his
attempts to reform effete systems.
1. _Deism, Arianism, and Unitarianism in the English Church._—(1) _The
Deists_ (§ 164, 3). With Locke’s philosophy (§ 164, 2) deism entered on a
new stage of its development. It is henceforth vindicated on the ground of
its reasonableness. The most notable deists of this age were _John
Toland_, an Irishman, first Catholic, then Arminian, died A.D. 1722,
author of “Christianity not Mysterious,” “Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile,
and Mohametan Christianity,” etc. The Earl of _Shaftesbury_, died A.D.
1713, wrote “Characteristics of Men,” etc. _Anthony Collins_, J.P. in
Essex, died A.D. 1729, author of “Priestcraft in Perfection,” “Discourse
of Freethinking,” etc. _Thomas Woolston_, fellow of Cambridge, died in
prison in A.D. 1733, author of “Discourse on the Miracles of the Saviour.”
_Mandeville_ of Dort, physician in London, died A.D. 1733, wrote “Free
Thoughts on Religion.” _Matthew Tindal_, professor of law in Oxford, died
A.D. 1733, wrote “Christianity as Old as the Creation.” _Thomas Morgan_,
nonconformist minister, deposed as an Arian, then a physician, died A.D.
1743, wrote “The Moral Philosopher.” _Thomas Chubb_, glover and
tallow-chandler in Salisbury, died A.D. 1747, author of popular
compilations, “The True Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Viscount _Bolingbroke_,
statesman, charged with high treason and pardoned, died A.D. 1751,
writings entitled, “Philosophical Works.”—Along with the deists as an
opponent of positive Christianity may be classed the famous historian and
sceptic _David Hume_, librarian in Edinburgh, died A.D. 1776, author of
“Inquiry concerning the Human Understanding,” “Natural History of
Religion,” “Dialogues concerning Natural Religion,” etc.(74)—Deism never
made way among the people, and no attempt was made to form a sect. Among
the numerous opponents of deism these are chief: Samuel Clarke, died A.D.
1729; Thomas Sherlock, Bishop of London, died A.D. 1761; Chandler, Bishop
of Durham, died A.D. 1750; Leland, Presbyterian minister in Dublin, died
A.D. 1766, wrote “View of Principal Deistic Writers,” three vols., 1754;
Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, died A.D. 1779; Nath. Lardner, dissenting
minister, died A.D. 1768, wrote “Credibility of the Gospel History,”
seventeen vols., 1727-1757. With these may be ranked the famous pulpit
orator of the Reformed church of France, Saurin, died A.D. 1730, author of
_Discours hist., crit., theol., sur les Evénements les plus remarkables du
V. et N.T._—(2) _The So-called Arians._ In the beginning of the century
several distinguished theologians of the Anglican church sought to give
currency to an Arian doctrine of the Trinity. Most conspicuous was _Wm.
Whiston_, a distinguished mathematician, physicist, and astronomer of the
school of Sir Isaac Newton, and his successor in the mathematical chair at
Cambridge. Deprived of this office in A.D. 1708 for spreading his
heterodox views, he issued in A.D. 1711 a five-volume work, “Primitive
Christianity Revived,” in which he justified his Arian doctrine of the
Trinity as primitive and as taught by the ante-Nicene Fathers, and
insisted upon augmenting the N.T. canon by the addition of twenty-nine
books of the apostolic and other Fathers, including the apostolic
“Constitutions” and “Recognitions” which he maintained were genuine works
of Clement. Subsequently he adopted Baptist views, and lost himself in
fantastic chiliastic speculations. He died A.D. 1752. More sensible and
moderate was _Samuel Clarke_, also distinguished as a mathematician of
Newton’s school and as a classical philologist. As an opponent of deism in
sermons and treatises he had gained a high reputation as a theologian,
when his work, “The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” in A.D. 1712, led
to his being accused of Arianism by convocation; but by conciliatory
explanations he succeeded in retaining his office till his death in A.D.
1729. But the excitement caused by the publication of his work continued
through several decades, and was everywhere the cause of division. His
ablest apologist was Dan. Whitby, and his keenest opponent Dan.
Waterland.—(3) _The Later Unitarians._ The anti-trinitarian movement
entered on a new stage in A.D. 1770. After Archdeacon Blackburne of
London, in A.D. 1766, had started the idea, at first anonymously, in his
“Confessional,” he joined in A.D. 1772 with other freethinkers, among whom
was his son-in-law _Theophilus Lindsey_, in presenting to Parliament a
petition with 250 signatures, asking to have the clergy of the Anglican
church freed from the obligation of subscribing to the Thirty-nine
Articles and the Liturgy, and to have the requirement limited to assent to
the Scriptures. This prayer was rejected in the Lower House by 217 votes
against 71. Lindsey now resigned his clerical office, announced his
withdrawal from the Anglican church, founded and presided over a Unitarian
congregation in London from A.D. 1774, and published a large number of
controversial Unitarian tracts. He died in A.D. 1808. The celebrated
chemist and physicist _Joseph Priestley_, A.D. 1733-1806, who had been a
dissenting minister in Birmingham from A.D. 1780, joined the Unitarian
movement in 1782, giving it a new impetus by his high scientific
reputation. He wrote the “History of the Corruptions of Christianity,” and
the “History of Early Opinions about Jesus Christ,” denying that there is
any biblical foundation for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and
seeking to show that it had been forced upon the church against her will
from the Platonic philosophy. These and a whole series of other
controversial writings occasioned great excitement, not only among
theologians, but also among the English people of all ranks. At last the
mob rose against him in A.D. 1791. His house and all his scientific
collections and apparatus were burnt. He narrowly escaped with his life,
and soon after settled in America, where he wrote a church history in four
vols. Of his many English opponents the most eminent was Bishop Sam.
Horsley, a distinguished mathematician and commentator on the works of Sir
Isaac Newton.
2. _Freemasons._—The mediæval institution of freemasons (§ 104, 13) won
much favour in England, especially after the Great Fire of London in A.D.
1666. The first step toward the formation of freemason lodges of the
modern type was taken about the end of the sixteenth century, when men of
distinction in other callings sought admission as honorary members. After
the rebuilding of London and the completion of St. Paul’s in A.D. 1710,
most of the lodges became defunct, and the four that continued to exist
united in A.D. 1717 into one grand lodge in London, which, renouncing
material masonry, assumed the task of rearing the temple of humanity. In
A.D. 1721 the Rev. Mr. Anderson prepared a constitution for this
reconstruction of a trade society into a universal brotherhood, according
to which all “free masons” faithfully observing the moral law as well as
all the claims of humanity and patriotism, came under obligation to
profess the religion common to all good men, transcending all confessional
differences, without any individual being thereby hindered from holding
his own particular views. Although, in imitation of the older institution,
all members by reason of their close connexion were bound to observe the
strictest secrecy in regard to their masonic signs, rites of initiation
and promotion, and forms of greeting, it is not properly a secret society,
since the constitution was published in A.D. 1723, and members publicly
acknowledge that they are such.—From London the new institute spread over
all England and the colonies. Lodges were founded in Paris in A.D. 1725,
in Hamburg in A.D. 1737, in Berlin in A.D. 1740. This last was raised in
A.D. 1744 into a grand lodge, with Frederick II. as grand master. But soon
troubles and disputes arose, which broke up the order about the end of the
century. Rosicrucians (§ 160, 1) and alchemists, pretending to hold the
secrets of occult science, Jesuits (§ 210, 1), with Catholic hierarchical
tendencies, and “Illuminati” (§ 165, 13), with rationalistic and infidel
tendencies, as well as adventurers of every sort, had made the lodges
centres of quackery, juggling, and plots.(75)
3. _The German _“Illumination.”—(1) _Its Precursors._ One of the first of
these, following in the footsteps of Kuntzen and Dippel, was _J. Chr.
Edelmann_ of Weissenfels, who died A.D. 1767. He began in A.D. 1735 the
publication of an immense series of writings in a rough but powerful
style, filled with bitter scorn for positive Christianity. He went from
one sect to another, but never found what he sought. In A.D. 1741 he
accepted Zinzendorf’s invitation, and stayed with the count for a long
time. He next joined the Berleberg separatists, because they despised the
sacraments, and contributed to their Bible commentary, though Haug had to
alter much of his work before it could be used. This and his contempt for
prayer brought the connexion between him and the society to an end. He
then led a vagabond life up and down through Germany. Edelmann regarded
himself as a helper of providence, and at least a second Luther.
Christianity he pronounced the most irrational of all religions; church
history a conglomeration of immorality, lies, hypocrisy, and fanaticism;
prophets and apostles, bedlamites; and even Christ by no means a perfect
pattern and teacher. The world needs only one redemption—redemption from
Christianity. Providence, virtue, and immortality are the only elements in
religion. No less than 166 separate treatises came from his facile
pen.—_Laurence Schmidt_ of Wertheim in Baden, a scholar of Wolff, was
author of the notorious “Wertheimer Bible Version,” which rendered
Scripture language into the dialect of the eighteenth century, and
eviscerated it of all positive doctrines of revelation. This book was
confiscated by the authorities, and its author cast into prison.
4. (2) _The Age of Frederick the Great._ Hostility to all positive
Christianity spread from England and France into Germany. The writings of
the English deists were translated and refuted, but mostly in so weak a
style that the effect was the opposite of that intended. Whilst English
deism with its air of thoroughness made way among the learned, the poison
of frivolous French naturalism committed its ravages among the higher
circles. The great king of Prussia _Frederick II._, A.D. 1740-1786,
surrounded by French freethinkers Voltaire, D’Argens, La Metrie, etc.,
wished every man in his kingdom to be saved after his own fashion. In this
he was quite earnest, although his personal animosity to all
ecclesiastical and pietistic religion made him sometimes act harshly and
unjustly. Thus, when Francke of Halle (son of the famous A. H. Francke)
had exhorted his theological students to avoid the theatre, the king,
designating him “hypocrite” Francke, ordered him to attend the theatre
himself and have his attendance attested by the manager. His bitter hatred
of all “priests” was directed mainly against their actual or supposed
intolerance, hypocrisy, and priestly arrogance; and where he met with
undoubted integrity, as in Gellert and Seb. Bach, or simple, earnest
piety, as in General Ziethen, he was not slow in paying to it the merited
tribute of hearty acknowledgment and respect. His own religion was a
philosophical deism, from which he could thoroughly refute Holbach’s
materialistic “_Système de la Nature_.”—Under the name of the German
popular philosophy (Moses Mendelssohn, Garve, Eberhard, Platner,
Steinbart, etc.), which started from the Wolffian philosophy, emptied of
its Christian contents, there arose a weak, vapoury, and self-satisfied
philosophizing on the part of the common human reason. Basedow was the
reformer of pedagogy in the sense of the “Illumination,” after the style
of Rousseau, and crying up his wares in the market made a great noise for
a while, although Herder declared that he would not trust calves, far less
men, to be educated by such a pedagogue. The “Universal German Library” of
the Berlin publisher Nicolai, 106 vols. A.D. 1765-1792, was a literary
Inquisition tribunal against all faith in revelation or the church. The
“Illumination” in the domain of theology took the name of rationalism.
Pietistic Halle cast its skin, and along with Berlin took front rank among
the promoters of the “Illumination.” In the other universities champions
of the new views soon appeared, and rationalistic pastors spread over all
Germany, to preach only of moral improvement, or to teach from the pulpit
about the laws of health, agriculture, gardening, natural science, etc.
The old liturgies were mutilated, hymn-books revised after the barbarous
tastes of the age, and songs of mere moral tendency substituted for those
that spoke of Christ’s atonement. An ecclesiastical councillor, Lang of
Regensburg, dispensed the communion with the words: “Eat this bread! The
Spirit of devotion rest on you with His rich blessing! Drink a little
wine! The virtue lies not in this wine; it lies in you, in the divine
doctrine, and in God.” The Berlin provost, W. Alb. Teller, declared
publicly: “The Jews ought on account of their faith in God, virtue, and
immortality, to be regarded as genuine Christians.” C. Fr. Bahrdt, after
he had been deposed for immorality from various clerical and academical
offices, and was cast off by the theologians, sought to amuse the people
with his wit as a taphouse-keeper in Halle, and died there of an infamous
disease in A.D. 1792.
5. (3) _The Wöllner Reaction._—In vain did the Prussian government, after
the death of Frederick the Great, under Frederick William II., A.D.
1786-1797, endeavour to restore the church to the enjoyment of its old
exclusive rights by punishing every departure from its doctrines, and
insisting that preaching should be in accordance with the Confession. At
the instigation of the Rosicrucians (§ 160, 1) and of the minister Von
Wöllner, a country pastor ennobled by the king, the _Religious Edict of
1788_ was issued, followed by a statement of severe penalties; then by a
_Schema Examinationis Candidatorum ss. Ministerii rite Instituendi_; and
in A.D. 1791, by a commission for examination under the Berlin chief
consistory and all the provincial consistories, with full powers, not only
over candidates, but also over all settled pastors. But notwithstanding
all the energy with which he sought to carry out his edict, the minister
could accomplish nothing in the face of public opinion, which favoured the
resistance of the chief consistory. Only one deposition, that of Schulz of
Gielsdorf, near Berlin, was effected, in A.D. 1792. Frederick William
III., A.D. 1797-1840, dismissed Wöllner in A.D. 1798, and set aside the
edict as only fostering hypocrisy and sham piety.
6. _The Transition Theology._—Four men, who endeavoured to maintain their
own belief in revelation, did more than all others to prepare the way for
rationalism: Ernesti of Leipzig, in the department of N.T. exegesis;
Michaelis of Göttingen, in O.T. exegesis; Semler of Halle, in biblical and
historical criticism; and Töllner of Frankfort-on-the-Oder, in dogmatics.
_J. A. Ernesti_, A.D. 1707-1781, from A.D. 1734 rector of St. Thomas’
School, from A.D. 1742 professor at Leipzig, colleague to Chr. A. Crusius
(§ 167, 3), was specially eminent as a classical scholar, and maintained
his reputation in that department, even after becoming professor of
theology in A.D. 1758. His _Institutio Interpretis N.T._, of A.D. 1761,
made it an axiom of exegesis that the exposition of Scripture should be
conducted precisely as that of any other book. But even in the domain of
classical literature there must be an understanding of the author as a
whole, and the expositor must have appreciation of the writer’s spirit, as
well as have acquaintance with his language and the customs of his age.
And just from Ernesti’s want of this, his treatise on biblical
hermeneutics is rationalistic, and he became the father of rationalistic
exegesis, though himself intending to hold firmly by the doctrine of
inspiration and the creed of the church.—What Ernesti did for the N.T.,
_J. D. Michaelis_, A.D. 1717-1791, son of the pious and orthodox Chr.
Bened. Michaelis, did for the O.T. He was from A.D. 1750 professor at
Göttingen, a man of varied learning and wide influence. He publicly
acknowledged that he had never experienced anything of the _testimonium
Sp. s. internum_, and rested his proofs of the divinity of the Scriptures
wholly on external evidences, _e.g._ miracles, prophecy, authenticity,
etc., a spider’s web easily blown to pieces by the enemy. No one has ever
excelled him in the art of foisting his own notions on the sacred authors
and making them utter his favourite ideas. A conspicuous instance of this
is his “Laws of Moses,” in six vols.—In a far greater measure than either
Ernesti or Michaelis did _J. Sol. Semler_, A.D. 1725-1791, pupil of
Baumgarten, and from A.D. 1751 professor at Halle, help on the cause of
rationalism. He had grown up under the influence of Halle pietism in the
profession of a customary Christianity, which he called his private
religion, which contributed to his life a basis of genuine personal piety.
But with a rare subtlety of reasoning as a man of science, endowed with
rich scholarship, and without any wish to sever himself from Christianity,
he undermined almost all the supports of the theology of the church. This
he did by casting doubt on the genuineness of the biblical writings, by
setting up a theory of inspiration and accommodation which admitted the
presence of error, misunderstanding, and pious fraud in the Scriptures, by
a style of exposition which put aside everything unattractive in the N.T.
as “remnants of Judaism,” by a critical treatment of the history of the
church and its doctrines, which represented the doctrines of the church as
the result of blundering, misconception, and violence, etc. He was a
voluminous author, leaving behind him no less than 171 writings. He sowed
the wind, and reaped the whirlwind, by which he himself was driven along.
He firmly withstood the installation of Bahrdt at Halle, opposed Basedow’s
endeavours, applied himself eagerly to refute the “Wolfenbüttel Fragments”
of Reimarus, edited by Lessing in 1774-1778, which represented
Christianity as founded upon pure deceit and fraud, and defended even the
edict of Wöllner. But the current was not thus to be stemmed, and Semler
died broken-hearted at the sight of the heavy crop from his own sowing.—J.
Gr. Töllner, A.D. 1724-1774, from A.D. 1756 professor at
Frankfort-on-the-Oder, was in point of learning and influence by no means
equal to those now named; yet he deserves a place alongside of them, as
one who opened the door to rationalism in the department of dogmatics. He
himself held fast to the belief in revelation, miracles, and prophecy, but
he also regarded it as proved that God saves men by the revelation of
nature; the revelation of Scripture is only a more sure and perfect means.
He also examined the divine inspiration of Scripture, and found that the
language and thoughts were the authors’ own, and that God was concerned in
it in a manner that could not be more precisely determined. Finally, in
treating of the active obedience of Christ, he gives such a representation
of it as sets aside the doctrine of the church.
7. _The Rationalistic Theology._—From the school of these men, especially
from that of Semler, went forth crowds of rationalists, who for seventy
years held almost all the professorships and pastorates of Protestant
Germany. At their head stands _Bahrdt_, A.D. 1741-1792, writer at first of
orthodox handbooks, who, sinking deeper and deeper through vanity, want of
character, and immorality, and following in the steps of Edelmann, wrote
102 vols., mostly of a scurrilous and blasphemous character. The
rationalists, however, were generally of a nobler sort: _Griesbach_ of
Jena, A.D. 1745-1812, distinguished as textual critic of the N.T.;
_Teller_ of Berlin, published a lexicon to the N.T., which substituted
“leading another life” for regeneration, “improvement” for sanctification,
etc.; Koppe of Göttingen, and Rosenmüller of Leipzig wrote _scholia_ on
N.T., and Schulze and Bauer on the O.T. Of far greater value were the
performances of _J. E. Eichhorn_ of Göttingen, A.D. 1752-1827, and
_Bertholdt_ of Erlangen, A.D. 1774-1822, who wrote introductions to the
O.T. and commentaries. In the department of church history, _H. P. C.
Henke_ of Helmstadt and the talented statesman, _Von Spittler_ of
Württemberg, wrote from the rationalistic standpoint. Steinbart and
Eberhardt wrote more in the style of the popular philosophy. The
subtle-minded _J. H. Tieftrunk_, A.D. 1760-1837, professor of philosophy
at Halle, introduced into theology the Kantian philosophy with its strict
categories. Jerusalem, Zollikofer, and others did much to spread
rationalistic views by their preaching.(76)
8. _Supernaturalism._—Abandoning the old orthodoxy without surrendering to
rationalism, the supernaturalists sought to maintain their hold of the
Scripture revelation. Many of them did so in a very uncertain way: their
revelation had scarcely anything to reveal which was not already given by
reason. Others, however, eagerly sought to preserve all essentially vital
truths. Morus of Leipzig, Ernesti’s ablest student, Less of Göttingen,
Döderlein of Jena, Seiler of Erlangen, and Nösselt of Halle, were all
representatives of this school. More powerful opponents of rationalism
appeared in _Storr_ of Tübingen, A.D. 1746-1805, who could break a lance
even with the philosopher of Königsberg, _Knapp_ of Halle, and _Reinhard_
of Dresden, the most famous preacher of his age. Reinhard’s sermon on the
Reformation festival of A.D. 1800 created such enthusiasm in favour of the
Lutheran doctrine of justification, that government issued an edict
calling the attention of all pastors to it as a model. The most
distinguished apologists were the mathematician _Euler_ of St. Petersburg,
the physiologist, botanist, geologist, and poet _Haller_ of Zürich and the
theologians _Lilienthal_ of Königsberg and _Kleuker_ of Kiel. The most
zealous defender of the faith was the much abused _Goeze_ of Hamburg, who
fought for the palladium of Lutheran orthodoxy against his rationalistic
colleagues, against the theatre, against Barth, Basedow, and such-like,
against the “Wolfenbüttel Fragments,” against the “Sorrows of Werther,”
etc. His polemic may have been over-violent, and he certainly was not a
match for such an antagonist as Lessing; he was, however, by no means an
obscurantist, ignoramus, fanatic, or hypocrite, but a man in solemn
earnest in all he did. In the field of church history important services
were rendered by _Schröckh_ of Wittenberg and _Walch_ of Göttingen,
laborious investigators and compilers, _Stäudlin_ and _Planck_ of
Göttingen, and _Münter_ of Copenhagen.—Among English theologians of this
tendency toward the end of the century, the most famous was _Paley_ of
Cambridge, A.D. 1743-1805, whose “Principles of Moral and Political
Philosophy” and “Evidences of Christianity” were obligatory text-books in
the university. His “_Horæ Paulinæ_” prove the credibility of the Acts of
the Apostles from the epistles, and his “Natural Theology” demonstrates
God’s being and attributes from nature.
9. _Mysticism and Theosophy._—_Oetinger_ of Württemburg, the _Magus_ of
the South, A.D. 1702-1782, takes rank by himself. He was a pupil of Bengel
(§ 167, 3), well grounded in Scripture, but also an admirer of Böhme and
sympathising with the spiritualistic visions of Swedenborg. But amid all,
with his biblical realism and his theosophy, which held corporeity to be
the end of the ways of God, he was firmly rooted in the doctrines of
Lutheran orthodoxy.—The best mystic of the Reformed church was _J. Ph.
Dutoit_ of Lausanne, A.D. 1721-1793, an enthusiastic admirer of Madame
Guyon; he added to her quietist mysticism certain theosophical
speculations on the original nature of Adam, the creation of woman, the
fall, the necessity of the incarnation apart from the fall, the basing of
the sinlessness of Christ upon the immaculate conception of his mother,
etc. He gathered about him during his lifetime a large number of pious
adherents, but after his death his theories were soon forgotten.
10. _The German Philosophy._—As Locke accomplished the descent from Bacon
to deism and materialism, so _Wolff_ effected the transition from Leibnitz
to the popular philosophy. _Kant_, A.D. 1724-1804, saved philosophy from
the baldness and self-sufficiency of Wolffianism, and pointed it to its
proper element in the spiritual domain. Kant’s own philosophy stood wholly
outside of Christianity, on the same platform with rationalistic theology.
But by deeper digging in the soil it unearthed many a precious nugget, of
whose existence the vulgar rationalism had never dreamed, without any
intention of becoming a schoolmaster to lead to Christ. Kant showed the
impossibility of a knowledge of the supernatural by means of pure reason,
but admitted the ideas of God, freedom, and immortality as postulates of
the practical reason and as constituting the principle of all religion,
whose only content is the moral law. Christianity and the Bible are to
remain the basis of popular instruction, but are to be expounded only in
an ethical sense. While in sympathy with rationalism, he admits its
baldness and self-sufficiency. His keen criticism of the pure reason, the
profound knowledge of human weakness and corruption shown in his doctrine
of radical evil, his categorical imperative of the moral law, were well
fitted to awaken in more earnest minds a deep distrust of themselves, a
modest estimate of the boasted excellences of their age, and a feeling
that Christianity could alone meet their necessities.—_F. H. Jacobi_, A.D.
1743-1819, “with the heart a Christian, with the understanding a pagan,”
as he characterized himself, took religion out of the region of mere
reason into the depths of the universal feelings of the soul, and so
awakened a positive aspiration.—_J. G. Fichte_, A.D. 1762-1814,
transformed Kantianism, to which he at first adhered, into an idealistic
science of knowledge, in which only the _ego_ that posits itself appears
as real, and the _non-ego_, only by its being posited by the _ego_; and
thus the world and nature are only a reflex of the mind. But when, accused
of atheism in A.D. 1798, he was expelled from his position in Jena, he
changed his views, rushing from the verge of atheism into a mysticism
approaching to Christianity. In his “Guide to a Blessed Life,” A.D. 1806,
he delivered religion from being a mere servant to morals, and sought the
blessedness of life in the loving surrender of one’s whole being to the
universal Spirit, the full expression of which he found in John’s Gospel.
Pauline Christianity, on the other hand, with its doctrine of sin and
redemption, seemed to him a deterioration, and Christ Himself only the
most complete representative of the incarnation of God repeated in all
ages and in every pious man.—In the closing years of the century,
_Schelling_ brought forward his theory of _identity_, which was one of the
most powerful instruments in introducing a new era.(77)
11. _The German National Literature._—When the powerful strain of the
evangelical church hymn had well-nigh expired in the feeble lispings of
_Gellert’s_ sacred poetry, _Klopstock_ began to chant the praises of the
Messiah in a higher strain. But the pathos of his odes met with no
response, and his “Messiah,” of which the first three cantos appeared in
A.D. 1748, though received with unexampled enthusiasm, could do nothing to
exorcise the spirit of unbelief, and was more praised than read. The
theological standpoint of _Lessing_, A.D. 1729-1781, is set forth in one
of his letters to his brother. “I despise the orthodox even more than you
do, only I despise the clergy of the new style even more. What is the
new-fashioned theology of those shallow pates compared with orthodoxy but
as dung-water compared with dirty water? On this point we are at one, that
our old religious system is false; but I cannot say with you that it is a
patchwork of bunglers and half philosophers. I know nothing in the world
upon which human ingenuity has been more subtly exercised than upon it.
That religious system which is now offered in place of the old is a
patchwork of bunglers and half philosophers.” He is offended at men
hanging the concerns of eternity on the spider’s thread of external
evidences, and so he was delighted to hurl the Wolfenbüttel “Fragments” at
the heads of theologians and the Hamburg pastor Goeze, whom he loaded with
contumely and scorn. Thoroughly characteristic too is the saying in the
“_Duplik_”: That if God holding in his right hand all truth, and in his
left hand the search after truth, subject to error through all eternity,
were to offer him his choice, he would humbly say, “Father the left, for
pure truth is indeed for thee alone.” In his “_Nathan_” only Judaism and
Mohammedanism are represented by truly noble and ideal characters, while
the chief representative of Christianity is a gloomy zealot, and the
conclusion of the parable is that all three rings are counterfeit. In
another work he views revelation as one of the stages in “The Education of
the Human Race,” which loses its significance as soon as its purpose is
served. In familiar conversation with Jacobi he frankly declared his
acceptance of the doctrine of Spinoza: Ἕν καὶ πᾶν.(78) _Wieland_, A.D.
1733-1813, soon turned from his youthful zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy
to the popular philosophy of the cultured man of the world. _Herder_, A.D.
1744-1803, with his enthusiastic appreciation of the poetical contents of
the Bible, especially of the Old Testament, was not slow to point out the
insipidity of its ordinary treatment. _Goethe_, A.D. 1749-1832, profoundly
hated the vandalism of neology, delighted in “The Confessions of a Fair
Soul” (§ 172, 2), had in earlier years sympathy with the Herrnhuters, but
in the full intellectual vigour of his manhood thought he had no need of
Christianity, which offended him by its demand for renunciation of self
and the world. _Schiller_, A.D. 1759-1805, enthusiastically admiring
everything noble, beautiful and good, misunderstood Christianity, and
introduced into the hearts of the German people Kantian rationalism
clothed in rich poetic garb. His lament on the downfall of the gods of
Greece, even if not so intended by the poet himself, told not so much
against orthodox Christianity as against poverty-stricken deism, which
banished the God of Christianity from the world and set in his place the
dead forces of nature. And if indeed he really thought that for religion’s
sake he should confess to no religion, he has certainly in many profoundly
Christian utterances given unconscious testimony to Christianity.—The
Jacobi philosophy of feeling found poetic interpreters in _Jean Paul
Richter_, A.D. 1763-1825, and _Hebel_, died A.D. 1826, in whom we find the
same combination of pious sentiment which is drawn toward Christianity and
the sceptical understanding which allied itself to the revolt against the
common orthodoxy. _J. H. Voss_, a rough, powerful Dutch peasant, who in
his “_Luise_” sketched the ideal of a brave rationalistic country parson,
and, with the inexorable rigour of an inquisitor, hunted down the night
birds of ignorance and oppression. But alongside of those children of the
world stood two genuine sons of Luther, _Matthias Claudius_, A.D.
1740-1815, and _J. G. Hamann_, A.D. 1730-1788, the “Magus of the North”
and the Elijah of his age, of whom Jean Paul said that his commas were
planetary systems and his periods solar systems, to whom the philosopher
Hemsterhuis erected in the garden of Princess Gallitzin a tablet with the
inscription: “To the Jews a stumbling-block, to the Greeks foolishness.”
With them may also be named two noble sons of the Reformed church, the
physiognomist _Lavater_, A.D. 1741-1801, and the devout dreamer,
_Jung-Stilling_, A.D. 1740-1817. The famous historian, _John von Müller_,
A.D. 1752-1809, well deserves mention here, who more than any previous
historian made Christ the centre and summit of all times; and also the no
less famous statesman _C. F. von Moser_, the most German of the Germans of
this century, who, with noble Christian heroism, in numerous political and
patriotic tracts, battled against the prevailing social and political
vices of his age.
12. The great Swiss educationist _Pestalozzi_, A.D. 1746-1827, assumed
toward the Bible, the church, and Christianity an attitude similar to that
of the philosopher of Königsberg. The conviction of the necessity and
wholesomeness of a biblical foundation in all popular education was rooted
in his heart, and he clearly saw the shallowness of the popular
philosophy, whether presented under the eccentric naturalism of Rousseau
or the bald utilitarianism of Basedow. His whole life issued from the very
sanctuary of true Christianity, as seen in his self-sacrificing efforts to
save the lost, to strengthen the weak, and to preach to the poor by word
and deed the gospel of the all-merciful God whose will it is that all
should be saved. He began his career as an educationist in A.D. 1775 by
receiving into his house deserted beggar children, and carried on his
experiments in his educational institutions at Burgdorf till A.D. 1798,
and at Isserten till A.D. 1804. His writings, which circulated far and
wide, gained for his methods recognition and high approval.(79)
§ 172. Church Life in the Period of the “Illumination.”
The ancient faith of the church had even during this age of prevailing
unbelief its seven thousand who refused to bow the knee to Baal. The
German people were at heart firmly grounded in the Christianity of the
Bible and the church, and where the pulpit failed had their spiritual
wants supplied by the devout writings of earlier days. Where the modern
vandalism of the “Illumination” had mutilated and watered down the books
of praise, the old church songs lingered in the memories of fathers and
mothers, and were sung with ardour at family worship. For many men of
culture, who were more exposed to danger, the Society of the Brethren
afforded a welcome refuge. But even among the most accomplished of the
nation many stood firmly in the old paths. Lavater and Stilling, Haller
and Euler, the two Mosers, father and son, John von Müller and his brother
J. G. Müller, are not by any means the only, but merely the best known, of
such true sons of the church. In Württemberg and Berg, where religious
life was most vigorous, religious sects were formed with new theological
views which made a deep impression on the character and habits of the
people. Also toward the end of the century an awakened zeal in home and
foreign missions was the prelude of the glorious enterprises of our own
days.
1. _The Hymnbook and Church Music._—Klopstock, followed by Cramer and
Schlegel, introduced the vandalism of altering the old church hymns to
suit modern tastes and views. But a few, like Herder and Schubert, raised
their voices against such philistinism. The “Illuminist” alterations were
unutterably prosaic, and the old pathos and poetry of the sixteenth and
seventeenth century hymns were ruthlessly sacrificed. The spiritual songs
of the noble and pious Gellert are by far the best productions of this
period.—_Church Music_ too now reached its lowest ebb. The old chorales
were altered into modern forms. A multitude of new, unpopular melodies,
difficult of comprehension, with a bald school tone, were introduced; the
last trace of the old rhythm disappeared, and a weary monotony began to
prevail, in which all force and freshness were lost. As a substitute,
secular preludes, interludes, and concluding pieces were brought in. The
people often entered the churches during the playing of operatic
overtures, and were dismissed amid the noise of a march or waltz. The
church ceased to be the patron and promoter of music; the theatre and
concert room took its place. The opera style thoroughly depraved the
oratorio. For festival occasions, cantatas in a purely secular, effeminate
style were composed. A true ecclesiastical music no longer existed, so
that even Winterfeld closed his history of church music with Seb. Bach. It
was, if possible, still worse with the mass music of the Roman Catholic
church. Palestrina’s earnest and capable school was completely lost sight
of under the sprightly and frivolous opera style, and with the organ still
more mischief was done than in the Protestant church.
2. _Religious Characters._—The pastor of Ban de la Roche in Steinthal of
Alsace, “the saint of the Protestant church,” _J. Fr. Oberlin_, A.D.
1740-1826, deserves a high place of honour. During a sixty years’
pastorate “Father Oberlin” raised his poverty-stricken flock to a position
of industrial prosperity, and changed the barren Steinthal into a
patriarchal paradise. The same may be said of a noble Christian woman of
that age, _Sus. Cath. von Klettenberg_, Lavater’s “Cordata,” Goethe’s
“Fair Soul,” whose genuine confessions are wrought into “_Wilhelm
Meister_” the centre of a beautiful Christian circle in Frankfort, where
the young Goethe received religious impressions that were never wholly
forgotten.—Community of religious yearnings brought together pious
Protestants and pious Catholics. The Princess von Gallitzin, her chaplain
Overberg, and minister Von Fürstenberg formed a noble group of earnest
Catholics, for whom the ardent Lutheran Hamann entertained the warmest
affection.
3. _Religious Sects._—In Württemberg there arose out of the pietism of
Spener, with a dash of the theosophy of Oetinger, the party of the
_Michelians_, so named from a layman, Michael Hahn, whose writings show
profound insight into the truths of the gospel. He taught the doctrine of
a double fall, in consequence of which he depreciated though he did not
forbid marriage; of a restitution of all things; while he subordinated
justification to sanctification, the Christ for us to the Christ in us,
etc. As a reaction against this extreme arose the _Pregizerians_, who laid
exclusive stress upon baptism and justification, declared assurance and
heart-breaking penitence unnecessary, and imparted to their services as
much brightness and joy as possible. Both sects spread over Württemberg
and still exist, but in their common opposition to the destructive
tendencies of modern times, they have drawn more closely together. In
their chiliasm and restitutionism they are thoroughly agreed.—The
_Collenbuschians_ in Canton Berg propounded a dogmatic system in which
Christ empties Himself of His divine attributes, and assumes with sinful
flesh the tendencies to sin that had to be fought against, the sufferings
of Christ are attributed to the wrath of Satan, and His redemption
consists in His overcoming Satan’s wrath for us and imparting His Spirit
to enable us to do works of holiness. The most distinguished adherents of
Collenbusch were the two Hasencamps and the talented Bremen pastor Menken.
4. _The Rationalistic _“Illumination”_ outside of Germany._—In Amsterdam,
in A.D. 1791, a _Restored Lutheran Church_ or _Old Light_ was organized on
the occasion of the intrusion of a rationalistic pastor. It now numbers
eight Dutch congregations with 14,000 adherents and 11 pastors. Under the
name of _Christo Sacrum_ some members of the French Reformed church at
Delft, in A.D. 1797, founded a denomination which received adherents of
all confessions, holding by the divinity of Christ and His atonement, and
treating all confessional differences as non-essential and to be held only
as private opinions. In their public services they adopted mainly the
forms of the Anglican episcopal church. Though successful at first, it
soon became rent by the incongruity of its elements. In England the
dissenters and Methodists provided a healthy protest against the
lukewarmness of the State church. In _William Cowper_, A.D. 1731-1800, we
have a noble and brilliant poet of high lyrical genius, whose life was
blasted by the terrorism of a predestinarian doctrine of despair and the
religious melancholy produced by Methodistic agonies of soul.
5. _Missionary Societies and Missionary Enterprise._—In order to arouse
interest in the idea of a grand union for practical Christian purposes,
the Augsburg elder, John Urlsperger, travelled through England, Holland,
and Germany. The Basel Society for Spreading Christian Truth, founded in
A.D. 1780, was the first-fruits of his zeal, and branches were soon
established throughout Switzerland and Southern Germany. The Basel Bible
Society was founded in A.D. 1804, and the Missionary Society in A.D.
1816.—At a meeting of English Baptist preachers at Kettering, in
Northamptonshire, in A.D. 1792, William Carey was the means of starting
the Baptist Missionary Society. Carey was himself its first missionary. He
sailed for India in A.D. 1793, and founded the Serampore Mission in
Bengal. The work of the society has now spread over the East and West
Indies, the Malay Archipelago, South Africa, and South America. A popular
preacher, Melville Horne, who had been himself in India, published
“Letters on Missions,” in A.D. 1794, in which he earnestly counselled a
union of all true Christians for the conversion of the heathen. In
response to this appeal a large number of Christians of all denominations,
mostly Independents, founded in A.D. 1795, the London Missionary Society,
and in the following year the first missionary ship, _The Duff_, under
Captain Wilson, sailed for the South Seas with twenty-nine missionaries on
board. Its operations now extend to both Indies, South Africa, and North
America; but its chief hold is in the South Seas. In the Society Islands
the missionaries wrought for sixteen years without any apparent result,
till at last King Pomare II. of Tahiti sought baptism as the first-fruits
of their labours. A victory gained over a pagan reactionary party in A.D.
1815 secured complete ascendency to Christianity. The example of the
London Society was followed by the founding of two Scottish societies in
A.D. 1796 and a Dutch society in A.D. 1797, and the Church Missionary
Society in London in A.D. 1799, for the English possessions in Africa,
Asia, etc. The Danish Lutheran (§ 167, 9) and the Herrnhut (§ 168, 11)
societies still continued their operations.(80)—Continuation, §§ 183, 184.
FOURTH SECTION. CHURCH HISTORY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
I. General and Introductory.
§ 173. Survey of Religious Movements of Nineteenth Century.
A reaction had set in against the atheistic spirit of the French
Revolution, and the victories of A.D. 1813, 1815, encouraged the pious in
their Christian confidence. Princes and people were full of gratitude to
God. Alexander I., Francis I., and Frederick William III., representing
the three principal churches, in A.D. 1815, after the political situation
had been determined by the Congress of Vienna, formed “the Holy Alliance,”
a league of brotherly love for mutual defence and maintenance of peace, to
which all the European princes adhered with the exception of the pope, the
sultan, and the king of England. Through Metternich’s arts it ultimately
degenerated into an instrument of repression and tyranny.—Incongruous
elements were present everywhere. The restoration of the papacy in A.D.
1814 had given a new impulse to ultramontanism, as did also the
Reformation centenary of A.D. 1817 to Protestantism; while supernaturalism
and pietism prevailing in the Lutheran and Reformed churches led to
renewed attempts at union. Old sects were strengthened and new sects
arose. Pantheism, materialism, and atheism, as well as socialism and
communism, without concealment attacked Christianity; while pauperism and
vagabondage, on the one hand, and the Stock Exchange swindling of
capitalists, on the other, spread moral consumption through all classes of
society. The ultramontanes, led by the Jesuits, reasserted the most
arrogant claims of the papacy. The climax was reached when Pius IX.
obtained a decree of council affirming his infallibility, while by the
Nemesis of history the royal crown was torn from his head.
§ 174. Nineteenth Century Culture in Relation to Christianity and the
Church.
Down to A.D. 1840, when zeal for it began to abate, philosophy exercised
an important influence on the religious development of the age, both in
the departments of science and of life. While rationalism was not able to
transcend the standpoint of Kant, the other theological tendencies were
more or less determined formally, and even materially by the philosophical
movements of this period. Alongside of philosophy, literature, itself to a
great extent coloured by contemporary philosophy, exerted a powerful
influence on the religious opinions of the more cultured among the people.
The sciences, too, came into closer relations, partly friendly, partly
hostile, to Christianity; and art in some of its masterpieces paid a noble
tribute to the church.
1. _The German Philosophy_ (§ 170, 10).—_Fries_, whose philosophy was
Kantian rationalism, modified by elements borrowed from Jacobi, influenced
such theologians as De Wette. _Schelling_, in his “Philosophy of
Identity,” had advanced from Fichte’s idealism to a pantheistic
naturalism. From Fichte he had learned that this world is nothing without
spirit; but while Fichte recognised this world, the _non-ego_, as reality
only in so far as man seizes upon it and penetrates it by his spirit, and
so raises it into real being, Schelling regards spirit as nothing else
than the life of nature itself. In the lower stages of this nature-life
spirit is still slumbering and dreaming, but in man it has attained unto
consciousness. The nature-life as a whole, or the world-soul, is God; man
is the reflex of God and the world in miniature, a microcosmos. In the
world’s development God comes into objective being and unfolds his
self-consciousness; Christianity is the turning point in the world’s
history; its fundamental dogmas of revelation, trinity, incarnation, and
redemption are suggestive attempts to solve the world’s riddle.
Schelling’s poetic view of the world penetrated all the sciences, and gave
to them a new impulse. Though hateful to the old rationalists, this system
found ardent admirers among the younger theologians. As Schelling to
Fichte, so _Hegel_ was attached to Schelling, and wrought his pantheistic
naturalism into a pantheistic spiritualism. Not so much in the life of
nature as in the thinking and doing of the human spirit, the divine
revelation is the unfolding of the divine self-consciousness from
non-being into being. Judaism and Christianity are progressive stages of
this process; Judaism stands far below classic paganism; but in
Christianity we have the perfect religion, to be developed into the
highest form of philosophy. The Protestant church doctrine was now again
accorded the place of honour. Marheincke developed Lutheran orthodoxy into
a system of speculative theology based on Hegelian principles; while
Göschel infused into it a pietist spirit, which made many hail the new
departure as the long-sought reconciliation of theology and philosophy.
But after Hegel’s death in A.D. 1831 the condition of matters suddenly
changed. His school split into an orthodox wing following the master’s
ecclesiastical tendencies, and a heterodox wing which deified the human
spirit. Strauss, Bauer, and Feuerbach led this heterodox party in
theology, and Ruge in reference to social, æsthetic, and political
questions. Persecuted by the state in A.D. 1843, the Young Hegelians
joined the rationalists, whom they had before sneered at as “antediluvian
theologians.” _Schelling_, who had been silent for almost thirty years,
took Hegel’s chair in Berlin as his decided opponent in A.D. 1841, and
with his dualistic doctrine of potencies, from which he finally advanced
to a Christian gnosticism, obtained a temporary influence among the
younger theologians. He died at the baths of Ragaz in Switzerland in A.D.
1854. He flashed for a moment like a meteor, and as suddenly his light was
quenched.
2. The domination of the Hegelian philosophy was overthrown by the split
in the school and the radicalism of the adherents of the left wing, and
Schelling in the second stage of his philosophical development had not
succeeded in founding any proper school of his own. A group of younger
philosophers, with I. H. Fichte at their head, starting from the Hegelian
dialectic, have striven to free philosophy from the reproach of pantheism
and to develop a speculative theism in touch with historical Christianity.
Other members of this school are Weisse, Braniss, Chalibæus, Ulrici,
Wirth, Romang, etc.—_Herbart_ renounces all that philosophers from Fichte
senior to Fichte junior had done, and declares the metaphysical end of
their systems beyond the horizon of philosophy, which must limit itself to
the province of experience. His realism is in diametrical opposition to
Hegel’s idealism. Toward Christianity his philosophy occupies a position
of indifference. Influenced by Kant’s theory of knowledge as well as by
the Fichte-Schelling-Hegel idealism and Herbart’s realism, with an
infusion of Leibnitz’s monad doctrine, _Hermann Lotze_ of Göttingen has,
since A.D. 1844, set forth a system of “teleological idealism.” He
develops his metaphysical principles from what we have by immediate
experience internal and external, and the invariability of the causal
mechanism in everything that happens in the inner and outer world he
explains as the realizing of moral purposes.—_Schopenhauer’s_ philosophy,
which only in the later years of his life (died A.D. 1860) began to
attract attention, is in spirit utterly opposed to the religion and ethics
of Christianity. Its task is to describe “The World as Will and Idea”;
first at that stage of entering into visibility which is represented in
man does will, the thing-in-itself, become joined with idea, and makes its
appearance now with it over against the world as a conscious subject. But
since idea is regarded as a pure illusion of the will, this leads to a
pessimism which takes absolute despair as the only legitimate moral
principle. _E. von Hartmann_ went still further in the same direction in
his “Philosophy of the Unconscious,” published in 1869, of which an
English translation in three vols. appeared in 1884. He identifies the
will with matter and idea with spirit, demands in addition to the absolute
despair of the individual here and hereafter, the complete surrender of
the personality to the world-process in order to the attainment of its
end, the annihilation of the world. This dissolution of the world consists
in the complete withdrawal of the will into the absolute as the only
unconscious, so that at last the wrong and misery of being produced by the
irrational will are abolished in this withdrawal. From this philosophical
standpoint Hartmann attempted in A.D. 1874 to take Christianity to pieces,
showing some favour to Vatican Catholicism, but pouring out the vials of
his wrath upon Protestantism. His “religion of the future” consists in a
yearning for freedom from all the burden and misery of being and share in
the world-process by relapsing into the blessedness of non-being.—In
France, England, and America much favour has been shown to the
atheistic-sensual Positivism of _Aug. Comte_, which, excluding every form
of theology and morals, requires only the so-called exact sciences as the
object of philosophy. On his later notions of a “religion of humanity,”
see § 210, 1. On essentially similar lines proceeds _Herbert Spencer_, in
his “System of Synthetic Philosophy,” to whose school also Darwin
belonged. His followers are styled agnostics, because they regard all
knowledge of God and divine things as absolutely impossible, and
evolutionists, because their master endeavours to construct all the
sciences on the basis of the evolution theory.
3. _The Sciences._—Schelling’s profound theories were of all the more
significance from their not being restricted to the philosophical
strivings of his time, but inspiring the other sciences with the breath of
a new life. To the fullest extent the natural sciences exposed themselves
to this influence. There was not wanting indeed a certain shadowy
mysticism, to which especially the fancies of mesmeric magnetism largely
contributed; but this fog gradually cleared away, and the Christian
elements were purified from their pantheistic surroundings. Steffens and
Von Schubert taught that the divine book of nature is to be regarded as
the reflex and expansion of the divine revelation in Scripture. The
Hegelian philosophy, too, seemed at first likely to infuse a Christian
spirit into the other sciences. In Göschel, at least, there was a thinker
who imparted to jurisprudence a Christian character, and to Christianity a
juristic construction. In other respects Hegel’s philosophy in its
application to the other departments of science gave in many ways a
predominance to an abstruse dialectic tendency. Its adherents of the
extreme left sought to construct all sciences _a priori_ from the pure
idea, and at the same time to root out from them the last vestiges of the
Christian spirit.
The greatest names in natural science, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Haller,
Davy, Cuvier, etc., are household words in Christian circles. All these
and many more were firmly convinced that there was no conflict between
their most brilliant discoveries and Christian truth. In A.D. 1825 the
Earl of Bridgwater founded a lectureship, and treatises on the power,
wisdom, and goodness of God as manifested in the creation, have been
written by Buckland, Chalmers, Whewell, Bell, etc. It was otherwise in
Germany. Even Schleiermacher, in his “Letters to Lücke,” in A.D. 1829,
expressed his fears of the prophesied overthrow of all Christian theories
of the world by the incontrovertible results of physical research, and
Bretschneider in his “Letters to a Statesman,” in A.D. 1830, proclaimed to
the world without regret that already what Schleiermacher only feared had
actually come to pass. Physicists, awakening from the glamour of the
Schelling nature philosophy, pronounced all speculation contraband, and
declared pure empiricism, the simple investigation of actual things, the
only permissible object of their labour. And although they handed over to
theologians and philosophers questions about spirit in and over nature, as
not belonging to their province, a younger generation maintained that
spirit was non-existent, because it could not be discovered by the
microscope and dissecting knife. Carl Vogt defined thought to be a
secretion of the brain, and Moleschott regarded life as a mere mode of
matter and man’s existence after life only as the manuring of the fields.
Feuerbach proclaimed that “man is what he eats,” and Buchner popularized
these views into a gospel for social democrats and nihilists. Oersted, the
famous discoverer of electro-magnetism, had sought “the spirit in nature,”
but the spirit which he found was not that of the Bible and the church.
The grandmaster of German scientific research, Alex. von Humboldt, saw in
the world a cosmos of noble harmony as a whole and in its parts, but of
Christian ideas in God’s great book of nature he finds no trace. In A.D.
1859 the great English naturalist Darwin, died A.D. 1882, introduced into
the arena the theory of “Natural Selection,” by means of which the
modification and development of the few primary animal forms through the
struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest by sexual selection
is supposed, in millions, perhaps milliards, of years, to have brought
forth the present variety and manifoldness of animal species. Multitudes
of naturalists now accept his theory of the descent of men and apes from a
common stem.—In _Medicine_ De Valenti on the Protestant side, with
pietistic earnestness, maintains that Christian faith is a vehicle of
healing power; while a circle in Munich on the Catholic side make worship
of saints and the host a _conditio sine qua non_ of all medicine. A more
moderate attitude is assumed by the Roman Catholic Dr. Capellmann of
Aachen, in his “Pastoral Medicine.”
4. Of Christian _Jurists_ we have, on the Protestant side, Stahl, Savigny,
Puchta, Jacobson, Richter, Meier, Scheuerl, Hinschius, etc.; and on the
Catholic side, Walther, Philipps, etc. Among _Historians_, the greatest in
modern times is Leopold von Ranke, who, with his disciples, occupies a
thoroughly Christian standpoint. There has appeared, however, on the part
of many Protestant historians, such as Voigt, Leo, Mentzel, Vorreiter,
Hurter, Gfroerer, etc., a tendency in the most conspicuous manner to
recognise and admire the brilliant phenomena of mediæval Catholicism, even
going to the length of renouncing the vital principles of Protestantism,
and glorifying a Boniface, a Gregory VII., and an Innocent III., and
characterizing the Reformation as a revolution. Ultramontanes have been
only too ready to turn to their own use all such concessions, but show no
inclination to make similar admissions damaging to their side, so that
with them history consists rather in the abuse of everything Protestant as
vile and perfidious, instead of being a record of independent research.
Janssen of Frankfort stands out prominently above the billows of the
“_Kulturkampf_” (§ 197), as the greatest master of this ultramontane style
of history making.—_Geography_, first raised to the rank of a science by
Carl Ritter, received from its great founder a Christian impress and owes
much of its development to the researches of Christian missionaries.
Finally, _Philology_, in the hands of Creuzer, Görres, Sepp, etc., unfolds
in a Christian spirit the religion and mythology of classical paganism;
and in the hands of Nägelsbach and Lübker expounds the religious life of
the ancient world in relation to Christian truth.
5. _National Literature_ (§ 171, 11).—To some extent Goethe, but much more
decidedly the romantic school of poets, was attached to Schelling’s
philosophy of nature. The romanticists developed a deep religiousness of
feeling, as shown in Novalis and La Motte Fouqué, and violent opposition
to rationalistic theology as shown in Tieck, which in the case of Fr.
Schlegel ran to the other extreme of moral frivolity as seen in his
“Lucinde.” The romantic school as thus represented by Schlegel was joined
by the party of Young Germany with its gospel of the rehabilitation of the
flesh. Its mouthpiece was the gifted poet Heine. The pantheistic
deification of nature by Schelling, and the self-deification of the
Hegelian school obtained poetic expression in Leop. Schafer’s
_Laienbrevier und Weltpriester_, as well as in Sallet’s _Laienevangelium_;
while the sympathies of the young Hegelians with the revolutionary
movements gained utterance in the poems of Herwegh, and in a more serious
tone in those of Freiligrath. More recently the views of the
_Protestantenverein_ (§ 180) have found their poetical representative in
Nic. Eichhorn, whose “Jesus of Nazareth,” a tragical drama, 1880, deals
with the life, works, and sufferings of the “historical Christ,” after the
style of free Protestant science, with rich psychological analysis of the
character in a brilliant imaginative production. Though composed with a
view to theatrical representation, it has never yet been put on the stage.
6. The Christian element was present in the noble patriotic songs of E. M.
Arndt(81) and Max. von Schenkendorf much more distinctly than in the
romantic school. Enthusiasm in the struggle for freedom awakened faith in
the living God. Uhland’s lovely lyrics, with their enthusiasm for the
present interests of the Fatherland, entitle him to rank among patriotic
poets, and their brilliant and profound rendering of the old German
legends places him in the romantic school, which, however, in clearness
and depth he leaves far behind. Without being a distinctively Christian
poet, his warm sympathy with the life of the German people gives him a
genuine interest in the Christian religion. The same may be said of
Rückert’s highly finished poems, which transplanted the fragrant flowers
of oriental sensuousness and contemplativeness into the garden of German
poetry. A more decided Christian consecration of poetic genius is seen in
the noble and beautiful lyrics of Emanuel Geibel, died 1884, the greatest
and most Christian of the secular poets of the present. Of those
ordinarily ranked as sacred poets may be named Knapp, Döring, Spitta,
Garve, Vict. Strauss, etc., who for the most part contributed their sacred
songs to Knapp’s “_Christoterpe_” (1833-1853). A later publication of
equal merit, called the “_Neue Christoterpe_,” has been edited since 1880
by Kögel, Baur, and Frommel. But with all the Christian depth and
spirituality, freshness and warmth, which we meet with in the productions
of these Christian poets, none of them has been able to rise to the noble
simplicity, power, popular force, and fitting them for church use,
objectivity which are present in the old evangelical church hymns. In this
respect they all bear too conspicuously the signature of their age, with
its subjective tone and the noise and turmoil of present conflicts. Of all
modern poets, Rückert alone approaches in his advent hymn the measure and
spirit of the old church song.—In the department of novels and romance
there has been shown an almost invariable hostility toward Christianity,
religion being either entirely avoided or held up to contempt by having as
its representatives, simpletons, hypocrites, or knaves.
7. In _France_, Chateaubriand in his “_Genie du Christianisme_” pronounces
an eloquent eulogy on the half-pagan Christianity of the Middle Ages. In
another work he makes the representatives of heathenism in the age of
Constantine act like Homeric heroes, and those of Christianity speak “like
theologians of the age of Bossuet.” Lamartine may be described as a
Christian romanticist. Victor Hugo, Balzac, George Sand, Sue, Dumas, etc.,
influenced by the Revolution, developed an antichristian tendency; while
naked naturalism, photographic realism in depicting the lowest side of
Parisian life, especially adultery and prostitution, is represented by
Flaubert, Daudet, De Goncourt, Zola, etc.—In _Italy_, the amiable Manzoni
gave noble expression to Christian feeling in his “_Inni Sacri_,” and in
his masterly romance “_Promessi Sposi_”; and the famous poet Silvio
Pellico, in his “_La mia Prigioni_,” affords a noble example of the
sustaining power of true religion during ten years’ rigorous imprisonment
in an Austrian dungeon. The most gifted of modern Italian poets, Giacomo
Leopardi, sank into despairing pessimism, which expressed itself in the
domain of religion in biting satire and savage irony. Among the poets of
the present who, with glowing patriotism, not only yearned for the
deliverance and unity of Italy, but also lived to see these accomplished,
and have since given expression, though from different political and
religious standpoints, to the desire for the reconciliation of the free
united kingdom with the irreconcilable church, the most distinguished, are
Aleardi, Carducci, Imbriani, Guercini, Cavalotti.—In _Spain_, Caecilia
Böhl von Faber, although the daughter of a German father, and educated in
Germany, introduced, under the name Fernan Caballero, the modern romance
in a thoroughly national Spanish style, and in a purely moral and catholic
Christian spirit. In the _Flemish Provinces_, Hendrik Conscience, the able
novelist, has described Flemish village life in a spirit fully in sympathy
with Christianity.—_England_ had in Lord Byron a poet of the first rank,
who more than any other poet had experience in himself of the convulsions
and contradictions of his age. In powerful and impressive tones he sets
forth the unreconciled disharmonies of nature and of human life. Incurable
pain, despair, weariness of life, and hatred of mankind, without hope, yet
without desire for reconciliation, enthusiastic admiration of the ancient
world, passionate love of liberty and titanic pride in human might mingle
with scenes of grumbling, misery, and profligacy. On the other hand, the
rich and mostly solid English novel literature is prevailingly inspired by
a Christian spirit.
8. _Popular Education._—While the poetic national literature for the most
part found entrance only among the cultured and adult circles, this age,
almost as fond of writing as of reading, produced an enormous quantity of
books for the people and for children. But only a few succeeded in
catching the proper tone for the masses and the youth, and still fewer
supplied their readers with what was genuinely pious. Pestalozzi’s
“_Lienhard und Gertrud_,” Hebel’s “_Schatzkästlein_,” and Tschokke’s
“_Goldmacherdorf_,” respected at least the Christian feeling of the
people, although they did not strengthen or foster it. But, on the other
hand, in recent years a number of writers have appeared, thoroughly
popular, and at the same time thoroughly Christian, who, as popular poets
and novelists, have become apostles of Christian views, morals, and
customs to the people. The most distinguished of these are Jeremiah
Gotthelf (Albert Bitzius, died 1854), whose “Kate the Grandmother” was
translated in the _Sunday Magazine_ for 1865, Von Horn, Carl Stöber,
Wildenhahn, Nathusius, Frommel, Weitbrecht, etc. In the Catholic church
Albanus Stoltz, died 1883, developed a wonderful power of popular
composition, which, however, he subsequently put at the service of a
fanatical ultramontanism, and so sacrificed much of its nobility and
worth. From the enormous mass of children’s books only extremely few
attain their aim. In the front rank stands the brilliant patriarch of
Christian tale writing, Von Schubert, died 1860. After him are Barth, the
author of “Poor Henry,” Stöber, and the Swiss Spyri, and the Catholic
Christian Schmid, author of the “Easter Eggs.”—The _Public Schools_,
especially under Dinter (died 1831), member of the consistory and
schoolboard of Königsberg, were for a long time nurseries of the tame,
flat, and self-satisfied rationalism of the _ancien régime_; but since
1830, and more particularly in consequence of the violent agitations of
the seminary director Diesterweg, who died in 1866, put to silence in
1847, but still for his work in connexion with education always highly
respected, many of the teachers took a higher flight in the
naturalistic-democratic direction. By word and pen Diesterweg carried on a
propaganda in favour of a free and liberal education for the people. His
disciples, wanting his earnest Christian spirit, carried out recklessly
his radical tendencies, and now the Christian faith has no more persistent
foes than the teachers of the public schools. In A.D. 1870, a Teachers’
Association in Vienna gave a vote of 6,000 in favour of radicalism. At a
Hamburg meeting in A.D. 1872 of 5,100 teachers, progress was shown by
individuals raising their voices in defence of Christianity, which,
however, were generally drowned in shrieks and hisses. A Teachers’
Evangelical Association held its ninth assembly at Hamburg in A.D. 1881
with 1,500 members. Christian opinions are now ably represented in
schools, educational journals, and literature. A burning question at
present is whether the national school should be preferred to the
denominational school. Liberals in church and state say it should;
conservatives say it should not; while both parties think their views
supported by the experience of the past. The Prussian minister of
education, Falk, A.D. 1872-1879, firmly insisted upon the development of
the national system, but his successors Von Puttkamer and Von Gossler
reverted to the denominational system. The German Evangelical School
Congress of Hamburg in October, 1882, demanded that both elementary and
secondary schools should have a confessional character.
9. _Art._—The intellectual quickening called forth with the opening of the
new century imparted new spirit and life to the cultivation of the arts.
Winckelmann, died A.D. 1768, had opened the way to an understanding of
pagan classical art, and romanticism awakened appreciation of and
enthusiasm for mediæval Christian art. The greatest masters of
_Architecture_ were Schinckel, Klenze, and Heideloff. The foundation stone
of the final part of the Cologne cathedral was laid by a Protestant king,
Frederick William IV., in A.D. 1842, and the work was finished by a
Protestant builder in A.D. 1880. _Statuary_ had three great masters, who
gave expression to profound Christian ideas in bronze and marble, the
Italian Canova, the German Dannecker, and greatest of all, the Dane
Thorwaldsen, whose Christ and the Apostles and other works form a main
attraction to visitors in Copenhagen. Three younger German masters of the
art, who have heired their fame, are Rauch, Rietschl, and Drake.—In
_Painting_ too a new era now began. A group of gay German artists in Rome,
with Overbeck at their head, formed a Society in A.D. 1813, and mostly
became perverts to Romanism. Peter Cornelius, the ablest of the school,
himself born a Catholic, answered his friends’ request to place Luther in
a picture of the last judgment, in hell: “Yes, but with the Bible in his
hands and the devils trembling before him;” and in a subsequent picture of
the judgment, he gave the German reformer his place among the saints in
heaven. His pupil, Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld is well known by his
“_Bibel in Bildern_.” Ludwig Richter, the Albert Dürer of the nineteenth
century and creator of the modern woodcut, has filled German houses with
his artistic and poetic creations, which breathe of God, nature, and the
family fireside. The Frenchman, Gustave Doré of Strassburg, has also
illustrated the Bible in a manner worthy of ranking alongside of Schnorr,
though a characteristically French striving for effect is everywhere
discernible.—_Painted Glass_ (§ 104, 14) for church windows had during the
eighteenth century passed almost wholly out of use, but again in the
nineteenth came into favour, and was made at Dresden, Nuremberg, and
Munich. The most eminent artist in this department was Ainmiller of
Munich, specimens of whose workmanship are to be seen in all parts of the
world.
10. _Music and the Drama._—In Vienna the three great masters of musical
composition, Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven, produced in the department of
sacred music some of their noblest works. Mendelssohn, in his St. Paul and
Elijah and in his Psalms, sought to reproduce the power and truth of the
simple word of God. An early death prevented him giving expression to his
ideal of Christ in music. The Hungarian virtuoso Liszt sacrifices sacred
calmness and dignity to theatrical effect. His son-in-law, Richard Wagner,
inspired by Schopenhauer’s philosophy, a richly endowed poet and composer,
proclaimed by his followers as the Messiah of the music of the future,
going back to mediæval legend, has produced a _quasi_-Christian musical
drama, in which the gospel of pessimism takes the place of the gospel of
the grace of God.—Quite different is the Passion Play of the Bavarian
village Oberammergau, which is a reproduction of the mediæval mysteries (§
115, 12). It originated in a vow made in 1633 on the occasion of a plague
which visited the place, and is repeated every ten years on the Sundays
from the end of May to the middle of September. The history of the
Saviour’s passion is here represented with interludes from Messianic Old
Testament passages explained by a chorus like that of the classical
tragedy, with appropriate scenery, drapery, and musical accompaniment. In
the presence of an immense concourse of strangers for whose accommodation
a large amphitheatre was been built, almost all the villagers, men, women,
and children, take part in the performance and show rare artistic power.
The text of the drama for the most part agrees with the gospel narrative,
only occasionally interspersed with legend, and quite free from
ultramontane hagiology and mariolatry. The performance of A.D. 1850, and
still more that of A.D. 1880, attracted crowds of pilgrims and tourists to
the quiet and remote valley. An independent exhibition, falling little
behind the original in the artistic character of its composition and
production, was given, in 1883, on the Sundays of July and August in the
Tyrolese village of Brixlegg, and was visited by similar crowds.
§ 175. Intercourse and Negotiations between the Churches.
Protestants could recognise, as Catholics could not, elements of truth and
beauty in the creeds of their opponents. When a peaceful and conciliatory
spirit was shown by individual Catholic clergymen, it was the occasion of
suspicion and persecution on the part of the old Romish party. Schemes of
union were entertained by the Old Catholics (§ 190), and negotiations were
entered on by the Greek Orthodox church, on the one hand, and the Roman
Catholic and Anglican churches, on the other, but in both cases without
any practical result. On the union negotiations between the different
Protestant sects, see § 178; and on the Prusso-Anglican bishopric of
Jerusalem, see § 184, 8. Of the numerous conversions from Protestantism to
Catholicism and from Catholicism to Protestantism, we can here mention
only such as have excited public interest in some special way.
1. _Romanizing Tendencies among Protestants._—Not only in England, where
an important high-church party embraced a more than half-Catholic Puseyism
(§ 202, 2), but even in Protestant Germany a Romanizing current set in on
many sides. A taste for the romantic, artistic, historical (§ 174, 5, 9,
4), as well as feudalist-aristocratic and hyper-Lutheran ecclesiastical
tendencies led the way in this direction. Many sought rest in the bosom of
the church “where alone salvation is found,” while others, too deeply
rooted in evangelical truth, bewailed the loss of “noble and venerable”
institutions in the worship, life, and constitution of the church, but
were unable to accept the various unevangelical accretions which made void
the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was the position of
Löhe of Neuendettelsau, in point of doctrine a strict Lutheran, who
published a selection of Catholic legends as patterns of self-denial for
his deaconesses, wished to restore anointing of the sick, etc. Some
Protestant pastors expressed warm sympathy with the Pope during his
misfortunes in A.D. 1860, and approved of the continuance of the papacy
and the pope’s temporal dominion. A conference of Catholics (Count
Stolberg, Dr. Michelis, etc.) and Protestants (Leo, Bindewald, etc.) at
Erfurt in A.D. 1860, on the basis of a common recognition of the moral
advantages of the papacy, sought to bring about a union of the churches.
Still more remarkable is the story told by the Old Catholic professor
Friedrich. Just before the opening of the Vatican Council, certain
evangelical pastors of Saxony wrote letters to Bishop Martin of Paderborn,
which Friedrich himself read, urging that at the council permission should
be given to priests to marry and to give the cup in the communion to the
laity, and promising that in that case they themselves and many
like-minded pastors would join the Romish church. That the letters were
written and received is unquestionable; but it is doubtful whether folly
and imbecility or a wish to hoax and mystify, directed the pen. The writer
or writers, as the examination before the consistory of the locality
proved, are not to be sought among the pastors whose names are appended.
How far the Protestant ultra-conservative reactionary party goes with the
ultramontanes and how far it would aid the overthrow and undermining of
the Protestant state and evangelical church, is shown by the conduct of
the Privy Councillor and Chief Justice Ludwig von Gerlach (§ 176, 1), who,
in 1872, in the Prussian House of Representatives, took his place among
the ultramontane party of the centre, hostile to the empire and friendly
to the Poles, and in his pamphlet “_Kaiser und Papst_” of 1872 described
the new German empire as an incarnate antichrist. Also the Lutheran
Guelphs of Hanover are zealous supporters of all the demands of the centre
in the Prussian parliament and in the German Reichstag.
2. _The Attitude of Catholicism toward Protestantism._—Every Catholic
bishop has still on assuming office to take the oath, _Hæreticos pro posse
persequar_. The Jesuits, restored in A.D. 1814, soon pervaded every
section with their intolerant spirit. The huge lie that Protestantism is
in matters of State as well as of church essentially revolutionary, while
Catholicism is the bulwark of the State against revolution and democracy,
was affirmed with such audacity that even Protestant statesmen believed
it. The Roman Jesuit Perrone (§ 191, 9) taught the Catholic youth in a
controversial Italian catechism that “they should feel a creeping horror
come over them at the mere mention of the word Protestantism, more even
than when a murderous attack was made upon them, for Protestantism and its
defenders are in the religious and moral world just the same as the plague
and plague-stricken are in the physical world, and in all lands
Protestants are the scum of all that is vile and immoral,” etc. In a
pastoral of A.D. 1855, Von Ketteler, Bishop of Mainz, compared the
Germans, who by the Reformation rent the unity of the church, to the Jews
who crucified the Messiah. Romish prelates have vied with one another in
their abuse of Protestants and Protestantism. In A.D. 1881, Leo XIII.
speaking of the spread of Russian nihilism, charged Protestant
missionaries with spreading the dominion of the prince of darkness. Prof.
Hohoff of Paderborn, in his “Hist. Studies on Protestantism and
Socialism,” Paderb., 1881, reiterated the accusation: “Yes, it is so,
Protestantism has begotten atheism, materialism, scepticism, nihilism. The
Reformation was the murderer of all science, the greatest foe of culture
and learning, and the falsifier of all history.... Melanchthon’s _Loci_
may be styled the most unscientific production in the domain of
dogmatics.... Yes, the Reformation has proved a prime source of
superstition, a step backward in the history of civilization.... The
Catholic church has been the champion of conscience, reason, and
freedom.... No one is thoroughly capable of judging historical facts
without prejudice as the believing Catholic Christian.”—But while the vast
majority of Catholic writers thus abuse Protestantism, others like
Seltmann of Eberswald seek to win over to the ranks of the Romish church
those who can be befooled by fair speeches. The “Protestant”
correspondents in Seltmann’s periodical write under the cloak of
anonymity.—In Spain the Reformation was long attributed to the
Augustinians, who were jealous of the Dominicans as the only dispensers of
indulgences, and to Luther’s desire to marry; but the poet Nuñez de Arca
in his “_Vision de Fray Martin_,” attributed it to the corruption of the
church and papacy of its time, and regarded with sympathy the spiritual
struggles of the reformer. Though as a good Catholic he concludes his poem
with the ban of the church against Luther, he yet describes him as a just
and well-deserving man.
3. _Romish Controversy._—In the beginning of A.D. 1872 the Waldensian
Professor Sciarelli published as a challenge the thesis that the Apostle
Peter never set foot in Rome, and Pius IX. with childlike simplicity gave
his consent to a public disputation, which came off at Rome on 9th and
10th February. Three Protestant champions, with Sciarelli at their head,
were confronted by three Catholics, headed by Fabiani, before 125 auditors
admitted by ticket. Both sides claimed the victory; but the shorthand
reports were more widely read through Italy than could be agreeable to the
papal court.
4. _Roman Catholic Union Schemes._—While American Protestant missionaries
strove zealously for the conversion of the schismatical Eastern Churches,
Rome with equal diligence but little success endeavoured to win over these
and the orthodox Greeks to her own communion. There was great joy over the
conversion of the _Bulgarians_ to Romanism in A.D. 1860. Taking advantage
of a national movement for the restoration of a patriarchate independent
of Constantinople (§ 207, 3), some French Jesuits succeeded in persuading
a small number of malcontents to agree to a union with Rome. In 1861 the
pope consecrated an old Bulgarian priest, Jos. Sokolski, archbishop of the
united Bulgarian church. Very soon, however, he and almost all his
followers returned to their allegiance to the Greek Orthodox church. Leo
XIII. in his _encyclical_ of A.D. 1880, by giving conspicuous honour to
Cyril and Methodius, and uttering kind sentiments about the Christian
church in the East, and conferring high rank on dignitaries of the Eastern
church, seeks to smooth the way for a union of the two great churches.
5. _Greek Orthodox Union Schemes._—In A.D. 1867 the Archbishop of
Canterbury addressed a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the
whole Eastern church, to open the way to a common understanding and union
of the churches, sending a modern Greek translation of the Book of Common
Prayer, and asking their assistance at the consecration of an Anglican
church at Constantinople. The patriarch Gregorius granted this request,
and answered the letter in a friendly manner, passing over the Anglican’s
warnings against superstitious additions to the doctrine, _e.g._
mariolatry, but characterizing all the contrary doctrines of the
Thirty-nine Articles as “very modern.” At the same time vigorous measures
were being taken with a similar object by members of the Russian and of
the Anglican churches. In 1870 Professor Overbeck of Halle undertook to
act as intermediary in these negotiations. He had in 1865 published, in
answer to the papal encyclical with syllabus of December 8th, 1864 (§ 185,
2), a tract with the motto _Ex oriente lux_, in which he placed the claims
of the Orthodox eastern church before the Roman Catholic as well as
Protestant. On the opening of the Vatican Council in 1869 he advocated in
a pamphlet the breaking up of the papal church and the formation of
Catholic national churches. In North America Professor Bjerring, of the
Catholic seminary for priests at Baltimore, took the same position. In
March, 1871, he went to St. Petersburg, was there ordained as an Orthodox
priest, and on his return to New York instituted a Sunday service in the
English language according to the Greek rite. Of any further advance in
this direction of union nothing is known.
6. _Old Catholic Union Schemes._—Döllinger (§ 191, 5) in A.D. 1871 was
hopeful of a union not only with the Greek, but also with the Anglican
church, and similar hopes were entertained in England and Russia, and
distinguished representatives of both communions took part in the Old
Catholic congresses (§ 190, 1). On the invitation of Döllinger, as
president of the committee commissioned by the Freiburg Congress of A.D.
1874 to treat about union with the Anglican church, forty friends of union
from Germany, England, Denmark, France, Russia, Greece, and America met in
conference at Bonn. After a lively debate the cleft between East and West
was bridged over by a compromise treating the _filioque_ as an unnecessary
addition to the Nicene symbol, and asserting that, however desirable a
mutual understanding on doctrinal questions might be, existing differences
in constitution, discipline, and worship presented no bar to union. The
Catholics presented the Anglicans with fourteen theses essential to union,
in which the anti-Protestant doctrines were for the most part toned down,
but transubstantiation distinctly asserted. Subsequent conferences never
got beyond these preliminaries. It was, however, agreed that, in case of
necessity, Anglicans and Old Catholics might dispense the supper to one
another.
7. _Conversions._—The most famous converts of the century were Hurter, the
biographer of Innocent III., the Countess Ida von Hahn-Hahn, writer of
religious romances, Gfroerer, the church historian, the radical Hegelian
Daumer, the historian of ante-tridentine theology Hugo Lämmer, and Dr. Ed.
Preuss, who had written against the immaculate conception and for criminal
conduct had to flee the country. In A.D. 1844 Carl Haas, a Protestant
pastor, went over to the Romish church, but the two new dogmas of Pius IX.
led him to study the works of Luther. He now returned to the Lutheran
church, vindicating his procedure in a treatise entitled, “To Rome, and
from Rome back again to Wittenberg, 1881.” Also the Mecklenburg Lutheran
pastor, Dr. A. Hager, who, after his conversion, had undertaken the
editorship of an ultramontane newspaper in Breslau in 1873, was obliged in
a few years to resign the appointment. His return to the evangelical
church was being talked about, when he suddenly died in 1883, after having
received the last sacrament in the Catholic church. The climax of abuse of
Luther and the Lutheran church was reached by the Hanoverian Evers, who
had gone over in 1880; in all his scandalous and vituperative writings he
describes himself on the title page as “formerly Lutheran pastor.” His
mud-throwing, however, was carried so far, that even the ultramontane
_Köln. Volkszeitung_ was constrained to advise him to write more decently.
8. The Mortara affair of A.D. 1858 attracted special attention. The
eight-year old son of the Jew Mortara of Bologna was violently taken from
his parents to Rome because his Christian nurse said that two years
before, during a dangerous illness, she had baptized him. The church
answered the entreaties of the parents and the universal outcry by saying
that the sacrament had an indelible character, and that the pope could not
change the law. Again in A.D. 1864, the ten-year old Jewish boy, Joseph
Coën, apprentice weaver in Rome, was decoyed by a priest to his cloister
and there persuaded to receive baptism. In vain his mother, the Jewish
community, and even the French ambassador, urged his restoration; and
when, in A.D. 1870, the temporal power of the pope was overthrown, the
lad, now sixteen years old, had himself become such a fanatical Catholic
that he refused to have anything to do with his mother as an unbeliever.
9. In the Tyrol in A.D. 1830 there were numerous conversions from
Catholicism to Protestantism (§ 198, 1). A Catholic priest in Baden,
Henhöfer of Mühlhausen, influenced by the writings of Sailer and Boos,
went over to the Lutheran church in A.D. 1823, and continued down to his
death in A.D. 1862 a vigorous opponent of the prevailing rationalism.
Count Leopold von Seldnitzsky, formerly Prince-Bishop of Breslau, felt
obliged in 1840, in consequence of the conscientious objections he had to
perform his official duties toward church and state during the
ecclesiastico-political controversies of 1830 (§ 193, 1), to resign his
appointments. He was subsequently led in A.D. 1863, through reading the
Scriptures and Luther’s works, after a sore struggle, to join the
evangelical Church. He devoted all his means to the founding of Protestant
educational institutions at Berlin and Breslau. He died in A.D. 1871, in
his eighty-fourth year. The proclamation by the Vatican of the dogma of
infallibility drove many pious and earnest Catholics out of the Romish
communion. Of these Carl von Richthofen, Canon of Breslau, engages our
special interest. Son of a pious Lutheran mother, and trained up under
Gossner’s mild spiritual direction (§ 187, 2), his gentle and deeply
religious nature had attached itself to the Roman Catholic church of his
father only under the illusion that the Romish doctrine of justification
was not wholly irreconcilable with the evangelical doctrine. He at first
submitted to but soon renounced the Vatican decree; was excommunicated by
Archbishop Förster, voluntarily resigned his emoluments; joined the Old
Catholics in A.D. 1873, and the separated Old Lutherans in A.D. 1875. In
the following year he died a painful death from the explosion of a
petroleum lamp.—Upon the whole Rome has made most converts in America and
England; and she has suffered losses more or less severe in France,
Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Bohemia.
10. _The Luther Centenary, _A.D._ 1883._—The celebration of Luther’s birth
was carried out with great enthusiasm throughout all Germany, more than a
thousand tracts on Luther and the Reformation were published, statues were
erected, special services were held in all Lutheran churches, high
schools, and universities, and brilliant demonstrations were made at Jena,
Worms, Wittenberg, and Eisleben. There were founded at Kiel a
Luther-house, at Worms and at the Wartburg Luther libraries, in Leipzig
and Berlin Luther churches. At Eisleben a bronze statue of the reformer
was solemnly unveiled representing his tearing the papal bull with his
right hand and pressing the Bible to his heart with his left. Another
noble monument was raised by the munificence of the emperor by the issuing
during this year of the first volume of pastor Knaake’s critical edition
of Luther’s works. A “German Luther Institute” aims at assisting children
of the poorer clergy and teachers, and a “Reformation History Society” has
undertaken the task of issuing popular tracts on the persons, events and
principles of that and the succeeding period based upon original
documents. Protestants of all lands, with the exception of the English
high-church party, contributed liberally; the Americans had a copy of the
great Luther statue of the Worms monument (§ 178, 1) made and erected in
Washington. Even in Italy the liberal press eulogised Luther, while the
ultramontanes loaded his memory with unmeasured calumny and reproach. The
threatened counter-demonstrations of German ultramontanes fell quite flat
and harmless. The _Zwingli Centenary_ of January 1st, A.D. 1884, was
celebrated with enthusiasm throughout the Reformed church, especially in
Switzerland. On the other hand, the celebration of the five-hundredth
anniversary of Wiclif’s death on December 31st, 1884, created
comparatively little interest.
II. Protestantism in General.(82)
§ 176. Rationalism and Pietism
At the beginning of the century rationalism was generally prevalent, but
philosophy and literature soon weakened its foundations, and the war of
independence moved the hearts of the people toward the faith of their
fathers. Pietism entered the lists against rationalism, and the Halle
controversy of A.D. 1830 marked the crisis of the struggle. The
rationalists were compelled to make appeal to the people by popular
agitators. During A.D. 1840 they managed to found several “free churches,”
which, however, had for the most part but a short and unprosperous
existence. They were more successful in A.D. 1860 with the
_Protestantenverein_ as the instrument of their propaganda (§ 180).
1. The old _Rationalism_ was attacked by the disciples of Hegel and
Schelling, and in A.D. 1834 Röhr of Weimar found Hase of Jena as keen an
opponent as any pietist or orthodox controversialist. That recognised
leader of the old rationalists had coolly attempted to substitute a new
and rational form of doctrine, worship, and constitution for the
antiquated formularies of the Reformation, and drew down upon himself the
rebuke even of those who sympathized with him in his doctrinal views.—In
A.D. 1817 Claus Harms of Kiel, on the occasion of the Reformation
centenary, opened an attack upon those who had fallen away from the faith
of their fathers, by the publication of ninety-five new theses, recalling
attention to Luther’s almost forgotten doctrines. In A.D. 1827 Aug. Hahn
in an academical discussion at Leipzig maintained that the rationalists
should be expelled from the church, and Hengstenberg started his
_Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_. The jurist Von Gerlach in A.D. 1830 charged
Gesenius and Wegscheider of Halle with open contempt of Christian truth,
and called for State interference. In all parts of Germany, amid the
opposition of scientific theologians and the scorn of philosophers,
pietism made way against rationalism, so that even men of culture regarded
it as a reproach to be reckoned among the rationalists. Unbelief, however,
was widespread among the masses. When Sintenis, preacher in Magdeburg in
A.D. 1840, declared the worship of Christ superstitious, and was
reprimanded by the consistory, his neighbours, the pastors Uhlich and
König, founded the society of the “Friends of Light,” whose assembly at
Köthen then was attended by thousands of clergymen and laymen. In one of
these assemblies in A.D. 1844, Wislicenus of Halle, by starting the
question, Whether the Scriptures or the reason is to be regarded as the
standard of faith? shattered the illusion that rationalism still occupied
the platform of the church and Scripture. The left wing of the school of
Schleiermacher took offence at the severe measures demanded by
Hengstenberg and his party, and in 1846 issued in Berlin a manifesto with
eighty-eight signatures against the paper pope of antiquated Reformation
confessions and the inquisitorial proceedings of the _Kirchenzeitung_
party, as inimical to all liberty of faith and conscience, wishing only to
maintain firm hold of the truth that Jesus Christ is yesterday, to-day,
and for ever the one and only ground of salvation. The Friends of Light,
combining with the German Catholics and the Young Hegelians, founded Free
churches at Halle, Königsberg, and many other places. Their services and
sermons void of religion, in which the Bible, the living Christ, and
latterly even the personal God, had no place, but only the naked worship
of humanity, had temporary vitality imparted them by the revolutionary
movements of A.D. 1848. This gave the State an excuse, long wished for, to
interfere, and soon scarcely a trace of their churches was to be found.
2. _Pietism_ had not been wholly driven out of the evangelical church
during the period of ecclesiastical impoverishment, but, purified from
many eccentric excesses, and seeking refuge and support for the most part
by attaching itself to the community of the Moravian Brethren, it had,
even in Württemberg, established itself independently and in an
essentially theosophical-chiliastic spirit. There too a kind of
spiritualism was introduced by the physician and poet Justin Kerner of
Weinsberg, and the philosopher Eschenmayer of Tübingen, with spirit
revelations from above and below. Amid the religious movements of the
beginning of the century Pietism gained a decided advantage. It took the
form of a protest against the rationalism prevailing among the clergy. The
earnest and devout sought spiritual nourishment at conventicles and
so-called _Stunden_ addressed by laymen, mostly of the working class, well
acquainted with Scripture and works in practical divinity. Persecuted by
the irreligious mob, the rationalist clergy, and sometimes by the
authorities, they by-and-by secured representatives among the younger
clergy and in the university chairs, and carried on vigorous missions at
home and abroad. This pietism was distinctly evangelical and Protestant.
It did not oppose but endeavoured simply to restore the orthodoxy of the
church confession. Yet it had many of the characteristics of the earlier
pietism: over-estimation of the invisible to the disparagement of the
visible church, of sanctification over justification, a tendency to
chiliasm, etc.—Of no less importance in awakening the religious life
throughout Germany, and especially in Switzerland, was the missionary
activity of Madame de Krüdener of Riga. This lady, after many years of a
gay life, forsook the world, and began in A.D. 1814 her travels through
Europe, preaching repentance, proclaiming the gospel message in the
prisons, the foolishness of the cross to the wise of this world, and to
kings and princes the majesty of Christ as King of kings. Wherever she
went she made careless sinners tremble, and drew around her crowds of the
anxious and spiritually burdened of every sort and station. Honoured by
some as a saint, prophetess, and wonder-worker, ridiculed by others as a
fool, persecuted as a dangerous fanatic or deceiver, driven from one
country to another, she died in the Crimea in A.D. 1824.(83)
3. _The Königsberg Religious Movement, _A.D._ 1835-1842._—The pious
theosophist, J. H. Schönherr of Königsberg, starting from the two
primitive substances, fire and water, developed a system of theosophy in
which he solved the riddles of the theogony and cosmogony, of sin and
redemption, and harmonized revelation with the results of natural science.
At first influenced by these views, but from A.D. 1819 expressly
dissenting from them, J. W. Ebel, pastor in the same city, gathered round
him a group of earnest Christian men and women, Counts Kanitz and
Finkenstein and their wives, Von Tippelskirch, afterwards preacher to the
embassy at Rome, the theological professor H. Olshausen, the pastor Dr.
Diestel, and the medical doctor Sachs. After some years Olshausen and
Tippelskirch withdrew, and dissensions arose which gave opportunity to the
ecclesiastical authorities to order an investigation. Ebel was charged
with founding a sect in which impure practices were encouraged. He was
suspended in A.D. 1835, and at the instigation of the consistory a
criminal process was entered upon against him. Dr. Sachs, who had been
expelled from the society, was the chief and almost only witness, but
vague rumours were rife about mystic rites and midnight orgies. Ebel and
Diestel were deposed in A.D. 1839, and pronounced incapable of holding any
public office; and as a sect founder Ebel was sentenced to imprisonment in
the common jail. On appeal to the court of Berlin, the deposition was
confirmed, but all the rest of the sentence was quashed, and the parties
were pronounced capable of holding any public offices except those of a
spiritual kind. Two reasons were alleged for deposition: (1) That Ebel,
though not from the pulpit or in the public instruction of the young, yet
in private religious teaching, had inculcated his theosophical views. (2)
That both of them as married men had given expression to opinions
injurious to the purity of married life. In general they were charged with
spreading a doctrine which was in conflict with the principles of
Christianity, and making such use of sexual relations as was fitted to
awaken evil thoughts in the minds of hearers. Ebel was pronounced
guiltless of sectarianism.—Kanitz wrote a book in defence, which
represents Ebel and Diestel as martyrs to their pure Christian piety in an
age hostile to every pietistic movement; whereas Von Wegnern, followed by
Hepworth Dixon, in a romancing and frivolous style, lightly give currency
to evil surmisings without offering any solid basis of proof. The whole
affair still waits for a patient and unprejudiced investigation.(84)
4. _The Bender Controversy._—At the Luther centenary festival of A.D.
1883, Prof. Bender of Bonn declared that in the confessional writings of
the Reformation evangelical truth had been obscured by Romish
scholasticism, introduced by subtle jurists and sophistical theologians.
This called forth vigorous opposition, in which two of his colleagues, 38
theological students, 59 members of the Rhenish synod, took part.
General-Superintendent Baur, also, in a new year’s address, inveighed
against Bender’s statements. On the other hand, 170 students of Bonn, 32
of these theological students, gave a grand ovation to the “brave
vindicator of academic freedom.” The Rhenish and Westphalian synods
bewailed the offence given by Bender’s address, and protested against its
hard and unfounded attacks upon the confessional writings. At the
Westphalian synod, Prof. Mangold said that the faculty was as much
offended at the address as the church had been, but that its author, when
he found how his words had created such feeling, sought in every way to
repress the agitation, and had intended only to pass a scientific judgment
on ecclesiastical and theological developments.
§ 177. Evangelical Union and Lutheran Separation.
From A.D. 1817 Prussia favoured and furthered the scheme for union between
the two evangelical churches, and over this question a split arose in the
camp of pietism. On the one hand were the confessionalists, determined to
maintain what was distinctive in their symbols, and on the other, those
who would sacrifice almost anything for union. For the most part both
churches cordially seconded the efforts of the royal head of the church;
only in Silesia did a Lutheran minority refuse to give way, which still
maintains a separate existence.
1. _The Evangelical Union._—Circumstances favoured this movement. Both in
the Lutheran and in the Reformed church comparatively little stress was
laid upon distinctive confessional doctrines, and pietism and rationalism,
for different reasons, had taught the relative unimportance of dogma. And
so a general accord was given to the king’s proposal, at the Reformation
centenary of A.D. 1817, to fortify the Protestant church by means of a
_Union_ of Lutherans and Calvinists. The new Book of Common Order of A.D.
1822, in the preparation of which the pious king, Frederick William III.,
had himself taken part, was indeed condemned by many as too high-church,
even Catholicizing in its tendency. A revised edition in A.D. 1829, giving
a wider choice of formularies, was legally authorized, and the union
became an accomplished fact. There now existed in Prussia an evangelical
national church with a common government and liturgy, embracing within it
three different sections: a Lutheran, and a Reformed, which held to their
distinctive doctrines, though not regarding these as a cause of
separation, and a real union party, which completely abandoned the points
of difference. But more and more the union became identified with
doctrinal indifferentism and slighting of all church symbols, and those in
whom the church feeling still prevailed were driven into opposition to the
union (§ 193). The example of Prussia in sacking the union of the two
churches was followed by Nassau, Baden, Rhenish Bavaria, Anhalt, and to
some extent in Hesse (§§ 194, 196).
2. _The Lutheran Separation._—Though the union denied that there was any
passing over from one church to another, it practically declared the
distinctive doctrines to be unessential, and so assumed the standpoint of
the Reformed church. Steffens (§ 174, 3), the friend of Scheibel of
Breslau, who had been deprived of his professorship in A.D. 1832 for his
determined opposition to the union, and died in exile in 1843 (§ 195, 2),
headed a reaction in favour of old Lutheranism. Several suspended
clergymen in Silesia held a synod at Breslau in A.D. 1835, to organize a
Lutheran party, but the civil authorities bore so heavily upon them that
most of them emigrated to America and Australia. Guericke of Halle,
secretly ordained pastor, ministered in his own house to a small company
of Lutheran separatists, was deprived of his professorship in A.D. 1835,
and only restored in A.D. 1840, after he had apologised for his conduct.
From A.D. 1838, the laws were modified by Frederick William IV.,
imprisoned clergymen were liberated in A.D. 1840, and a Lutheran church of
Prussia independent of the national church was constituted by a general
synod at Breslau in A.D. 1841, which received recognition by royal favour
in A.D. 1845. The affairs are administered by a supreme council resident
in Breslau, presided over by the distinguished jurist Huschke. Other
separations were prevented by timely concessions on the part of the
national church. The separatists claim 50,000 members, with fifty pastors
and seven superintendents.
3. _The Separation within the Separation._—Differences arose among the
separate Lutherans, especially over the question of the visible church.
The majority, headed by Huschke, defined the visible church as an organism
of various offices and orders embracing even unbelievers, which is to be
sifted by the divine judgment. To it belongs the office of church
government, which is a _jus divinum_, and only in respect of outward form
a _jus humanum_. The opposition understood visibility of the preaching of
the word and dispensation of sacraments, and held that unbelievers
belonged as little to the visible as to the invisible church. The
distribution of orders and offices is a merely human arrangement without
divine appointment, individual members are quite independent of one
another, the church recognises no other government than that of the
unfettered preaching of the word, and each pastor rules in his own
congregation. Diedrich of Jabel and seven other pastors complained of the
papistical assumptions of the supreme council, and at a general synod in
A.D. 1860 refused to recognise the authority of that council, or of a
majority of synods, and in A.D. 1861, along with their congregations, they
formally seceded and constituted the so called Immanuel Synod.
§ 178. Evangelical Confederation.
The union had only added a third denomination to the two previously
existing, and was the means of even further dissension and separation.
Thus the interests of Protestantism were endangered in presence of the
unbelief within her own borders and the machinations of the ultramontane
Catholics without. An attempt was therefore made in A.D. 1840 to combine
the scattered Protestant forces, by means of confederation, for common
work and conflict with common foes.
1. _The Gustavus Adolphus Society._—In A.D. 1832, on the two hundredth
anniversary of the birth of the saviour of German Protestantism, on the
motion of Superintendent Grossman of Leipzig, a society was formed for the
help of needy Protestant churches, especially in Catholic districts. At
first almost confined to Saxony, it soon spread over Germany, till only
Bavaria down to A.D. 1849, and Austria down to A.D. 1860, were excluded by
civil enactment from its operations. The masses were attracted by the
simplicity of its basis, which was simply opposition to Catholicism, and
the demagogical Friends of Light soon found supremacy in its councils.
Because of opposition to the expulsion of Rupp, in A.D. 1846, as an
apostate from the principle of protestantism, great numbers with church
leanings seceded, and attempted to form a rival union in A.D. 1847. After
recovering from the convulsions of A.D. 1848, under the wise guidance of
Zimmermann of Darmstadt, the society regained a solid position. In A.D.
1883 it had 1,779 branches, besides 392 women’s and 11 students’ unions,
and a revenue for the year of about £43,000.—The same feeling led to the
erection of the _Luther Monument at Worms_. This work of genius, designed
by Rietschel, and completed after his death in A.D. 1857 by his pupils,
and inaugurated on 25th June, A.D. 1868, represents all the chief episodes
in the Reformation history. It was erected at a cost of more than £20,000,
raised by voluntary contributions, and the scheme proved so popular that
there was a surplus of £2,000, which was devoted to the founding of
bursaries for theological students.
2. _The Eisenach Conference._—The other German states borrowed the idea of
confederation from Prussia and Württemberg. It took practical shape in the
meetings of deputies at Eisenach, begun in A.D. 1852, and was held for a
time yearly, and afterwards every second year, to consult together on
matters of worship, discipline and constitution. Beyond ventilating such
questions the conference yielded no result.
3. _The Evangelical Alliance._—An attempt was made in England, on the
motion of Dr. Chalmers (§ 202, 7), at a yet more comprehensive
confederation of all Protestant churches of all lands against the
encroachments of popery and puseyism (§ 202, 2). After several preliminary
meetings the first session of the _Evangelical Alliance_ was held in
London in August, A.D. 1846. Its object was the fraternizing of all
evangelical Christians on the basis of agreement upon the fundamental
truths of salvation, the vindication and spread of this common faith, and
contention for liberty of conscience and religious toleration. Nine
articles were laid down as terms of membership: Belief in the inspiration
of Scripture, in the Trinity, in the divinity of Christ, in original sin,
in justification by faith alone, in the obligatoriness of the two
sacraments, in the resurrection of the body, in the last judgment, and in
the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal condemnation of
the ungodly. It could thus include Baptists, but not Quakers. In A.D. 1855
it held its ninth meeting at the great Paris Industrial Exhibition as a
sort of church exhibition, the representatives of different churches
reporting on the condition of their several denominations. The tenth
meeting, of A.D. 1857, was held in Berlin. The council of the Alliance,
presided over by Sir Culling Eardley, presented an address to King
Frederick William IV., in which it was said that they aimed a blow not
only against the sadduceanism, but also against the pharisaism of the
German evangelical church. The confessional Lutherans, who had opposed the
Alliance, regarded this latter reference as directed against them. The
king, however, received the deputation most graciously, while declaring
that he entertained the brightest hopes for the future of the church, and
urged cordial brotherly love among Christians. Though many distinguished
confessionalists were members of the Alliance none of them put in an
appearance. The members of the “Protestantenverein” (§ 180) would not take
part because the articles were too orthodox. On the other hand, numerous
representatives of pietism, unionism, Melanchthonianism, as well as
Baptists, Methodists, and Moravians, crowded in from all parts, and were
supported by the leading liberals in church and state. While there was
endless talk about the oneness and differences of the children of God,
about the universal priesthood, about the superiority of the present
meeting over the œcumenical councils of the ancient church, about the want
of spiritual life in the churches, even where the theology of the
confessions was professed, etc., with denunciations of half-Catholic
Lutheranism and its sacramentarianism and officialism, and many a true and
admirable statement of what the church’s needs are, Merle d’Aubigné
introduced discord by the hearty welcome which he accorded his friend
Bunsen, which was intensified by the passionate manner in which Krummacher
reported upon it. The gracious royal reception of the members of the
Alliance, at which Krummacher gave expression to his excited feelings in
the words, “Your Majesty, we would all fall not at your feet, but on your
neck!” was described by his brother, Dr. F. W. Krummacher, as a sensible
prelude to the solemn scenes of the last judgment. Sir Culling Eardley
declared, “There is no more the North Sea.” Lord Shaftesbury said in
London that with the Berlin Assembly a new era had begun in the world’s
history; and others who had returned from it extolled it as a second
Pentecost.
4. _The Evangelical Church Alliance._—After the revolution of A.D. 1848,
the most distinguished theologians, clergymen and laymen well-affected
toward the church, sought to bring about a confederation of the Lutheran,
Reformed, United, and Moravian churches. When they held their second
assembly at Wittenberg, A.D. 1849, many of the strict Lutherans had
already withdrawn, especially those of Silesia. The Lutheran congress,
held shortly before at Leipzig under the presidency of Harless, had
pronounced the confederation unsatisfactory. The political reaction in
favour of the church had also taken away the occasion for such a
confederation. Yet the yearly deliberations of this council on matters of
practical church life did good service. An attempt made at the Berlin
meeting of A.D. 1853 to have the _Augustana_ adopted as the church
confession awakened keen opposition. At the Stuttgart meeting of A.D. 1857
there were violent debates on foreign missions and evangelical Catholicity
between the representatives of confessional Lutheranism who had hitherto
maintained connection with the confederation and the unionist majority.
The Lutherans now withdrew. The attempt made at the Berlin October
assembly of A.D. 1871, amid the excitement produced by the glorious issue
of the Franco-Prussian War and the founding of the new German empire with
a Protestant prince, to draw into the confederation confessional Lutherans
and adherents of the “Protestantenverein,” in order to form a grand German
Protestant national church, miscarried, and a meeting of the confederation
in the old style met again at Halle in the following year. But it was now
found that its day was past.
5. _The Evangelical League._—At a meeting of the Prussian evangelical
middle party in autumn, 1886, certain members, “constrained by grief at
the surrender of arms by the Prussian government in the _Kulturkampf_,”
gathered together for private conference, and resolved in defence of the
threatened interests of the evangelical church to found an “Evangelical
League” out of the various theological and ecclesiastical parties.
Prominent party leaders on both sides being admitted, a number of moderate
representatives of all schools were invited to a consultative gathering at
Erfurt. On January 15th, 1887, a call to join the membership of the league
was issued. It was signed by distinguished men of the middle party, such
as Beyschlag, Riehm of Halle, etc., moderate representatives of
confessionalism and the positive union, such as Kawerau of Kiel, Fricke of
Leipzig, Witte, Warneck, etc., and liberal theologians like Lipsius and
Nippold of Jena, etc.; and it soon received the addition of about 250
names. It recognised Jesus Christ, as the only begotten Son of God, as the
only means of salvation, and professed the fundamental doctrines of the
Reformation. It represented the task of the League as twofold: on the one
hand the defending at all points the interests of the evangelical church
against the advancing pretensions of Rome, and, on the other hand, the
strengthening of the communal consciousness of the Christian evangelical
church against the cramping influence of party, as well as in opposition
to indifferentism and materialism. For the accomplishment of this task the
league organized itself under the control of a central board with
subordinate branches over all Germany, each having a committee for
representing its interests in the press, and with annual general
assemblies of all the members for common consultation and promulgating of
decrees.
§ 179. Lutheranism, Melanchthonianism, and Calvinism.
Widespread as the favourable reception of the Prussian union had been,
there were still a number of Lutheran states in which the Reformed church
had scarcely any adherents, _e.g._ Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Mecklenburg,
and Schleswig-Holstein; and the same might be said of the Baltic Provinces
and of the three Scandinavian kingdoms. Also in Austria, France, and
Russia the two denominations kept apart; and in Poland, the union of A.D.
1828 was dissolved in A.D. 1849 (§ 206, 3). The Lutheran confessional
reaction in Prussia afforded stimulus to those who had thus stood apart.
In all lands, amid the conflict with rationalism, the confessional spirit
both of Lutheran and Reformed became more and more pronounced.
1. _Lutheranism within the Union._—After the Prussian State church had
been undermined by the revolution of A.D. 1848, an unsuccessful attempt
was made to have a pure Lutheran confessional church set up in its place.
At the October assembly in Berlin, in A.D. 1871, an ineffectual effort was
made by the United Lutherans to co-operate with those who were unionists
on principle. During the agitation caused by the May Laws (§ 197, 5) and
the Sydow proceedings (§ 180, 4), the first general evangelical Lutheran
conference was held in August, A.D. 1873, in Berlin. It assumed a moderate
conciliatory tone toward the union, pronounced the efforts of the
“Protestantenverein” (§ 180) an apostasy from the fundamental doctrines of
the gospel, bewailed the issuing of the May Laws, protested against their
principles, but acknowledged the duty of obedience, and concluded an
address to the emperor with a petition on behalf of a democratic church
constitution and civil marriage.—The literary organs of the United
Lutherans are the “_Evang. Kirchenzeitung_,” edited by Hengstenberg, and
now by Zöckler, and the “_Allgem. konserv. Monatsschrift für die christl.
Deutschl._,” by Von Nathusius.
2. _Lutheranism outside of the Union._—A general Lutheran conference was
held under the presidency of Harless, in July, A.D. 1868, at which the
sentiments of Kliefoth, denouncing a union under a common church
government without agreement about doctrine and sacraments, met with
almost universal acceptance. At the Leipzig gathering of A.D. 1870,
Luthardt urged the duty of firmly maintaining doctrinal unity in the
Lutheran church. The assembly of the following year agreed to recognise
the emperor as head of the church only in so far as he did not interfere
with the dispensation of word and sacrament, admitted the legality of a
merely civil marriage but maintained that despisers of the ecclesiastical
ordinance should be subjected to discipline, that communion fellowship is
to be allowed neither to Reformed nor unionists if fixed residents, but to
unionists faithful to the confession if temporary residents, even without
expressly joining their party; and also with reference to the October
assembly of the previous year the union of the two Protestant churches of
Germany under a mixed system of church government was condemned. The third
general conference of Nüremburg, in A.D. 1879, dealt with the questions:
Whether the church should be under State control or free? Whether the
schools should be denominational or not? and in both cases decided in
favour of the latter alternative.—Its literary organ is Luthardt’s “_Allg.
Luth. Kirchenzeitung_.”
3. _Melancthonianism and Calvinism._—The Reformed church of Germany has
maintained a position midway between Lutheranism and Calvinism very
similar to the later Melanchthonianism. Ebrard indeed sought to prove that
strict predestinarianism was only an excrescence of the Reformed system,
whereas Schweitzer, purely in the interests of science (§ 182, 9, 16), has
shown that it is its all-conditioning nerve and centre, to which it owes
its wonderful vitality, force, and consistency. Heppe of Marburg went
still further than Ebrard in his attempt to combine Lutheranism and
Calvinism in a _Melancthonian church_ (§ 182, 16), by seeking to prove
that the original evangelical church of Germany was Melanchthonian, that
after Luther’s death the fanatics, more Lutheran than Luther, founded the
so-called Lutheran church and completed it by issuing the Formula of
Concord; that the Calvinizing of the Palatinate, Hesse, Brandenburg,
Anhalt was only a reaction against hyper- or pseudo-Lutheranism, and that
the restoration of the original Melanchthonianism, and the modern union
movement were only the completion of that restoration. Schenkel’s earlier
contributions to Reformation history moved in a similar direction. Ebrard
also, in A.D. 1851, founded a “_Ref. Kirchenzeitung_.”—But even the
genuine strict _Calvinism_ had zealous adherents during this century, not
only in Scotland (§ 202, 7) and the Netherlands (§ 200, 2), but also in
Germany, especially in the Wupperthal. G. D. Krummacher, from A.D. 1816
pastor in Elberfeld, and his nephew F. W. Krummacher of Barmen, were long
its chief representatives. When Prussia sought in A.D. 1835 to force the
union in the Wupperthal, and threatened the opposing Reformed pastors with
deposition, the revolt here proved almost as serious as that of the
Lutherans in Silesia. The pastors, with the majority of their people
agreed at last to the union only in so far as it was in accordance with
the Reformed mode of worship. But a portion, embracing their most
important members, stood apart and refused all conciliation. The royal
Toleration Act of A.D. 1847 allowed them to form an independent
congregation at Elberfeld with Dr. Kohlbrügge as their minister. This
divine, formerly Lutheran pastor at Amsterdam, was driven out owing to a
contest with a rationalising colleague, and afterwards, through study of
Calvin’s writings, became an ardent Calvinist. This body, under the name
of the Dutch Reformed church, constituted the one anti-unionist, strictly
Calvinistic denomination in Prussia.—The De Cock movement (§ 200, 2), out
of which in A.D. 1830 the separate “Chr. Ref. Church of Holland” sprang,
spread over the German frontiers and led to the founding there of the “Old
Ref. Church of East Frisia and Bentheim,” which has now nine congregations
and seven pastors.—At the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York
in A.D. 1873, the Presbyterians present resolved to convoke an œcumenical
Reformed council. A conference in London in A.D. 1875 brought to maturity
the idea of a Pan-Presbyterian assembly. The council is to meet every
third year; the members recognise the supreme authority of the Old and New
Testament in matters of faith and practice, and accept the consensus of
all the Reformed confessions. The first “_General Presbyterian Council_”
met in Edinburgh from 3rd to 10th July, A.D. 1877, about 300 delegates
being present. The proceedings consisted in unmeasured glorification of
presbyterianism “drawn from the whole Scripture, from the seventy elders
of the Pentateuch to the twenty-four elders of the Apocalypse.” The second
council met at Philadelphia in A.D. 1880, and boasted that it represented
forty millions of Presbyterians. It appointed a committee to draw up a
consensus of the confessions of all Reformed churches. The third council
of 305 members met at Belfast in A.D. 1884, and after a long debate
declined, by a great majority, to adopt a strictly formulated consensus of
doctrine as uncalled for and undesirable, and by the reception of the
Cumberland Presbyterians they even surrendered the Westminster Confession
(§ 155, 1) as the only symbol qualifying for membership of the council.
The fourth council met in London in A.D. 1887.—An œcumenical Methodist
congress was held in London in A.D. 1881, attended by 400 delegates.
§ 180. The “Protestantenverein.”
Rationalists of all descriptions, adherents of Baur’s school, as well as
disciples of Hegel and Schleiermacher of the left wing, kept far off from
every evangelical union. But the common negation of the tendencies
characterizing the evangelical confederations and the common endeavour
after a free, democratic, non-confessional organization of the German
Protestant church, awakened in them a sense of the need of combination and
co-operation. While in North Germany this feeling was powerfully expressed
from A.D. 1854, in the able literary organ the “_Protest.
Kirchenzeitung_,” in South Germany, with Heidelberg as a centre and Dean
Zittel as chief agitator, local “_Protestantenvereine_” were formed, which
combined in a united organization in the Assembly of Frankfort, A.D. 1863.
After long debates the northern and southern societies were joined in one.
In June, A.D. 1865, the first general Protestant assembly was held at
Eisenach, and the nature, motive, and end of the associations were
defined. To these assemblies convened from year to year members of the
society crowded from all parts of Germany in order to encourage one
another to persevere in spreading their views by word and pen, and to take
steps towards the founding of branch associations for disseminating among
the people a Christianity which renounces the miraculous and sets aside
the doctrines of the church.
1. _The Protestant Assembly._—The first general German Protestant
Assembly, composed of 400 clerical and lay notabilities, met at Eisenach
in A.D. 1865, under the presidency of the jurist Bluntschli of Heidelberg
and the chief court preacher Schwarz of Gotha. A peculiar lustre was given
to the meeting by the presence of Rothe of Heidelberg. Of special
importance was Schwarz’s address on “The Limits of Doctrinal Freedom in
Protestantism,” which he sought not in the confession, not in the
authority of the letter of Scripture, not even in certain so called
fundamental articles, but in the one religious moral truth of
Christianity, the gospel of love and the divine fatherhood as Christ
taught it, expounded it in his life and sealed it by his death. In Berlin,
Osnabrück, and Leipzig, the churches were refused for services according
to the _Protestantenverein_. In A.D. 1868 fifteen heads of families in
Heidelberg petitioned the ecclesiastical council to grant them the use of
one of the city churches where a believing clergyman might conduct service
in the old orthodox fashion. This request was refused by fifty votes
against four. Baumgarten denounced this intolerance, and declared that
unless repudiated by the union it would be a most serious stain upon its
reputation. In A.D. 1877 he publicly withdrew from the society.
2. _The _“Protestantenverein”_ Propaganda._—The views of the union were
spread by popular lectures and articles in newspapers and magazines. The
“_Protestanten-Bibel_,” edited by Schmidt and Holtzendorff in A.D. 1872,
of which an English translation has been published, giving the results of
New Testament criticism, “laid the axe at the root of the dogmatics and
confessionalism,” and proved that “we are still Christians though our
conception of Christianity diverges in many points from that of the second
century, and we proclaim a Christianity without miracles and in accordance
with the modern theory of the universe.” The success of such efforts to
spread the broad theology has been greatly over-estimated. Enthusiastic
partisans of the union claimed to have the whole evangelical world at
their back, while Holtzendorff boasted that they had all thoughtful
Germans with them.
3. _Sufferings Endured._—In many instances members of the society were
disciplined, suspended and deposed. In October, A.D. 1880, _Beesenmeyer_
of Mannheim, on his appointment to Osnabrück, was examined by the
consistory. He confessed an economic but not an essential Trinity, the
sinlessness and perfect godliness but not the divinity of Christ, the
atoning power of Christ’s death but not the doctrine of vicarious
satisfaction. He was pronounced unorthodox, and so unfit to hold office.
_Schroeder_, a pastor in the consistory of Wiesbaden in A.D. 1871, on his
refusing to use the Apostles’ Creed at baptism and confirmation, was
deposed, but on appealing to the minister of worship, Dr. Falk, he was
restored in the beginning of A.D. 1874. The Stettin consistory declined to
ordain Dr. _Hanne_ on account of his work “_Der ideale u. d. geschichtl.
Christus_,” and an appeal to the superior court and another to the king
were unsuccessful. Several members of the church protested against the
call of Dr. _Ziegler_ to Liegnitz in A.D. 1873, on account of his trial
discourse and a previous lecture on the authority of the Bible, and the
consistory refused to sustain the call. The Supreme Church Council,
however, when appealed to, declared itself satisfied with Ziegler’s
promise to take unconditionally the ordination vow, which requires
acceptance of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel and not the peculiar
theological system of the symbols.
4. The conflicts in _Berlin_ were specially sharp. In A.D. 1872 the aged
pastor of the so called New Church, Dr. _Sydow_, delivered a lecture on
the miraculous birth of Jesus, in which he declared that he was the
legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. His colleague, Dr. _Lisco_, son of the
well-known commentator, spoke of legendary elements in the Apostles’
Creed, and denied its authority. Lisco was reprimanded and cautioned by
the consistory. Sydow was deposed. He appealed, together with twenty-six
clergymen of the province of Brandenburg, and twelve Berlin pastors, to
the Supreme Church Council. The Jena theologians also presented a largely
signed petition to Dr. Falk against the procedure of the consistory, while
the Weimar and Württemberg clergy sent a petition in favour of maintaining
strict discipline. The superior court reversed the sentence, on the ground
that the lecture was not given in the exercise of his office, and severely
reprimanded Sydow for giving serious offence by its public delivery. At a
Berlin provincial synod in A.D. 1877, an attack was made by pastor _Rhode_
on creed subscription. _Hossbach_, preaching in a vacant church, declared
that he repudiated the confessional doctrine of the divinity of Christ,
regarded the life of Jesus in the gospels as a congeries of myths, etc.
Some loudly protested and others as eagerly pressed for his settlement.
The consistory accepted Rhode’s retractation and annulled Hossbach’s call.
The Supreme Church Council supported the consistory, and issued a strict
order to its president to suffer no departure from the confession. The
congregation next chose Dr. _Schramm_, a pronounced adherent of the same
party, who was also rejected. In A.D. 1879 _Werner_, biographer of
Boniface, a more moderate disciple of the same school, holding a sort of
Arian position, received the appointment. When, in A.D. 1880, the Supreme
Church Council demanded of Werner a clear statement of his belief
regarding Scripture, the divinity and resurrection of Christ, and the
Apostles Creed, and on receiving his reply summoned him to a conference at
Berlin, he resigned his office.
5. The conflicts in Schleswig Holstein also caused considerable
excitement. Pastor _Kühl_ of Oldensworth had published an article at
Easter, A.D. 1880, entitled, “The Lord is Risen indeed,” in which the
resurrection was made purely spiritual. He was charged with violating his
ordination vow, sectaries pointed to his paper as proof of their theory
that the state church was the apocalyptic Babylon, and petitions from 115
ministers and 2,500 laymen were presented against him to the consistory of
Kiel. The consistory exhorted Kühl to be more careful and his opponents to
be more patient. In the same year, however, he published a paper in which
he denied that the order of nature was set aside by miracles. He was now
advised to give up writing and confine himself to his pastoral work. A
pamphlet by Decker on “The Old Faith and the New,” was answered by _Lühr_,
and his mode of dealing with the ordination vow was of such a kind as to
lead pastor Paulsen to speak of it as a “chloroforming of his conscience.”
§ 181. Disputes about Forms of Worship.
During the eighteenth century the services of the evangelical church had
become thoroughly corrupted and disordered under the influence of the
“Illumination,” and were quite incapable of answering to the Christian
needs and ecclesiastical tastes of the nineteenth century. Whenever there
was a revival in favour of the faith of their fathers, a movement was made
in the direction of improved forms of worship. The Rationalists and
Friends of Light, however, prevented progress except in a few states. Even
the official Eisenach Conference did no more than prepare the way and
indicate how action might afterwards be taken.
1. _The Hymnbook._—Traces of the vandalism of the Illumination were to be
seen in all the hymnbooks. The noble poet Ernst Moritz Arndt was the first
to enter the lists as a restorer; and various attempts were made by Von
Elsner, Von Raumer, Bunsen, Stier, Knapp, Daniel, Harms, etc., to make
collections of sacred songs answerable to the revived Christian sentiment
of the people. These came to be largely used, not in the public services,
but in family worship, and prepared the way for official revisal of the
books for church use. The Eisenach Conference of A.D. 1853 resolved to
issue 150 classical hymns with the old melodies as an appendix to the old
collection and a pattern for further work. Only with difficulty was the
resolution passed to make A.D. 1750 the _terminus ad quem_ in the choice
of pieces. Wackernagel insisted on a strict adherence to the original text
and retired from the committee when this was not agreed to. Only in a few
states has the Eisenach collection been introduced; _e.g._ in Bavaria,
where it has been incorporated in its new hymnbook.
2. _The Book of Chorales._—In A.D. 1814, Frederick William III. of Prussia
sought to secure greater prominence to the liturgy in the church service.
In A.D. 1817, Natorp of Münster expressed himself strongly as to the need
of restoring the chorale to its former position, and he was followed by
the jurist Thibaut, whose work on “The Purity of Tone” has been translated
into English. The reform of the chorale was carried out most vigorously in
Württemberg, but it was in Bavaria that the old chorale in its primitive
simplicity was most widely introduced.
3. _The Liturgy._—Under the reign of the Illuminists the liturgy had
suffered even more than the hymns. The Lutherans now went back to the old
Reformation models, and liturgical services, with musical performances,
became popular in Berlin. Conferences held at Dresden did much for
liturgical reform, and the able works and collections of Schöberlein
supplied abundant materials for the practical carrying out of the
movement.
4. _The Holy Scriptures._—The Calw Bible in its fifth edition adopted
somewhat advanced views on inspiration, the canon and authenticity, while
maintaining generally the standpoint of the most reverent and pious
students of scripture. Bunsen’s commentary assumed a “mediating” position,
and the “Protestant Bible” on the New Testament, translated into English,
that of the advanced school. Besser’s expositions of the New Testament
books, of which we have in English those on John’s gospel, had an
unexampled popularity. The Eisenach Conference undertook a revision of
Luther’s translation of the Bible. The revised New Testament was published
in A.D. 1870, and accepted by some Bible societies. The much more
difficult task of Old Testament revision was entrusted to a committee of
distinguished university theologians, which concluded its labours in A.D.
1881. A “proof” Bible was issued in A.D. 1883, and the final corrected
rendering in A.D. 1886. A whole legion of pamphlets were now issued from
all quarters. Some bitterly opposing any change in the Luther-text, others
severely criticising the work, so that the whole movement seems now at a
standstill.(85)—In England, in May, 1885, the work of revision of the
English version of the Bible, undertaken by order of convocation, was
completed after fifteen years’ labour, and issued jointly by the two
universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The revised New Testament, prepared
four years previously, had been telegraphed in short sections to America
by the representative of the _New York Herald_, so that the complete work
appeared there rather earlier than in England. But in the case of the Old
Testament revision such freebooting industry was prevented by the strict
and careful reserve of all concerned in the work. The revised New
Testament had meanwhile never been introduced into the public services;
whether the completed Bible will ever succeed in overcoming this prejudice
remains to be seen.(86)
§ 182. Protestant Theology in Germany.
The real founder of modern Protestant theology, the Origen of the
nineteenth century, is Schleiermacher. His influence was so powerful and
manysided that it extended not merely to his own school, but also in
almost all directions, even to the Catholic church, embracing destructive
and constructive tendencies such as appeared before in Origen and Erigena.
Alongside of the vulgar rationalism, which still had notable
representatives, De Wette founded the new school of historico-critical
rationalism, and Neander that of pietistic supernaturalism, which soon
overshadowed the two older schools of rational and supra-rational
supernaturalism. On the basis of Schelling’s and Hegel’s philosophy Daub
founded the school of speculative theology with an evangelical tendency;
but after Hegel’s death it split into a right and left wing. As the former
could not maintain its position, its adherents by-and-by went over to
other schools; and the latter, setting aside speculation and dogmatics,
applied itself to the critical investigation of the early history of
Christianity, and founded the school of Baur at Tübingen. Schleiermacher’s
school also split into a right and left wing. Each of them took the union
as its standard; but the right, which claimed to be the “German” and the
“Modern” theology, wished a union under a consensus of the confessions,
and sought to effect an accommodation between the old faith and the modern
liberalism; whereas the left wished union without a confession, and
unconditioned toleration of “free science.” This latter tendency, however,
secured greater prominence and importance from A.D. 1854, through
combination with the representatives of the historico-critical and the
younger generation of the Baurian school, from which originated the “free
Protestant” theology. On the other hand, under the influence of pietism,
there has arisen since A.D. 1830, especially in the universities of
Erlangen, Leipzig, Rostock, and Dorpat, a Lutheran confessional school,
which seeks to develop a Lutheran system of theology of the type of
Gerhard and Bengel. A similar tendency has also shown itself in the
Reformed church. The most recent theological school is that founded by
Ritschl, resting on a Lutheran basis but regarded by the confessionalists
as rather allied to the “free Protestant” theology, on account of its free
treatment of certain fundamental doctrines of Lutheranism.—Theological
contributions from Scandinavia, England, and Holland are largely indebted
to German theology.
1. _Schleiermacher, _A.D._ 1768-1834._—Thoroughly grounded in philosophy
and deeply imbued with the pious feeling of the Moravians among whom he
was trained, Schleiermacher began his career in A.D. 1807 as professor and
university preacher at Halle, but, to escape French domination, went in
the same year to Berlin, where by speech and writing he sought to arouse
German patriotism. There he was appointed preacher in A.D. 1809, and
professor in A.D. 1810, and continued to hold these offices till his death
in A.D. 1834. In A.D. 1799 he published five “_Reden über d. Religion_.”
In these it was not biblical and still less ecclesiastical Christianity
which he sought with glowing eloquence to address to the hearts of the
German people, but Spinozist pantheism. The fundamental idea of his life,
that God, “the absolute unity,” cannot be reached in thought nor grasped
by will, but only embraced in feeling as immediate consciousness, and
hence that feeling is the proper seat of religion, appears already in his
early productions as the centre of his system. In the following year, A.D.
1800, he set forth his ethical theory in five “Monologues”: every man
should in his own way represent humanity in a special blending of its
elements. The study and translation of Plato, which occupied him now for
several years, exercised a powerful influence upon him. He approached more
and more towards positive Christianity. In a Christmas Address in A.D.
1803 on the model of Plato’s Symposium, he represents Christ as the divine
object of all faith. In A.D. 1811 he published his “Short Outline of
Theological Study,” which has been translated into English, a masterly
sketch of theological encyclopædia. In A.D. 1821 he produced his great
masterpiece, “_Der Chr. Glaube_,” which makes feeling the seat of all
religion as immediate consciousness of absolute dependence, perfectly
expressed in Jesus Christ, whose life redeems the world. The task of
dogmatics is to give scientific expression to the Christian consciousness
as seen the life of the redeemed; it has not to prove, but only to work
out and exhibit in relation to the whole spiritual life what is already
present as a fact of experience. Thus dogmatics and philosophy are quite
distinct. He proves the evangelical Protestant character of the doctrines
thus developed by quotations from the consensus of both confessions.
Notwithstanding his protest, many of his contemporaries still found
remnants of Spinozist pantheism. On certain points too, he failed to
satisfy the claims of orthodoxy; _e.g._ in his Sabellian doctrine of the
Trinity, his theory of election, his doctrine of the canon, and his
account of the beginning and close of our Lord’s life, the birth and the
ascension.(87)
2. _The Older Rationalistic Theology._—The older, so-called vulgar
rationalism, was characterized by the self-sufficiency with which it
rejected all advances from philosophy and theology, science and national
literature. The new school of historico-critical rationalism availed
itself of every aid in the direction of scientific investigation. The
father of the vulgar rationalism of this age was _Röhr_ of Weimar, who
exercised his ingenuity in proving how one holding such views might still
hold office in the church. To this school also belonged _Paulus_ of
Heidelberg, described by Marheineke as one who believes he thinks and
thinks he believes but was incapable of either; _Wegscheider_ of Halle,
who in his “_Institutions theol. Christ. dogmaticæ_” repudiates miracles;
_Bretschneider_ of Gotha, who began as a supernaturalist and afterwards
went over to extreme rationalism; and _Ammon_ of Dresden, who afterwards
passed over to rational supernaturalism.
3. The founder of _Historico-critical Rationalism_ was _De Wette_; a
contemporary of Schleiermacher in Berlin University, but deprived of
office in A.D. 1819 for sending a letter of condolence to the mother of
Sands, which was regarded as an apology for his crime. From A.D. 1822 till
his death in A.D. 1849 he continued to work unweariedly in Basel. His
theological position had its starting point in the philosophy of his
friend Fries, which he faithfully adhered to down to the end of his life.
His friendship with Schleiermacher had also a powerful influence upon him.
He too placed religion essentially in feeling, which, however, he
associated much more closely with knowledge and will. In the church
doctrines he recognised an important symbolical expression of religious
truths, and so by the out and out rationalist he was all along sneered at
as a mystic. But his chief strength lay in the sharp critical treatment
which he gave to the biblical canon and the history of the O.T. and N.T.
His commentaries on the whole of the N.T. are of permanent value, and
contain his latest thoughts, when he had approached most nearly to
positive Christianity. His literary career began in A.D. 1806 with a
critical examination of the books of Chronicles. He also wrote on the
Psalms, on Jewish history, on Jewish archæology, and made a new
translation of the Bible. His Introductions to the O.T. and N.T. have been
translated into English.—_Winer_ of Leipzig is best known by his “Grammar
of New Testament Greek,” first published in A.D. 1822, of which several
English and American translations have appeared, the latest and best that
of Dr. Moulton, made in A.D. 1870, from the sixth German edition. He also
edited an admirable “_Bibl. Reallexicon_,” and wrote a work on symbolics
which has been translated into English under the title “A Comparative View
of the Doctrines and Confessions of the Various Communities of
Christendom” (Edin., 1873).—_Gesenius_ of Halle, who died A.D. 1842, has
won a high reputation by his grammatical and lexicographical services and
as author of a commentary on Isaiah—_Hupfeld_ of Marburg and Halle, who
died A.D. 1866, best known by his work in four vols. on the Psalms, in his
critical attitude toward the O.T., belonged to the same party.—_Hitzig_ of
Zürich and Heidelberg, who died A.D. 1875, far outstripped all the rest in
genius and subtlety of mind and critical acuteness. He wrote commentaries
on most of the prophets and critical investigations into the O.T.
history.—_Ewald_ of Göttingen, A.D. 1803-1875, whose hand was against
every man and every man’s hand against him, held the position of
recognised dictator in the domain of Hebrew grammar, and uttered oracles
as an infallible expounder of the biblical books. In his _Journal for
Biblical Science_, he held an annual _auto da fe_ of all the
biblico-theological literature of the preceding year; and, assuming a
place alongside of Isaiah and Jeremiah, he pronounced in every preface a
prophetic burden against the theological, ecclesiastical, or political ill
doers of his time. His exegetical writings on the poetical and prophetical
books of the O.T., his “History of Israel down to the Post-Apostolic Age,”
and a condensed reproduction of his “Bible Doctrine of God,” under the
title: “Revelation, its Nature and Record” and “Old and New Testament
Theology,” have all appeared in English translations, and exhibit
everywhere traces of brilliant genius and suggestive originality.(88)
4. _Supernaturalism_ of the older type (§ 171, 8) was now represented by
Storr, Reinhard, Planck, Knapp, and Stäudlin. In Württemberg Storr’s
school maintained its pre-eminence down to A.D. 1830. Neander, Tholuck,
and Hengstenberg may be described as the founders and most powerful
enunciators of the more recent _Pietistic Supernaturalism_. Powerfully
influenced by Schleiermacher, his colleague in Berlin, _Neander_, A.D.
1789-1850, exercised an influence such as no other theological teacher had
exerted since Luther and Melanchthon. Adopting Schleiermacher’s
standpoint, he regarded religion as a matter of feeling: _Pectus est quod
theologum facit_. By his subjective pectoral theology he became the father
of modern scientific pietism, but it incapacitated him from understanding
the longing of the age for the restoration of a firm objective basis for
the faith. He was adverse to the Hegelian philosophy no less than to
confessionalism. Neander was so completely a pectoralist, that even his
criticism was dominated by feeling, as seen in his vacillations on
questions of N.T. authenticity and historicity. His “Church History,” of
which we have admirable English translations, was an epoch-making work,
and his historical monographs were the result of careful original
research.(89)—_Tholuck_, A.D. 1799-1877, from A.D. 1826 professor at
Halle, at first devoted to oriental studies, roused to practical interests
by Baron von Kottwitz of Berlin, gave himself with all his wide culture by
preaching, lecturing and conversing to lead his students to Christ. His
scientific theology was latitudinarian, but had the warmth and freshness
of immediate contact with the living Saviour. His most important works are
apologetical and exegetical. In his “Preludes to the History of
Rationalism” he gives curious glimpses into the scandalous lives of
students in the seventeenth century; and he afterwards confessed that
these studies had helped to draw him into close sympathy with
confessionalism. While always lax in his views of authenticity, he came to
adopt a very decided position in regard to revelation and
inspiration.—_Hengstenberg_, A.D. 1802-1869, from A.D. 1826 professor in
Berlin, had quite another sort of development. Rendered determined by
innumerable controversies, in none of which he abated a single hair’s
breadth, he looked askance at science as a gift of the Danaides, and set
forth in opposition to rationalism and naturalism a system of theology
unmodified by all the theories of modern times. Born in the Reformed
church and in his understanding of Scripture always more Calvinist than
Lutheran, rationalising only upon miracles that seemed to detract from the
dignity of God, and in his later years inclined to the Romish doctrine of
justification, he may nevertheless claim to be classed among the
confessionalists within the union. He deserves the credit of having given
a great impulse to O.T. studies and a powerful defence of O.T. books,
though often abandoning the position of an apologist for that of an
advocate. His “Christology of the Old Testament,” in four vols.,
“Genuineness of the Pentateuch and Daniel,” three vols., “Egypt and the
Books of Moses,” commentaries on Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, the Gospel
of John, Revelation, and his “History of the Kingdom of God in the Old
Testament,” have all been translated into English.
5. The so called _Rational Supernaturalism_ admits the supernatural
revelation in holy scripture, and puts reason alongside of it as an
equally legitimate source of religious knowledge, and maintains the
rationality of the contents of revelation. Its chief representative was
_Baumgarten-Crusius_ of Jena. Of a similar tendency, but more influenced
by æsthetic culture and refined feeling, and latterly inclining more and
more to the standpoint of “free Protestantism,” _Carl Hase_, after seven
years’ work in Tübingen, opened his Jena career in A.D. 1830, which he
closed by resigning his professorship in A.D. 1883, after sixty years’
labour in the theological chair. In his “Life of Jesus,” first published
A.D. 1829, he represents Christ as the ideal man, sinless but not free
from error, endowed with the fulness of love and the power of pure
humanity, as having truly risen and become the author of a new life in the
kingdom of God, of which the very essence is most purely and profoundly
expressed in the gospel of the disciple who lay upon the Master’s heart.
The latest revision of this work, issued in A.D. 1876 under the title
“_Geschichte Jesu_,” treats the fourth gospel as non-Johannnine in
authorship and mythical in its contents, and explains the resurrection by
the theory of a swoon or a vision. In his “_Hutterus Redivivus_,” A.D.
1828, twelfth edition 1883, he seeks to set forth the Lutheran dogmatic as
Hutter might have done had he lived in these days. This led to the
publication of controversial pamphlets in A.D. 1834-1837, which dealt the
deathblow to the _Rationalismus Vulgaris_. His “Church History,”
distinguished by its admirable little sketches of leading personalities,
was published in A.D. 1834, and the seventh edition of A.D. 1854 has been
translated into English.
6. _Speculative Theology._—Its founder was _Daub_, professor at Heidelberg
from A.D. 1794 till his death in A.D. 1836. Occupying and writing from the
philosophical standpoints of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling successively, he
published in A.D. 1816 “Judas Iscariot,” an elaborate discussion of the
nature of evil, but passed over in A.D. 1833, with his treatise on
dogmatics, to the Hegelian position. He exerted great influence as a
professor, but his writings proved to most unintelligible.—_Marheineke_ of
Berlin in the first edition of his “Dogmatics” occupied the standpoint of
Schelling, but in the second set forth Lutheran orthodoxy in accordance
with the formulæ of the Hegelian system.—After Hegel’s death in A.D. 1831
his older pupils _Rosenkranz_ and _Göschel_ sought to enlist his
philosophy in the service of orthodoxy. _Richter_ was the first to give
offence, by his “Doctrine of the Last Things,” in which he denounced the
doctrine of immortality in the sense of personal existence after death.
_Strauss_, A.D. 1808-1874, represented the “Life of Jesus,” in his work of
A.D. 1835, as the product of unintentional romancing, and in his
“_Glaubenslehre_” of A.D. 1840, sought to prove that all Christian
doctrines are put an end to by modern science, and openly taught pantheism
as the residuum of Christianity. _Bruno Bauer_, after passing from the
right to the left Hegelian wing, described the gospels as the product of
conscious fraud, and _Ludwig Feuerbach_, in his “Essence of Christianity,”
A.D. 1841, set forth in all its nakedness the new gospel of
self-adoration. The breach between the two parties in the school was now
complete. Whatever Rosenkranz and Schaller from the centre, and Göschel
and Gabler from the right, did to vindicate the honour of the system, they
could not possibly restore the for ever shattered illusion that it was
fundamentally Christian. Those of the right fell back into the camps of
“the German theology” and the Lutheran confessionalism; while in the
latest times the left has no prominent theological representative but
Biedermann of Zürich.
7. _The Tübingen School._—Strauss was only the advanced skirmisher of a
school which was proceeding under an able leader to subject the history of
early Christianity to a searching examination. _Fred. Chr. Baur_ of
Tübingen, A.D. 1792-1860, almost unequalled among his contemporaries in
acuteness, diligence, and learning, a pupil of Schleiermacher and Hegel,
devoted himself mainly to historical research about the beginnings of
Christianity. In this department he proceeded to reject almost everything
that had previously been believed. He denied the genuineness of all the
New Testament writings, with the exception of Revelation and the Epistles
to the Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians; treating the rest as forgeries
of the second century, resulting from a bitter struggle between the
Petrine and Pauline parties. This scheme was set forth in a rudimentary
form in the treatise on “The So-called Pastoral Epistles of the Apostle
Paul,” A.D. 1835. His works, “Paul, the Apostle,” and the “History of the
First Three Centuries,” have been translated into English. He had as
collaborateurs in this work, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, etc.
_Ritschl_, who was at first an adherent of the school, made important
concessions to the right, and in the second edition of his great work,
“_Die Entstehung d. alt-kath. Kirche_,” of A.D. 1857, announced himself as
an opponent. _Hilgenfeld_ of Jena, too, marked out new lines for himself
in New Testament Introduction and in the estimate of early church
doctrine, modifying in various ways the positions of Baur. The labours of
this school and its opponents have done signal service in the cause of
science.
8. _Strauss_, who had meanwhile occupied himself with the studies of Von
Hutten, Reimarus, and Lessing’s “Nathan,” feeling that the researches of
the Tübingen school had antiquated his “Life of Jesus,” and stimulated by
Renan’s “Life of Jesus,” written with French elegance and vivacity, in
which he described Christ as an amiable hero of a Galilæan village story,
undertook in 1864 a semi-jubilee reproduction of his work, addressed to
“the German people.” This was followed by a severe controversial pamphlet,
“The Half and the Whole,” in which he lashed the halting attempts of
Schenkel as well as the uncompromising conservatism of Hengstenberg. He
now pointed out cases of intentional romancing in the gospel narratives;
the resurrection rests upon subjective visions of Christ’s disciples. His
“Lectures on Voltaire” appeared in A.D. 1870, and in A.D. 1872 the most
radical of all his books, “The Old and the New Faith,” which makes
Christianity only a modified Judaism, the history of the resurrection mere
“humbug,” and the whole gospel story the result of the “hallucinations” of
the early Christians. The question whether “we” are still Christians he
answers openly and honourably in the negative. He has also surmounted the
standpoint of pantheism. The religion of the nineteenth century is
_pancosmism_, its gospel the results of natural science with Darwin’s
discoveries as its bible, its devotional works the national classics, its
places of worship the concert rooms, theatres, museums, etc. The most
violent attacks on this book came from the _Protestantenverein_. Strauss
had said, “If the old faith is absurd, then the modernized edition of the
‘_Protestantenverein_’ and the school of Jena is doubly, trebly so. The
old faith only contradicts reason, not itself; the new contradicts itself
at every point, and how can it then be reconciled with reason?”(90)
9. _The Mediating Theology._—This tendency originated from the right wing
of the school of Schleiermacher, still influenced more or less by the
pectoralism of Neander. It adopted in dogmatics a more positive and in
criticism a more conservative manner. It earnestly sought to promote the
interests of the union not merely as a combination for church government,
but as a communion under a confessional consensus. Its chief theological
organs were the “_Studien und Kritiken_,” started in A.D. 1828, edited by
Ullmann and Umbreit in Heidelberg, afterwards by Riehm and Köstlin in
Halle, and the “_Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_” of Dorner and
Leibner, A.D. 1856-1878.—Although the mediating theology sought to sink
all confessional differences, denominational descent was more or less
traceable in most of its adherents. Its leading representatives from the
_Reformed church_ were: _Alexander Schweizer_, who most faithfully
preserved the critical tendency of Schleiermacher, and, in a style far
abler and subtler than any other modern theologian, expounded the Reformed
system of doctrine in its rigid logical consistency. In his own system he
gives a scientific exposition of the evangelical faith from the unionist
standpoint, with many pious reflections on Scripture and the confession as
well as results of Christian experience, based upon the threefold
manifestation of God set forth without miracle in the physical order of
the world, in the moral order of the world, and in the historical economy
of the kingdom of God.—_Sack_, one of the oldest and most positive of
Schleiermacher’s pupils, professor at Bonn, then superintendent at
Magdeburg, wrote on apologetics and polemics. _Hagenbach_ of Basel, A.D.
1801-1874, is well-known by his “Theological Encyclopædia and
Methodology,” “History of the Reformation,” and “History of the Church in
the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” all of which are translated into
English.—_John Peter Lange_ of Bonn, A.D. 1802-1884, a man of genius,
imaginative, poetic, and speculative, with strictly positive tendencies,
widely known by his “Life of Christ” and the commentary on Old and New
Testament, edited and contributed to by him.—_Dr. Philip __ Schaff_ may
also be named as the transplanter of German theology of the
Neander-Tholuck type to the American soil. Born in Switzerland, he
accepted a call as professor to the theological seminary of the German
Reformed church at Mercersburg in 1843. He soon fell under suspicion of
heresy, but was acquitted by the Synod of New York in 1845. In 1869 he
accepted a call to a professorship in the richly endowed Presbyterian
Union Theological Seminary of New York. Writing first in German and
afterwards in English, his works treat of almost all the branches of
theological science, especially in history and exegesis. He is also
president of several societies engaged in active Christian work.
10. Among those belonging originally to the _Lutheran church_ were
Schleiermacher’s successor in Berlin, _Twesten_, whose dogmatic treatise
did not extend beyond the doctrine of God, a faithful adherent of
Schleiermacher’s right wing on the Lutheran side; _Nitzsch_, professor in
Bonn A.D. 1822-1847, and afterwards of Berlin till his death in A.D. 1868,
best known by his “System of Christian Doctrine,” and his Protestant reply
to Möhler’s “Symbolism,” a profound thinker with a noble Christian
personality, and one of the most influential among the consensus
theologians. _Julius Müller_ of Halle, A.D. 1801-1878, if we except his
theory of an ante-temporal fall, occupied the common doctrinal platform of
the confessional unionists. His chief work, “The Christian Doctrine of
Sin,” is a masterpiece of profound thinking and original research.
_Ullmann_, A.D. 1796-1865, professor in Halle and Heidelberg, a noble and
peace-loving character, distinguished himself in the domain of history by
his monograph on “Gregory Nazianzen,” his “Reformers before the
Reformation,” and most of all by his beautiful apologetical treatise on
the “Sinlessness of Jesus.”—_Isaac Aug. Dorner_, A.D. 1809-1884, born and
educated in Württemberg, latterly professor in Berlin, applied himself
mainly to the elaborating of Christian doctrine, and gave to the world, in
his “Doctrine of the Person of Christ,” in A.D. 1839, a work of careful
historical research and theological speculation. The fundamental ideas of
his Christology are the theory favoured by the “German” theology generally
of the necessity of the incarnation even apart from sin (which Müller
strongly opposed), and the notion of the archetypal Christ, the God-Man,
as the collective sum of humanity, in whom “are gathered the patterns of
all several individualities.” His “System of Christian Doctrine” formed
the copestone of an almost fifty years’ academical career. Christ’s virgin
birth is admitted as the condition of the essential union in Him of
divinity and humanity; but the incarnation of the Logos extends through
the whole earthly life of the Redeemer; it is first completed in his
exaltation by means of his resurrection; it was therefore an operation of
the Logos, as principle of all divine movement, _extra __ carnem_. His
“System of Christian Ethics” was edited after his death by his
son.(91)—_Richard Rothe_, A.D. 1799-1867, appointed in A.D. 1823 chaplain
to the Prussian embassy at Rome, where he became intimately acquainted
with Bunsen. In A.D. 1828 he was made ephorus at the preachers’ seminary
of Wittenberg, and afterwards professor in Bonn and Heidelberg. Rothe was
one of the most profound thinkers of the century, equalled by none of his
contemporaries in the grasp, depth, and originality of his speculation.
Though influenced by Schleiermacher, Neander, and Hegel, he for a long
time withdrew like an anchoret from the strife of theologians and
philosophers, and took up a position alongside of Oetinger in the chamber
of the theosophists. His mental and spiritual constitution had indeed much
in common with that great mystic. In his first important work, “_Die
Anfänge der chr. Kirche_,” he gave expression to the idea that in its
perfected form the church becomes merged into the state. The same thought
is elaborated in his “Theological Ethics,” a work which in depth,
originality, and conclusiveness of reasoning is almost unapproached, and
is full of the most profound Christian views in spite of its many
heterodoxies. In his later years he took part in the ecclesiastical
conflicts in Baden (§ 196, 3) with the _Protestantenverein_ (§ 180, 1),
and entered the arena of public ecclesiastical life.(92)—_Beyschlag_ of
Halle, in his “_Christologie d. N. T._,” A.D. 1866, carried out
Schleiermacher’s idea of Christ as only man, not God and man but the ideal
of man, not of two natures but only one, the archetypal human, which,
however, as such is divine, because the complete representation of the
divine nature in the human. From this standpoint, too, he vindicates the
authenticity of John’s Gospel, and from Romans ix.-xi. works out a
“Pauline Theodicy.”—_Hans Lassen Martensen_, A.D. 1808-1884, professor at
Copenhagen, Bishop of Zealand and primate of Denmark, with high
speculative endowments and a considerable tincture of theosophical
mysticism, has become through his “Christian Dogmatics,” “Christian
Ethics,” in three vols., etc., of a thoroughly Lutheran type, one of the
best known theologians of the century.
11. Among _Old Testament exegetes_ the most distinguished are: _Umbreit_,
A.D. 1795-1860, of Heidelberg, who wrote from the supernaturalist
standpoint, influenced by Schleiermacher and Herder, commentaries on
Solomon’s writings and those of the prophets, and on Job; _Bertheau_ of
Göttingen, of Ewald’s school, wrote historico-critical and philological
commentaries on the historical books; and _Dillmann_, Hengstenberg’s
successor in Berlin, specially distinguished for his knowledge of the
Ethiopic language and literature, has written critical commentaries on the
Pentateuch and Job.—Among _New Testament exegetes_ we may mention: _Lücke_
of Göttingen, known by his commentary on John’s writings; _Bleek_, the
able New Testament critic and commentator on the Epistle to the Hebrews;
_Meyer_, A.D. 1800-1873, most distinguished of all, whose “Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,” begun in A.D. 1832, in which
he was aided by Huther, Lunemann, and Düsterdieck, is well-known in its
English edition as the most complete exegetical handbook to the New
Testament; _Weiss_ of Kiel and Berlin, author of treatises on the
doctrinal systems of Peter and of John, “The Biblical Theology of the New
Testament,” “Life of Christ,” “Introduction to New Testament,” revises and
rewrites commentaries on Mark, Luke, John, and Romans, in the last edition
of the Meyer series.—A laborious student in the domain of New Testament
textual criticism was _Constant. von Tischendorff_ of Leipzig, A.D.
1815-1874, who ransacked all the libraries of Europe and the East in the
prosecution of his work. The publication of several ancient codices,
_e.g._ the _Cod. Sinaiticus_, a present from the Sinaitic monks to the
czar on the thousandth anniversary of the Russian empire in A.D. 1862, the
_Cod. Vaticanus N.T._, a new edition of the LXX., the most complete
collection of New Testament apocrypha and pseudepigraphs, and finally a
whole series of editions of the New Testament (from A.D. 1841-1873 there
appeared twenty-four editions, of which the _Editio Octava Major_ of 1872
is the most complete in critical apparatus), are the rich and ripe fruits
of his researches. A second edition, compared throughout with the
recensions of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, was published by _Von
Gebhardt_, and a third volume of Prolegomena was added by C. R. Gregory.
As a theologian he attached himself, especially in later years, to the
Lutheranism of his Leipzig colleagues, and on questions of criticism and
introduction took up a strictly conservative position as seen in his well
known tract, “When were our Gospels written?”
12. Among the university teachers of his time _John Tob. Beck_, A.D.
1804-1878, assumed a position all his own. After a pastorate of ten years
he began in A.D. 1836 his academical career in Basel, and went in A.D.
1843 to Tübingen, where he opposed to the teaching of Baur’s school a
purely biblical and positive theology, with a success that exceeded all
expectations. A Württemberger by birth, nature, and training, he quite
ignored the history of the church and its dogmas as well as modern
criticism, and set forth a system of theology drawn from a theosophical
realistic study of the Bible. He took little interest in the excited
movements of his age for home and foreign missions, union, confederation,
and alliances, in questions about liturgies, constitution, discipline, and
confessions, in all which he saw only the form of godliness without the
power. Better times could be hoped for only as the result of the immediate
interposition of God. His “Pastoral Theology” and “Biblical Psychology”
have been translated into English.
13. _The Lutheran Confessional Theology._—_Sartorius_, A.D. 1797-1859,
from A.D. 1822 professor in Dorpat, then from A.D. 1835 general
superintendent at Königsberg, made fresh and vigorous attacks upon
rationalism, and supported the union as preserving “the true mean” of
Lutheranism. He is best known by his “Doctrine of Divine Love.”
_Rudelbach_,—a Dane by birth and finally settled in Copenhagen, occupying
the same ground, became a violent opponent of the union.—_Guericke_ of
Halle, beginning as a pietist, passed through the union into a rigorous
Lutheran, and joined Rudelbach in editing the journal afterwards conducted
by Luthardt of Leipzig.—Alongside of these older representatives of
Lutheran orthodoxy there arose a _second generation_ which from A.D. 1840
has fallen into several groups. Their divergencies were mainly on two
points: (1) On the place and significance of the clerical order, some
viewing it as based on the general priesthood of believers and resting on
the call of the congregation for the orderly administration of the means
of grace, others regarding it as a divine institution, yet without
adopting the Romanizing and Anglican theory of apostolic succession; and
(2) On the more important question of biblical prophecy, where one party
maintained the spiritualistic, widely favoured since the time of Jerome,
and another party, attaching itself to Crusius and Bengel, insisted upon a
realistic interpretation.—At the head of the _first group_, which
maintained the old Protestant theory of church and office and looked
askance at chiliastic theories, supporting the old doctrines by all
available materials from modern science, stands _Harless_, A.D. 1806-1879,
professor in Erlangen and Leipzig, the chief ecclesiastical commissioner
in Dresden, and finally at Munich. His theological reputation rests upon
his “Commentary on Ephesians,” A.D. 1835, his “Christian Ethics,” A.D.
1842. Alongside of him _Thomasius_ of Erlangen, A.D. 1802-1875, wrought in
a similar direction.—_Keil_, A.D. 1807-1888, from A.D. 1833 professor in
Dorpat, since A.D. 1858 living retired in Leipzig, of all Hengstenberg’s
students has most faithfully preserved his master’s exegetical and
critical conservatism. He began in A.D. 1861 in connexion with Delitzsch
his “Old Testament Commentary” on strictly conservative lines. We have an
English translation of that work, and also of his “Introduction to the Old
Testament” and his “Old Testament Archæology.”—_Philippi_, A.D. 1809-1882,
son of Jewish parents, during his academic career in Dorpat, A.D.
1841-1852, exercised a powerful influence in securing for strict
Lutheranism a very widespread ascendency among the clergy of Livonia. From
A.D. 1852 till his death in A.D. 1882 he resided in Rostock. As exegete
and dogmatist, he has, like a John Gerhard and Quenstedt of the nineteenth
century, reproduced the Lutheran theology of the seventeenth century,
unmodified by the developments of modern thought. He is known to English
readers by his “Commentary on Romans.” His chief work is “_Kirchl.
Glaubenslehre_,” in six vols.—Alongside of him, and scarcely less
important, stands _Theodosius Harnack_, who went from Dorpat in A.D. 1853
to Erlangen, but returned to Dorpat in A.D. 1866, and retired in A.D.
1873. He has written upon the worship of the church of the post-apostolic
age, on Luther’s theology, and practical theology.
14. At the head of the _second group_, characterized by a decided biblical
realism and inclined to a biblical chiliasm, stands _Von Hofmann_ of
Erlangen, A.D. 1810-1877, whose “_Weissagung und Erfüllung_,” 1841,
represents the very antipodes of Hengstenberg’s view of the Old Testament,
placing history and prophecy in vital relation to one another, and
studying prophecy in its historical setting. In his “_Schriftbeweis_” we
have an entirely new system of doctrine drawn from Scripture, the doctrine
of the atonement being set forth in quite a different form from that
generally approved, but vindicated by its author against Philippi as “a
new way of teaching old truth.” In his commentary on the New Testament, he
takes up a conservative position on questions of criticism and
introduction.—_Franz Delitzsch_, in Rostock, A.D. 1846, Erlangen, A.D.
1850, in Leipzig since A.D. 1867, more intimately acquainted with
rabbinical literature than any other Christian theologian, became an
enthusiastic adherent of Hofmann’s position. His theology, however, has a
more decidedly theosophical tendency, while his critical attitude is more
liberal. He is well known by his “Biblical Psychology,” commentary on
Psalms, Isaiah, Solomon’s writings, Job, Hebrews, and a new commentary on
Genesis in which he accepts many of the positions of the advanced school
of biblical criticism.—_Luthardt_ of Leipzig in the domain of New
Testament exegesis and dogmatics works from the standpoint of Hofmann. His
“Commentary on John’s Gospel,” “Authorship of Fourth Gospel,” and
“Apologetical Lectures on the Fundamental, Saving and Moral Truths of
Christianity,” are well known.—Hofmann’s conception of Old Testament
doctrine is admirably carried out by _Oehler_, A.D. 1812-1872, with
learning and speculative power, in his “Theology of the Old Testament,”
and in various important monographs on Old Testament doctrines.—The most
important representatives of the _third group_, which strongly emphasizes
the extreme Lutheran theory of the church and office, are _Kliefoth_ of
Schwerin, liturgist and biblical commentator; and _Vilmar_, who opened his
academic career at Marburg, in 1836, with a controversial programme
entitled “The Theology of Facts against the Theology of Rhetoric.”
Vilmar’s lectures, able, though sketchy and incomplete, were published
after his death in A.D. 1868 by some of his disciples. To the same school
belonged _Von Zezschwitz_ of Erlangen, A.D. 1825-1886, whose
“_Catechetics_” is a treasury of solid learning.
15. Among Lutheran theologians taking little or nothing to do with these
controversial questions, _Kahnis_, A.D. 1814-1888, from A.D. 1850
professor at Leipzig, occupied a strict Lutheran confessional standpoint,
diverging only in the adoption of a subordinationist doctrine on the
person of Christ, a Sabellian theory of the Trinity, and a theory of the
Lord’s supper in some points differing from that of the strict Lutherans.
His historical sketches are vigorous and lively.—_Zöckler_ of Giessen and
Greifswald has made important contributions to church history, exegesis,
and dogmatics, and especially to the theory and history of natural
theology. In 1886 he began the publication of a short biblical commentary
contributed to by the most distinguished positive theologians, he himself
editing the New Testament and Strack the Old Testament. It is to be in
twelve vols., and is being translated into English.—_Von Oetingen_ of
Dorpat has devoted himself to social problems and moral
statistics.—_Frank_ of Erlangen has proved a powerful apologist for old
Lutheranism, and in his “System of Christian Evidence” has introduced a
new branch of theology, in which the subjective Christian certitude which
the believer has with his faith is made the basis of the scientific
exposition of the truth set forth in his “System of Christian Truth,” a
thoughtful and speculative treatise on doctrine, followed by “The System
of Christian Morals” as the conclusion of his theological work.—Lutheran
theology had also zealous representatives in several distinguished
jurists: _Göschel_, president of the consistory of Magdeburg, who wrote
against Strauss, sought to derive profound Christian teaching from Goethe
and Dante, and wrote on the last things, and on man in respect of body,
soul, and spirit; _Stahl_, A.D. 1802-1861, professor of law at Erlangen
and Berlin, leader since A.D. 1849 of the high-church aristocratic
reactionary party in the Prussian chamber, supported his views by
reference to the Scripture doctrine of the divine origin of magisterial
authority.
16. As zealous representatives of _Reformed Confessionalism_ who set aside
the dogma of predestination and so show no antagonism to the union, may be
named: _Heppe_, opponent of Vilmar in Marburg, who devoted much of his
career as a historian to the undermining of Lutheranism, then wrought upon
the histories of provincial churches, of Catholic mysticism and pietism,
etc.; and _Ebrard_, A.D. 1818-1887, a brilliant believing theologian who
combated rationalism and Catholicism, professor from A.D. 1847 of Reformed
theology at Erlangen, known by his “Gospel History: a Compendium of
Critical Investigations in Support of the Historical Church of the Four
Gospels,” his “Apologetics,” in 3 vols., “Commentary on Hebrews,” etc.
17. _The Free Protestant Theology._—This school originated in the left
wing of Schleiermacher’s following, and has as its literary organs,
Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift_ and the _Jahrbücher für prot. Theologie_.—The
distinguished statesman, _Von Bunsen_, A.D. 1791-1860, ambassador at Rome
and afterwards at London, at first stood at the head of the revival of the
church interests and life; but in his “Church of the Future,” conceived a
constitutional idea on a democratic basis, for which he sought support in
historical studies on the Ignatian age, etc., and the historical
refutation of the orthodox Christology and trinitarianism. His elaborate
work on “Egypt’s Place in the World’s History,” full of arbitrary
criticism, negative and positive, on the chronological and historical data
of the Old Testament, seeks to show that, by restoring the Egyptian
chronology, we for the first time make the Bible history fit into general
history. “The Signs of the Times” comprise glowing philippics against the
hierarchical pretensions of Papists and even more dangerous Lutherans,
insists on Scripture being translated out of the Semitic into the Japhetic
mode of speech, to which end he devoted his last great works, “God in
History” and his “Bible Commentary,” the latter finished after his death
by Kamphausen and Holtzmann.—_Schenkel_, A.D. 1813-1885, professor at
Heidelberg from A.D. 1851 till his resignation in A.D. 1884, from the
right wing of the mediating school, through unionism and Melanchthonianism
advanced to the standpoint of his “_Charakterbild Jesu_,” which strips
Christ of all supernatural features, yet proclaims him the redeemer of the
world, and strives to save his resurrection as a historical and saving
truth, and explains his appearances after the resurrection as “real
manifestations of the personality living and glorified after death.” In
later years he sought to draw yet more closely to positive Christianity.
_Keim_ of Zürich and Giessen, A.D. 1825-1878, the ablest of all recent
historians of the life of Jesus, and with all his radicalism preserving
some conservative tendencies, is best known by his “Jesus of Nazareth,” in
six vols.—_Holtzmann_ of Heidelberg and Strassburg, passed from the
mediating school over to that of Tübingen, from which in important points
he has now departed.—To the same rank belongs _Hausrath_ of Heidelberg,
whose “History of the New Testament Times” is well known. Under the
pseudonym of George Taylor he has composed several highly successful
historical romances.—The organs of this school are Hilgenfeld’s
_Zeitschrift_, and since 1875 the Jena “_Jahrbücher für protest.
Theologie_.”
18. _In the Old Testament Department_ a liberal critical school has arisen
which has reversed the old relation of “the law and the prophets,”
treating the origin of the law as post-exilian, and as in not coming at
the beginning, but at the end of the Jewish history. _Reuss_, whose
“History of the New Testament Books” marked an epoch in New Testament
introduction, was the first who moved in this direction, in his lectures
begun at Strassburg in A.D. 1834, the results of which are given us in his
“History of the Theology of the Apostolic Age” and in his “History of the
Canon.” Meanwhile _Vatke_ of Berlin had, in A.D. 1835, undertaken to prove
that the patriarchal religion was pure Semitic nature worship, and that
the prophets were the first to raise it into a monotheistic Jehovism.
Little success attended his efforts. Greater results were obtained by
Reuss’ two pupils, _Graf_ in A.D. 1866, and _Kayser_ in A.D. 1874. The
most brilliant exposition of this theory was given by _Julius Wellhausen_
of Greifswald, transferred in A.D. 1882 to the Philosophical Faculty of
Halle, in his “History of Israel.” In his “Prolegomena to History of
Israel,” and article “Israel” in “_Encyclopædia Britannica_,” he gives
expression with clearness and force to his radical negative criticism, and
develops a purely naturalist conception of the Old Testament. Professor
Kuenen of Leyden transplanted these views to the Netherlands, and
Robertson Smith has introduced them into Scotland and England, while in
Germany they are taught by a number of the younger teachers, Stade in
Giessen, Merx in Heidelberg, Smend in Basel, etc. And now at last in A.D.
1882 the venerable master of the school, _Edward Reuss_, has himself in
his “_Geschichte d. h. Schr. d. A. Test._” given a brilliant and in many
points modified exposition of these radical theories. The history of
Israel, according to him, divides itself into the four successive periods
of the heroes, of the prophets, of the priests, and of the scribes,
characterized respectively by individualism, idealism, formalism, and
traditionalism. Even before the close of prophetism the priestly influence
began to assert itself, but it was only in the post-exilian period under
the domination of the priests that the construction and codification of
the law began to make impression on the Jewish people. So too in the age
of the kings there existed a Levitical tradition about rites and worship,
which traced back its first outlines to the time of Moses, though at this
period there could have been no written official codex of any kind. In
regard to Moses, we are to think not only of his person as historical, but
also of his career as that of a man inspired by the divine spirit and
recognised as such by his contemporaries and fellow-countrymen.—Also
_Wellhausen_, who has hitherto concerned himself only with the critical
introduction to the Old Testament books, not with their historical or
theological interpretation, supplied this defect to some extent by his
“Prolegomena to the History of Israel.” He admits that much of the history
of Israel related in the Old Testament is credible. He even goes so far as
to allow that this history was a preparation and forerunner of
Christianity, but without miracle and prophecy, and without any immediate
interposition of God in the affairs of Israel.
19. Among the most distinguished free-thinking _dogmatists_ of recent
times, _Biedermann_ of Zürich, A.D. 1819-1885, has occupied the most
advanced position. His principal work, “_Christliche Dogmatik_,” A.D.
1869, defined God and the origin of the world as the self-development of
the Absolute Idea according to the Hegelian scheme, recognises in the
person of Christ the first realization of the Christian principle of the
divine sonship in a personal life, then proceeds with free exposition of
the Scripture and church doctrines, and combats openly the doctrines of
the church and through them also those of Scripture, as setting religion
purely in the domain of the imagination.—_Lipsius_ of Leipzig, Kiel, and
Jena, in his earliest treatise on the Pauline Doctrine of Justification in
A.D. 1853, held the position of the mediating theology, but under the
influence of Kant, Hegel, and Baur has been led to adopt the standpoint of
the “Free Protestant” school. His history of gnosticism and his researches
in early apocryphal literature are important contributions to our
knowledge of primitive Christianity. His “_Lehrbuch d. ev. prot.
Dogmatik_,” 1876, 2nd ed. 1879, on the basis of Kant and Schleiermacher,
fixing the limits of science with the former, and maintaining with the
latter the necessity of religious faith and life, not rejecting
metaphysics generally, but only its speculations on God and divine things
lying quite outside of human experience, seeks from the common faith of
the Christian church of all ages, as it is expressed in the Scriptures and
in the confessions, by the application of the freest subjective criticism
of the letter of revelation, to secure a theory of the world in harmony
with modern views.—_Pfleiderer_, Twesten’s successor in Berlin, in his
“Paulinism,” “Influence of Paul on Development of Christianity” and
“History of the Philosophy of Religion,” occupies more the Hegelian
speculative standpoint than that of Kantian criticism.
20. _Ritschl and his School._—_Ritschl_, 1822-1889, from A.D. 1846 in
Bonn, from A.D. 1864 in Göttingen, on his withdrawal from the Tübingen
party, applied himself to dogmatic studies and founded a school, the
adherents of which, divided into right and left wings, have secured quite
a number of academical appointments. After the completion of his great
dogmatic work on “Justification and Reconciliation,” Ritschl resumed his
historical studies in a “History of Pietism,” which he traces back through
the persecuted anabaptists of the Reformation age to the Tertiaries of the
Franciscan order and the mysticism of St. Bernard. He earnestly maintains
his adherence to the confessions of the Lutheran church, and regards it as
the task of his life to disentangle the pure Lutheran doctrine from the
accretions of scholastic metaphysics. Even more decidedly than
Schleiermacher, he banishes all philosophy from the domain of theology.
The grand significance of Kant’s doctrine of knowledge, with its assertion
of the incomprehensibility of all transcendent truth except the ethical
postulates of God, freedom and immortality, as set forth in a more
profound manner by Lotze, is indeed admitted, but only as a methodological
basis of all religious inquiries, and with determined rejection of every
material support from Kant’s construction of religion within the limits of
the pure reason. Ritschl rather pronounces in favour of the formal
principle of Protestantism, and declares distinctly that all religious
truth must be drawn directly from Scripture, primarily from the New
Testament as the witness of the early church uncorrupted by the
Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysic, but also secondarily from the Old
Testament as the record of the content of revelation made to the religious
community of Israel. The truthfulness of the biblical, especially of the
New Testament, system of truth, rests, however, not on any theory of
inspiration, but on its being an authentic statement of the early church
of the doctrine of Christ, inasmuch as to this witness the necessary
degree of _fides humana_ belongs. Ritschl’s Christology rests on the
witness of Christ to himself in the synoptists, through which he proclaims
himself the one prophet who in the divine purpose of grace for mankind has
received perfect consecration, sent by God into the world to represent the
founding of the kingdom of God on earth foreshadowed in the Old Testament
revelation; but no attempt is made to explain how Christ became possessed
of the secrets of the divine decree. To him, as the first and only
begotten Son of God, standing in essential union with the Father, belongs
the attribute of deity and the right of worship. But of an eternal
preexistence of Christ we can speak only in so far as this is meant of the
eternal gracious purpose of God to redeem the world through him by means
of the complete unfolding of the kingdom of God in the fellowship of love.
Whatever goes beyond this in the fourth gospel, its Johannine authenticity
not being otherwise contested, as well as in Paul’s epistles and in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, resulted from the necessity felt by their writers
for assigning a sufficient reason for the assumption of such incomparable
glory on the part of Christ. As the archetype of humanity destined for the
kingdom of God, Christ is the original object of the divine love, so that
the love of God to the members of his kingdom comes to them only through
him. And as the earthly founding, so also the heavenly completion, of the
kingdom of God is assigned to Christ, and hence after his resurrection all
power was given to him, of the transcendent exercise of which, however, we
can know nothing. The universality of human sin is admitted by Ritschl as
a fact of experience, but he despairs of reaching any dogmatic statement
as to the origin of sin through the temptation of a superhuman evil power.
But that sin is inherited and as original guilt is under the condemnation
of God, is not taught or pre-supposed by the teaching either of Christ or
of the apostles. Redemption (reconciliation and justification) consists in
the forgiveness of sins, by which the guilt that estranges from God is
removed and the sinner is restored into the fellowship of the kingdom of
God. Forgiveness, however, is not given on condition of the vicarious
penal sufferings of Christ, whose sufferings and death are of significance
rather because his life and works were a complete fulfilment of his
calling, and witnessed to as such by God’s raising him from the dead.
Justification secures the reception of the penitent sinner into the
fellowship of the kingdom of God, preached and perfectly developed by
Christ, and the sonship enjoyed in its membership, prefigured in Christ
himself, which contains in itself the desire as well as the capacity to do
good works out of love to God.—The school of Ritschl is represented in
Göttingen by its founder and by _Schultz_ and _Wendt_, in Marburg by
_Herrmann_, in Bonn by _Bender_, in Giessen by _Gottschick_ and
_Kattenbusch_, in Strassburg by _Lobstein_, in Basel by _Kaftan_, formerly
of Berlin.(93)
21. Opponents and critics of the school of Ritschl, especially from the
confessional Lutheran ranks, have appeared in considerable numbers.
Luthardt of Leipzig in A.D. 1878 opened the campaign against
Ritschilianism, followed by Bestmann, charging it with undermining
Christianity. The Hanoverian synod of A.D. 1882 decided by a large
majority that the scientific results of theological science must be ruled
by the confessions of the evangelical church. The chief theme at the
following Hanoverian Pentecost Conference was the “Incarnation of the Son
of God,” the discussion being led by Professor Dieckhoff of Rostock,
against whom no voice was raised in favour of the views of Ritschl. Not
long after, Professor Fricke of Leipzig published a lecture given by him
at the Meissen Conference, on the Present Relations of Metaphysics and
Theology, followed by utterances of Kübel of Tübingen, Grau of Königsberg,
Kreibig and H. Schmidt at Berlin, all unfavourable to Ritschl’s
theology.—The main objections are, according to _Bestmann_: idolatry of
Kant, depreciation of the religious factor in Christianity in favour of
the ethical by laying out a moral foreground without providing a dogmatic
background, reducing the objective fundamental truths of the confession
into subjective ethical ideas, etc.; according to _Luthardt_: Ritschl’s
position that it does not matter so much what the facts of the Christian
faith are in themselves, as what they mean for us, makes his whole
dogmatic system hang in the air, if in Christianity we have to do not with
what God, Christ, the resurrection are, but only what significance we
attach to them, Christianity is stript of all importance, the significance
of a thing must have its foundation in the thing itself, etc.; according
to _Dieckhoff_: Ritschl on his accepting the divinity of Christ lays down
the rule that the special content of what is meant by the term divinity
must be transferable to the believer, and so for Ritschl, Christ is a mere
man who in his person was the first to represent a relation to God which
is destined for all men in like measure, etc.; according to _Fricke_: new
Kantian scepticism with regard to ideals and transcendentals, reducing
religious elements to moral, with Ritschl’s removal of all metaphysical
facts the chief verities of our Christian faith are taken away, at least
in the scientific form in which we have them, _e.g._ the doctrine of the
Trinity, our Christology, our theory of satisfaction, in place of which
comes the Catholic _justitia infusa_, etc.; according to _Münchmayer_:
“the object of justification with Ritschl is not the individual but the
community, it is no act of God upon the individual but an eternal purpose
of God for the community, its effect on the individual is not objective
divine forgiveness of guilt but a subjective act of incorporation of the
individual into the redeemed community; Christ and his work are not the
ground of justification, but only the means of revealing the eternal
justifying will of God, and therefore finally a continuation of the
historical work of Christ by means of his church takes the place of the
personal intercession of the exalted Redeemer for the penitent sinner.”
Kreibig and Schmidt express themselves in a similar manner.—Ritschl has
not himself undertaken any reply, but his disciples have sought to remove
what they regard as misunderstandings, and generally to vindicate the
system of their master.
22. _Writers on Constitutional Law and History._—The most distinguished
writers on the constitutional law of the church are Eichhorn and Dove of
Göttingen, Jacobsen of Königsberg, Wasserschleben of Giessen, Richter and
Hinschius of Berlin, Friedberg of Leipzig, who belong to the unionist
party; while Bickell of Marburg, Mejer of Göttingen and Hanover, Von
Scheuerl of Erlangen, and Sohm of Strassburg belong to the confessional
Lutherans.—Of ecclesiastical historians (§ 5, 4, 5) the number is so great
that we cannot even enumerate their names.—The “_Theologische
Literaturzeitung_” of Schürer and Harnack is a liberal scientific journal,
distinguished for its fair criticisms by writers whose names are given.
§ 183. Home Missions.
In regard to home mission work, the Protestant church long lagged behind
the Catholic, which had wrought vigorously through its monkish orders.
England first entered with zeal into the field, especially dissenters and
members of the low church party, and subsequently also the high church
ritualistic party (§ 202, 1, 3), which now takes an active interest in
this work. Germany, in view of the scanty means at the disposal of the
pietists and the church party, made noble efforts. In other continental
countries, but especially in North America, much was done for home
missions. Soon the whole Protestant world began to organize benevolent and
evangelistic institutions. The laborious Wichern, in A.D. 1849, went
through all Germany to arouse interest in home missions, and started a
yearly congress on the subject in Wittenberg. Till his death in A.D. 1881,
Wichern continued to direct this congress and further the interests which
it represented.
1. _Institutions._—The earliest charity school was that founded at
Düsselthal by Count Recke-Volmarstein, in A.D. 1816, followed by Zeller’s
at Beuggen in A.D. 1820. One of the most famous of these institutions was
the _Rauhe Haus_ of Wichern, at Horn, near Hamburg, A.D. 1833.(94)
Fliedner’s Deaconess Institut at Kaiserswerth is the pride of the
evangelical church. It has now 190 branches, with 625 sisters, in the four
continents. There are many independent institutions modelled upon it in
Germany, England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, and France. In A.D.
1881 there were in Germany 31, and in the cities of other lands 22,
principal deaconess institutions of this German order, with 4,751 sisters
and 1,491 fields of labour outside of the institution. The original
institute of Kaiserswerth comprises a hospital with 600 patients, a refuge
for fallen women and liberated prisoners, an orphanage for girls, a
seminary for governesses, and a home for female imbeciles.(95) Löhe
founded the deaconess institute of _Neuendettelsau_, on strict Lutheran
principles, with hospital, girls’ school, and asylum for imbecile
children. In France a most successful institution was founded by pastor
Bost of Laforce, in A.D. 1848, for foundlings, imbeciles, and epileptics.
In England, George Müller, a poor German student of Halle, a pupil of
Tholuck, beginning in A.D. 1832, founded at Bristol five richly endowed
orphanages after the pattern of that of A. H. Francke, in which thousands
of destitute street children have been educated, and for this and other
purposes has spent nearly £1,000,000 without ever asking any one for a
contribution, acting on the belief that “the God of Elijah still lives.”
The London City Mission employs 600 missionaries. In New York, since A.D.
1855, about 60,000 street children have been placed, by the Society for
Poor Children, in Christian families, and 21 Industrial schools are
maintained with 10,000 scholars.—Tract Societies in London, Hamburg,
Berlin, etc., send out millions of tracts for Christian instruction and
awakening. The Society for North Germany successfully pursues a similar
work; the Calw Publication Society circulates Christian text-books with
woodcuts at a remarkably small price. In Berlin the Evangelical Book
Society issues reprints of the older tracts on practical divinity.
Christian women, like the English Quakeress Elizabeth Fry, the noble
Amalie Sieveking of Hamburg, Miss Florence Nightingale, the heroine of the
Crimean war, and the brave Maria Simon of Dresden, who organized the
female nursing corps of the wars of 1866, 1870, 1871, helped on the work
of home missions in all lands, especially in the departments of tending
the poor and the sick.
2. The _Order of St. John_, secularized in A.D. 1810, was reorganized by
Frederick William IV. in A.D. 1852 into an association for the care of the
sick and poor. Under a grand-master it has 350 members and 1,500
associates. Its revenues are formed from entrance fees and annual
contributions. It has thirty hospitals. In A.D. 1861 it founded a hospital
for men in Beyrout during the persecution of Christians in Syria, and in
A.D. 1868 gave aid during the famine that followed the typhus epidemic in
East Prussia, and did noble service in the wars of A.D. 1864, 1866, and
1870.
3. _The Itinerant Preacher Gustav Werner in Württemberg._—Abandoning his
charge in A.D. 1840, Werner began his itinerant labours, and during the
year formed more than a hundred groups of adherents over all Württemberg.
His preaching was allegorical and eschatological, and avoided the
doctrines of satisfaction and justification. On his repudiating the
Augsburg Confession, the church boards refused to recognise him, and he
went hither and thither preaching a Christian communism. In A.D. 1842 he
bought a site in Reutlingen, built a house, and founded a school for
eighty children. In order to develop his views of carrying on industrial
arts on a Christian basis, he bought, in A.D. 1850, the paper factory at
Reutlingen for £4,000, and subsequently transferred it to Dettingen on a
larger scale, at an outlay of £20,000. By A.D. 1862 he had established no
less than twenty-two branches, in which manufacturing was carried on, with
institutions of all kinds for education, pastoral work, rescuing the lost
and raising the fallen. Each member lives and works for the whole; none
receives wages; surplus income goes to increase the number and extent of
the institutions. Vast multitudes of sunken and destitute families have
been by these means restored to respectable social positions and to a
moral religious life.
4. _Bible Societies._—The Bible societies constitute an independent branch
of the home mission. Modern efforts to circulate Scripture began in
England. As a necessary adjunct to missionary societies, the great British
and Foreign Bible Society was founded in London in A.D. 1804, embracing
all Protestant sects, excepting the Quakers. It circulates Bibles without
note or comment. The Apocryphal controversy of A.D. 1825-1827 resulted in
the society resolving not to print the Apocrypha in its issues. In
consequence of this decision, fifty German societies, including the
present society of Berlin, seceded. The New York Association, founded in
A.D. 1817, is in thorough accord with the London society. The Baden
Missionary Society revived the discussion in A.D. 1852 by making it the
subject of essay for a prize, which was won by the learned work of Keerl,
who, along with the stricter Lutherans, condemned the Apocrypha. The other
side was taken by Stier and Hengstenberg, and most of the consistories
advised adherence to the old practice, as all misunderstanding was
prevented by Luther’s preface and the prohibition against using passages
from the Apocrypha as sermon texts.—Bible societies altogether have issued
during the century 180,000,000 Bibles and New Testaments in 324 different
languages.(96)
§ 184. Foreign Missions.
Protestant zeal for missions to the heathen has gone on advancing since
the end of last century (§ 172, 5). Missionary societies increase from
year to year. In A.D. 1883 there were seventy independent societies with
innumerable branches, which contribute annually about £1,500,000, or five
times as much as the Romish church, and maintain 2,000 mission stations,
2,940 European and American missionaries, and 1,000 ordained native
pastors and 25,000 native teachers and assistants, having under their care
2,214,000 converts from heathenism. In missionary enterprise England holds
the first place, next comes America, and then Germany. Among Protestant
sects the Methodists and Baptists are most zealous in the cause of
missions, and the Moravian Brethren have wrought most successfully in this
department. The missions also did much to prepare the way for the
suppression of the slave trade by the European powers in A.D. 1830, and
the emancipation of all slaves in the British possessions in A.D. 1834, at
a cost of £20,000,000. The noble English philanthropist, William
Wilberforce, unweariedly laboured for these ends.—Also in England,
Germany, Russia, and France new associations were formed for missions to
the Jews, and the work was carried on with admirable patience, though the
visible results were very small.
1. _Missionary Societies._—The great American Missionary Society was
founded at Boston in A.D. 1810, the English Wesleyan in A.D. 1814, the
American Methodist in A.D. 1819, the American Episcopal in A.D. 1820, and
the Society of Paris in A.D. 1824. The new German societies were on
confessional lines: that of Basel in A.D. 1816, of Berlin in A.D. 1823,
the Rhenish with the mission seminary at Barmen in A.D. 1829, the North
German, on the basis of the Augsburg Confession, in A.D. 1836. The Dresden
Society, which resumed the old Lutheran work in the East Indies (§ 167,
9), founded a seminary at Leipzig in A.D. 1849, in order to get the
benefit of the university. Lutheran societies, mostly affiliated with that
of Leipzig, were started in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Russia, Bavaria,
Hanover, Mecklenburg, Hesse, and America. The Neuendettelsau Institute
wrought through the Iowa Synod among the North American Indians, and
through the Immanuel Synod among the aborigines of Australia. The
Hermannsburg Institute under Harms prosecuted mission work with great
zeal. In A.D. 1853, Harms sent out in his own mission ship eight
missionaries and as many Christian colonists. It has been objected to this
mission, that endeavours after social elevation and industrial training
have driven to the background the main question of individual
conversion.—The advanced liberal school in Switzerland and Germany sought
in A.D. 1883 to start a mission on their own particular lines. They do not
propose any opposition to existing agencies, and intend to make their
first experiment among the civilized races of India and Japan.
2. _Europe and America._—The Swedish mission in Lapland (§ 160, 7) was
resumed in A.D. 1825 by Stockfleth. The Moravians carried on their work
among the Eskimos in Greenland, which had now become a wholly Christian
country, and also in Labrador, which was almost in the same condition. The
chaplain of the Hudson Bay Company, J. West, founded a successful mission
in that territory in A.D. 1822. Among the natives and negro slaves in the
British possessions, the United States, and West Indies, Moravians,
Methodists, Baptists, and Anglican Episcopalians patiently and
successfully carried on the work. Among the natives and bush negroes,
descendants of runaway slaves, in Guiana, the Moravians did a noble
work.—Catholic South America remained closed against Protestant missions.
But the ardent zeal of Capt. Allen Gardiner led him to choose the
inhospitable shores of Patagonia as a field of labour. He landed there in
A.D. 1850 with five missionaries, but in the following year their corpses
only were found. The work, however, was started anew in A.D. 1856, and
prosecuted with success under the direction of an Anglican bishop.
3. _Africa._—The Moravians have laboured among the Hottentots, the Berlin
missionaries among the wild Corannas, and the French Evangelical Society
among the Bechuanas. Hahn of Livonia is the apostle of the Hereros. On the
East Coast the London Missionary Society has wrought among the warlike
Kaffirs, and other British societies are labouring in Natal among the
Zulus. On the West Coast the English colony of Sierra Leone was founded
for the settling and Christianizing of liberated slaves, and farther south
is Liberia, a similar American colony; both in a flourishing condition,
under the care of Methodists, Baptists, and Anglican Episcopalians. The
Basel missionaries labour on the Gold Coast, Baptists in Old Calabar, and
the American and North German Societies on the Gaboon River.—The London
missionaries won Radama of Madagascar to Christianity in A.D. 1818, but
his successor Ranavalona instituted a bloody persecution of the Christians
in A.D. 1835, during which David Jones, the apostle of the Malagassy,
suffered martyrdom in A.D. 1843. In the island of Mauritius, where there
is an Anglican bishop, many Malagassy Christians found refuge. After the
queen’s death in A.D. 1861, her Christian son Radama II. recalled the
Christian exiles and the missionaries. He soon became the victim of a
palace revolution. His wife and successor Rosaherina continued a heathen
till her death in A.D. 1868, but put no obstacle in the way of the gospel.
But her cousin Ranavalona II. overthrew the idol worship, was baptized in
A.D. 1869, and in the following year burned the national idols.
Protestantism now made rapid strides, till interrupted by French Jesuit
intrigues, which have been favoured by the recent French occupation.
4. Livingstone and Stanley have made marvellous contributions to our
geographical knowledge of _Central Africa_ and to Christian missions
there. The Scottish missionary, David Livingstone, factory boy, afterwards
physician and minister, wrought, A.D. 1840-1849, under the London
Missionary Society in South Africa, and then entered on his life work of
exploration in Central Africa. During his third exploring journey into the
interior in A.D. 1865 as a British consul, he was not heard of for a whole
year. H. M. Stanley, of the _New York Herald_, was sent in A.D. 1871, and
found him in Ujiji on Lake Tanganyiká. Livingstone died of dysentery on
the southern bank of this lake in A.D. 1873. Still more important was
Stanley’s second journey, A.D. 1874-1877, which yielded the most brilliant
scientific results, and was epoch-making in the history of African
missions. He got the greatest potentate in those regions, King Mtesa of
Uganda, who had been converted by the Arabs to Mohammedanism, to adopt
Christianity and permit a Christian church to be built in his city.
Stanley’s letters from Africa roused missionary fervour throughout
England. The Church Missionary Society in A.D. 1877 set up a mission
station in the capital, and put a steamer on the Victoria Nyanza. The
church services were regularly attended, education and the work of
civilization zealously prosecuted, Sunday labour and the slave trade
prohibited, etc. French Jesuits entered in A.D. 1879, insinuating
suspicions of the English missionaries into the ear of the king, and the
machinations of the Arab slave-dealers made their position dangerous.
Missionaries arrived by way of Egypt with flattering recommendations from
the English foreign secretary in the name of the queen. But the traders,
by means of an Arabic translation of a letter purporting to be from the
English consul at Zanzibar, cast suspicion on the document as a forgery,
and represented its bearers as in the pay of the hostile Egyptians.
Mtesa’s wrath knew no bounds, and only his favour for the missionary
physician saved the mission and led him to send an embassy of three chiefs
and two missionaries to England in June, A.D. 1879, to discover the actual
truth. His anger meanwhile cooled, and the work of the mission was
resumed. He was preparing to put an utter end to the national heathenism,
when suddenly a report spread that the greatest of all the Lubaris or
inferior deities, that of the Nyanza Lake, had become incarnate in an old
woman, in order to heal the king and restore the ancient religion. The
whole populace was in an uproar; Mtesa, under threat of deposition,
restored heathenism, with human sacrifice, man stealing, and the slave
trade. Then the Lubari excitement cooled down. Mtesa, moved by a dream,
declared himself again a Mohammedan, and converted the Christian church
into a mosque. The English missionaries, stripped of all means, starved,
and subjected to all sorts of privations, did not flinch. At last, in
January, A.D. 1881, the embassy, sent eighteen months before to England,
reached home again, and, by the story of their reception, caused a
revulsion of feeling in favour of the English mission, which again
flourished under the protection of the king. But Mtesa died in 1884. His
son and successor, Mwanga, a suspicious, peevish young despot, addicted to
all forms of vice, began again the most cruel persecution, of which Bishop
Hannington, sent out from England, with fifty companions, were the
victims. Only four escaped.
5. _Asia._—The most important mission field in Asia is _India_. The old
Lutheran mission there had great difficulties to contend against: the
system of caste distinctions, the proud self-sufficiency of the
pantheistic Brahmans, the politico-commercial interests of the East India
Company, etc. The Leipzig Society has sixteen stations among the Tamuls,
and alongside are English, American, and German missionaries of every
school. The Gossner Society works among the Kohls of Chota Nagpore, where
a rival mission has been started by the puseyite bishop of Calcutta, Dr.
Milman, to which, in A.D. 1868, six of the twelve German missionaries and
twelve of the thirty-six chapels were transferred. The Basel missionaries
labour in Canara and Malabar. The military revolt in Northern India in
A.D. 1857 interrupted missionary operations for two years; but the work
was afterwards resumed with great vigour. The Christian benevolence shown
during the famine of A.D. 1878, in which three millions perished, made a
great impression in favour of the Protestant church. In the preceding
years throughout all India only between 5,000 and 10,000 souls were
annually added; but in A.D. 1878 the number of new converts rose to
100,000, and in A.D. 1879 there were 44,000.—The island of _Ceylon_ was,
under Portuguese and Dutch, rule, in great part nominally Christianized;
but when compulsion was removed under British rule, this sham profession
was at an end. Multitudes fell back into heathenism, and in the first ten
years of the British dominion 900 new idol temples were erected. From A.D.
1812 Baptist, Methodist, and Anglican missionaries have toiled with small
appearance of fruit. In _Farther India_ the American missionaries have
wrought since A.D. 1813. Judson and his heroic wife did noble work among
the Karens and the Burmans. Also in Malacca, Singapore, and Siam the
Protestant missions have had brilliant success. The work in Sumatra has
been retarded by the opposition of the Malays and deadly malarial fever.
The preaching of the gospel was eminently successful in _Java_, where
since A.D. 1814 Baptist missionaries and agents of the London Society have
wrought heroically. In Celebes the Dutch missionaries found twenty
Christian congregations of old standing, greatly deteriorated for want of
pastoral care, but still using the Heidelberg Catechism. At Banjermassin,
in A.D. 1835 the Rhenish Society founded their first station in Borneo,
and wrought not unsuccessfully among the heathen Dyaks. But in A.D. 1859 a
rebellion of the Mohammedan residents led to the expulsion of the Dutch
and the murder of all Christians. Only a few of the missionaries escaped
martyrdom, and subsequently settled in Sumatra.
6. The work in _China_ began in A.D. 1807, when the London Missionary
Society settled Morrison in Canton, where he began the study of the
language and the translation of the Bible. Gutzlaff of Pomerania, in A.D.
1826, conceived the plan of evangelizing China through the Chinese
converts, but, though he continued his efforts till his death in A.D.
1854, the scheme failed through the unworthiness of many of the
professors. The war against the opium traffic, A.D. 1839-1842, opened five
ports to the mission, and led to the transference of Hongkong to the
English. The Chinese mission now made rapid strides; but the interior was
still untouched. The conflict between the governor of Canton and the
English, French, and Americans, and the chastisement administered to the
Chinese in A.D. 1857, led the emperor, in A.D. 1858, to make a treaty with
the three powers and also with Russia, by which the whole land was opened
up for trade and missions, and full toleration granted to Christianity.
Popular hatred of strangers, and especially of missionaries, however,
occasioned frequently bloody encounters, and in A.D. 1870 there was a
furious outburst directed against the French missionaries. During a
terrible famine in North China, in A.D. 1878, when more than five millions
perished, the heroic and self-sacrificing conduct of the missionaries
brought them into high favour. Throughout China there are now 320
organized Christian congregations with 50,000 adherents under 238 foreign
missionaries.—After seclusion for three centuries, _Japan_, about the same
time as China, was opened by treaty to European and American commerce,
notwithstanding the opposition of the old feudal nobility, the so-called
Daimios. In A.D. 1871 the mikado’s government succeeded in overcoming
completely the power of the daimios and setting aside the shiogun or
military vizier, who had exercised supreme executive power. European
customs were introduced, but the rigorous enactments against native
converts to Christianity were still enforced. A cruel persecution of
native Christians was carried on in A.D. 1867, but the Protestant
missionaries continued to work unweariedly, preparing dictionaries and
reading books. The Buddhist priests sought to get up a rival mission to
send agents to America and Europe, whereas many of the leading newspapers
expressed the opinion that Japan must soon put Christianity in the place
of Buddhism as the state religion.
7. _Polynesia and Australia._—The flourishing Protestant church of Tahiti,
the largest and finest of the Society Islands (§ 172, 5), suffered from
the appearance of two French Jesuits in A.D. 1836. When Queen Pomare
compelled them to withdraw, the French government, resenting this as an
indignity to their nation, sent a fleet to attack the defenceless people,
proclaimed a French protectorate, and introduced not only Catholic
missionaries, but European vices. Amid much persecution, however, the
Protestants held their own. In December, 1880, Pomare V. resigned, and the
Society Islands became a dependency of France.—In the south-east groups
great opposition was shown, but in the north-west Christianity made rapid
progress. The island of Raiatea was the centre of the South Sea missions.
There from A.D. 1819 John Williams, the apostle of the South Seas, wrought
till he met a martyr’s death in A.D. 1839. He went from place to place in
a mission ship built by his own hands. The Harvey Group were Christianized
in A.D. 1821, and the Navigator Group in A.D. 1830. The French took the
Marquesas Islands in A.D. 1838, and introduced Catholic missionaries. The
attempt to evangelize the New Hebrides led to the death of Williams and
two of his companions. Missionaries of the London Society, A.D. 1797-1799,
had failed in the Friendly Islands through the savage character of the
natives, but in A.D. 1822 the Methodists made a successful start. The
gospel was carried thence to Fiji, which is now under British rule. Both
groups have become almost wholly Christianized. The _Sandwich Islands_
form a third mission centre, wrought by the American board. Kamehameha I.
gladly adopted the elements of Christian civilization, though rejecting
Christianity: while his successor Kamehameha II. in A.D. 1829 abolished
tabu and overthrew the idol temples. In A.D. 1851 Christianity was adopted
as the national religion. The work was more difficult in _New Zealand_,
where the Church Missionary Society, represented by Samuel Marsden, the
apostle of New Zealand, began operations in A.D. 1814. For ten years the
position of the missionaries was most hazardous; yet they held on, and the
conversion of the most bloodthirsty of the chiefs did much to advance
their cause. In New Guinea the London Society has been making steady
progress. Among the stolid natives of the continent of New Holland, the so
called Papuans, the labours of the Moravians since A.D. 1849 have not
yielded much fruit. Since A.D. 1875 the German-Australian Immanuel Synod,
supported by Neuendettelsau, has laboured for the conversion of the
heathen in the inland districts.
8. _Missions to the Jews._—In A.D. 1809 the London Society for Promoting
Christianity among the Jews (§ 172, 5) was formed by a union of all
denominations, but soon passed into the hands of the Anglicans. By the
circulation of the Scriptures and tracts, and by the sending out of
missionaries, mostly Jewish converts, the work was persevered in amid many
discouragements. In A.D. 1818 Poland was opened to its missionaries, and
there some 600 Jews were baptized. The society carried on its operations
also in Germany, Holland, France, and Turkey. The work in Poland was
interrupted by the Crimean war, and was not resumed till A.D. 1875. In
Bessarabia Faltin has laboured successfully among the Jews since A.D.
1860. He was joined in the work in A.D. 1867 by the converted Rabbi
Gurland, who had studied theology at Halle and Berlin. In A.D. 1871
Gurland accepted a call to similar work in Courland and Lithuania, and
since A.D. 1876 has been Lutheran pastor at Mitau. In A.D. 1841 the
evangelical bishopric of St. James was founded in Jerusalem by the English
and Prussian governments conjointly, presentations to be made alternately,
but the ordination to be according to the Anglican rite. The first bishop
was Alexander, a Jewish convert. He died in A.D. 1845 and was succeeded by
the zealous missionary Gobat, elected by the Prussian government. He died
in A.D. 1879 and was succeeded by Barclay, who died in A.D. 1881. It was
now again Prussia’s turn to make an appointment. The English demand to
have Lutheran ministers ordained successively deacon, presbyter, and
bishop had given offence, and so no new appointment has been made. In June
1886 the English-Prussian compact was formally cancelled and a proposal
made to found an independent Prussian Evangelical bishopric.
9. _Missions among the Eastern Churches._—In A.D. 1815 the Church
Missionary Society founded a missionary emporium in the island of Malta,
as a tract depôt for the evangelizing the East; and in A.D. 1846 the Malta
Protestant College was erected for training native missionaries, teachers,
physicians, etc., for work in the various oriental countries. In the
Ionian islands, in Constantinople, and in Greece, British and American
missionaries began operations in A.D. 1819 by erecting schools and
circulating the scriptures. At first the orthodox clergy were favourable,
but as the work progressed they became actively hostile, and only two
mission schools in Syra and Athens were allowed to continue. In Syria the
Americans made Beyrout their head quarters in A.D. 1824, but the work was
interrupted by the Turco-Egyptian conflicts. Subsequently, however, it
flourished more and more, and, before the Syrian massacre of A.D. 1860 (§
207, 2), there were nine prosperous stations in Syria. The founding of the
Jerusalem bishopric in A.D. 1841, and the issuing of the Hatti-Humayun in
A.D. 1856 (§ 207, 2), induced the Church Missionary Society to make more
vigorous efforts which, however, were afterwards abandoned for want of
success. Down to the outbreak of the persecution of Syrian Christians in
A.D. 1860, this society had five flourishing stations. From A.D. 1831 the
Americans had wrought zealously and successfully among the Armenians in
Constantinople and neighbourhood, but in A.D. 1845 the Armenian patriarch
excited a violent persecution which threatened the utter overthrow of the
work. The British ambassador, Sir Stratford de Redcliffe, however,
insisted upon the Porte recognising the rights of the Protestant Armenians
as an independent religious denomination, and since then the missions have
prospered. Among the Nestorians in Turkey and Persia the Americans, with
Dr. Grant at their head, began operations in A.D. 1834; but through Jesuit
intrigues the suspicions of the Kurds and Turks were excited, and in A.D.
1843 and 1846 a war of extermination was waged against the mountain
Nestorians, which annihilated the Protestant missions among them.
Operations, however, have been recommenced with encouraging success. Among
the deeply degraded Copts in Egypt, and extending from them into
Abyssinia, the Moravians had been working without any apparent result from
A.D. 1752 to A.D. 1783. In A.D. 1826 the Church Missionary Society, under
German missionaries trained at Basel (Gobat, Irenberg, Krapf, etc.), took
up the work, till it was stopped by the government in A.D. 1837. In A.D.
1855 the Basel missionaries began again to work in Abyssinia with the
approval of King Theodore. This state of things soon changed. Theodore’s
ambition was to conquer Egypt and overthrow Islam. But when in A.D. 1863
this scheme only called forth threats from London and Paris, he gave loose
rein to his natural ferocity and put the English consul and the German
missionaries in chains. By means of an armed expedition in A.D. 1868,
England compelled the liberation of the prisoners, and Theodore put an end
to his own life. After the withdrawal of the English the country was
desolated by civil wars, and at the close of these troubles in A.D. 1878
the mission resumed its operations.
III. Catholicism in General.
§ 185. The Papacy and the States of the Church.
The papacy, humiliated but not destroyed by Napoleon I., was in A.D. 1814
by the aid of princes of all creeds restored to the full possession of its
temporal and spiritual authority, and amid many difficulties it reasserted
for the most part successfully its hierarchical claims in the Catholic
states and in those whose Protestantism and Catholicism were alike
tolerated. Many severe blows indeed were dealt to the papacy even in the
Roman states by revolutionary movements, yet political reaction generally
by-and-by put the church in a position as good if not better than it had
before. But while on this side the Alps, especially since the outbreak of
A.D. 1848, ultramontanism gained one victory after another in its own
domain, in Italy, it suffered one humiliation after another; and while the
Vatican Council, which put the crown upon its idolatrous assumptions (§
189, 3), was still sitting, the whole pride of its temporal sovereignty
was shattered: the States of the Church were struck out of the number of
the European powers, and Rome became the capital and residence of the
prince of Sardinia as king of United Italy. But reverence for the pope now
reached a height among catholic nations which it had never anywhere
attained before.
1. _The First Four Popes of the Century._—Napoleon as First Consul of the
French Republic, in A.D. 1801 concluded a concordat with _Pius VII._, A.D.
1800-1823, who under Austrian protection was elected pope at Venice,
whereby the pope was restored to his temporal and spiritual rights, but
was obliged to abandon his hierarchical claims over the church of France
(§ 203, 1). He crowned the consul emperor of the French at Paris in A.D.
1804, but when he persisted in the assertion of his hierarchical
principles, Napoleon in A.D. 1808 entered the papal territories, and in
May, A.D. 1809, formally repudiated the donation of “his predecessor”
Charlemagne. The pope treated the offered payment of two million francs as
an insult, threatened the emperor with the ban, and in July, A.D. 1809,
was imprisoned at Savona, and in A.D. 1812 was taken to Fontainebleau. He
refused for a time to give canonical institution to the bishops nominated
by the emperor, and though at last he yielded and agreed to reside in
France, he soon withdrew his concession, and the complications of A.D.
1813 constrained the emperor, on February 14th, to set free the pope and
the Papal States. In May the pope again entered Rome. One of his first
official acts was the restoration of the Jesuits by the bull _Sollicitudo
omnium_, as by the unanimous request of all Christendom. The Congregation
of the Index was again set up, and during the course of the year 737
charges of heresy were heard before the tribunal of the holy office. All
sales of church property were pronounced void, and 1,800 monasteries and
600 nunneries were reclaimed. In A.D. 1815 the pope formally protested
against the decision of the Vienna Congress, especially against the
overthrow of the spiritual principalities in the German empire (§ 192, 1).
Equally fruitless was his demand for the restoration of Avignon (§ 165,
15). In A.D. 1816 he condemned the Bible societies as a plague to
Christendom, and renewed the prohibition of Bible translations. His
diplomatic schemes were determined by his able secretary Cardinal
Consalvi, who not only at the Vienna Congress, but also subsequently by
several concordats secured the fullest possible expression to the
interests and claims of the curia.—His successor was _Leo XII._, A.D.
1823-1829, who, more strict in his civil administration than his
predecessor, condemned Bible societies, renewed the Inquisition
prosecutions, for the sake of gain celebrated the jubilee in A.D. 1825,
ordered prayers for uprooting of heresy, rebuilt the Ghetto wall of Rome,
overturned during the French rule (§ 95, 3), which marked off the Jews’
quarter, till Pius IX. again threw it down in A.D. 1846. After the eight
months’ reign of _Pius VIII._, A.D. 1829-1830, _Gregory XVI._, A.D.
1831-1846, ascended the papal throne, and sought amid troubles at home and
abroad to exalt to its utmost pitch the hierarchical idea. In A.D. 1832 he
issued an encyclical, in which he declared irreconcilable war against
modern science as well as against freedom of conscience and the press, and
his whole pontificate was a consistent carrying out of this principle. He
encountered incessant opposition from liberal and revolutionary movements
in his own territory, restrained only by Austrian and French military
interference, A.D. 1832-1838, and from the rejection of his hierarchical
schemes by Spain, Portugal, Prussia, and Russia.(97)
2. _Pius IX., _A.D._ 1846-1878._—Count Mastai Feretti in his fifty-fourth
year succeeded Gregory on 16th June, and took the name of Pius IX. While
in ecclesiastical matters he seemed willing to hold by the old paths and
distinctly declared against Bible societies, he favoured reform in civil
administration and encouraged the hopes of the liberals who longed for the
independence and unity of Italy. But this only awakened the thunder storm
which soon burst upon his own head. The far resounding cry of the jubilee
days, “_Evviva Pio Nono!_” ended in the pope’s flight to Gaeta in
November, 1848; and in February, 1849, the Roman Republic was proclaimed.
The French Republic, however, owing to the threatening attitude of
Austria, hastened to take Rome and restore the temporal power of the pope.
Amid the convulsions of Italy, Pius could not return to Rome till April,
1850, where he was maintained by French and Austrian bayonets. Abandoning
his liberal views, the pope now put himself more and more under the
influence of the Jesuits, and his absolutist and reactionary politics were
directed by Card. Antonelli. From his exile at Gaeta he had asked the
opinion of the bishops of the whole church regarding the immaculate
conception of the blessed Virgin, to whose protection he believed that he
owed his safety. The opinions of 576 were favourable, resting on Bible
proofs: Genesis iii. 15, Song of Sol. iv. 7, 12, and Luke i. 28; but some
French and German bishops were strongly opposed. The question was now
submitted for further consideration to various congregations, and finally
the consenting bishops were invited to Rome to settle the terms of the
doctrinal definition of the new dogma. After four secret sessions it was
acknowledged by acclamation, and on 8th December, 1854 (§ 104, 7), the
pope read in the Sixtine chapel the bull _Ineffabilis_ and placed a
brilliant diadem on the head of the image of the queen of heaven. The
disciples of St. Thomas listened in silence to this aspersion of their
master’s orthodoxy; no heed was paid to two isolated individual voices
that protested; the bishops of all Catholic lands proclaimed the new
dogma, the theologians vindicated it, and the spectacle-loving people
rejoiced in the pompous Mary-festival. The pope’s next great performance
was the encyclical, _Quanta cura_, of December 8th, 1864, and the
accompanying syllabus cataloguing in eighty-four propositions all the
errors of the day, by which not only the antichristian and
anti-ecclesiastical tendencies, but also claims for freedom of belief and
worship, liberty of the press and science, the state’s independence of the
church, the equality of the laity and clergy in civil matters, in short
all the principles of modern political and social life, were condemned as
heretical. Three years later the centenary of Peter (§ 16, 1) brought five
hundred bishops to Rome, with other clergy and laymen from all lands. The
enthusiasm for the papal chair was such that the pope was encouraged to
convoke an œcumenical council. The jubilee of his consecration as priest
in A.D. 1869 brought him congratulatory addresses signed by one and a half
millions, filled the papal coffers, attracted an immense number of
visitors to Rome, and secured to all the votaries gathered there a
complete indulgence. On the Vatican Council which met during that same
year, see § 189.(98)
3. _The Overthrow of the Papal States._—In the Peace of Villafranca of
1859, which put an end to the short Austro-French war in Italy, a
confederation was arranged of all the Italian princes under the honorary
presidency of the pope for drawing up the future constitution of Italy.
During the war the Austrians had vacated Bologna, but the French remained
in Rome to protect the pope. The revolution now broke out in Romagna.
Victor Emanuel, king of Sardinia, was proclaimed dictator for the time
over that part of the Papal States and a provisional government was set
up. In vain did the pope remind Christendom in an encyclical of the
necessity of maintaining his temporal power, in vain did he thunder his
_excommunicatio major_ against all who would contribute to its overthrow.
A pamphlet war against the temporal power now began, and About’s letters
in the _Moniteur_ described with bitter scorn the incapacity of the papal
government. In his pamphlet, “_Le Pope et le Congrès_,” Laguéronnière
proposed to restrict the pope’s sovereignty to Rome and its neighbourhood,
levy a tax for the support of the papal court on all Catholic nations, and
leave Rome undisturbed by political troubles. On December 31st, 1859,
Napoleon III. exhorted the pope to yield to the logic of facts and to
surrender the provinces that refused any longer to be his. The pope then
issued a rescript in which he declared that he could never give up what
belonged not to him but to the church. The popular vote in Romagna went
almost unanimously for annexation to Sardinia, and this, in spite of the
papal ban, was done. A revolution broke out in Umbria and the March of
Ancona, and Victor Emanuel without more ado attached these states also to
his dominion in A.D. 1860, so that only Rome and the Campagna were
retained by the pope, and even these only by means of French support. At
the September convention of A.D. 1864 Italy undertook to maintain the
papal domain intact, to permit the organization of an independent papal
army, and to contribute to the papal treasury; while France was to quit
Roman territory within at the latest two years. The pope submitted to what
he could not prevent, but still insisted upon his most extreme claims,
answered every attempt at conciliation with his stereotyped _non
possumus_, and in A.D. 1866 proclaimed St. Catherine of Siena (§ 112, 4)
patron of the “city.” When the last of the French troops took ship in A.D.
1866 the radical party thought the time had come for freeing Italy from
papal rule, and roused the whole land by public proclamation. Garibaldi
again put himself at the head of the movement. The Papal State was soon
encircled by bands of volunteers, and insurrections broke out even within
Rome itself. Napoleon pronounced this a breach of the September
convention, and in A.D. 1867 the volunteers were utterly routed by the
French at Mentana. The French guarded Civita Vecchia and fortified Rome.
But in August, 1870, their own national exigencies demanded the withdrawal
of the French troops, and after the battle of Sedan the Italians to a man
insisted on having Rome as their capital, and Victor Emanuel acquiesced.
The pope sought help far and near from Catholic and non-Catholic powers,
but he received only the echo of his own words, _non possumus_. After a
four hours’ cannonade a breach was made in the walls of the eternal city,
the white flag appeared on St. Angelo, and amid the shouts of the populace
the Italian troops entered on September 20th, 1870. A plebiscite in the
papal dominions gave 133,681 votes in favour of annexation and 1,507
against; in Rome alone there were 40,785 for and only 46 against. The king
now issued the decree of incorporation; Rome became capital of united
Italy and the Quirinal the royal residence.
4. _The Prisoner of the Vatican, _A.D._ 1870-1878._—The dethroned papal
king could only protest and utter denunciations. No result followed from
the adoption of St. Joseph as guardian and patron of the church, nor from
the solemn consecration of the whole world to the most sacred heart of
Jesus, at the jubilee of June 16th, A.D. 1875. The measures of A.D. 1871,
by which Cavour sought to realize his ideal of a “free church in a free
state,” were pronounced absurd, cunning, deceitful, and an outrage on the
apostles Peter and Paul. By these measures the rights and privileges of a
sovereign for all time had been conferred on the pope: the holiness and
inviolability of his person, a body-guard, a post and telegraph bureau,
free ambassadorial communication with foreign powers, the
_ex-territoriality_ of his palace of the Vatican, embracing fifteen large
saloons, 11,500 rooms, 236 stairs, 218 corridors, two chapels, several
museums, archives, libraries, large beautiful gardens, etc., as also of
the Lateran and the summer palace of Castle Gandolpho, with all
appurtenances, also an annual income, free from all burdens and taxes, of
three and a quarter million francs, equal to the former amount of his
revenue, together with unrestricted liberty in the exercise of all
ecclesiastical rights of sovereignty and primacy, and the renunciation of
all state interference in the disposal of bishoprics and benefices. The
right of the inferior clergy to exercise the _appellatio ab abusu_ to a
civil tribunal was set aside, and of all civil rights only that of the
royal _exequatur_ in the election of bishops, _i.e._ the mere right of
investing the nominee of the curia in the possession of the revenues of
his office, was retained.—To the end of his life Pius every year returned
the dotation as an insult and injury, and “the starving holy father in
prison, who has not where to lay his head,” received three or four times
more in Peter’s pence contributed by all Catholic Christendom. Playing the
_rôle_ of a prisoner he never passed beyond the precincts of the Vatican.
He reached the semi-jubilee of his papal coronation in A.D. 1871, being
the first pope who falsified the old saying, _Annos Petri non videbit_. He
rejected the offer of a golden throne and the title of “the great,” but he
accepted a Parisian lady’s gift of a golden crown of thorns. In support of
the prison myth, straws from the papal cell were sold in Belgium for half
a franc per stalk, and for the same price photographs of the pope behind
an iron grating. As once on a time the legend arose about the disciple
whom Jesus loved that he would not die, so was it once said about the
pope; and on his eighty-third birthday, in A.D. 1874, a Roman Jesuit
paper, eulogising the moral purity of his life, put the words in his
mouth, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” But he himself by constantly
renewed rescripts, encyclicals, briefs, allocutions to the cardinals and
to numerous deputations from far and near, unweariedly fanned the flame of
enthusiasm and fanaticism throughout papal Christendom, and thundered
threatening prophecies not only against the Italian, but also against
foreign states, for with most of them he lived in open war. A collection
of his “Speeches delivered at the Vatican” was published in 1874,
commented on by Gladstone in the _Contemporary Review_ for January, 1875,
who gives abundant quotations showing papal assumptions, maledictions,
abuse and misunderstanding of the Scriptures with which they abound. On
the fiftieth anniversary of the pope’s episcopal consecration, in June,
1877, crowds from all lands assembled to offer their congratulations, with
costly presents and Peter’s pence amounting to sixteen and a half million
francs. He died February 8th, 1878, in the eighty-sixth year of his age
and thirty-second of his pontificate. His heirs claimed the unpaid
dotations of twenty million lire, but were refused by the courts of
law.(99)—His secretary Antonelli, descended from an old brigand family,
who from the time of his stay at Gaeta was his evil demon, predeceased him
in A.D. 1876. Though the son of a poor herdsman and woodcutter, he left
more than a hundred million lire. His natural daughter, to the great
annoyance of the Vatican, sought, but without success, in the courts of
justice to make good her claims against her father’s greedy brothers.
5. _Leo XIII._—After only two days’ conclave the Cardinal-archbishop of
Perugia, Joachim Pecci, born in A.D. 1810, was proclaimed on February
20th, 1878, as Leo XIII. In autograph letters he intimated his accession
to the German and Russian emperors, but not to the king of Italy, and
expressed his wish for a good mutual understanding. To the government of
the Swiss Cantons he declared his hope that their ancient friendly
relations might be restored. At Easter, 1878, he issued an encyclical to
all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops, in which he required
of them that they should earnestly entreat the mediation of the
“immaculate queen of heaven” and the intercession of St. Joseph, “the
heavenly shield of the church,” and also failed not to make prominent the
infallibility of the apostolic chair, and to condemn all the errors
condemned by his predecessors, emphasizing the necessity of restoring the
temporal power of the pope, and confirming and renewing all the protests
of his predecessor Pius IX., of sacred memory, against the overthrow of
the Papal States. On the first anniversary of his elevation he proclaimed
a universal jubilee, with the promise of a complete indulgence. He still
persisted in the prison myth of his predecessor, and like him sent back
the profferred contribution of his “jailor.” In the conflicts with foreign
powers inherited from Pius, as well as in his own, he has employed
generally moderate and conciliatory language.—He has not hesitated to take
the first step toward a good understanding with his opponents, for which,
while persistently maintaining the ancient principles of the papal chair,
he makes certain concessions in regard to subordinate matters, always with
the design and expectation of seeing them outweighed on the other side by
the conservation of all the other hierarchical pretensions of the curial
system. It was, however, only in the middle of A.D. 1885 that it became
evident that the pope had determined, without allowing any
misunderstanding to arise between himself and his cardinals, to break
through the trammels of the irreconcilable zealots in the college. And
indeed after the conclusion of the German _Kulturkampf_ (§ 197, 13, 15),
brought about by these means, in an allocution with reference thereto
addressed to the cardinals in May, 1887, he gave an unexpected expression
to his wish and longing in regard to an understanding with the government
on the Italian question, which involved an utter renunciation of his
predecessor’s dogged _Non possumus_, the attitude hitherto unfalteringly
maintained. “Would that peaceful counsels,” says he, “embracing all our
peoples should prevail in Italy also, and that at last once that unhappy
difference might be overcome without loss of privilege to the holy see!”
Such harmony, indeed, is only possible when the pope “is subjected to no
authority and enjoys perfect freedom,” which would cause no loss to Italy,
“but would only secure its lasting peace and safety.” That he counts upon
the good offices of the German emperor for the effecting of this
longed-for restoration of such a _modus vivendi_ with the Italian
government, he has clearly indicated in his preliminary communications to
the Prussian centre exhorting to peace (§ 197, 14). The _Moniteur de Rome_
(§ 188, 1), however, interpreted the words of the pope thus: “Italy would
lose nothing materially or politically, if it gave a small corner of its
territory to the pope, where he might enjoy actual sovereignty as a
guarantee of his spiritual independence.”—On Leo’s contributions to
theological science see § 191, 12; on his attitude to Protestantism and
the Eastern Church, see § 175, 2, 4. He expressed himself against the
freemasons in an encyclical of A.D. 1884 with even greater severity than
Pius. Consequently the Roman Inquisition issued an instruction to all
bishops throughout the Catholic world requiring them to enjoin their
clergy in the pulpit and the confessional to make it known that all
freemasons are _eo ipso_ excommunicated, and by Catholic associations of
every sort, especially by the spread of the third order of St. Francis (§
186, 2), the injunction was carried out. At the same time a year’s
reprieve was given to the freemasons, during which the Roman heresy laws,
which required their children, wives, and relatives to denounce them to
all clergy and laymen, were to be suspended. Should the guilty, however,
allow this day of grace to pass, these laws were to be again fully
enforced, and then it would be only for the pope to absolve them from
their terrible sin.
§ 186. Various Orders and Associations.
The order of the Jesuits restored in A.D. 1814 by Pius VII. impregnated
all other orders with its spirit, gained commanding influence over Pius
IX., made the bishops its agents, and turned the whole Catholic church
into a Jesuit institution. An immense number of societies arose aiming at
the accomplishment of home mission work, inspired by the Jesuit spirit and
carrying out unquestioningly the ultramontane ideas of their leaders. Also
zeal for foreign missions on old Jesuit lines revived, and the enthusiasm
for martyrdom was due mainly to the same cause.
1. _The Society of Jesus and Related Orders._—After the suppression of
their order by Clement XIV. the Jesuits found refuge mainly among the
_Redemptorists_ (§ 165, 2), whose headquarters were at Vienna, from which
they spread through Austria and Bavaria, finding entrance also into
Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Holland, and after 1848 into Catholic
Prussia, as well as into Hesse and Nassau. The _Congregation of the Sacred
Heart_ was founded by ex-Jesuits in Belgium in A.D. 1794, and soon spread
in Austria and Bavaria.—The _restored Jesuit order_ was met with a storm
of opposition from the liberals. The July revolution of A.D. 1830 drove
the Jesuits from France, and when they sought to re-establish themselves,
Gregory XVI., under pressure of the government, insisted that their
general should abolish the French institutions in A.D. 1845. An important
branch of the order had settled in Catholic Switzerland, but the
unfavourable issue of the Separated Cantons’ War of 1847 drove its members
out of that refuge. The revolution of 1848 threatened the order with
extinction, but the papal restoration of A.D. 1850 re-introduced it into
most Catholic countries. Since then the sons of Loyola have renewed their
youth like the eagle. They have forced their way into all lands, even in
those on both sides of the ocean that had by legislative enactments been
closed against them, spreading ultramontane views among Catholics,
converting Protestants, and disseminating their principles in schools and
colleges. Even Pius IX., under whose auspices Aug. Theiner had been
allowed, in A.D. 1853, in his “History of the Pontificate of Clement XIV.”
to bring against them the heavy artillery drawn from “the secret archives
of the Vatican,” again handed over to them the management of public
instruction, and surrendered himself even more and more to their
influence, so that at last he saw only by their eyes, heard only with
their ears, and resolved only according to their will.(100) The founding
of the Italian kingdom under the Prince of Sardinia in A.D. 1860 led to
their expulsion from all Italy, with the exception of Venice and the
remnants of the Papal States. When, in A.D. 1866, Venice also became an
Italian province, they migrated thence into the Tyrol and other Austrian
provinces, where they enjoyed the blessings of the concordat (§ 198, 2).
Spain, too, on the expulsion of Queen Isabella in A.D. 1868, and even
Mexico and several of the States of Central and Southern America, drove
out the disciples of Loyola. On the other hand, they made brilliant
progress in Germany, especially in Rhenish Hesse and the Catholic
provinces of Prussia. But under the new German empire the Reichstag, in
A.D. 1872, passed a law suppressing the Jesuits and all similar orders
throughout the empire (§ 197, 4). They were also formally expelled from
France in A.D. 1880 (§ 203, 6). Still, however, in A.D. 1881 the order
numbered 11,000 members in five provinces, and according to Bismarck’s
calculation in A.D. 1872 their property amounted to 280 million thalers.
In A.D. 1853 John Beckx of Belgium was made general. He retired in A.D.
1881 at the age of ninety, Anderlady, a Swiss, having been appointed in
A.D. 1883 his colleague and successor.—The hope which was at first widely
entertained that Leo XIII. would emancipate himself from the domination of
the order seems more and more to be proved a vain delusion. In July, 1886,
he issued, on the occasion of a new edition of the institutions of the
order, a letter to Anderlady, in which he, in the most extravagant manner,
speaks of the order as having performed the most signal services “to the
church and society,” and confirms anew everything that his predecessors
had said and done in its favour, while expressly and formally he recalls
anew anything that any of them had said and done against it.
2. _Other Orders and Congregations._—After the storms of the revolution
religious orders rapidly recovered lost ground. France decreed, on
November 2nd, 1789, the abolition of all orders, and cloisters and in
1802, under Napoleon’s auspices, they were also suppressed in the German
empire and the friendly princes indemnified with their goods. Yet on
grounds of utility Napoleon restored the Lazarists, as well as the Sisters
of Mercy, whose scattered remnants he collected in A.D. 1807 in Paris into
a general chapter, under the presidency of the empress-mother. But new
cloisters in great numbers were erected specially in Belgium and France
(in opposition to the law of 1789, which was unrepealed), in Austria,
Bavaria, Prussia, Rhenish Hesse, etc., as also in England and America. In
1849 there were in Prussia fifty monastic institutes; in 1872 there were
967. In Cologne one in every 215, in Aachen one in every 110, in Münster
one in every sixty-one, in Paderborn one in every thirty-three, was a
Catholic priest or member of an order. In Bavaria, between 1831 and 1873
the number of cloisters rose from 43 to 628, all, with the exception of
some old Benedictine monasteries, inspired and dominated by the Jesuits.
Even the Dominicans, originally such determined opponents, are now
pervaded by the Jesuit spirit. The restoration of the _Trappist order_ (§
156, 8) deserves special mention. On their expulsion from La Trappe in
A.D. 1791 the brothers found an asylum in the Canton Freiburg, and when
driven thence by the French invasion of A.D. 1798, Paul I. obtained from
the czar permission for them to settle in White Russia, Poland, and
Lithuania. But expelled from these regions again in A.D. 1800 they
wandered through Europe and America, till after Napoleon’s defeat they
purchased back the monastery of La Trappe, and made it the centre of a
group of new settlements throughout France and beyond it.—Besides regular
orders there were also numerous _congregations_ or religious societies
with communal life according to a definite but not perpetually binding
rule, and without the obligation of seclusion, as well as _brotherhoods_
and _sisterhoods_ without any such rule, which after the restoration of
A.D. 1814 in France and after A.D. 1848 in Germany, were formed for the
purposes of prayer, charity, education, and such like. From France many of
these spread into the Rhine Provinces and Westphalia.—In Spain and
Portugal (§ 205, 1, 5) all orders were repeatedly abolished, subsequently
also in Sardinia and even in all Italy (§ 204, 1, 2), and also in several
Romish American states (§ 209, 1, 2), as also in Prussia and Hesse (§ 197,
8, 15). Finally the third French Republic has enforced existing laws
against all orders and congregations not authorized by the State (§ 206,
6).—On the 700th anniversary of the birth of St. Francis, in September,
1882, Leo XIII. issued an encyclical declaring the institute of the
Franciscan Tertiaries (§ 98, 11) alone capable of saving human society
from all the political and social dangers of the present and future, which
had some success at least in Italy.
Of what inhuman barbarity the superiors of cloisters are still capable is
shown _instar omnium_ in the horrible treatment of the nun _Barbara
Ubryk_, who, avowedly on account of a breach of her vow of chastity, was
confined since A.D. 1848 in the cloister of the Carmelite nuns at Cracow
in a dark, narrow cell beside the sewer of the convent, without fire, bed,
chair, or table. It was only in A.D. 1869, in consequence of an anonymous
communication to the law officers, that she was freed from her prison in a
semi-animal condition, quite naked, starved, and covered with filth, and
consigned to an asylum. The populace of Cracow, infuriated at such
conduct, could be restrained from demolishing all the cloisters only by
the aid of the military.
3. _The Pius Verein._—A society under the name of the Pius Verein was
started at Mainz in October, 1848, to further Catholic interests,
advocating the church’s independence of the State, the right of the clergy
to direct education, etc. At the annual meetings its leading members
boasted in grossly exaggerated terms of what had been accomplished and
recklessly prophesied of what would yet be achieved. At the twenty-eighth
general assembly at Bonn in A.D. 1881, with an attendance of 1,100, the
same confident tone was maintained. Windhorst reminded the Prussian
government of the purchase of the Sibylline books, and declared that each
case of breaking off negotiations raised the price of the peace. Not a
tittle of the ultramontane claims would be surrendered. The watchword is
the complete restoration of the _status quo ante_. Baron von Loë,
president of the Canisius Verein, concluded his triumphant speech with the
summons to raise the membership of the union from 80,000 to 800,000, yea
to 8,000,000; then would the time be near when Germany should become again
a Catholic land and the church again the leader of the people. At the
assembly at Düsseldorf in A.D. 1883, Windhorst declared, amid the
enthusiastic applause of all present, that after the absolute abrogation
of the May laws the centre would not rest till education was again
committed unreservedly to the church. In the assembly at Münster in A.D.
1885, he extolled the pope (notwithstanding all confiscation and
imprisoning for the time being) as the governor and lord of the whole
world. The thirty-third assembly at Breslau in A.D. 1886, with special
emphasis, demanded the recall of all orders, including that of the
Jesuits.
4. _The various German unions_ gradually fell under ultramontane
influences. The Borromeo Society circulated Catholic books inculcating
ultramontane views in politics and religion. The Boniface Union, founded
by Martin, Bishop of Paderborn, aided needy Catholic congregations in
Protestant districts. Other unions were devoted to foreign missions, to
work among Germans in foreign lands, etc. In all the universities such
societies were formed. In Bavaria patriot peasant associations were set on
foot, as a standing army in the conflict of the ultramontane hierarchy
with the new German empire. For the same purpose Bishop Ketteler founded
in A.D. 1871 the Mainz Catholic Union, which in A.D. 1814 had 90,000
members. The Görres Society of 1876 (§ 188, 1) and the Canisius Society of
1879 (§ 151, 1) were meant to promote education on ultramontane lines.—In
_Italy_ such societies have striven for the restoration of the temporal
power and the supremacy of the church over the State. The unions of
_France_ were confederated in A.D. 1870, and this general association
holds an annual congress. The several unions were called “_œuvres_.” The
_Œuvre du Vœu National_, _e.g._, had the task of restoring penitent France
to the “sacred heart of Jesus” (§ 188, 12); the _Œuvre Pontifical_ made
collections of Peter’s pence and for persecuted priests; the _Œuvre de
Jesus-Ouvrier_ had to do with the working classes, etc.
5. The knowledge of the omnipotence of _capital_ in these days led to
various proposals for turning it to account in the interests of
Catholicism. The Catholic Bank schemes of the Belgian Langrand-Dumonceau
in 1872 and the Munich bank were pure swindles; and that of Adele
Spitzeder 1869-1872, pronounced “holy” by the clergy and ultramontane
press, collapsed with a deficit of eight and a quarter million
florins.—Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati invited church members to avoid
risk to bank with him. He invested in land, advanced money for building
churches, cloisters, schools, etc., and in A.D. 1878 found himself
bankrupt with liabilities amounting to five million dollars. He then
offered to resign his office, but the pope refused and gave him a
coadjutor, whereupon the archbishop retired into a cloister where he died
in his eighty-third year. In the _Union Générale_ of Paris, founded in
1876, which came to a crash in 1882, the French aristocracy, the higher
clergy and members of orders lost hundreds of millions of francs.
6. _The Catholic Missions._—The impulse given to Catholic interests after
1848 was seen in the zeal with which missions in Catholic lands, like the
Protestant Methodist revival and camp-meetings (§ 208, 1), began to be
prosecuted. An attempt was thus made to gather in the masses, who had been
estranged from the church during the storms of the revolution. The Jesuits
and Redemptorists were prominent in this work. In bands of six they
visited stations, staying for three weeks, hearing confessions, addressing
meetings three times a day, and concluding by a general communion.
7. Besides the Propaganda (§ 156, 9), fourteen societies in Rome, three in
Paris, thirty in the whole of Catholic Christendom, are devoted to the
dissemination of Catholicism among _Heretics_ and _Heathens_. The Lyons
Association for the spread of the faith, instituted in 1822, has a revenue
of from four to six million francs. Specially famous is the _Picpus
Society_, so called from the street in Paris where it has its
headquarters. Its founder was the deacon Coudrin, a pupil of the seminary
for priests at Poictiers broken up in A.D. 1789. Amid the evils done to
the church and the priests by the Revolution, in his hiding-place he heard
a divine call to found a society for the purpose of training the youth in
Catholic principles, educating priests, and bringing the gospel to the
heathen “by atoning for excesses, crimes, and sins of all kinds by an
unceasing day and night devotion of the most holy sacrament of the altar.”
Such a society he actually founded in A.D. 1805, and Pius VII. confirmed
it in A.D. 1817. The founder died in A.D. 1837, after his society had
spread over all the five continents. Its chief aim henceforth was missions
to the heathen. While the Picpus society, as well as the other seminaries
and monkish orders, sent forth crowds of missionaries, other societies
devoted themselves to collecting money and engaging in prayer. The most
important of these is the _Lyonese Society_ for the spread of the faith of
A.D. 1822. The member’s weekly contribution is 5 cents, the daily
prayer-demand a paternoster, an angel greeting, and a “St. Francis Xavier,
pray for us.” The fanatical journal of the society had a yearly
circulation of almost 250,000 copies, in ten European languages. The popes
had showered upon its members rich indulgences.—After Protestant missions
had received such a powerful impulse in the nineteenth century, the
Catholic societies were thereby impelled to force in wherever success had
been won and seemed likely to be secured, and wrought with all conceivable
jesuitical arts and devices, for the most part under the political
protection of France. The Catholic missions have been most zealously and
successfully prosecuted in North America, China, India, Japan, and among
the schismatic churches of the Levant. Since 1837 they have been advanced
by aid of the French navy in the South Seas (§ 184, 7) and in North Africa
by the French occupation of Algiers, and most recently in Madagascar. In
South Africa they have made no progress.—In A.D. 1837-1839 a bloody
persecution raged in Tonquin and Cochin China; in A.D. 1866 Christianity
was rooted out of Corea, and over 2,000 Christians slain; two years later
persecution was renewed in Japan. In China, through the oppressions of the
French, the people rose against the Catholics resident there. This
movement reached a climax in the rebellion of 1870 at Tientsin, when all
French officials, missionaries, and sisters of mercy were put to death,
and the French consulate, Catholic churches and mission houses were
levelled to the ground. Also in Further India since the French war of A.D.
1883 with Tonquin, over which China claimed rights of suzerainty, the
Catholic missions have again suffered, and many missionaries have been
martyred.
§ 187. Liberal Catholic Movements.
Alongside of the steady growth of ultramontanism from the time of the
restoration of the papacy in A.D. 1814, there arose also a reactionary
movement, partly of a mystical-irenical, evangelical-revival and
liberal-scientific, and partly of a radical-liberalistic, character. But
all the leaders in such movements sooner or later succumbed before the
strictly administered discipline of the hierarchy. The Old Catholic
reaction (§ 190), on the other hand, in spite of various disadvantages,
still maintains a vigorous existence.
1. _Mystical-Irenical Tendencies._—_J. M. Sailer_, deprived in A.D. 1794
of his office at Dillingen (§ 165, 12), was appointed in A.D. 1799
professor of moral and pastoral theology at Ingolstadt, and was
transferred to Landshut in A.D. 1800. There for twenty years his mild and
conciliatory as well as profoundly pious mysticism powerfully influenced
crowds of students from South Germany and Switzerland. Though the pope
refused to confirm his nomination by Maximilian as Bishop of Augsburg in
A.D. 1820, he so far cleared himself of the suspicion of mysticism,
separatism, and crypto-calvinism, that in A.D. 1829 no opposition was made
to his appointment as Bishop of Regensburg. Sailer continued faithful to
the Catholic dogmatic, and none of his numerous writings have been put in
the Index. Yet he lay under suspicion till his death in A.D. 1832, and
this seemed to be justified by the intercourse which he and his disciples
had with Protestant pietists. His likeminded scholar, friend, and
vicar-general, the Suffragan-bishop _Wittmann_, was designated his
successor in Regensburg, but he died before receiving papal confirmation.
Of all his pupils the most distinguished was the Westphalian Baron von
_Diepenbrock_, over whose wild, intractable, youthful nature Sailer
exercised a magic influence. In A.D. 1823 he was ordained priest, became
Sailer’s secretary, remaining his confidential companion till his death,
was made vicar-general to Sailer’s successor in A.D. 1842, and in A.D.
1845 was raised to the archiepiscopal chair of Breslau, where he joined
the ultramontanes, and entered with all his heart into the
ecclesiastico-political conflicts of the Würzburg episcopal congress (§
192, 4). His services were rewarded by a cardinal’s hat from Pius IX. in
A.D. 1850. His pastoral letters, however, as well as his sermons and
private correspondence, show that he never altogether forgot the teaching
of his spiritual father. He delighted in the study of the mediæval
mystics, and was specially drawn to the writings of Suso.
2. _Evangelical-Revival Tendencies._—A movement much more evangelical than
that of Sailer, having the doctrine of justification by faith alone as its
centre, was originated by a simple Bavarian priest, _Martin Boos_, and
soon embraced sixty priests in the diocese of Augsburg. The spiritual
experiences of Boos were similar to those of Luther. The words of a poor
old sick woman brought peace to his soul in A.D. 1790, and led him to the
study of Scripture. His preaching among the people and his conversations
with the surrounding clergy produced a widespread revival. Amid manifold
persecutions, removed from one parish to another, and flying from Bavaria
to Austria and thence into Rhenish Prussia, where he died in A.D. 1825 as
priest of Sayn, he lighted wherever he went the torch of truth. Even after
his conversion Boos believed that he still maintained the Catholic
position, but was at last to his own astonishment convinced of the
contrary through intercourse with Protestant pietists and the study of
Luther’s works. But so long as the mother church would keep him he wished
not to forsake her.(101) So too felt his like-minded companions _Gossner_
and _Lindl_, who were expelled from Bavaria in A.D. 1829 and settled in
St. Petersburg. Lindl, as Provost of South Russia, went to reside in
Odessa, where he exercised a powerful influence over Catholics and
Protestants and among the higher classes of the Russians. The machinations
of the Roman Catholic and Greek churches caused both Gossner and Lindl to
leave Russia in A.D. 1824. They then joined the evangelical church, Lindl
in Barmen and Gossner in Berlin. Lindl drifted more and more into
mystico-apocalyptic fanaticism; but Gossner, from A.D. 1829 till his death
in A.D. 1858 as pastor of the Bohemian church in Berlin, proved a sincere
evangelical and a most successful worker.—The Bavarian priest Lutz of
Carlshuld, influenced by Boos, devoted himself to the temporal and
spiritual well-being of his people, preached Christ as the saviour of
sinners, and exhorted to diligent reading of the Bible. In A.D. 1831, with
600 of his congregation, he joined the Protestant church; but to avoid
separation from his beloved people, he returned again after ten months,
and most of his flock with him, still retaining his evangelical
convictions. He was not, however, restored to office, and subsequently in
A.D. 1857, with three Catholic priests of the diocese, he attached himself
to the Irvingites, and was with them excommunicated.
3. _Liberal-Scientific Tendencies._—_Von Wessenberg_, as vicar-general of
the diocese of Constance introduced such drastic administrative reforms as
proved most distasteful to the nuncio of Lucerne and the Romish curia. He
also endeavoured unsuccessfully to restore a German national Catholic
church. In the retirement of his later years he wrote a history of the
church synods of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which gave great
offence to the ultramontanes.—_Fr. von Baader_ of Munich expressed himself
so strongly against the absolutism of the papal system that the
ultramontane minister, Von Abel, suspended his lectures on the philosophy
of religion in A.D. 1838. He gave still greater offence by his work on
Eastern and Western Catholicism, in which he preferred the former to the
latter.(102) The talented _Hirscher_ of Freiburg more interested in what
is Christian than what is Roman Catholic, could not be won over to yield
party service to the ultramontanes. They persecuted unrelentingly _Leop.
Schmid_, whose theosophical speculation had done so much to restore the
prestige of theology at Giessen, and had utterly discredited their
pretensions. When his enemies successfully opposed his consecration as
Bishop of Mainz in A.D. 1849, he resigned his professorship and joined the
philosophical faculty. Goaded on by the venomous attacks of his opponents
he advanced to a more extreme position, and finally declared “that he was
compelled to renounce the specifically Roman Catholic church so long as
she refused to acknowledge the true worth of the gospel.”
4. _Radical-Liberalistic Tendencies._—The brothers _Theiner_ of Breslau
wrote in A.D. 1828 against the celibacy of the clergy; but subsequently
John attached himself to the German-Catholics, and in A.D. 1833 Augustine
returned to his allegiance to Rome (§ 191, 7).—During the July Revolution
in Paris, the priest Lamennais, formerly a zealous supporter of
absolutism, became the enthusiastic apostle of liberalism. His journal
_L’Avenir_, A.D. 1830-1832, was the organ of the party, and his _Paroles
d’un Croyant_, A.D. 1834, denounced by the pope as unutterably wicked,
made an unprecedented sensation. The endeavour, however, to unite elements
thoroughly incongruous led to the gradual breaking up of the school, and
Lamennais himself approximated more and more to the principles of modern
socialism. He died in A.D. 1854. One of his most talented associates on
the staff of the _Avenir_ was the celebrated pulpit orator _Lacordaire_,
A.D. 1802-1861. Upon Gregory’s denunciation of the journal in A.D. 1832
Lacordaire submitted to Rome, entered the Dominican order in A.D. 1840,
and wrote a life of Dominic in which he eulogised the Inquisition; but his
eloquence still attracted crowds to _Notre Dame_. Ultimately he fell
completely under the influence of the Jesuits.
5. _Attempts at Reform in Church Government._—In A.D. 1861 _Liverani_,
pope’s chaplain and apostolic notary, exposed the scandalous mismanagement
of Antonelli, the corruption of the sacred college, the demoralization of
the Roman clergy, and the ambitious schemes of the Jesuits, recommended
the restoration of the holy Roman empire, not indeed to the Germans, but
to the Italians: the pope should confer on the king of Italy by divine
authority the title and privileges of Roman emperor, who, on his part,
should undertake as papal mandatory the political administration of the
States of the Church. But in A.D. 1873 he sought and obtained papal
forgiveness for his errors. The Jesuit _Passaglia_ expressed enthusiastic
approval of the movements of Victor Emanuel and of Cavour’s ideal of a
“free church in a free state.” He was expelled from his order, his book
was put into the Index, but the Italian Government appointed him professor
of moral philosophy in Turin. At last he retracted all that he had said
and written. In the preface to his popular exposition of the gospels of
1874, the Jesuit father _Curci_ urged the advisability of a reconciliation
between the Holy See and the Italian government, and expressed his
conviction that the Church States would never be restored. That year he
addressed the pope in similar terms, and refusing to retract, was expelled
his order in A.D. 1877. Leo XIII. by friendly measures sought to move him
to recant, but without success. The condemnation of his books led to their
wider circulation. In A.D. 1883 he charged the Holy See with the guilt of
the unholy schism between church and state; but in the following year he
retracted whatever in his writings the pope regarded as opposed to the
faith, morals, and discipline of the Catholic church.
6. _Attempts to Found National Catholic Churches._—After the July
Revolution of A.D. 1830 the Abbé _Chatel_ of Paris had himself consecrated
bishop of a new sect by a new-templar dignitary (§ 210, 1) and became
primate of the _French Catholic Church_, whose creed recognised only the
law of nature and viewed Christ as a mere man. After various congregations
had been formed, it was suppressed by the police in A.D. 1842. The Abbé
_Helsen_ of Brussels made a much more earnest endeavour to lead the church
of his fatherland from the antichrist to the true Christ. His _Apostolic
Catholic Church_ was dissolved in A.D. 1857 and its remnants joined the
Protestants. The founding of the _German Catholic Church_ in A.D. 1844
promised to be more enduring. In August of that year, Arnoldi, Bishop of
Treves, exhibited the holy coat preserved there, and attracted one and a
half millions of pilgrims to Treves (§ 188, 2). A suspended priest,
_Ronge_, in a letter to the bishop denounced the worship of relics,
seeking to pose as the Luther of the nineteenth century. _Czerski_ of
Posen had in August, 1844, seceded from the Catholic church, and in
October founded the “Christian Catholic Apostolic Church,” whose creed
embodied the negations without the positive beliefs of the Protestant
confessions, maintaining in other respects the fundamental articles of the
Christian faith. Ronge meanwhile formed congregations in all parts of
Germany, excepting Bavaria and Austria. A General Assembly held at Leipzig
in March, 1845, brought to light the deplorable religious nihilism of the
leaders of the party. Czerski, who refused to abandon the doctrine of
Christ’s divinity, withdrew from the conference, but Ronge held a
triumphal procession through Germany. His hollowness, however, became so
apparent that his adherents grew ashamed of their enthusiasm for the new
reformer. His congregations began to break up; many withdrew, several of
the leaders threw off the mask of religion and adopted the _rôle_ of
political revolutionists. After the settlement that followed the
disturbances of A.D. 1848 the remnants of this party disappeared.(103)
7. The inferior clergy of Italy, after the political emancipation of
Naples from the Bourbon domination in A.D. 1860, longed for deliverance
from clerical tyranny, and founded in A.D. 1862 a society with the object
of establishing a _national Italian church_ independent of the Romish
curia. Four Neapolitan churches were put at the disposal of the society by
the minister Ricasoli, but in 1865, an agreement having been come to
between the curia and the government, the bishops were recalled and the
churches restored. Thousands, to save themselves from starvation, gave in
their submission, but a small party still remained faithful. Encouraged by
the events of 1870 (§§ 135, 3; 189, 3), they were able in 1875 to draw up
a “dogmatic statement” for the “Church of Italy independent of the Roman
hierarchy,” which indeed besides the Holy Scriptures admitted the
authority of the universal church as infallible custodian and interpreter
of revealed truth, but accepted only the first seven œcumenical councils
as binding. In the same year Bishop Turano of Girgenti excommunicated five
priests of the Silician town Grotta as opponents of the syllabus and the
dogma of infallibility. The whole clergy of the town, numbering
twenty-five, then renounced their obedience to the bishop, and with the
approval of the inhabitants declared themselves in favour of the
“statement.” North of Rome this movement made little progress; but in 1875
three villages of the Mantuan diocese claimed the ancient privilege of
choosing their own priest, and the bishop and other authorities were
obliged to yield. The Neapolitan movement, however, as a whole seems to be
losing itself in the sand.
8. _The Frenchman, Charles Loyson_, known by his Carmelite monkish name of
_Père Hyacinthe_, was protected from the Jesuits by Archbishop Darboy when
he inveighed against the corruptions of the church, and even Pius IX. on
his visit to Rome in 1868 treated him with favour. The general of his
order having imposed silence on him, he publicly announced his secession
from the order and appeared as a “preacher of the gospel,” claiming from a
future General Council a sweeping reform of the church, protesting against
the falsifying of the gospel of the Son of God by the Jesuits and the
papal syllabus. He was then excommunicated. In A.D. 1871 he joined the
German Old Catholics (§ 190, 1); and though he gave offence to them by his
marriage, this did not prevent the Old Catholics of Geneva from choosing
him as their pastor. But after ten months, because “he sought not the
overthrow but the reform of the Catholic church, and reprobated the
despotism of the mob as well as that of the clergy, the infallibility of
the state as well as that of the pope,” he withdrew and returned to Paris,
where he endeavoured to establish a French National Church free of Rome
and the Pope. The clerical minister Broglie, however, compelled him to
restrict himself to moral-religious lectures. In February, 1879, he built
a chapel in which he preaches on Sundays and celebrates mass in the French
language. He sought alliance with the Swiss Christian Catholics, whose
bishop, Herzog, heartily reciprocated his wishes, and with the Anglican
church, which gave a friendly response. But that this “seed corn” of a
“Catholic Gallican Church” will ever grow into a fully developed plant was
from the very outset rendered more than doubtful by the peculiar nature of
the sower, as well as of the seed and the soil.
§ 188. Catholic Ultramontanism.
The restoration of the Jesuit order led, during the long pontificate of
Pius IX., to the revival, and hitherto unapproached prosperity of
ultramontanism, especially in France, whose bishops cast the Gallican
Liberties overboard (§§ 156, 3; 203, 1), and in Germany, where with
strange infatuation even Protestant princes gave it all manner of
encouragement. Even the lower clergy were trained from their youth in
hierarchical ideas, and under the despotic rule of their bishops, and a
reign of terror carried on by spies and secret courts, were constrained to
continue the profession of the strictest absolutism.
1. _The Ultramontane Propaganda._—In _France_ ultramontanism revived with
the restoration. Its first and ablest prophet was Count _de Maistre_, A.D.
1754-1821, long Sardinian ambassador at St. Petersburg. He wrote against
the modern views of the relations of church and state, supporting the
infallibility, absolutism, and inviolability of the pope. He was supported
by Bonald, Chateaubriand, Lamartine, Lamennais, Lacordaire, and
Montalembert. Only Bonald maintained this attitude. Between him and
Chateaubriand a dispute arose over the freedom of the press; Lamennais and
Lacordaire began to blend political radicalism with their ultramontanism;
Lamartine involved himself in the February revolution of 1848 as the
apostle of humanity; and Montalembert took up a half-way position. In 1840
Louis _Veuillot_ started the _Univers Religieux_ in place of the _Avenir_,
in which, till his death in 1883, he vindicated the extremest
ultramontanism.—In _Germany_ ultramontane views were disseminated by
romancing historians and poets mostly converts from Protestantism.
_Görres_, professor of history in Munich, represented the Reformation as a
second fall, and set forth the legends of ascetics in his “History of
Mysticism” as sound history. The German bishops set themselves to train
the clergy in hierarchical views, and by a rule of terror prevented any
departure from that theory. The ultramontanising of the masses was carried
on by missions, and by the establishment of brotherhoods and sisterhoods.
In the beginning of A.D. 1860 there were only thirteen ultramontane
journals with very few subscribers, while in January, 1875, there were
three hundred. The most important was _Germania_, founded at Berlin in
1871.—The _Civiltà Cattolica_ of Rome was always revised before
publication by Pius IX., and under Leo XIII. a similar position is held by
the _Moniteur de Rome_, while the _Osservatore Romano_ and the _Voce della
verità_ have also an official character.
2. _Miracles._—Prince _Hohenlohe_ went through many parts of Germany,
Austria, and Hungary, performing miraculous cures; but his day of favour
soon passed, and he settled down as a writer of ascetical
works.—Pilgrimages to wonder-working shrines were encouraged by reports of
cures wrought on the grand-niece of the Bishop of Cologne (§ 193, 1),
cured of knee-joint disease before the holy coat of Treves (§ 187, 6).
Subjected to examination, the pretended seamless coat was found to be a
bit of the gray woollen wrapping of a costly silk Byzantine garment 1-½
feet broad and 1 foot long.
3. _Stigmatizations._—In many cases these marks were found to have been
fraudulently made, but in other cases it was questionable whether we had
not here a pathological problem, or whether hysteria created a desire to
deceive or pre-disposed the subject to being duped under clerical
influence. _Anna Cath. Emmerich_, a nun of Dülmen in Westphalia, in 1812,
professed to have on her body bloody wound-marks of the Saviour. For five
years down to her death in 1824, the poet Brentano sat at her feet,
venerating her as a saint and listening to her ecstatic revelations on the
death and sufferings of the Redeemer and his mother. Overberg, Sailer, and
Von Stolberg were also satisfied of the genuineness of her revelations and
of the miraculous marking of her body. The physician Von Drussel examined
the wound-prints and certified them as miraculous; but Bodde, professor of
chemistry at Münster, pronounced the blood marks spots produced by
dragon’s-blood. Competent physicians declared her a hysterical woman
incapable of distinguishing between dream and reality, truth and lies,
honesty and deceit. Others famous in the same line were Maria von Wörl,
Dominica Lazzari, and _Crescentia Stinklutsch_; also Dorothea Visser of
Holland and Juliana Weiskircher from near Vienna.
4. Of a very doubtful kind were the miraculous marks on _Louise Lateau_,
daughter of a Belgian miner. On 24th April, 1868, it is said she was
marked with the print of the Saviour’s wounds on hands, feet, side, brow,
and shoulders. In July, A.D. 1868, she fell into an ecstasy, from which
she could be awakened only by her bishop or one authorized by him.
Trustworthy physicians, after a careful medical examination, reported that
she laboured under a disease which they proposed to call “stigmatic
neuropathy.” Chemical analysis proved the presence of food which had been
regularly taken, probably in a somnambulistic trance. In the summer of
1875 her sister for a time put an end to the affair by refusing the clergy
entrance into the house, and she was then obliged to eat, drink, and sleep
like other Christians, so that the Friday bloody marks disappeared. But
now, say ultramontane journals, Louise became dangerously ill, and clergy
were called in to her help, and the marks were again visible. Her patron
Bishop Dumont of Tournay being deposed by the pope in 1879, she took part
against his successor, and was threatened with excommunication (§ 200, 7).
She was now deserted by the ultramontanes and Belgian clergy, and treated
as a poor, weak-minded invalid. She died neglected and in obscurity in
A.D. 1883.
5. Of pseudo-stigmatizations there has been no lack even in the most
recent times. In 1845 _Caroline Beller_, a girl of fifteen years, in
Westphalia, was examined by a skilful physician. On Thursday he laid a
linen cloth over the wound-prints, and sure enough on Friday it was marked
with blood stains; but also strips of paper laid under, without her
knowledge, were pricked with needles. The delinquent now confessed her
deceit, which she had been tempted to perpetrate from reading the works of
Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, and Emmerich. Theresa Städele in
1849, Rosa Tamisier in 1851, and Angela Hupe in 1863, were convicted of
fraudulently pretending to have stigmata. The latter was proved to have
feigned deafness and lameness for a whole year, to have diligently read
the writings of Emmerich in 1861, to have shown the physician fresh
bleeding wounds on hands, feet, and side, and to have affirmed that she
had neither eaten nor drunk for a year. Four sisters of mercy were sent to
attend her, and they soon discovered the fraud. In 1876 the father
confessor of Ernestine Hauser was prosecuted for damages, having injured
the girl’s health by the severe treatment to which she was subjected in
order to induce ecstasy and obtain an opportunity for impressing the
stigmata. _Sabina Schäfer_ of Baden, in her eighteenth year, had for two
years borne the reputation of a wonder-working saint, who every Friday
showed the five wound prints, and in ecstasy told who were in hell and who
in purgatory. She professed to live without food, though often she betook
herself to the kitchen to pray alone, and even carried food with her to
give to her guardian angel to carry to the distant poor. When under
surveillance in 1880 she sought to bribe her guardian to bring her meat
and drink, fragments of food were found among her clothes, and also a
flask with blood and an instrument for puncturing the skin. She confessed
her guilt, and was sentenced by the criminal court of Baden to ten weeks’
imprisonment. The ultramontane _Pfälzer Bote_ complained that so-called
liberals should ruthlessly encroach on the rights of the church and the
family.
6. _Manifestations of the Mother of God in France._—The most celebrated of
these manifestations occurred in 1858 at _Lourdes_, where in a grotto the
Virgin repeatedly appeared to a peasant girl of fourteen years, almost
imbecile, named Bernadette Soubirous, saying “Je suis l’Immaculée
Conception,” and urging the erection of a chapel on that spot. A
miracle-working well sprang up there. Since 1872 the pilgrimages under
sanction of the hierarchy have been on a scale of unexampled magnificence,
and the cures in number and significance far excelling anything heard of
before.—At the village of _La Salette_ in the department of Isère, in 1846
two poor children, a boy of fifteen and a girl of eleven years, saw a fair
white-dressed lady sitting on a stone and shedding tears, and, lo, from
the spot where her foot rested sprang up a well, at which innumerable
cures have been wrought. The epidemic of visions of the Virgin reached a
climax in Alsace Lorraine in 1872. In a wood near the village of _Gereuth_
crowds of women and children gathered, professing to see visions of the
mother of God; but when the police appeared to protect the forest, the
manifestation craze spread over the whole land, and at thirty-five
stations almost daily visions were enjoyed. The epidemic reached its
crisis in Mary’s month, May, 1874, and continued with intervals down to
the end of the year. In some cases deceit was proved; but generally it
seemed to be the result of a diseased imagination and self-deception
fostered by speculative purveyors and the ultramontane press and clergy.
7. _Manifestations of the Mother of God in Germany._—In the summer of 1876
three girls of eight years old in the village of _Marpingen_, in the
department of Treves, saw by a well a white-robed lady, with the halo over
her head and with a child in her arms, who made herself known as the
immaculate Virgin, and called for the erection of a chapel. A voice from
heaven said, This is my beloved Son, etc. There were also processions and
choirs of angels, etc. The devil, too, appeared and ordered them to fall
down and worship him. Thousands crowded from far and near, and the water
of the fountain wrought miraculous cures. The surrounding clergy made a
profitable business of sending the water to America, and the _Germania_ of
Berlin unweariedly sounded forth its praises. Before the court of justice
the children confessed the fraud, and were sentenced to the house of
correction; and though on technical grounds this judgment was set aside,
the supreme court of appeal in 1879 pronounced the whole thing a
scandalous and disgraceful swindle.—Weichsel, priest of _Dittrichswald_ in
Ermland, who gained great reputation as an exorcist, made a pilgrimage to
Marpingen in the summer of 1877, and on his return gave such an account of
what he had seen to his communicants’ class that first one and then
another saw the mother of God at a maple tree, which also became a
favourite resort for pilgrims.
8. _Canonizations._—When in 1825 Leo XII. canonized a Spanish monk
Julianus, who among other miracles had made roasted birds fly away off the
spit, the Roman wits remarked that they would prefer a saint who would put
birds on the spit for them. St. Liguori was canonized by Gregory XVI. in
1839. Pius IX. canonized fifty-two and beatified twenty-six of the martyrs
of Japan. The Franciscans had sought from Urban VIII. in 1627 canonization
for six missionaries and seventeen Japanese converts martyred in 1596 (§
150, 2), but were refused because they would not pay 52,000 Roman thalers
for the privilege. Pius IX. granted this, and included three Jesuit
missionaries. At Pentecost, 1862, the celebration took place, amid
acclamations, firing of cannons, and ringing of bells. In 1868 the
infamous president of the heretic tribunal Arbúes (§ 117, 2) received the
distinction. The number of _doctores ecclesiæ_ was increased by Pius IX.
by the addition of Hilary of Poitiers in 1851, Liguori in 1870, and
Francis de Sales in 1877. And Leo XIII. canonized four new saints, the
most distinguished of whom was the French mendicant, Bened. Jos. Labre,
who after having been dismissed by Carthusians, Cistercians, and Trappists
as unteachable, made a pilgrimage to Rome, where he stayed fifteen years
in abject poverty, and died in 1783 in his thirty-sixth year.
9. _Discoveries of Relics._—The Roman catacombs continued still to supply
the demand for relics of the saints for newly erected altars. Toward the
end of A.D. 1870 the Archbishop of St. Iago de Compostella (§ 88, 4) made
excavations in the crypt of his cathedral, in consequence of an old
tradition that the bones of the Apostle James the Elder, the supposed
founder of the church, had been deposited there, and he succeeded in
discovering a stone coffin with remains of a skeleton. The report of this
made to Pius IX. gave occasion to the appointment of a commission of seven
cardinals, who, after years of minute examination of all confirmatory
historical, archæological, anatomical, and local questions, submitted
their report to Leo XIII., whereupon, in November, 1884, he issued an
“Apostolic Brief,” by which he (without publishing the report) declared
the unmistakable genuineness of the discovered bones as _ex constanti et
pervulgato apud omnes sermone jam ab Apostolorum ætate memoriæ prodita_,
pronounced the relics generally _perennes fontes_, from which the _dona
cælestia_ flow forth like brooks among the Christian nations, and calls
attention to the fact that it is just in this century, in which the power
of darkness has risen up in conflict against the Lord and his Christ,
these and also many other relics “_divinitus_” have been discovered, as
_e.g._ the bones of St. Francis, of St. Clara, of Bishop Ambrose, of the
martyrs Gervasius and Protasius, of the Apostles Philip and James the
Less, the genuineness of which had been avouched by his predecessors Pius
VII. and Pius IX.
10. _The blood of St. Januarius_, a martyr of the age of Diocletian,
liquefies thrice a year for eight days, and on occasion of earthquakes and
such-like calamities in Naples, the blood is brought in two vials by a
matron near to the head of the saint; if it liquefies the sign is
favourable to the Neapolitans, if it remains thick unfavourable; but in
either case it forms a powerful means of agitation in the hands of the
clergy. Unbelievers venture to suggest that this _precioso sangue del
taumaturgo S. Gennaro_ is not blood, but a mixture that becomes liquid by
the warmth of the hand and the heat of the air in the crowded room, some
sort of cetaceous product coloured red.
11. About 100 clergy, twenty colour-bearers, 150 musicians, 10,000
leapers, 3,000 beggars, and 2,000 singers take part in the _Leaping
Procession at Echternach_ in Luxemburg, which is celebrated yearly on
Whit-Tuesday. It was spoken of in the sixteenth century as an ancient
custom. After an “exciting” sermon, the procession is formed in rows of
from four to six persons bound together by pocket-handkerchiefs held in
their hands; Wilibrord’s dance is played, and all jump in time to the
music, five steps forward and two backward, or two backward and three
forward, varied by three or four leaps to the right and then as many to
the left. Thus continually leaping the procession goes through the streets
of the city to the parish church, up the sixty-two steps of the church
stair and along the church aisles to the tomb of Wilibrord (§ 78, 3). The
dance is kept up incessantly for two hours. The performers do so generally
because of a vow, or as penance for some fault, or to secure the saint’s
intercession for the cure of epilepsy and convulsive fits, common in that
region, mainly no doubt owing to such senseless proceedings. The origin of
the custom is obscure. Tradition relates that soon after the death of
Wilibrord a disease appeared among the cattle which jumped incessantly in
the stalls, till the people went leaping in procession to Wilibrord’s
tomb, and the plague was stayed! But the custom is probably a Christian
adaptation of an old spring festival dance of pagan times (§ 75, 3; comp.
2 Sam. vi. 14).
12. _The Devotion of the Sacred Heart._—Even after the suppression of the
Jesuit order the devotion of the Sacred Heart (§ 156, 6) was zealously
practised by the ex-Jesuits and their friends. On the restoration of the
order numerous brotherhoods and sisterhoods, especially in France, devoted
themselves to this exercise, and the _revanche_ movement of A.D. 1870 used
this as one of its most powerful instruments. Crowds of pilgrims flocked
to Paray le Monial, and there, kneeling before the cradle of Bethlehem,
they besought the sacred heart of Jesus to save France and Rome, and the
refrain of all the pilgrim songs, “_Dieu, de la clemence ... sauvez Rome
et la France au nom du sacré-cœur_,” became the spiritual Marseillaise of
France returning to the Catholic fold. From the money collected over the
whole land a beautiful church _du Sacré-Cœur_ has been erected on
Montmartre in Paris. The gratifying news was then brought from Rome that
the holy father had resolved on July 16th, 1875, the twenty-ninth
anniversary of his ascending the papal throne and the two hundredth
anniversary of the great occurrences at Paray le Monial, that the whole
world should give adoration to the sacred heart. In France this day was
fixed upon for the laying of the foundation stone of the church at
Montmartre, and the Archbishop of Cologne, Paul Melchers, commanded
Catholic Germany to show greater zeal in the adoration of the sacred
heart, “ordained by divine revelation” two hundred years before.
13. _Ultramontane Amulets._—The Carmelites adopted a brown, the
Trinitarians a white, the Theatines a blue, the Servites a black, and the
Lazarites a red, scapular, assured by divine visions that the wearing of
them was a means of salvation. A tract, entitled “_Gnaden und Ablässe des
fünffachen Skapuliers_,” published by episcopal authority at Münster in
1872, declared that any layman who wore the five scapulars would
participate in all the graces and indulgences belonging to them severally.
The most useful of all was the Carmelite scapular, impenetrable by
bullets, impervious to daggers, rendering falls harmless, stilling stormy
seas, quenching fires, healing the possessed, the sick, the wounded,
etc.—The Benedictines had no scapulars, but they had Benedict-medals, from
which they drew a rich revenue. This amulet first made its appearance in
the Bavarian Abbey of Metten. The tract, entitled, “_St.
Benediktusbüchlein oder die Medaille d. h. Benediktus_,” published at
Münster in 1876, tells how it cures sicknesses, relieves toothache, stops
bleeding at the nose, heals burns, overcomes the craving for drink,
protects from attacks of evil spirits, restrains skittish horses, cures
sick cattle, clears vineyards of blight, secures the conversion of
heretics and godless persons, etc.—In A.D. 1878 there appeared at Mainz,
with approval of the bishop, a book in its third edition, entitled, “_Der
Seraphische Gürtel und dessen wunderbare Reichtümer nach d. Franz, d.
päpstl. Hausprälaten Abbé v. Segur_,” according to which Sixtus V. in 1585
founded the Archbrotherhood of the Girdle of St. Francis. It also affirms
that whoever wears this girdle day and night and repeats the six enjoined
paternosters, participates in all the indulgences of the holy land and of
all the basilicas and sanctuaries of Rome and Assisi, and is entitled to
liberate 1,000 souls a day from purgatory.—Great miracles of healing and
preservation from all injuries to body and soul, property and goods, are
attributed by the Jesuits to the “_holy water of St. Ignatius_” (§ 149,
11), the sale of which in Belgium, France, and Switzerland has proved to
them a lucrative business. But the mother of God has herself favoured them
with a still more powerful miracle-working water in the fountains of
Lourdes and Marpingen.
14. We give in conclusion a specimen of _Ultramontane pulpit eloquence_. A
Bavarian priest, Kinzelmann, said in a sermon in 1872: “We priests stand
as far above the emperor, kings, and princes as the heaven is above the
earth.... Angels and archangels stand beneath us, for we can in God’s
stead forgive sins. We occupy a position superior to that of the mother of
God, who only once bare Christ, whereas we create and beget him every day.
Yea, in a sense, we stand above God, who must always and everywhere serve
us, and at the consecration must descend from heaven upon the mass,”
etc.—An apotheosis of the priesthood worthy of the Middle Ages.
§ 189. The Vatican Council.(104)
Immediately after Pius IX. had, at the centenary of St. Peter in 1867,
given a hint that a general council might be summoned at an early date,
the _Civiltà Cattolica_ of Rome made distinct statements to the effect
that the most prominent questions for discussion would be the confirming
of the syllabus (§ 185, 2), the sanctioning of the doctrine of papal
absolutism in the spirit of the bull _Unam sanctam_ of Boniface VIII. (§
110, 1), and the proclamation of papal infallibility. The _Civiltà_ had
already taught that “when the pope thinks, it is God who thinks in him.”
When the council opened on the day of the immaculate conception, December
8th, 1869, all conceivable devices of skilful diplomacy were used by the
Jesuit Camarilla, and friendly cajoling and violent threatening on the
part of the pope, in order to silence or win over, and, in case this could
not be done, to stifle and suppress the opposition which even already was
not inconsiderable in point of numbers, but far more important in point of
moral, theological, and hierarchical influence. The result aimed at was
secured. Of the 150 original opponents only fifty dared maintain their
opposition to the end, and even they cowardly shrank from a decisive
conflict, and wrote from their respective dioceses, as their Catholic
faith obliged them to do, notifying their most complete acquiescence.
1. _Preliminary History of the Council._—When Pius IX. on the centenary of
St. Peter made known to the assembled bishops his intention to summon a
general council, they expressed their conviction that by the blessing of
the immaculate Virgin it would be a powerful means of securing unity,
peace, and holiness. The formal summons was issued on the day of St. Peter
and St. Paul of the following year, June 29th, 1868. The end for which the
council was convened was stated generally as follows: The saving of the
church and civil society from all evils threatening them, the thwarting of
the endeavours of all who seek the overthrow of church and state, the
uprooting of all modern errors and the downfall of all godless enemies of
the apostolical chair. In Germany the Catholic General Assembly which met
at Bamberg soon after this declared that from this day a new epoch in the
world’s history would begin, for “either the salvation of the world would
result from this council, or the world is beyond the reach of help.” This
hopefulness prevailed throughout the whole Catholic world. Fostered by the
utterances of the _Civiltà Cattolica_, the excitement grew from day to
day. The learned bishop _in partibus_ Maret, dean of the theological
faculty of Paris, now came forward as an eloquent exponent of the Gallican
liberties; even the hitherto so strict Catholic, the Count Montalembert,
to the astonishment of everybody, assumed a bold and independent attitude
in regard to the council, and energetically protested in a publication of
March 7th, 1870, six days before his death, against the intrigues of the
Jesuits and the infallibility dogma which it was proposed to authorize.
But the greatest excitement was occasioned by the work “_Der Papst und das
Konzil_,” published in Leipzig, 1869, under the pseudonym _Janus_, of
which the real authors were Döllinger, Friedrich, and Huber of Munich, who
brought up the heavy artillery of the most comprehensive historical
scholarship against the evident intentions of the curia. The German
bishops gathered at the tomb of St. Boniface at Fulda in September, 1869,
and issued from thence a general pastoral letter to their disturbed
flocks, declaring that it was impossible that the council should decide
otherwise than in accordance with holy Scripture and the apostolic
traditions and what was already written upon the hearts of all believing
Catholics. Also the papal secretary, Card. Antonelli, quieted the anxiety
of the ambassadors of foreign powers at Rome by the assurance that the
Holy See had in view neither the confirming of the syllabus nor the
affirming of the dogma of infallibility. In vain did the Bavarian premier,
Prince Hohenlohe, insist that the heads of other governments should
combine in taking measures to prevent any encroachment of the council upon
the rights of the state. The great powers resolved to maintain simply a
watchful attitude, and only too late addressed earnest expostulations and
threats.
2. _The Organization of the Council._—Of 1,044 prelates entitled to take
part in the council 767 made their appearance, of whom 276 were Italians
and 119 bishops _in partibus_, all pliable satellites of the curia, as
were also the greater number of the missionary bishops, who, with their
assistants in the propaganda, were supported at the cost of the holy
father. The sixty-two bishops of the Papal States were doubly subject to
the pope, and of the eighty Spanish and South American bishops it was
affirmed in Rome that they would be ready at the bidding of the holy
father to define the Trinity as consisting of four persons. Forty Italian
cardinals and thirty generals of orders were equally dependable. The
Romance races were represented by no less than 600, the German by no more
than fourteen. For the first time since general councils were held was the
laity entirely excluded from all influence in the proceedings, even the
ambassadors of Catholic and tolerant powers. The order of business drawn
up by the pope was arranged in all its details so as to cripple the
opposition. The right of all fathers of the council to make proposals was
indeed conceded, but a committee chosen by the pope decided as to their
admissibility. From the special commissions, whose presidents were
nominated by the pope, the drafts of decrees were issued to the general
congregation, where the president could at will interrupt any speaker and
require him to retract. Instead of the unanimity required by the canon law
in matters of faith, a simple majority of votes was declared sufficient. A
formal protest of the minority against these and similar unconstitutional
proposals was left quite unheeded. The proceedings were indeed taken down
by shorthand reporters, but not even members of council were allowed to
see these reports. The conclusions of the general congregation were sent
back for final revision to the special commissions, and when at last
brought up again in the public sessions, they were not discussed, but
simply voted on with a _placet_ or a _non-placet_. The right transept of
St. Peter’s was the meeting place of the council, the acoustics of which
were as bad as possible, but the pope refused every request for more
suitable accommodation. Besides, the various members spoke with diverse
accents, and many had but a defective knowledge of Latin. Although
absolute secresy was enjoined on pain of falling into mortal sin, under
the excitement of the day so much trickled out and was in certain Romish
circles so carefully gathered and sifted, that a tolerably complete
insight was reached into the inner movements of the council. From such
sources the author of the “_Römischen Briefe_,” supposed to have been Lord
Acton, a friend and scholar of Döllinger, drew the material for his
account, which, carried by trusty messengers beyond the bounds of the
Papal State, reached Munich, and there, after careful revision by
Döllinger and his friends, were published in the _Augsburg Allg. Zeitung_.
Also Prof. Friedrich of Munich, who had accompanied Card. Hohenlohe to
Rome as theological adviser, collected what he could learn in episcopal
and theological circles in a journal which was published at a later date.
3. _The Proceedings of the Council._—The first public session of December
8th, 1869, was occupied with opening ceremonies; the second, of January
6th, with the subscription of the confession of faith on the part of each
member. The first preliminary was the _schema_ of the faith, the second
that on church discipline. Then followed the _schema_ on the church and
the primacy of the pope in three articles: the legal position of the
church in reference to the state, the absolute supremacy of the pope over
the whole church on the principles of the Pseudo-Isidore (§ 87, 2) and the
assumptions of Gregory VII., Innocent III. and Boniface VIII., reproduced
in the principal propositions of the syllabus (§ 184, 2), and the outlines
of a catechism to be enforced as a manual for the instruction of youth
throughout the church. On March 6th there was added by way of supplement
to the _schema_ of the church a fourth article in the form of a sketch of
the decree of infallibility. Soon after the opening of the council an
agitation in this direction had been started. An address to the pope
emanating from the Jesuit college petitioning for this was speedily signed
by 400 subscribers. A counter address with 137 signatures besought the
pope not to make any such proposal. At the head of the agitation in favour
of infallibility stood archbishops Manning of Westminster, Deschamps of
Mechlin, Spalding of Baltimore, and bishops Fessler of St. Pölten,
secretary of the council, Senestrey of Regensburg, the “overthrower of
thrones” (§ 197, 1), Martin of Paderborn, and, as bishop _in partibus_,
Mermillod of Geneva. Among the leaders of the opposition the most
prominent were cardinals Rauscher of Vienna, Prince Schwarzenberg of
Prague and Matthieu of Besançon, Prince-bishop Förster of Breslau,
archbishops Scherr of Munich, Melchers of Cologne, Darboy of Paris, and
Kenrick of St. Louis, the bishops Ketteler of Mainz, Dinkel of Augsburg,
Hefele of Rottenburg, Strossmayer of Sirmium, Dupanloup of Orleans,
etc.—Owing to the discussions on the _Schema of the Faith_ there occurred
on March 22nd a stormy scene, which in its wild uproar reminds one of the
disgraceful _Robber Synod of Ephesus_ (§ 52, 4). When Bishop Strossmayer
objected to the statement made in the preamble, that the indifferentism,
pantheism, atheism, and materialism prevailing in these days are
chargeable upon Protestantism, as contrary to truth, the furious fathers
of the majority amid shouts and roars, shaking of their fists, rushed upon
the platform, and the president was obliged to adjourn the sitting. At the
next session the objectionable statement was withdrawn and the entire
_schema_ of the faith was unanimously adopted at the third public sitting
of the council on April 24th. _The Schema of the Church_ came up for a
consideration on May 10th. The discussion turned first and mainly on the
fourth article about the infallibility of the pope. Its biblical
foundation was sought in Luke xxii. 32, its traditional basis chiefly in
the well-known passage of Irenæus (§ 34, 8) and on its supposed
endorsement by the general councils of Lyons and Florence (§ 67, 4, 6),
but the main stress was laid on its necessarily following from the
position of the pope as the representative of Christ. The opposition party
had from the outset their position weakened by the conduct of many of
their adherents who, partly to avoid giving excessive annoyance to the
pope, and partly to leave a door open for their retreat, did not contest
the correctness of the doctrine in question, but all the more decidedly
urged the inopportuneness of its formal definition as threatening the
church with a schism and provocative of dangerous conflicts with the civil
power. The longer the decision was deferred by passionate debates, the
more determinedly did the pope throw the whole weight of his influence
into the scales. By bewitching kindliness he won some, by sharp, angry
words he terrified others. He denounced opponents as sectarian enemies of
the church and the apostolic chair, and styled them ignoramuses, slaves of
princes, and cowards. He trusted the aid of the blessed Virgin to ward off
threatened division. To the question whether he himself regarded the
formulating of the dogma as opportune, he answered: “No, but as
necessary.” Urged by the Jesuits, he confidently declared that it was
notorious that the whole church at all times taught the absolute
infallibility of the pope; and on another occasion he silenced a modest
doubt as to a sure tradition with the dictatorial words, _La tradizione
sono io_, adding the assurance, “As Abbáte Mastai I believe in
infallibility, as pope I have experienced it.” On July 13th the final vote
was called for in the general congregation. There were 371 who voted
simply _placet_, sixty-one _placet juxta modum_, _i.e._ with certain
modifications, and eighty-eight _non placet_. After a last hopeless
attempt by a deputation to obtain the pope’s consent to a milder
formulating of the decree, Bishop Ketteler vainly entreating on his knees,
to save the unity and peace of the church by some small concession, the
fifty hitherto steadfast members of the minority returned home, after
emitting a written declaration that they after as well as before must
continue to adhere to their negative vote, but from reverence and respect
for the person of the pope they declined to give effect to it at a public
session. On the following day, July 18th, the fourth and last public
sitting was held: 547 fathers voted _placet_ and only two, Riccio of
Cajazzo and Fitzgerald of Little Rock, _non placet_. A violent storm had
broken out during the session and amid thunder and lightning, Pius IX.,
like “a second Moses” (Exod. xix. 16), proclaimed in the _Pastor æternus_
the absolute plenipotence and infallibility of himself and all his
predecessors and successors.—It was on the evening preceding the
proclamation of this new dogma that Napoleon III. proclaimed war with
Prussia, in consequence of which the pope lost the last remnants of
temporal sovereignty and every chance of its restoration. Under the
influence of the fever-fraught July sun, the council now dwindled down to
150 members, and, after the whole glory of the papal kingdom had gone down
(§ 185, 3), on October 20th, its sittings were suspended until better
times. The _schema_ of discipline and the preliminary sketch of a
catechism were not concluded; a subsequently introduced _schema_ on
apostolic missions was left in the same state; and a petition equally
pressed by the Jesuits for the defining of the corporeal ascension of Mary
had not even reached the initial stage.
4. _Acceptance of the Decrees of the Council._—All protests which during
the council the minority had made against the order of business determined
on and against all irregularities resulting from it, because not persisted
in, were regarded as invalid. Equally devoid of legal force was their
final written protest which they left behind, in which they expressly
declined to exercise their right of voting. And the assent which they
ultimately without exception gave to the objective standpoint of the law
and the faith of the Catholic church, was not in the least necessary in
order to make it appear that the decisions of the council, drawn up with
such unanimity as had scarcely ever before been seen, were equally valid
with any of the decrees of the older councils. Thus the bishops of the
minority, if they did not wish to occasion a split of unexampled
dimensions and incalculable complications, quarrels, and contentions in
the church that boasted of a unity which had hitherto been its strength
and stay, could do nothing else than yield at the twelfth hour to the
pope’s demand that “_sacrificio dell’intelletto_” which at the eleventh
hour they had refused. The German bishops, who had proved most steadfast
at the council, were now in the greatest haste to make their submission.
Even by the end of August, at Fulda, they joined their infallibilist
neighbours in addressing a pastoral letter, in which they most solemnly
declared that all true Catholics, as they valued their soul’s salvation,
must unconditionally accept the conclusions of the council unanimously
arrived at which are in no way prejudiced by the “differences of opinion”
elicited during the discussion. At the same time they demanded of
theological professors, teachers of religion, and clergymen throughout the
dioceses a formal acceptance of these decrees as the inviolable standpoint
of their doctrinal teaching; they also took measures against those who
refused to yield, and excommunicated them. Even Bishop Hefele, who did not
sign this pastoral and was at first determined not to yield nor swerve, at
last gave way. In his pastoral proclaiming the new dogma he gave it a
quite inadmissible interpretation: As the infallibility of the church, so
also that of the pope as a teacher, extends only to the revealed doctrines
of faith and morals, and even with reference to them only the definitions
proper and not the introductory statements, grounds, and applications,
belong to the infallible department. But subsequently he cast himself
unreservedly into the arms of his colleagues assembled once again at Fulda
in September, 1872, where he also found his like-minded friend, Bishop
Haneberg of Spires. Yet he forbore demanding an express assent from his
former colleagues at Tübingen and his clergy, and thus saved Württemberg
from a threatened schism. Strossmayer held out longest, but even he at
last threw down his weapons. But many of the most cultured and scholarly
of the theological professors, disgusted with the course events were
taking, withdrew from the field and continued silently to hold their own
opinions. The inferior clergy, for the most part trained by ultramontane
bigots, and held in the iron grasp of strict hierarchical discipline,
passed all bounds in their extravagant glorification of the new dogma. And
while among the liberal circles of the Catholic laity it was laughed at
and ridiculed, the bigoted nobles and the masses who had long been used to
the incensed atmosphere of an enthusiastic adoration of the pope, bowed
the knee in stupid devotion to the papal god. But the brave heart of one
noble German lady broke with sorrow over the indignity done by the Vatican
decree and the characterlessness of the German bishops to the church of
which to her latest breath she remained in spirit a devoted member. Amalie
von Lasaulx, sister of the Munich scholar Ernst von Lasaulx (§ 174, 4),
from 1849 superioress of the Sisters of Mercy in St. John’s Hospital at
Bonn, lay beyond hope of recovery on a sick-bed to which she had been
brought by her self-sacrificing and faithful discharge of the duties of
her calling, when there came to her from the lady superior of the order at
Nancy the peremptory demand to give in her adhesion to the infallibility
dogma. As she persistently and courageously withstood all entreaties and
threats, all adjurations and cruelly tormenting importunings, she was
deposed from office and driven from the scene of her labours, and when,
soon thereafter, in 1872, she died, the habit of her order was stripped
from her body. The Old Catholics of Bonn, whose proceedings she had not
countenanced, charged themselves with securing for her a Christian
burial.—No state as such has recognised the council. Austria answered it
by abolishing the concordat and forbidding the proclamation of the
decrees. Bavaria and Saxony refused their _placet_; Hesse, Baden, and
Württemberg declared that the conclusions of the council had not binding
authority in law. Prussia indeed held to its principle of not interfering
in the internal affairs of the Catholic church, but, partly for itself,
partly as the leading power of the new German empire, passed a series of
laws in order to resume its too readily abandoned rights of sovereignty
over the affairs of the Catholic church, and to insure itself against
further encroachments of ultramontanism upon the domain of civil life (§
197). The Romance states, on the other hand, pre-eminently France, were
prevented by internal troubles and conflicts from taking any very decisive
steps.
§ 190. The Old Catholics.
A most promising reaction, mainly in Germany, led by men highly respected
and eminent for their learning, set in against the Vatican Council and its
decrees, in the so-called Old Catholic movement of the liberal circles of
the Catholic people, which went the length, even in 1873, of establishing
an independent and well organized episcopal church. Since then, indeed, it
has fallen far short of the all too sanguine hopes and expectations at
first entertained; but still within narrower limits it continues steadily
to spread and to rear for itself a solid structure, while carefully, even
nervously, shrinking from anything revolutionary. More in touch with the
demands of the _Zeitgeist_ in its reformatory concessions, yet holding
firmly in every particular to the positive doctrines of orthodoxy, the Old
Catholic movement has made progress in Switzerland, while in other
Catholic countries its success has been relatively small.
1. _Formation and Development of the Old Catholic Church in the German
Empire._—In the beginning of August, 1870, the hitherto exemplary Catholic
professor Michelis of Braunsberg (§ 191, 6), issued a public charge
against Pius IX. as a heretic and devourer of the church, and by the end
of August several distinguished theologians (Döllinger and Friedrich of
Munich, Reinkens, Weber, and Baltzer of Breslau, Knoodt of Bonn, and the
canonist Von Schulte of Prague) joined him at Nuremberg in making a public
declaration that the Vatican Council could not be regarded as œcumenical,
nor its new dogma as a Catholic doctrine. This statement was subscribed to
by forty-four Catholic professors of the university of Munich with the
rector at their head, but without the theologians. Similarly, too, several
Catholic teachers in Breslau, Freiburg, Würzburg, and Bonn protested, and
still more energetically a gathering of Catholic laymen at Königswinter.
Besides the Breslau professors already named, the Bonn professors Reusch,
Langen, Hilgers, and Knoodt refused to subscribe the council decrees at
the call of their bishop; whereas the Munich professors, with the
exception of Döllinger and Friedrich, yielded. A repeated injunction of
his archbishop in January, 1871, drew from Döllinger the statement that he
as a Christian, a theologian, a historian, and a citizen, was obliged to
reject the infallibility dogma, while at the same time he was prepared
before an assembly of bishops and theologians to prove that it was opposed
to Scripture, the Fathers, tradition, and history. He was now literally
overwhelmed with complimentary addresses from Vienna, Würzburg, Munich,
and almost all other cities of Bavaria; and an address to government on
the dangers to the state threatened by the Vatican decrees that lay at the
Munich Museum, was quickly filled with 12,000 signatures. On April 14th,
Döllinger was excommunicated, and Professor Huber sent an exceedingly
sharp reply to the archbishop. After several preliminary meetings, the
_first congress_ of the Old Catholics was held in Munich in September,
1871, attended by 500 deputies from all parts of Germany. A programme was
unanimously adopted which, with protestation of firm adherence to the
faith, worship, and constitution of the ancient Catholic church,
maintained the invalidity of the Vatican decrees and the excommunication
occasioned by them, and, besides recognising the Old Catholic church of
Utrecht (§ 165, 8), expressed a hope of reunion with the Greek church, as
well as of a gradual progress towards an understanding with the Protestant
church. But when at the second session the president, Dr. von Schulte,
proposed the setting up of independent public services with regular
pastors, and the establishing as soon as possible of an episcopal
government of their own, Döllinger contested the proposal as a forsaking
of the safe path of lawful opposition, taking the baneful course of the
Protestant Reformation, and tending toward the formation of a sect. As,
however, the proposal was carried by an overwhelming majority, he declined
to take further part in their public assemblies and retired more into the
background, without otherwise opposing the prevailing current or detaching
himself from it. The second congress was held at Cologne in the autumn of
1872. From the episcopal churches of England and America, from the
orthodox church of Russia, from France, Italy, and Spain, were sent
deputies and hearty friendly greetings. Archbishop Loos of Utrecht, by the
part which he took in the congress, cemented more closely the union with
the Old Catholics of Holland. Even the German “_Protestantenverein_” was
not unrepresented. A committee chosen for the purpose drew up an outline
of a synodal and congregational order, which provides for the election of
bishops at an annual meeting at Pentecost of a synod, of which all the
clergy are members and to which the congregations send deputies, one for
every 200 members. Alongside of the bishop stands a permanent synodal
board of five priests and seven laymen. The bishop and synodal board have
the right of vetoing doubtful decrees of synod. The choice of pastors lies
with the congregation; its confirmation belongs to the bishop. In July,
1873, a bishop was elected in the Pantaleon church of Cologne by an
assembly of delegates, embracing twenty-two priests and fifty-five laymen.
The choice fell upon Professor Reinkens, who, as meanwhile Bishop Loos of
Utrecht had died, was consecrated on August 11th, at Rotterdam, by Bishop
Heykamp of Deventer, and selected Bonn as his episcopal residence.
2. The first synod of the German Old Catholics, consisting of thirty
clerical and fifty-nine lay members, met at Bonn in May, 1874. It was
agreed to continue the practice of auricular confession, but without any
pressure being put upon the conscience or its observance being insisted
upon at set times. Similarly the moral value of fasting was recognised,
but all compulsory abstinence, and all distinctions of food as allowable
and unallowable, were abolished. The second synod, with reference to the
marriage law, took the position that civil regular marriages ought also to
have the blessing of the church; only in the case of marriages with
non-Christians and divorced parties should this be refused. The third
synod introduced a German ritual in which the exorcism was omitted, while
the Latin mass was provisionally retained. The fourth synod allowed to
such congregations as might wish it the use of the vernacular in several
parts of the service of the mass. At all these synods the lay members had
persistently repeated the proposal to abolish the obligatory celibacy of
the clergy. But now the agitation, especially on the part of the Baden
representatives, had become so keen, that at the fifth synod of 1878, in
spite of the warning read by Bishop Reinkens from the Dutch Old Catholics,
who threatened to withdraw from the communion, the proposal was carried by
seventy-five votes against twenty-two. The Bonn professors, Langen and
Menzel, foreseeing this result, had absented themselves from the synod,
Reusch immediately withdrew and resigned his office as episcopal
vicar-general, Friedrich protested in the name of the Bavarian Old
Catholics. Reinkens, too, had vigorously opposed the movement; whereas
Knoodt, Michelis, and Von Schulte had favoured it. The synod of 1883
resolved to dispense the supper in both kinds to members of the Anglican
church residing in Germany, but among their own members to follow
meanwhile the usual practice of _communio sub una_. The number of Old
Catholic congregations in the German empire is now 107, with 38,507
adherents and 56 priests.—Even at their first congress the German Old
Catholics, in opposition to the unpatriotic and law-defying attitude of
German ultramontanism, had insisted upon love of country and obedience to
the laws of the state as an absolute Christian duty. Their newly chosen
bishop Reinkens, too, gave expression to this sentiment in his first
pastoral letter, and had the oath of allegiance administered him by the
Prussian, Baden, and Hessian governments. But Bavaria felt obliged, on
account of the terms of its concordat, to refuse. At first the Old
Catholics had advanced the claim to be the only true representatives of
the Catholic church as it had existed before July 18th, 1870. At the
Cologne congress they let this assumption drop, and restricted their
claims upon the state to equal recognition with “the New Catholics,” equal
endowments for their bishop, and a fair proportion of the churches and
their revenues. Prussia responded with a yearly episcopal grant of 16,000
thalers; Baden added about 6,000. It proved more difficult to enforce
their claim to church property. A law was passed in Baden in 1874, which
not only guaranteed to the Old Catholic clergy their present benefices and
incomes, freed them from the jurisdiction of the Romish hierarchy, and
gave them permission to found independent congregations, but also granted
them a mutual right of possessing and using churches and church furniture
as well as sharing in church property according to the numerical
proportion of the two parties in the district. A similar measure was
introduced into the Prussian parliament, and obtained the royal assent in
July, 1875. Since then, however, the interest of the government in the Old
Catholic movement has visibly cooled. In Baden, in 1886 the endowment had
risen to 24,000 marks.
3. _The Old Catholics in other Lands._—_In Switzerland_ the Old, or
rather, as it has there been called, the Christian, Catholic movement, had
its origin in 1871 in the diocese of Basel-Solothurn, whence it soon
spread through the whole country. The national synod held at Olten in 1876
introduced the vernacular into the church services, abolished the
compulsory celibacy of the clergy and obligatory confession of
communicants, and elected Professor Herzog bishop, Reinkens giving him
episcopal consecration. In 1879 the number of Christian Catholics in
German Switzerland amounted to about 70,000, with seventy-two pastors. But
since then, in consequence of the submission of the Roman Catholics to the
church laws condemned by Pius IX. they have lost the majority in no fewer
than thirty-nine out of the forty-three congregations of Canton Bern, and
therewith the privileges attached. A proposal made in the grand council of
the canton in 1883 for the suppression of the Christian Catholic
theological faculty in the University of Bern, which has existed since
1874, was rejected by one hundred and fifty votes against thirteen.—_In
Austria_, too, strong opposition was shown to the infallibility dogma. At
Vienna the first Old Catholic congregation was formed in February, 1872,
under the priest Anton; and soon after others were established in Bohemia
and Upper Austria. But it was not till October, 1877, that they obtained
civil recognition on the ground that their doctrine is that which the
Catholic church professed before 1870. In June, 1880, they held their
first legally sanctioned synod. The provisional synodical and
congregational order was now definitely adopted, and the use of the
vernacular in the church services, the abolition of compulsory fasting,
confession, and celibacy, as well as of surplice fees, and the abandoning
of all but the high festivals, were announced on the following Sunday. The
bitter hatred shown by the Czechs and the ultramontane clergy to
everything German has given to the Old Catholic movement for some years
past a new impulse and decided advantage.—_In France_ the Abbé Michaud of
Paris lashed the characterlessness of the episcopate and was
excommunicated, and the Abbés Mouls and Junqua of Bordeaux were ordered by
the police to give up wearing the clerical dress. Junqua, refusing to obey
this order, was accused by Cardinal Donnet, Bishop of Bordeaux, before the
civil court, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Not till 1879
did the ex-Carmelite Loyson of Paris lay the foundation of a Catholic
Gallican church, affiliated with the Swiss Old Catholics (§ 187, 8).—_In
Italy_ since 1862, independently of the German movement, yet on
essentially the same grounds, a national Italian church was started with
very promising beginnings, which were not, however, realized (§ 187, 7).
Rare excitement was caused throughout Italy by the procedure of Count
Campello, canon of St. Peter’s in Rome, who in 1881 publicly proclaimed
his creed in the Methodist Episcopal chapel, there renouncing the papacy,
and in a published manifesto addressed to the cathedral chapter justified
this step and made severe charges against the papal curia; but soon after,
in a letter to Loyson, he declared that he, remaining faithful to the true
Catholic church, did not contemplate joining any Protestant sect severed
from Catholic unity, and in a communication to the Old Catholic Rieks of
Heidelberg professed to be in all points at one with the German Old
Catholics. Accordingly he sought to form in Rome a Catholic reform party,
whose interests he advocated in the journal _Il Labaro_. The pope’s
domestic chaplain, Monsignor Savarese, has adopted a similar attitude. In
December, 1883, he was received by the pastor of the American Episcopal
church at Rome into the Old Catholic church on subscribing the Nicene
Creed. In 1886 they were joined by another domestic chaplain of the pope,
Monsignor Renier, formerly an intimate friend of Pius IX., who publicly
separated himself from the papal church, and with them took his place at
the head of a Catholic “_Congregation of St. Paul_” in Rome.—Also the
Episcopal _Iglesia Española_ in Spain (§ 205, 4), and the Mexican _Iglesia
de Jesus_ (§ 209, 1), must be regarded as essentially of similar
tendencies to the Old Catholics.
§ 191. Catholic Theology, especially in Germany.
Catholic theology in Germany, influenced by the scientific spirit
prevailing in Protestantism, received a considerable impulse. From
latitudinarian Josephinism it gradually rose toward a strictly
ecclesiastical attitude. Most important were its contributions in the
department of dogmatic and speculative theology. Besides and after the
schools of Hermes, Baader, and Günther, condemned by the papal chair,
appeared a whole series of speculative dogmatists who kept their
speculations within the limits of the church confession. Also in the
domain of church history, Catholic theology, after the epoch-making
productions of Möhler and Döllinger, has aided in reaching important
results, which, however, owing to the “tendency” character of their
researches, demand careful sifting. Least important are their
contributions to biblical criticism and exegesis. In general, however, the
theological _docents_ at the German universities give a scientific
character to their researches and lectures in respect of form and also of
matter, so far as the Tridentine limits will allow. But the more the
Jesuits obtained influence in Germany, the more was that scholasticism,
which repudiated the German university theology and opposed it with
perfidious suspicions and denunciations, naturalized, especially in the
episcopal seminaries, while it was recommended by Rome as the official
theology. The attempt, however, at the Munich Congress of Scholars in 1863
to come to an understanding between the two tendencies failed, owing to
the contrariety of their principles and the opposition of the
Jesuits.—Outside of Germany, French theology, especially in the department
of history, manifested a praiseworthy activity. In Spain theology has
never outgrown the period of the Middle Ages. In Italy, on the other hand,
the study of Christian antiquities flourished, stimulated by recent
discoveries of treasures in catacombs, museums, archives, and libraries.
1. _Hermes and his School._—The Bonn professor, _George Hermes_,
influenced in youth by the critical philosophy, passed the Catholic dogma
of Trent, assured it would stand the test, through the fire of doubt and
the scrutiny of reason, because only what survives such examination could
be scientifically vindicated. He died in A.D. 1831, and left a school
named after him, mainly in Treves, Bonn, and Breslau. Gregory XVI. in 1835
condemned his writings, and the new Archbishop of Cologne,
Droste-Vischering, forbad students at Bonn attending the lectures of
Hermesians. These made every effort to secure the recall of the papal
censure. Braun and Elvenich went to Rome, but their declaration that
Hermes had not taught what the pope condemned profited them as little as a
similar statement had the Jansenists. There now arose on both sides a
bitter controversy, which received new fuel from the Prusso-Cologne
ecclesiastical strife (§ 193, 1). Finally in 1844 professors Braun and
Achterfeld of Bonn were deprived of office by the coadjutor-Archbishop
Geissel, and the Prussian government acquiesced. The professors of the
Treves seminary and Baltzer of Breslau, the latter influenced by Günther’s
theology, retracted.—A year before Hermes’ condemnation the same pope had
condemned the opposite theory of Abbé _Bautain_ of Strassburg, that the
Christian dogmas cannot be proved but only believed, and that therefore
all use of reason in the appropriation of the truths of salvation is
excluded. Bautain, as an obedient son of the church, immediately
retracted, “_laudabiliter se subjecit_.”
2. _Baader and his School._—Catholic theology for a long time paid no
regard to the development of German philosophy. Only after Schelling,
whose philosophy had many points of contact with the Catholic doctrine, a
general interest in such studies was awakened as forming a speculative
basis for Catholicism. To the theosophy of Schelling based on that of the
Görlitz shoemaker (§ 160, 2), _Francis von Baader_, professor of
speculative dogmatics at Munich, though not a professional theologian, but
a physician and a mineralogist, attached himself. In his later years he
went over completely to ultramontanism. His scholar _Franz Hoffmann_ of
Würzburg has given an exposition of Baader’s speculative system. At
Giessen this system was represented by Leop. Schmid (§ 187, 3). All the
Catholic adherents of this school are distinguished by their friendly
attitude toward Protestantism.
3. _Günther and his School._—A theology of at least equal speculative
power and of more decidedly Catholic contents than that of Baader, was set
forth by the secular priest _Anton Günther_ of Vienna, a profound and
original thinker of combative humour, sprightly wit, and a roughness of
expression sometimes verging upon the burlesque. He recognised the
necessity of going up in philosophical and theological speculation to
Descartes, who held by the scholastic dualism of God and the creature, the
Absolute and the finite, spirit and nature, while all philosophy,
according to him, had been ever plunging deeper into pantheistic monism.
Thence he sought to solve the two problems of Christian speculation,
creation and incarnation, and undertook a war of extermination against
“all monism and semimonism, idealistic and realistic pantheism, disguised
and avowed semipantheism,” among Catholics and Protestants. His first
great work, “_Vorschule zur Spekul. Theologie_,” published in 1828,
treating of the theory of creation and the theory of incarnation, was
followed by a long series of similar works. His most eminent scholars were
_Pabst_, doctor of medicine in Vienna, who gave clear expositions of his
master’s dark and aphoristic sayings, and _Veith_, who popularized his
teachings in sermons and practical treatises. Some of the Hermesians, such
as Baltzer of Breslau, entered the rank of his scholars. The
historico-political papers, however, charged him with denying the
mysteries of Christianity, rejecting the traditional theology, etc., and
Clemens, a _privatdocent_ of philosophy in Bonn, became the mouthpiece of
this party. Thus arose a passionate controversy, which called forth the
attention of Rome. We might have expected Günther to meet the fate of
Hermes twenty years before; but the matter was kept long under
consideration, for strong influence from Vienna was brought to bear on his
behalf. At last in January, 1857, the formal reprobation of the Güntherian
philosophy was announced, and all his works put in the Index. Günther
humbly submitted to the sentence of the church. So too did _Baltzer_. But
being suspected at Rome, he was asked voluntarily to resign. This Baltzer
refused to do. Then Prince-Bishop Förster called upon the government to
deprive him; and when this failed, he withdrew from him the _missio
canonica_ and a third of his canonical revenues, and in 1870, on his
opposing the infallibility dogma, he withheld the other two-thirds. His
salary from the State continued to be paid in full till his death in A.D.
1871.
4. _John Adam Möhler._—None of all the Catholic theologians of recent
times attained the importance and influence of Möhler in his short life of
forty-two years. Stimulated to seek higher scientific culture by the study
mainly of Schleiermacher’s works and those of other Protestants, and
putting all his rich endowments at the service of the church, he won for
himself among Catholics a position like that of Schleiermacher among
Protestants. His first treatise of 1825, on the unity of the church, was
followed by his “Athanasius the Great,” and the work of his life, the
“Symbolics” of 1832, in its ninth edition in 1884, which with the
apparatus of Protestant science combats the Protestant church doctrine and
presented the Catholic doctrine in such an ennobled and sublimated form,
that Rome at first seriously thought of placing it in the Index. Hitherto
Protestants had utterly ignored the productions of Catholic theology, but
to overlook a scientific masterpiece like this would be a confession of
their own weakness. And in fact, during the whole course of the
controversy between the two churches, no writing from the Catholic camp
ever caused such commotion among the Protestants as this. The ablest
Protestant replies are those of Nitsch and Baur. In 1835 Möhler left
Tübingen for Munich; but sickness hindered his scientific labours, and, in
1838, in the full bloom of manhood, the Catholic church and Catholic
science had to mourn his death. He can scarcely be said to have formed a
school; but by writings, addresses, and conversation he produced a
scientific ferment in the Catholic theology of Germany, which continued to
work until at last completely displaced by the scholasticism reintroduced
into favour by the Jesuits.
5. _John Jos. Ignat. von Döllinger._—Of all Catholic theologians in
Germany, alongside of and after Möhler, by far the most famous on either
side of the Alps was the church historian Döllinger, professor at Munich
since 1826. His first important work issued in that same year was on the
“Doctrine of the Eucharist in the First Three Centuries.” His
comprehensive work, “The History of the Christian Church,” of 1833 (4
vols., London, 1840), was not carried beyond the second volume; and his
“Text-book of Church History” of 1836, was only carried down to the
Reformation. The tone of his writings was strictly ecclesiastical, yet
without condoning the moral faults of the popes and hierarchy. Great
excitement was produced by his treatise on “The Reformation,” in which he
gathered everything that could be found unfavourable to the Reformers and
their work, and thus gained the summit of renown as a miracle of erudition
and a master of Catholic orthodoxy. Meanwhile in 1838 he had taken part in
controversies about mixed marriages (§ 193, 1), and in 1843 over the
genuflection question (§ 195, 2), with severely hierarchical pamphlets. As
delegate of the university since 1845 he defended with brilliant eloquence
in the Bavarian chamber the measures of the ultramontane government and
the hierarchy, became in 1847 Provost of St. Cajetan, but was also in the
same year involved in the overthrow of the Abel ministry, and was deprived
of his professorship. In the following year he was one of the most
distinguished of the Catholic section in the Frankfort parliament, where
he fought successfully in the hierarchical interest for the unconditional
freedom and independence of the church. King Maximilian II. restored him
to his professorship in 1849. From this time his views of confessional
matters became milder and more moderate. He first caused great offence to
his ultramontane admirers at Easter, 1861, when he in a series of public
lectures delivered one on the Papal States then threatened, in which he
declared that the temporal power of the pope, the abuses of which he had
witnessed during a journey to Rome in 1857, was by no means necessary for
the Catholic church, but was rather hurtful. The papal nuncio, who was
present, ostentatiously left the meeting, and the ultramontanes were
beside themselves with astonishment, horror, and wrath. Döllinger gave
some modifying explanations at the autumn assembly of the Catholic Union
at Munich in 1861. But soon thereafter appeared his work, “The Church and
the Churches” (London, 1862), which gave the lecture slightly modified as
an appendix. The “Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages” (London,
1871), was as little to the taste of the ultramontanes. Indeed in these
writings, especially in the first named, the polemic against the
Protestant Church had all its old bitterness; but he is at least more just
toward Luther, whom he characterizes as “the most powerful man of the
people, the most popular character, which Germany ever possessed.” And
while he delivers a glowing panegyric on the person of the pope, he lashes
unrelentingly the misgovernment of the Papal States. At the Congress of
Scholars at Munich he contended for the freedom of science. Döllinger as
president of the congress sent the pope a telegram which satisfied his
holiness. But the Jesuits looked deeper, and immediately “_il povero
Döllinger_” was loaded by the _Civiltà Cattolica_ with every conceivable
reproach. In A.D. 1868 nominated to the life office of imperial
councillor, he voted with the bishops against the liberal education scheme
of the government. But his battle against the council and infallibility
made the rent incurable, and his angry archbishop hurled against him the
great excommunication. Then Vienna made him doctor of philosophy, Marburg,
Oxford, and Edinburgh gave him LL.D., and the senate of his university
unanimously elected him rector in 1871. But his tabooed lecture room
became more and more deserted. He took no prominent part in the organizing
of the Old Catholic church (§ 190, 1), but all the more eagerly did he
seek to promote its union negotiations (§ 175, 6).
6. _The Chief Representatives of Systematic Theology._—_Klee_, A.D.
1800-1840, of Bonn and Munich, was a positivist of the old school, and
during the Hermesian controversy a supporter of the theology of the curia.
_Hirscher_, 1788-1865, of Freiburg, numbered by the liberals as one of
their ornaments and by the fanatical ultramontanes as a heretic, did much
to promote a conciliatory and moderate Catholicism, equally free from
ultramontane and rationalistic tendencies, abandoning nothing essential in
the Catholic doctrine. _Hilgers_, the Hermesian, afterwards joined the Old
Catholics of Bonn. _Staudenmaier_ and _Sengler_ of Freiburg and _Berlage_
of Münster held a distinguished rank as speculative theologians. In the
same department, _Kuhn_ and _Drey_ of Tübingen, _Ehrlich_ of Prague,
_Deutinger_ of Dillingen, a disciple of Schelling and Baader, and as such
persecuted, though a pious believing Catholic, _Oischinger_ of Munich, who
in despair at the proclamation of the Vatican decree suddenly stopped his
fruitful literary activity, _Dieringer_ of Bonn, who for the same reason
not only ceased to write but also in 1871 resigned his professorship and
retired to a small country pastorate, and finally, _Hettinger_ of
Würzburg, best known by his “_Apologie d. Christenthums_.”—While the
above-named, though suspected and opposed by the scholastic party, strove
to preserve intact their ecclesiastical Catholic character, other
representatives of this tendency by their struggles against scholasticism
and then against the Vatican Council, were driven away from their orthodox
position. Thus _Frohschammer_ of Munich, when his treatise on “The Origin
of the Soul,” in which he supported the theory of Generationism in
opposition to the Catholic doctrine of creationism, and other works were
placed in the Index, asked for a revision on the ground that he taught
nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was stripped of all his clerical
functions, and students were prohibited attending his lectures. He
protested, and his rooms were more crowded than ever. Subsequently,
however, repudiated even by the Old Catholics, he drifted more and more,
not only from the church, but even from belief in revelation. Against
Strauss’ last work he wrote a tract in which he sought to prove that “the
old faith is indeed untenable,” but that also “the new science” cannot
take its place, that a “new faith” must be introduced by going back to the
Christianity of Christ. _Michelis_, a man of wide culture in the
department of natural science and philology, as well as theology and
philosophy, had in his earlier position as professor in Paderborn,
Münster, and Braunsberg, supported by word and pen a strictly
ecclesiastical tendency; but the Vatican Council made him one of the first
and most zealous leaders of the Old Catholic movement. His most important
work is his “Catholic Dogmatics,” of 1881, in which the Old Catholic
conception of Christianity is represented as the purified higher unity of
the Protestant and Vatican systems of doctrine.
7. _The Chief Representatives of Historical Theology._—The first place
after Möhler and Döllinger belongs to Möhler’s scholar Hefele, from 1840
professor at Tübingen and from 1869 Bishop of Rottenburg, distinguished by
the liberal spirit of his researches. His treatises on the Honorius
controversy made him one of the most dangerous opponents of the
infallibility dogma, to which, however, he at last submitted (§ 189, 4).
His most important work is the “History of the Councils.” Hase criticised
the second edition of the work, severely but not without sufficient
grounds, by saying that in it “the bishop chokes the scholar.” _Werner_ of
Vienna is a prolific writer in the department of the history of
theological literature; while _Bach_ of Munich and the Dominican _Denifle_
have written on the mediæval mystics, the latter also on the universities
of the Middle Ages. _Hergenröther_ of Würzburg, by his monograph on
“Photius and the Greek Schism,” written in the interests of his party, and
by his polemic against the anti-Vatican movement, and specially by his
“Handbook of Church History,” rendered such service to the papacy and the
papal church, that Leo XIII. in 1879 made him a cardinal and librarian of
the Vatican, with the task of reorganizing the library.—Among the Old
Catholics, _Friedrich_ of Munich, besides his historical account of the
Vatican Council, had written on Wessel, Huss, and the church history of
Germany. _Huber_ of Munich, whose “Philosophy of the Church Fathers” of
1859 was put in the Index, while his much more liberal work on Erigena of
1861 passed without censure, in later years wrote an exhaustive account of
the Jesuit order and a critical reply to Strauss’ “Old and New Faith.”
_Pichler_ of Munich, by his conscientious research and criticism, drew
down upon him the papal censure, and his book on the “History of the
Division of the Eastern and Western Churches” had the honour of being
placed in the Index. His later studies and writings estranged him more and
more from Romanism, inspired him with the idea of a national German
church, and fostered in him a love for the _Protestantenverein_ movement;
but his unbridled bibliomania while assistant in the Royal Library of St.
Petersburg in 1871, brought his public career to a sad and shameful end.
The Old Catholic Professor _Langen_ of Bonn, wrote a four-volume work
against the Vatican dogma, discussed the “Trinitarian Doctrinal
Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches,” in the interests of
a union with the Greek church, and published an able monograph on “John of
Damascus,” as well as a thorough and impartial “History of the Roman
Church down to Nicholas I.”, two vols., 1881, 1885.—In Rome the Oratorian
_Aug. Theiner_ atoned for the literary errors of his youth (§ 187, 4) by
his zealous vindication of papal privileges. His chief works were the
continuation of the “_Annales Ecclesiastici_” of Baronius, and the editing
of the historical documents of the various Christian nations. The Jesuits
charged him with giving the anti-Vaticanists aid from the library and
sought to influence the pope against him so as to deprive him of his
office of prefect of the Vatican archives. He was suspended from his
duties, and though he still retained his title and occupied his official
residence in the Vatican, the doors from it into the library were built
up. His edition of the “Acts of the Council of Trent,” which was
commenced, was also prohibited. But he succeeded in making a transcript at
Agram in Croatia, where in 1874 a portion of it, the official protocol of
the secretary of the Council, Massarelli, was printed by the help of
Bishop Strossmayer in an elegant style but abbreviated, and therefore
unsatisfactory. Cardinal Angelo _Mai_, as principal Vatican librarian,
distinguished himself by his palimpsest studies in old classical as well
as patristic literature. And quite worthy of ranking with either in
carefulness, diligence, and patience was _De Rossi_, who has laboured in
the department of Christian archæology, and is well known by his great
work, “_Roma sotteranea cristiana_,” published in 1864 ff.—_Xavier Kraus_,
when his “Handbook” had been adversely criticised, hastened to Rome,
submitted all his utterances to the judgment of the pope, and proclaimed
on his return that in the next edition he would explain what had been
misunderstood and withdraw what was objected to. The question now rises,
whether the more recent work of _Xav. Funk_ can escape a similar censure.
Among Catholic writers on canon lay the most notable are _Walters_ of
Bonn, _Phillips_ of Vienna, _Von Schulte_ of Prague and Bonn, who till the
Vatican Council was one of the most zealous advocates of the strict
Catholic tendency, since then openly on the side of the opposition, a keen
supporter, and by word and pen a vigorous promoter, of the Old Catholic
movement, and _Vering_ of Prague, who occupies the ultramontane Vatican
standpoint.
8. _The Chief Representatives of Exegetical Theology._—_Hug_ of Freiburg,
in his “Introduction,” occupies the biblical but ecclesiastically
latitudinarian attitude of Jahn. Leaving dogma unattacked and so himself
unattacked, _Mövers_ of Breslau, best known by his work on the Phœnicians,
a Richard Simon of his age, developed a subtlety of destructive criticism
of the canon and history of the Old Testament which astonished even the
father of Protestant criticism, De Wette. _Kaulen_ of Bonn wrote an
“Introduction to the Old and New Testament,” in a fairly scientific spirit
from the Vatican standpoint; while _Maier_ of Freiburg, wrote an
introduction to the New Testament and commentaries on some New Testament
books.—The Old Catholic _Reusch_ of Bonn wrote “Introduction to the Old
Testament,” and “Nature and the Bible” (2 vols., Edin., 1886). _Sepp_ of
Munich, silent since 1867, began his literary career with a “Life of
Christ,” a “History of the Apostles,” etc., in the spirit of the romantic
mystical school of Görres. His “Sketch of Church Reform, beginning with a
Revision of the Bible Canon,” caused considerable excitement. With humble
submission to the judgment of his church, he demanded a correction of the
Tridentine decrees on Scripture in accordance with the results of modern
science, but the only response was the inclusion of his book in the Index.
9. _The Chief Representatives of the New Scholasticism._—The official and
most masterly representative of this school for the whole Catholic world
was the Jesuit _Perrone_, 1794-1876, professor of dogmatics of the
_Collegium Romanum_, the most widely read of the Catholic polemical
writers, but not worthy to tie the shoes of Bellarmin, Bossuet, and
Möhler. In his “_Prælectiones Theologicæ_,” nine vols., which has run
through thirty-six editions, without knowing a word of German, he
displayed the grossest ignorance along with unparalleled arrogance in his
treatment of Protestant doctrine, history, and personalities (§ 175, 2).
The German Jesuit _Kleutgen_ who, under Pius IX., was the oracle of the
Vatican in reference to German affairs, introduced the new Roman
scholasticism by his work “_Die Theologie der Vorzeit_,” into the German
episcopal seminaries, whose teachers were mostly trained in the _Collegium
Germanicum_ at Rome. Alongside of Perrone and Kleutgen, in the domain of
morals, the Jesuit _Gury_ holds the first place, reproducing in his works
the whole abomination of probabilism, _reservatio mentalis_, and the old
Jesuit casuistry (§ 149, 10), with the usual lasciviousness in questions
affecting the sexes. Among theologians of this tendency in German
universities we mention next _Denzinger_ of Würzburg, who seeks in his
works “to lead dogmatics back from the aberrations of modern philosophic
speculations into the paths of the old schools.” His zealous opposition to
Güntherism did much to secure its emphatic condemnation.
10. _The Munich Congress of Catholic Scholars, 1863._—In order if possible
to heal the daily widening cleft between the scientific university
theologians and the scholastic theologians of the seminaries, and bring
about a mutual understanding and friendly co-operation between all the
theological faculties, Döllinger and his colleague Haneberg summoned a
congress at Munich, which was attended by about a hundred Catholic
scholars, mostly theologians. After high mass, accompanied with the
recitation of the Tridentine creed, the four days’ conference began with a
brilliant presidential address by Döllinger “On the Past and Present of
Catholic Theology.” The liberal views therein enunciated occasioned
violent and animated debates, to which, however, it was readily admitted
as a religious duty that all scientific discussions and investigations
should yield to the dogmatic claims of the infallible authority of the
church, as thereby the true freedom of science can in no way be
prejudiced. A telegraphic report to the pope drawn up in this spirit by
Döllinger was responded to in a similar manner on the same day with the
apostolic blessing. But after the proceedings _in extenso_ had become
known, a papal brief was issued which burdened the permission to hold
further yearly assemblies with such conditions as must have made them
utterly fruitless. They were indeed acquiesced in with a bad grace at the
second and last congress at Würzburg in 1864, but the whole scheme was
thus brought to an end.
11. _Theological Journals._—The most severely scientific journal of this
century is the Tübingen _Theol. Quartalschrift_, which, however, since the
Vatican Council has been struggling to maintain a neutral position between
the extremes of the Old and the New Catholicism. In order if possible to
displace it the Jesuits Wieser and Stenstrup of Innsbruck started in 1877
their _Zeitschrift für Kath. Theologie_. The ably conducted _Theol.
Litteraturblatt_, started in 1866 by Prof. Reusch of Bonn, had to be
abandoned in 1878, after raising the standard of Old Catholicism.
12. _The Popes and Theological Science._—What kind of theology _Pius IX._
wished to have taught is shown by his proclaiming St. Liguori (§ 165, 2)
and St. Francis de Sales (§ 157, 1) _doctores ecclesiæ_. _Leo XIII._, on
the other hand, in 1879 recommended in the encyclical _Æterni patris_, in
the most urgent way, all Catholic schools to make the philosophy of the
angelical Aquinas (§ 103, 6) their foundation, founded in 1880 an “Academy
of St. Thomas Aquinas,” three out of its thirty members being Germans,
Kleutgen, Stöckl, and Morgott, and gave 300,000 lire out of Peter’s pence
for an edition of Aquinas’ works with the commentaries of “the most
eminent expositors,” setting aside “all those books which, while
professing to be derived from St. Thomas are really drawn from foreign and
unholy sources;” _i.e._, in accordance with the desires of the Jesuits,
omitting the strictly Thomist expositors (§ 149, 13), and giving currency
only to Jesuit interpretations. No wonder that the Jesuit General Beckx in
such circumstances submitted himself “humbly,” being praised for this by
the pope as a saint. But a much greater, indeed a really great, service to
the documentary examination of the history of the Christian church and
state has been rendered by the same pope, undoubtedly at the instigation
of Cardinal Hergenröther, by the access granted not only to Catholic but
also to Protestant investigators to the exceedingly rich treasures of the
Vatican archives. Though still hedged round with considerable limitations,
the concession seems liberality itself as compared with the stubborn
refusal of Pius IX. to facilitate the studies of any inquirer. With honest
pride the pope could inscribe on his bust placed in the library: “_Leo
XIII. Pont. Max. historiæ __ studiis consulens tabularii arcana reclusit a
1880._”—But what the ends were which he had in view and what the hopes
that he cherished is seen from the rescript of August, 1883, in which he
calls upon the cardinals De Luca, Pitra, and Hergenröther, as prefects of
the committee of studies, of the library and archives, while proclaiming
the great benefits which the papacy has secured to Italy, to do their
utmost to overthrow “the lies uttered by the sects” on the history of the
church, especially in reference to the papacy, for, he adds, “we desire
that at last once more the truth should prevail.” Therefore archives and
library are to be opened to pious and learned students “for the service of
religion and science in order that the historical untruths of the enemies
of the church which have found entrance even into the schoolbooks should
be displaced by the composition of good writings.” The firstfruits of the
zeal thus stimulated were the “_Monunenta ref. Lutheranæ ex tabulariis S.
Sedis_,” Ratisbon, 1883, published by the assistant keeper of the archives
P. Balan as an extinguisher to the Luther Jubilee of that year. But this
performance came so far short of the wishes and expectations of the Roman
zealots that by their influence the editor was removed from his official
position. The next attempt of this sort was the edition by Hergenröther of
the papal _Regesta_ down to Leo X.
IV. Relation of Church to the Empire and to the States.
§ 192. The German Confederation.
The Peace of Luneville of 1801 gave the deathblow to the old German
empire, by the formal cession of the left bank of the Rhine to France,
indemnifying the secular princes who were losers by this arrangement with
estates and possessions on the right of the Rhine, taken from the neutral
free cities of the empire and the secularized ecclesiastical
principalities, institutions, monasteries, and orders. An imperial
commission sitting at Regensburg arranged the details of these
indemnifications. They were given expression to by means of the imperial
commission’s decree or recess of 1803. The dissolution of the constitution
of the German empire thus effected was still further carried out by the
Peace of Presburg of 1805, which conferred upon the princes of Bavaria,
Württemberg, and Baden, in league with Napoleon, full sovereignty, and to
the two first named the rank of kings, and was completed by the founding
of the Confederation of the Rhine of 1806, in which sixteen German princes
formally severed themselves from the emperor and empire and ranked
themselves as vassals of France under the protectorate of Napoleon.
Francis II., who already in 1804 had assumed the title of Emperor of
Austria as Francis I., now that the German empire had actually ceased to
exist, renounced also the name of German emperor. The unhappy proceedings
of the Vienna Congress of the German Confederation and its permanent
representation in the Frankfort parliament during 1814 and 1815, after
Napoleon’s twice repeated defeat, led finally to the Austro-Prussian war
of 1866.
1. _The Imperial Commission’s Decree, 1803._—The significance of this for
church history consists not merely in the secularization of the
ecclesiastical principalities and corporations, but even still more in the
alteration caused thereby in the ecclesiastical polity of the territorial
governments. With the ecclesiastical principalities the most powerful
props of the Catholic church in Germany were lost, and Protestantism
obtained a decided ascendency in the council of the German princes. The
Catholic prelates were now simply paid servants of the state, and thus
their double connexion with the curia and the state brought with it in
later times endless entanglements and complications. On the other hand, in
states hitherto almost exclusively Protestant, _e.g._ Württemberg, Baden,
Hesse, there was a great increase of Catholic subjects, which attracted
but little serious attention when the confessional particularism in the
consciousness of the age was more unassuming and tolerant than ever it has
been before or since.
2. _The Prince-Primate of the Confederation of the Rhine._—Baron Carl
Theod. von Dalberg, distinguished for his literary culture and his liberal
patronage of art and science, was made in 1802 Elector of Mainz and Lord
High Chancellor of the German empire. When by the recess of 1803 the
territories of the electorate on the left of the Rhine were given over to
France and those on the right secularized, the electoral rank was
abolished. The same happened with respect to the lord high chancellorship
through the creation of the Rhenish Confederation. Dalberg was indemnified
for the former by the favour of Napoleon by the gift of a small territory
on the right of the Rhine, and for the latter by the renewal of the
prince-primacy of the Confederation of the Rhine with a seat in the
Federal council. He still retained his episcopal office and fixed its seat
at Regensburg. The founding of a metropolitan chapter at Regensburg
embracing the whole domain of the Rhenish Confederation he did not succeed
in carrying out, and in 1813 he felt compelled to surrender also his
territorial possessions. His spiritual functions, however, as Archbishop
of Regensburg, he continued to discharge until his death in 1817.
3. _The Vienna Congress and the Concordat._—The Vienna Congress of 1814,
1815, had assigned it the difficult task of righting the sorely disturbed
political affairs of Europe and giving a new shape to the territorial and
dynastic relations. But never had an indispensably necessary
redistribution of territory been made more difficult or more complicated
by diplomatic intrigues than in Germany. Instead of the earlier federation
of states, the restoration of which proved impossible, the federal
constitution of June 8th, 1815, created under the name of the German
Confederation a union of states in which all members of the confederation
as such exercised equal sovereign rights. Their number then amounted to
thirty-eight, but in the course of time by death or withdrawal were
reduced to thirty-four. The new distribution of territory, just as little
as the Luneville Peace, took into account confessional homogeneity of
princes and territories, so that the combination of Catholic and
Protestant districts with the above referred to consequences, occurred in
a yet larger measure. But the federal constitution secured in Article XVI.
full toleration for all Christian confessions in the countries of the
confederation. The claims of the Romish curia, which advanced from the
demand for the restoration of all ecclesiastical principalities and the
return of all impropriated churches and monasteries to their original
purposes, to the demand for the restoration of the holy Roman-German
empire in the mediæval and hierarchical sense, as well as the solemn
protest against its conclusions laid upon the table of the congress by the
papal legate Consalvi, were left quite unheeded. But also a proposal
urgently pressed by the vicar-general of the diocese of Constance, Baron
von Wessenberg (§ 187, 3), to found a German Catholic national church
under a German primate found no favour with the congress; and an article
recommended by Austria and Prussia to be incorporated in the acts of the
confederation by which the Catholic church in Germany endeavoured to
secure a common constitution under guarantee of the confederation, was
rejected through the opposition of Bavaria. And since in the Frankfort
parliament neither Wessenberg with his primacy and national church idea
nor Consalvi with a comprehensive concordat answering to the wishes of the
curia, was able to carry through a measure, it was left to the separate
states interested to make separate concordats with the pope. Bavaria
concluded a concordat in 1817 (§ 195, 1); Prussia in 1821 (§ 193, 1).
Negotiations with the other German states fell through owing to the
excessiveness of the demands of the hierarchy, or led to very
unsatisfactory results, as in Hanover in 1824 (§ 194, 1) and the states
belonging to the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine in 1837 (§
196, 1). In the time of reaction against the revolutionary excesses of
1848 the curia first secured any real advance. Hesse-Darmstadt opened the
list in 1854 with a secret convention (§ 196, 4); then Austria followed in
1855 with a model concordat (§ 198, 2) which served as the pattern for the
concordats with Württemberg in 1857 (§ 196, 6), and with Baden in 1859 (§
196, 2), as well as for the episcopal convention with Nassau in 1861 (§
196, 4). But the revived liberal current of 1860 swept away the South
German concordats; the Vatican Council by its infallibility dogma gave the
deathblow to that of Austria, and the German “_Kulturkampf_” sent the
Prussian concordat to the winds, and only that of Bavaria remained in full
force.
4. _The Frankfort Parliament and the Würzburg Bishops’ Congress of
1848._—As in the March diets of 1848 the magic word “freedom” roused
through Germany a feverish excitement, it found a ready response among the
Catholics, whose church was favoured in the highest degree by the
movement. In the Frankfort parliament the ablest leaders of Catholic
Germany had seats. Among the Catholic population there were numerous
religio-political societies formed (§ 186, 3), and the German bishops,
avowedly for the celebration of the 600th anniversary of the building of
Cologne cathedral, set alongside of the Frankfort people’s parliament a
German bishops’ council. After they had at Frankfort declared themselves
in favour of unconditional liberty of faith, conscience, and worship, the
complete independence of all religious societies in the ordering and
administering of their affairs, but also of freeing the schools from all
ecclesiastical control and oversight, as well as of the introduction of
obligatory civil marriage, the bishops’ council met in October at Würzburg
under the presidency of Archbishop Geissel of Cologne with nineteen
episcopal assistants and several able theological advisers. In thirty-six
sessions they reached the conclusion that complete separation between
church and state is not to be desired so long as the state does not refuse
to the church the place of authority belonging to it. On the other hand,
by all means in their power they are to seek the abrogation of the
_placet_ of the sovereign, the full independence of ecclesiastical
legislation, administration and jurisdiction, with the abolition of the
_appellatio tanquam ab abusu_, the direction and oversight of the public
schools as well as the control of religious instruction in higher schools
to be given only by teachers licensed for the purpose by the bishops, and
finally to demand permission to erect educational institutions of their
own of every kind, etc., and to forward a copy of these decisions to all
German governments. The main object of the Würzburg assembly to secure
currency for their resolutions in the new Germany sketched out at the
Frankfort parliament, was indeed frustrated by that parliament’s speedy
overthrow. Nevertheless in the several states concerned it proved of great
and lasting importance in determining the subsequent unanimous proceedings
of the bishops.
§ 193. Prussia.
To the pious king Frederick William III. (1797-1840) it was a matter of
heart and conscience to turn to account the religious consciousness of his
people, re-awakened by God’s gracious help during the war of independence,
for the healing of the three hundred years’ rent in the evangelical church
by a union of the two evangelical confessions. The jubilee festival of the
Reformation in 1817 seemed to him to offer the most favourable occasion.
The king also desired to see the Catholic church in his dominions restored
to an orderly and thriving condition, and for this end concluded a
concordat with Rome in 1821. But it was broken up in 1836 over a strife
between canon and civil law in reference to mixed marriages. Frederick
William IV. was dominated by romantic ideas, and his reign (1840-1858),
notwithstanding all his evangelical Christian decidedness, was wanting in
the necessary firmness and energetic consistency. In the Catholic church
the Jesuits were allowed unhindered to foster ultramontane hierarchical
principles, and in the evangelical church the troubles about constitution,
union, and confession could not be surmounted either by its own proper
guardian, the episcopate, or by the superior church councils created in
1850. And although the notifications of William I. on his entrance upon
the sole government in 1858 were hailed by the liberals as giving
assurance that a new era had dawned in the development of the evangelical
national church, this hope proved to be premature. With the exaltation of
the victory-crowned royal house of Prussia to the throne of the newly
erected German Empire on January 18th, 1871, a new era was actually opened
for ecclesiastical developments and modifications throughout the land.
1. _The Catholic Church to the Close of the Cologne Conflict._—The
government of _Frederick William III._ entered into negotiations with the
papal curia, not so much for the old provinces in which everything was
going well, but rather in the interests of the Rhine provinces annexed in
1814, whose bishops’ sees were vacant or in need of circumscription. The
first Prussian ambassador to the Roman curia (1816-1823) was the famous
historian Niebuhr. Although a true Protestant and keen critic and restorer
of the history of old pagan Rome he was no match for the subtle and
skilful diplomacy of Consalvi. In presence of the claims of the curia he
manifested to an almost incredible extent trustful sympathy and
acquiescence, even taking to do with matters that lay outside of Prussian
affairs, eagerly silencing and opposing any considerations suggested from
the other side. A complete concordat, however, defining in detail all the
relations between church and state was not secured, but in 1821 an
agreement was come to, with thankful acknowledgment of the “great
magnanimity and goodness” shown by the king, by the bull _De salute
animarum_, sanctioned by the king through a cabinet order (“in the
exercise of his royal prerogative and without detriment to these rights”),
according to which two archbishoprics, Cologne and Posen, and six
bishoprics, Treves, Münster, Paderborn, Breslau, Kulm, and Ermeland, with
a clerical seminary, were erected in Prussia and furnished with rich
endowments. The cathedral chapter was to have the free choice of the
bishop; but by an annexed note it was recommended to make sure in every
such election that the one so chosen would be a _grata persona_ to the
king. The union thus effected between church and state was of but short
duration. The decree of Trent forbade Catholics to enter into mixed
marriages with non-Catholics. A later papal bull of 1741, however,
permitted it on condition of an only passive assistance of the clergy at
the wedding and an engagement by the parents to train up the children as
Catholics. The law of Prussia, on the other hand, in contested cases made
all the children follow the religion of their fathers. As this was held in
1825 to apply to the Rhine provinces, and as the bishops there had, in
1828, appealed to the pope, Pius VIII. when negotiations with the Prussian
ambassador Bunsen (1824-1838) proved fruitless, issued in 1830 a brief
which permitted Catholic priests to give the ecclesiastical sanction to
mixed marriages only when a promise was given that the children should be
educated as Catholics, but otherwise to give only passive assistance. When
all remonstrances failed to overcome the obstinacy of the curia, the
government turned to the Archbishop of Cologne, Count Spiegel, a zealous
friend and promoter of the Hermesian theology (§ 191, 1), and arranged in
1834 a secret convention with him, which by his influence all his
suffragans joined. In it they promised to give such an interpretation to
the brief that its observance would be limited to teaching and
exhortation, but would by no means extend to the obligation of submitting
the children to Catholic baptism, and that the mere _assistentia passiva_
would be resorted to as rarely as possible, and only in cases where
absolutely required. Spiegel died in November, 1835. In 1836 the
Westphalian Baron _Clement Droste von Vischering_ was chosen as his
successor. Although before his elevation he had unhesitatingly agreed to
the convention, soon after his enthronization he strictly forbad all the
clergy celebrating any marriage except in accordance with the brief, and
blamed himself for having believed the agreement between convention and
brief affirmed by the government, and having only subsequently on closer
examination discovered the disagreement between the two. At the same time,
in order to give effect to the condemnation that had been meanwhile passed
on the Hermesian theology, he gave orders that at the confessional the
Bonn students should be forbidden to attend the lectures of Hermesians.
When the archbishop could not be prevailed on to yield, he was condemned
in 1837 as having broken his word and having incited to rebellion, and
sent to the fortress of Minden. _Gregory XIV._ addressed to the consistory
a fulminating allocution, and a flood of controversial tracts on either
side swept over Germany. Görres designated the archbishop “the Athanasius
of the nineteenth century.” The government issued a state paper justifying
its procedure, and the courts of law sentenced certain refractory priests
to several years’ confinement in fortresses or prisons. The moderate
peaceful tone of the cathedral chapter did much to quell the disturbance,
supporting as it did the state rather than the archbishop. The example of
Cologne encouraged also _Dunin_, Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, to issue
in 1838 a pastoral in which he threatened with suspension any priest in
his diocese who would not yield unconditional obedience to the papal
brief. For this he was deposed by the civil courts and sentenced to half a
year’s imprisonment in a fortress, but the king prevented the execution of
the sentence. But Dunin fled from Berlin, whither he had been ordered by
the king, to Posen, and was then brought in 1839 to the fortress of
Kolberg. While matters were in this state _Frederick William IV._ came to
the throne in 1840. Dunin was immediately restored, after promising to
maintain the peace. Droste also was released from his confinement with
public marks of respect, but received in 1841, with his own and the pope’s
approval, in the former Bishop of Spires, Geissel, a coadjutor, who in his
name and with the right of succession administered the diocese. The
government gave no aid to the Hermesians. The law in regard to mixed
marriages continued indeed in force, but was exercised so as to put no
constraint of conscience upon the Catholic clergy. Of his own accord the
king declined further exercise of the royal prerogative, allowing the
bishops direct intercourse with the papal see, whereas previously all
correspondence had to pass through royal committees, with this proviso by
the minister Eichhorn, “that this display of generous confidence be not
abused,” and with the expectation that the bishops would not only
communicate to the government the contents of their correspondence with
the pope, but also the papal replies which did not deal exclusively with
doctrine, and would not speak and act against the wish and will of the
government. But Geissel, recommended by Louis of Bavaria to his son-in-law
Frederick William IV. instead of Baron von Diepenbrock (§ 187, 1) who was
first thought of, by his skilful and energetic manœuvring, going on from
victory to victory, raised ultramontanism in Prussia to the very summit of
its influence and glory.
2. _The Golden Age of Prussian Ultramontanism, 1841-1871._—In the
Cologne-Posen conflict Rome had won an almost complete victory, and with
all its satellites now thought only of how it might in the best possible
manner turn this victory to account, in which the all too trustful
government sought to aid it to the utmost. This movement received a
further impulse in the revolution of 1848 (§ 192, 4). In Prussia as well
as in other German lands, and there in a special degree, the Catholic
church managed to derive from the revolutionary movements of those times,
and from the subsequent reaction, substantial advantage. The constitution
of 1850 declared in Article xv.: “The evangelical and the Roman Catholic
Church as well as every other religious society regulates and administers
its affairs independently”; in Article xvi.: “The correspondence of
religious societies with their superiors is unrestricted, the publication
of ecclesiastical ordinances is subject only to those limitations which
apply to all other documents”; in Article xviii.: “The right of
nomination, proposal, election, and institution to spiritual office, so
far as it belongs to the state, is abolished”; and in Article xxiv.: “The
respective religious societies direct religious instruction in the public
schools.” Under the screen of these fundamental privileges the Catholic
episcopate now claimed one civil prerogative after another, emancipated
itself wholly from the laws of the state, and, on the plea that God must
be obeyed rather than man, made the canon law, not only in purely
ecclesiastical but also in mixed matters, the only standard, and the
decision of the pope the final appeal. At last nothing was left to the
state but the obligation of conferring splendid endowments upon the
bishops, cathedral chapters, and seminaries for priests, and the honour of
being at home the executioner of episcopal tyranny, and abroad the avenger
of every utterance unfavourable in the doctrine and worship, customs and
enactments of the Catholic church. With almost incredible infatuation the
Catholic hierarchy was now regarded as a main support of the throne
against the revolutionary tendencies of the age and as the surest
guarantee for the loyalty of subjects in provinces predominantly Catholic.
Under protection of the law allowing the formation of societies and the
right of assembling, the order of Jesuits set up one establishment after
another, and made up for defects or insufficient energy of ultramontane
pastoral work, agitation and endeavour at conversion on the part of other
peaceably disposed parish priests, by numerous missions conducted in the
most ostentatious manner (§ 186, 6). Although according to Article xiii.
of the constitution religious societies could obtain corporative rights
only by special enactments, the bishops, on their own authority, without
regarding this provision, established religious orders and congregations
wherever they chose. As these were generally placed under foreign
superiors male or female, to whom in Jesuit fashion unconditional
obedience was rendered, each member being “like a corpse,” without any
individual will, they spread without hindrance, so that continually new
cloisters and houses of the orders sprang up like mushrooms over the
Protestant metropolis (§ 186, 2). Education in Catholic districts fell
more and more into the hands of religious corporations, and even the
higher state educational institutions, so far as they dealt with the
training of the Catholic youth (theological faculties, gymnasia, and
Training schools), were wholly under the control of the bishops. From the
boys’ convents and priests’ seminaries, erected at all episcopal
residences, went forth a new generation of clergy reared in the severest
school of intolerance, who, first of all acting as chaplains, by
espionage, the arousing of suspicion and talebearing, were the dread of
the old parish priests, and, as “chaplains at large,” stirred up
fanaticism among the people, and secured the Catholic press to themselves
as a monopoly. For the purposes of Catholic worship and education the
government had placed state aid most liberally at their disposal, without
requiring any account from the bishops as to their disposal of the money.
Although the number of Catholics in the whole country was only about half
that of the Protestants, the endowment of the Catholic was almost double
that of the evangelical church. The civil authority readily helped the
bishops to enforce any spiritual penalties, and thus the inferior clergy
were brought into absolute dependence upon their spiritual superiors. In
the government department of Public Worship, from 1840 to 1848 under the
direction of Eichhorn, there was since 1841 a subsection for dealing with
the affairs of the Catholic church which, although restricted to the
guarding of the rights of the king over against the curia and that of the
state over against the hierarchy, came to be in an entirely opposite sense
“the civil department of the pope in Prussia.” Under Von Mühler’s
ministry, 1862-1872, it obtained absolute authority which it seems to have
exercised in removing unfavourable acts and documents from the imperial
archives. And thus the Catholic church, or rather the ultramontane party
dominant in it since 1848, grew up into a power that threatened the whole
commonwealth in its very foundations.—By the annexation of Hanover, Hesse,
and Nassau in 1866, four new bishoprics, those of Hildesheim, Osnabrück,
Fulda and Limburg were added to the previous eight.—Continuation § 197.
3. _The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia down to 1848._—On the
accomplishment of the union by Frederick William III. and the confusions
arising therefrom, see § 177. _Frederick William IV._ on his accession
declared his wish in reference to the national evangelical church, that
the supreme control of the church should be exercised only in order to
secure for it in an orderly and legal way the independent administration
of its own affairs. The realization of this idea, after a church
conference of the ordinary clergy from almost all German states had been
held in Berlin without result, was attempted at Berlin by a general synod,
opened on Whitsunday, 1846. The synod at its eighteenth session entered
upon the consideration of the difficult question of doctrine and the
confession. The result of this was the approval of an ordination formula
drawn up by Dr. Nitzsch (§ 182, 10), according to which the candidate for
ordination was to make profession of the great fundamental and saving
truths instead of the church confession hitherto enforced. And since among
these fundamental truths the doctrines of creation, original sin, the
supernatural conception, the descent into hell and the ascension of
Christ, the resurrection of the body, the last judgment, everlasting life
and everlasting punishment were not included, and therefore were not to be
enforced, since further by this ordination formula the special confessions
of Lutheran and Reformed were really set aside, and therewith the
existence of a Lutheran as well as a Reformed church within the union
seemed to be abolished, a small number of decided Lutherans in the synod
protested; still more decided and vigorous protests arose from outside the
synod, to which the _Evang. Kirchenzeitung_ opened its columns. The
government gave no further countenance to the decisions of the synod, and
opponents exercised their wit upon the unfortunate _Nicænum_ of the
nineteenth century, which as a _Nitzschenum_ had fallen into the water. In
March, 1847, the king issued a patent of toleration, by which protection
was assured anew to existing churches, but the formation of new religious
societies was allowed to all who found not in these the expression of
their belief.
4. _The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia, 1848-1872._—When the storms of
revolution broke out in 1848, the new minister of worship, _Count
Schwerin_, willingly aided in reorganizing the church according to the
mind of the masses of the people by a constitutional synod. But before it
had met the reaction had already set in. The transition ministry of
_Ladenberg_ was assured by consistories and faculties of the danger of
convoking such a synod of representatives of the people. Instead of the
synod therefore a _Supreme Church Council_ was assembled at Berlin in
1850, which, independent of the ministry, and only under the king as
_præcipuum membrum ecclesiæ_, should represent the freedom of the church
from the state as something already realized. On March 6th, 1852, the king
issued a cabinet order, in consequence of which the Supreme Church Council
administered not only the affairs of the evangelical national church as a
whole, but also was charged with the interests of the Lutheran as well as
the Reformed church in particular, and was to be composed of members from
both of those confessions, who should alone have to decide on questions
referring to their own confession. On the _Itio in partes_ thus required
in this board, only Dr. Nitzsch remained over, as he declared that he
could find expression for his religious convictions in neither of the two
confessions, but only in a consensus of both. The difficulty was overcome
by reckoning him a representative equally of both denominations.
Encouraged by such connivance in high places to entertain still bolder
hopes, the Lutheran societies in 1853 presented to the king a petition
signed by one hundred and sixty one clergymen, for restoring Lutheran
faculties and the Lutheran church property. But this called forth a rather
unfavourable cabinet order, in which the king expressed his disapproval of
such a misconception of the ordinances of the former year, and made the
express declaration that it never was his intention to break up or weaken
the union effected by his father, that he only wished to give the
confession within the union the protection to which it was undoubtedly
entitled. After this the separate Lutheran interest so long highly
favoured fell into manifest and growing disfavour. Still the ministerial
department of worship under _Von Raumer_, 1850-1858, continued to conduct
the affairs of schools and universities in the spirit of the
ecclesiastical orthodox reaction, and issued the endless school
regulations conceived in this spirit of the privy councillor Stiehl. The
Supreme Church Council also exhibited a rare activity and passed many
wholesome ordinances. The evangelical church won great credit by the care
it took of its members scattered over distant lands, in supplying them
with clergy and teachers. The evident favour with which Frederick William
IV. furthered the efforts of the Evangelical Alliance of 1857 (§ 178, 3)
was the last proof of decided aversion from the confessional movement
which he was to be allowed to give. A long and hopeless illness, of which
he died in 1861, obliged him to resign the government to his brother
_William I_. When this monarch in October, 1855, began to rule in his own
name, he declared to his newly appointed ministers that it was his firm
resolve that the evangelical union, whose beneficent development had been
obstructive to an orthodoxy incompatible with the character of the
evangelical church, and which had thus almost caused its ruin, should be
maintained and further advanced. But in order that the task might be
accomplished, the organs for its administration must be carefully chosen
and to some extent changed. All hypocrisy and formalism, which that
orthodoxy had fostered, is wherever possible to be removed. The “new era,”
however, marked by the appearance of liberal journals, by no means
answered to the expectations which those words excited. The ministry of
_Von Bethmann-Hollweg_, 1858-1862, filled some theological and spiritual
offices in this liberal spirit; Stahl withdrew from the Supreme Church
Council; the proceedings against the free churches, as well as the severe
measures against the re-marriage of divorced parties, were relaxed. But
the marriage law laid down by the ministry with permission of civil
marriage was rejected by the House of Peers, and the hated school
regulations had to be undertaken by the minister himself. The
ecclesiastically conservative ministry of _Von Mühler_, 1862-1872, which,
however, wanted a fixed principle as well as self-determined energy of
will, and was therefore often vacillating and losing the respect of all
parties, was utterly unfit to realize these expectations. The Supreme
Church Council published in 1867 the outlines of a provincial synodal
constitution for the six East Provinces which were still without this
institution, which the Rhine Provinces and Westphalia had enjoyed since
1835. For this purpose he convened in autumn, 1869, an extraordinary
provincial synod, which essentially approved the sketch submitted,
whereupon it was provisionally enacted.
5. _The Evangelical Church in Old Prussia, 1872-1880._—After the removal
of Von Mühler, the minister of worship, in January, 1872, his place was
taken by _Dr. Falk_, 1872-1879. The hated school regulations were now at
last set aside and replaced by new moderate prescriptions, conceived in an
almost unexpectedly temperate spirit. On September 10th, 1873, the king
issued a congregational and synodal constitution for the eastern
provinces, with the express statement that the position of the confession
and the union should thereby be in no way affected. It prescribed that in
every congregation presided over by a pastor, elected by the
ecclesiastically qualified church members, _i.e._ those of honourable life
who had taken part in public worship and received the sacraments, there
should be a church council of from four to twelve persons, and for more
important matters, _e.g._ the election of a pastor, a congregational
committee of three times the size, half of which should be reappointed
every third year. To the district synod, presided over by the
superintendent, each congregation sends as delegates besides the pastor a
lay representative chosen by the church council from among its members or
from the congregational committee. According to the same principle the
District Synods choose from their members a clerical and a lay
representative to the provincial synod, to which also the evangelical
theological faculty of the university within the bounds sends a deputy,
and the territorial lord nominates a number of members not exceeding a
sixth part of the whole. The general synod, in which also the two western
provinces, the Rhenish and Westphalian, take part, consists of one hundred
and fifty delegates from the provincial synods, and thirty nominated by
the territorial lords, to which the faculties of theology and law of the
six universities within the bounds send each one of their members.
Although this royal decree had proclaimed itself final, and only remitted
to an _Extraordinary General Synod_ to be called forthwith the task of
arranging for future ordinary general synods, yet at the meeting of this
extraordinary synod in Berlin, on November 24th, 1875, a draft was
submitted of a constitution modified in various important points. Of the
three demands of the liberal party now violently insisted upon—(1)
Substitution of the “filter” system in the election of provincial and
general synod members for that of the community electorate. (2)
Strengthening of the lay element in all synods; and (3) Abolition of the
equality of small village communities with large town communities—the
first was by far the most important and serious in its consequences, but
the other two bore fruit through the decree that two-thirds of the members
of the district and provincial synods should be laymen, and the other
one-third should be freely elected to the district synod from the populous
town communities, for the provincial synods from the larger district
synods. Also in reference to the rights belonging to the several grades of
synods, considerable modifications were made, whereby the privileges of
communities were variously increased (_e.g._ to them was given the right
of refusing to introduce the catechisms and hymn-books sanctioned by the
provincial synods), while those of the district and provincial synods were
lessened in favour of the general synod, and those of the latter again in
favour of the high church council and the minister of public worship.
After nearly four weeks’ discussion the bill without any serious
amendments was passed by the assembly, and on January 20th, 1876, received
the royal assent and became an ecclesiastical law. But in order to give it
also the rank of a law of the state, a decision of the States’ Parliament
on the relation of church and state was necessary. The parliament had
already in 1874, when the original congregational and synodal constitution
was submitted to it, in order to advance the movement, approved only the
congregational constitution with provisional refusal of everything going
beyond that. In May, 1876, the bill already raised by the king into an
ecclesiastical law, passed both houses of parliament, and had here also
some amendments introduced with the effect of increasing and strengthening
the prerogative of the state. The main points in the law as then passed
are these: The general synod, whose members undertake to fulfil their
duties agreeably to the word of God and the ordinances of the evangelical
national church, has the task of maintaining and advancing the state
church on the basis of the evangelical confession. The laws of the state
church must receive its assent, but any measure agreed upon by it cannot
be laid before the king for his sanction without the approval of the
minister of public worship. It meets every sixth year; in the interval it,
as well as the provincial synods, is represented by a synodal committee
chosen from its members. The head of the church government is the Supreme
Church Council, whose president countersigns the ecclesiastical laws
approved by the king. The right of appointing to this office lies with the
minister of public worship; in the nomination of other members the
president makes proposals with consent of the minister. Taxation of the
general synod for parliamentary purposes needs the assent of the minister
of state, and must, if it exceeds four per cent. of the class and income
tax, be agreed to by the Lower House, which also annually has to determine
the expenditure on ecclesiastical administration.
6. When preparations were being made for the extraordinary general synod,
the king had repeatedly given vigorous expression to his positive
religious standpoint, and from the proposed lists of members for that
synod submitted by the minister of public worship all names belonging to
the _Protestantenverein_ were struck out. Still more decidedly in 1877 did
he show his disapproval in the Rhode-Hossbach troubles (§ 180, 4), by
declaring his firm belief in the divinity of Christ, and when the then
president of the Brandenburg consistory, Hegel, tendered his resignation,
owing to differences with the liberal president of the Supreme Church
Council, Hermann, the king refused to accept it, because he could not then
spare any such men as held by the apostolic faith. In May, 1878, Hermann
was at last, after repeated solicitations, allowed to retire, Dr. Hermes,
member of the Supreme Church Council, was nominated his successor, and the
positive tendency of the Supreme Church Council was strengthened by the
admission of the court preachers, Kögel and Baur. His proposals again
disagreeing with the royal nominations for the provincial synod and for
the _First Ordinary General Synod_ of autumn, 1879, led the minister of
public worship, Dr. Falk, at last, after repeated solicitation, to accept
his resignation. It was granted him in July, 1879, and the chief president
of the province of Silesia, _Von Puttkamer_, a more decided adherent of
the positive union party, was named as his successor; but in June, 1881,
he was made minister of the interior, and the undersecretary of the
department of public worship, _Von Gossler_, was made minister. The
general synod, October 10th till November 3rd, consisted of fifty-two
confessionalists, seventy-six positive-unionists, fifty-six of the middle
party or evangelical unionist, and nine from the ranks of the left, the
_Protestantenverein_; three confessionalists, twelve positive-unionists,
and fifteen of the middle party were nominated by the king. The measures
proposed by the Supreme Church Council: (1) A marriage service without
reference to the preceding civil marriage, with two marriage formulæ, the
first a joint promise, the second a benediction; (2) A disciplinary law
against despisers of baptism and marriage, which threatened such with the
loss of all ecclesiastical electoral rights, and eventually with exclusion
from the Lord’s supper and sponsor rights; and (3) A law dealing with
_Emeriti_, were adopted by the synod and then approved by the king. On the
other hand a series of independent proposals conceived in the interests of
the high-church party remained in suspense. The last effected elections
for the general synod committee resulted in the appointment of three
positive-unionist members, including the president, two confessionalists,
and two of the middle party.(105)
7. _The Evangelical Church in the Annexed Provinces._—In 1866 the
provinces of Hanover, Hesse and Schleswig-Holstein were incorporated with
the kingdom of Prussia. In these political particularism, combined with
confessional Lutheranism, suspicion of every organized system of church
government as intended to introduce Prussian unionism, even to the extreme
of open rebellion, led to violent conflicts. The king, indeed, personally
gave assurance in Cassal, Hanover and Kiel that the position of the church
confession should in no way be endangered. “He will indeed support the
union where it already existed as a sacred legacy to him from his
forefathers; he also hopes that it may always make further progress as a
witness to the grand unity of the evangelical church; but compulsion is to
be applied to no man.” The consistories of these provinces were still to
continue independent of the Supreme Church Council. But the ministerial
order for the restoration of representative synodal constitution
increasingly prevailed, although the wide-spread suspicion and individual
protests against the system of church government, such as the temporary
prohibition of the Marburg consistory of the mission festival, as avowedly
used for agitation against the intended synodal constitution, helped to
intensify the bitterness of feeling. But on the other hand many preachers
by their unbecoming pulpit harangues, and their refusal to take the oath
of allegiance or service, to pray in church for their new sovereign, and
to observe the general holiday appointed to be held in 1869 on November
10th (Luther’s birthday), etc., compelled the ecclesiastical authorities
to impose fines, suspension, penal transportation, and deposition. In the
Lutheran _Schleswig-Holstein_ a new congregational constitution was
introduced in 1869 by the minister Von Mühler, as the basis of a future
synodal constitution, which was adopted by the _Vorsynode_ of Rendsburg in
1871, preserving the confessional status laid down, without discussion. In
1878 an advance was made by the institution of district or provostship
synods, and in February, 1880, the first General Synod was held at
Rendsburg. As in Old Prussia so also here the conservative movement proved
victorious. The laity obtained majorities in all synods, and the supremacy
of the state was secured by the subordination of the church government
under the minister of public worship.
8. _In Hanover_, where especially Lichtenberg, president of the upper
consistory, and Uhlhorn, member of the upper consistory (since 1878 abbot
of Loccum), although many Lutheran extremists long remained dissatisfied,
temperately and worthily maintained the independence and privileges of the
Lutheran church, the first national synod could be convened and could
bring to a generally peaceful conclusion the question of the constitution
only in the end of 1869, after the preliminary labour of the national
synod committee. In 1882 the Reformed communities of 120,000 souls,
hitherto subject to Lutheran consistories, obtained an independent
congregational and synodal constitution. Against the new marriage
ordinance enacted in consequence of the civil marriage law (§ 197, 5),
Theod. Harms (brother, and from 1865 successor of L. Harms, § 184, 1),
pastor and director of Hermannsburg missionary seminary, rebelled from the
conviction that civil marriage did not deserve to be recognised as
marriage. He was first suspended, then in 1877 deposed from office, and
with the most of his congregation retired and founded a separate Lutheran
community, to which subsequently fifteen other small congregations of
4,000 souls were attached. As teacher and pupils of the seminary made it a
zealous propaganda for the secession, the missionary journals and
missionary festivals were misused for the same purpose, and as Harms
answered the questions of the consistory in reference thereto, partly by
denying, partly by excusing, that court, in December, 1878, forbad the
missionary collections hitherto made throughout the churches at Epiphany
for Hermannsburg, and so completely broke off the connection between the
state church and the institution which had hitherto been regarded as “its
pride and its preserving salt.” A reaction has since set in in favour of
the seminary and its friends on the assurance that the interests of the
separation would not be furthered by the seminary, and that several other
objectionable features, _e.g._ the frequent employment in the mission
service of artisans without theological training, the sending of them out
in too great numbers without sufficient endowment and salary, so that
missionaries were obliged to engage in trade speculations, should be
removed as far as possible; but since the seminary life was always still
carried on upon the basis of ecclesiastical secession, it could lead to no
permanent reconciliation with the state church. Harms died in 1885. His
son Egmont was chosen his successor, and as the consistory refused
ordination, he accepted consecration at the hands of five members of the
Immanuel Synod at Magdeburg.
9. _In Hesse_ the ministry of Von Mühler sought to bring about a
combination of the three consistories of Hanau, Cassel, and Marburg, as a
necessary vehicle for the introduction of a new synodal constitution. In
the province itself an agitation was persistently carried on for and
against the constitutional scheme submitted by the ministers, which wholly
ignored the old church order (§ 127, 2), which, though in the beginning of
the seventeenth century through the ecclesiastical disturbances of the
time (§ 154, 1), it had passed out of use, had never been abrogated and so
was still legally valid. A _Vorsynode_ convened in 1870 approved of it in
all essential points, but conventions of superintendents, pastoral
conferences and lay addresses protested, and the Prussian parliament, for
which it was not yet liberal enough, refused the necessary supplies. As
these after Von Mühler’s overthrow were granted, his successor, Dr. Falk,
immediately proceeded in 1873 to set up in Cassel the court that had been
objected to so long. It was constituted after the pattern of the Supreme
Church Council, of Lutheran, Reformed, and United members with _Itio in
partes_ on specifically confessional questions. The clergy of Upper Hesse
comforted themselves with saying that the new courts in which the
confessions were combined, if not better, were at least no worse than the
earlier consistories in which the confessions were confounded; and they
felt obliged to yield obedience to them, so long as they did not demand
anything contradictory the Lutheran confession. On the other hand, many of
the clergy of Lower Hesse saw in the advance from a merely eventual to an
actual blending of the confessional status in church government an
intolerable deterioration. And so forty-five clergyman of Lower and one of
Upper Hesse laid before the king a protest against the innovation as
destructive of the confessional rights of the Hessian church contrary to
the will of the supreme majesty of Jesus Christ. They were dismissed with
sharp rebuke, and, with the exception of four who submitted, were deposed
from office for obstinate refusal to obey. There were about sixteen
congregations which to a greater or less extent kept aloof from the new
pastors appointed by the consistories, and without breaking away from the
state church wished to remain true to the old pastor “appointed by Jesus
Christ himself.”—In autumn, 1884, the movement on behalf of the
restoration of a presbyterial and synodal constitution of the Hessian
evangelical church, which had been delayed for fourteen years, was
resumed. A sketch of a constitution, which placed it under three general
superintendents (Lutheran, Reformed, United) and thirteen superintendents,
and, for the fair co-operation of the lay element in the administration of
church affairs (the confession status, however, being beyond discussion),
provided suitable organs in the shape of presbyteries and synods, with a
predominance of the lay element, was submitted to a _Vorsynode_ that met
on November 12th, consisting of two divisions, like a Lower and Upper
House, sitting together. The first division, as representative of the then
existing church order, embraced, in accordance with the practice of the
old Hessian synods, all the members of the consistory, _i.e._ the nine
superintendents and thirteen pastors elected by the clergy; the second,
consisting at least of as many lay as clerical members, was chosen by the
free election of the congregation. The royal assent was given to the
decrees of the _Vorsynode_ in the end of December, 1885, and the
confessional status was thereby expressly guaranteed.
§ 194. The North German smaller States.
In most of the smaller North German states, owing to the very slight
representation of the Reformed church, which was considerable only in
Bremen, Lippe-Detmold, and a part of Hesse and East Friesland, the union
met with little favour. Yet only in a few of those provinces did a sharply
marked confessional Lutheranism gain wide and general acceptance. This was
so especially and most decidedly in Mecklenburg, but also in Hanover,
Hesse, and Saxony. On the other hand, since the close of 1860, in almost
all those smaller states a determined demand was made for a representative
synodal constitution, securing the due co-operation of the lay
element.—The Catholic church was strongest in Hanover, and next come some
parts of Hesse, which had been added to the ecclesiastical province of the
Upper Rhine (§ 196, 1), but in the other North German smaller states it
was only represented here and there.
1. _The Kingdom of Saxony._—The present kingdom of Saxony, formerly an
electoral principality, has had Catholic princes since 1679 (§ 153, 1),
but the Catholic church could strike its roots again only in the immediate
neighbourhood of the court. Indeed those belonging to it did not enjoy
civil and religious equality until 1807, when this distinction was set
aside. The erection of cloisters and the introduction of monkish orders,
however, continued even then forbidden, and all official publications of
the Catholic clergy required the _placet_ of the government. The
administration of the evangelical church, so long as the king is Catholic,
lies, according to agreement, in the hands of the ministers commissioned
_in evangelicis_. Although several of these have proved defenders of
ecclesiastical orthodoxy, the rationalistic Illumination became almost
universally prevalent not only among the clergy but also among the general
populace. Meanwhile a pietistic reaction set in, especially powerful in
Muldenthal, where Rudelbach’s labours impressed on it a Lutheran
ecclesiastical character. The religious movement, on the other hand,
directed by Martin Stephan, pastor of the Bohemian church in Dresden, came
to a sad and shameful end. As representative and restorer of strict
Lutheran views he had wrought successfully in Dresden from 1810, but,
through the adulation of his followers, approaching even to worship, he
fell more and more deeply into hierarchical assumption and neglect of
self-vigilance. When the police in 1837 restricted his nightly assemblies,
without, however, having discovered anything immoral, and suspended him
from his official duties, he called upon his followers to emigrate to
America. Many of them, lay and clerical, blindly obeyed, and founded in
1835, in Missouri, a Lutheran church communion (§ 208, 2). Stephan’s
despotic hierarchical assumptions here reached their fullest height; he
also gave his lusts free scope. Women oppressed or actually abused by him
at length openly proclaimed his shame in 1839, and the community
excommunicated him. He died in A.D. 1846. Taught by such experiences, and
purged of the Donatist-separatist element, a church reaction against
advancing rationalism made considerable progress under a form of church
that favoured it, and secured also influential representatives in members
of the theological faculty of the university of Leipzig distinguished for
their scientific attainments. After repeated debates in the chamber over a
scheme of a new ecclesiastical and synodal order submitted by the
ministry, the first evangelical Lutheran state synod met in Dresden, in
May, 1871. On the motion of the government, the law of patronage was here
modified so that the patron had to submit three candidates to the choice
of the ecclesiastical board. It was also decided to form an upper or state
consistory, to which all ecclesiastical matters hitherto administered by
the minister of public worship should be given over; the control of
education was to remain with the ministry, and the state consistory was to
charge itself with the oversight only of religious instruction and
ethico-religious training. The most lively debates were those excited by
the proposal to abolish the obligation resting upon all church teachers to
seem to adhere to the confession of the Lutheran church, led by Dr.
Zarncke, the rector of the state university. The commission of inquiry
sent down, under the presidency of Professor Luthardt, demanded the
absolute withdrawal of this proposal, which aimed at perfect doctrinal
freedom. On the other hand, Professor G. Baur made the mediate proposal to
substitute for the declaration on oath, the promise to teach simply and
purely to the best of his knowledge and according to conscience the gospel
of Christ as it is contained in Scripture, and witnessed in the
confessions of the Lutheran church. And as even now Luthardt, inspired by
the wish not to rend the first State Synod at its final sitting by an
incurable schism, agreed to this suggestion, it was carried by a large
majority. In consequence of this decision, a number of “Lutherans faithful
to the confession,” withdrew from the State church, and on the anniversary
of the Reformation in 1871, constituted themselves into an Evangelical
Lutheran Free Church, associated with the Missouri synod (§ 208, 2), from
which, on the suggestion of some of the members of the community who had
returned from America, they chose for themselves a pastor called Ruhland.
There were five such congregations in Saxony: at Dresden, Planitz,
Chemnitz, Frankenberg, and Krimmitschau, to which some South German
dissenters at Stenden, Wiesbaden, Frankfort, and Anspach attached
themselves.
2. _The Saxon Duchies._—The Stephan emigration had also decoyed a number
of inhabitants from Saxe-Altenburg. In a rescript to the Ephorus
Ronneburg, in 1838, the consistory traced back this separatist movement to
the fact that the religious needs of the congregations found no
satisfaction in the rationalistic preaching, and urged a more earnest
presentation from the pulpit of the fundamental and central doctrines of
evangelical Christianity. This rescript was the subject of violent
denunciation. The government took the opinion of four theological
faculties on the procedure of the consistory and its opponents, who
published it simply with the praise and blame contained therein, and thus
prevented any investigation. Also in _Weimar_ and _Gotha_ the rationalism
of Röhr and Bretschneider, which had dominated almost all pulpits down to
the middle of the century, began gradually to disappear, and the more
recent parties of Confessional, Mediation, and Free Protestant theology to
take its place. The last named party found vigorous support in the
university of Jena. A petition addressed to it in 1882 from the Thuringian
Church Conference of Eisenach, to call to Jena also a representative of
the positive Lutheran theology, was decidedly refused, and, in a
controversial pamphlet by Superintendent Braasch, condemned as “the
Eisenach outrage” (_Attentat_). In _Meiningen_ the _Vorsynode_ convened
there in 1870 sanctioned the sketch of a moderately liberal synodal
constitution submitted to it, which placed the confession indeed beyond
the reach of legislative interference, but also secured its rights to free
inquiry. The first State Synod, however, did not meet before 1878. In
_Weimar_ the first synod was held in 1873, the second in 1879.
3. _The Kingdom of Hanover._—Although the union found no acceptance in
Hanover, after the overthrow of the rationalism of the _ancien régime_,
the union theology became dominant in the university. The clergy, however,
were in great part carried along by the confessional Lutheran current of
the age. The Preachers’ Conference at Stade in 1854 took occasion to call
the attention of the government to the “manifest divergence” between the
union theology of the university and the legal and actual Lutheran
confession of the state church, and urged the appointment of Lutheran
teachers. The faculty, on the other hand, issued a memorial in favour of
liberty of public teaching, and the curators filled the vacancies again
with union theologians. When in April, 1862, it was proposed to displace
the state catechism introduced in 1790, which neither theologically nor
catechetically satisfied the needs of the church, by a carefully sifted
revision of the Walther catechism in use before 1790, approved of by the
Göttingen faculty, the agitation of the liberal party called forth an
opposition, especially in city populations, which expressed itself in
insults to members of consistories and pastors, and in almost daily
repeated bloody street fights with the military, and obliged the
government at last to give way.—The negotiations about a concordat with
Rome reached up further in 1824 than obtaining the circumscription bull
_Impensa Romanorum_, by which the Catholic church obtained two bishoprics,
those of Hildesheim and Osnabrück.—In 1886, Hanover was incorporated with
the kingdom of Prussia (§ 193, 8).
4. _Hesse._—Landgrave Maurice, 1592-1627, had forced upon his territories
a modified Melanchthonian Calvinism (§ 154, 1), but a Lutheran basis with
Lutheran modes of viewing things and Lutheran institutions still remained,
and the Lutheran reaction had never been completely overcome, not even in
Lower Hesse, although there the name of the Reformed Church with Reformed
modes of worship had been gradually introduced in most of the
congregations. The communities of Upper Hesse and Schmalcald, however, by
continuous opposition saved for the most part their Lutheranism, which in
1648 was guaranteed to them anew by the Darmstadt Recess, and secured an
independent form of church government in the Definitorium at Marburg. The
union movement, which issued from Prussia in 1817, met with favour also in
Hesse, but only in the province of Hanau in 1818 got the length of a
formal constituting of a church on the basis of the union. In 1821,
however, the elector issued the so-called Reorganization edict, by which
the entire evangelical church of the electorate, without any reference to
the confession status, but simply in accordance with the political
divisions of the state, was put under the newly instituted consistories of
Cassel, Marburg, and Hanau, in the formation of which the confession of
the inhabitants had not been considered. The Marburg Definitorium indeed
protested, but in vain, against this despotic act, which was felt a
grievance, less on account of the wiping out of the confession than on
account of the loss of independent church government which it occasioned.
The government appointed pastors, teachers and professors without
enquiring much about their confession. In 1838 the hitherto required
subscription of the clergy to the confessional writings, the Augsburg
Confession and its Apology, was modified into a formula declaring
conscientious regard for them. But in this Bickell, professor of law at
Marburg, saw a loss to the church in legal status, an endangering of the
evangelical church; the theological professor, Hupfeld, also in the
further course of the controversy took his side, while the advocate,
Henkel, in Cassel, as a popular agitator opposed him and demanded a State
Synod for the formal abolishing of all symbolical books. The government
ignored both demands, and the vehement conflict was quieted by degrees.
With 1850 a new era began in the keen controversy over the question, which
confession, whether Lutheran or Reformed, was legally and actually that of
the state. The ministry of Hassenpflug from 1850, which suppressed the
revolution, considered it as legally the Lutheran, and determined the
ecclesiastical arrangements in this sense, and in this course Dr. Vilmar,
member of the Consistory, was the minister’s right hand. But the elector
was from the beginning personally opposed to this procedure, and on the
overthrow of the ministry in 1855, Vilmar (died 1868) was also transferred
to a theological professorship at Marburg. This, however, only gave a new
impulse to the confessional Lutheran movement in the state, for the spirit
and tendency of the highly revered theological teacher powerfully
influenced the younger generation of the Hessian clergy. In consequence of
the German war, Hesse was annexed to Prussia in 1866 (§ 193, 9).—On the
Catholic church in this state, compare § 196, 1.
5. _Brunswick, Oldenburg, Anhalt, and Lippe-Detmold._—Much ado was made
also in _Brunswick_ over the introduction of a new constitution for the
Lutheran state church in 1869, and at last in 1871 a synodal ordinance was
passed by which the State Synod, consisting of fourteen clerical and
eighteen lay members, was to meet every four years, so as not to be a too
offensive factor in the ecclesiastical administration and legislation,
which therefore has left untouched the content of the confession. The
first synod of 1872 began by rejecting the injunction to open the sessions
with prayer and reading of scripture. _Oldenburg_, which in 1849, by a
synod whose membership had been chosen by the original electorate, had
been favoured with a democratic church constitution wholly separate from
the state, accepted in 1854 without opposition a new constitution which
restored the headship of the church to the territorial lords, the
administration of the church to a Supreme Church Council and
ecclesiastical legislation to a State Synod consisting of clerical and lay
members.—The prince in the exercise of his sovereign rights gave a charter
in 1878 to the evangelical church of the Duchy of _Anhalt_ to a synodal
ordinance which, though approved by the _Vorsynode_ of 1876, had been
rejected by parliament, and afterwards it gained the assent of the
national representatives.—In the Reformed _Lippe-Detmold_ there were in
1844 still five preachers who, wearied of the illuminationist catechism of
the state church, had gone back to the Heidelberg catechism and protested
against the abolition of acceptance on oath of the symbols, as destructive
of the peace of the church. The democratic church constitution of 1851,
however, was abrogated in 1854, and instead of it, the old Reformed church
order of 1684 was again made law. At the same time, religious pardon and
equality were guaranteed to Catholics and Lutherans. The first Reformed
State Synod was constituted in 1878.
6. _Mecklenburg._—Mecklenburg-Schwerin from 1848 was in possession of a
strictly Lutheran church government under the direction of Kliefoth, and
its university at Rostock had decidedly Lutheran theologians. When the
chamberlain Von Kettenburg, on going over to the Catholic church,
appointed a Catholic priest on his estate, the government in 1852, on the
ground that the laws of the state did not allow Catholic services which
extended beyond simple family worship, held that he had overstepped the
limits. A complaint, in reference thereto, presented to the parliament and
then to the German _Bund_, was in both cases thrown out. Even in 1863 the
Rostock magistrates refused to allow tower and bells in the building of a
Catholic church.—An extraordinary excitement was caused by the removal
from office in January, 1858, of Professor M. Baumgarten of Rostock. An
examination paper set by him on 2 Kings xi. by which the endeavour was
made to win scripture sanction for a violent revolution, obliged the
government even in 1856 to remove him from the theological examination
board. At the same time his polemic addressed to a pastoral conference at
Parchim, against the doctrine of the Mecklenburg state catechism on the
ceremonial law, especially in reference to the sanctification of the
Sabbath, increased the distrust which the clergy of the state, on account
of his writings, had entertained against his theological position as one
which, from a fanatical basis, diverged on all sides into fundamental
antagonism to the confession and the ordinances of the Lutheran state
church. The government finally deposed him in 1858 (leaving him, however,
in possession of his whole salary, also of the right of public teaching),
on the ground and after the publication of a judgment of the consistory
which found him guilty of heretical alteration of all the fundamental
doctrines of the Christian faith and the Lutheran confession, and sought
to prove this verdict from his writings. As might have been foreseen, this
step was followed by a loud outcry by all journals; but even Lutherans,
like Von Hofmann, Von Scheurl, and Luthardt, objected to the proceedings
of the government as exceeding the law laid down by the ecclesiastical
ordinance and the opinion of the consistory as resting upon
misunderstanding, arbitrary supposition and inconsequent conclusion.
§ 195. Bavaria.
Catholic Bavaria, originally an electorate, but raised in 1806, by
Napoleon’s favour, into a royal sovereignty, to which had been adjudged by
the Vienna Congress considerable territories in Franconia and the Palatine
of the Rhine with a mainly Protestant population, attempted under
Maximilian Joseph (IV.) I., after the manner of Napoleon, despotically to
pass a liberal system of church polity, but found itself obliged again to
yield, and under Louis I. became again the chief retreat of Roman Catholic
ecclesiasticism of the most pronounced ultramontane pattern. It was under
the noble and upright king, Maximilian II., that the evangelical church of
the two divisions of the kingdom, numbering two-thirds of the population,
first succeeded in securing the unrestricted use of their rights.
Nevertheless, Catholic Bavaria remained, or became, the unhappy scene of
the wildest demagogic agitation of the Catholic clergy and of the Bavarian
“Patriots” who played their game, whose patriotism consisted only in mad
hatred of Prussia and fanatical ultramontanism. Yet King Louis II., after
the brilliant successes of the Franco-German war, could not object to the
proposal of November 30th, 1870, to found a new German empire under a
Prussian and therefore a Protestant head.
1. _The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under Maximilian I.,
1799-1825._—Bavaria boasted with the most unfeigned delight after the
uprooting of Protestantism in its borders as then defined (§ 151, 1), that
it was the most Catholic, _i.e._ the most ultramontane and most bigoted,
of German-speaking lands, and, after a short break in this tradition by
Maximilian Joseph III. (§ 165, 10), went forth again with full sail, under
Charles Theodore, 1777-1779, on the old course. But the thoroughly new
aspect which this state assumed on the overthrow of the old German empire,
demanded an adapting territorially of the civil and ecclesiastical life in
accordance with the relations which it owed to its present political
position. The new elector Maximilian Joseph IV., who as king styled
himself Maximilian I., transferred the execution of this task to his
liberal, energetic, and thoroughly fearless minister, Count Montgelas,
1799-1817. In January, 1802, it was enacted that all cloisters should be
suppressed, and that all cathedral foundations should be secularized; and
these enactments were immediately carried out in an uncompromising manner.
Even in 1801 the qualification of Protestants to exercise the rights of
Bavarian citizens was admitted, and a religious edict of 1803 guaranteed
to all Christian confessions full equality of civil and political
privileges. To the clergy was given the control of education, and to the
gymnasia and universities a considerable number of foreigners and
Protestants received appointments. In all respects the sovereignty of the
state over the church and the clergy was very decidedly expressed, the
episcopate at all points restricted in its jurisdiction, the training of
the clergy regulated and supervised on behalf of the state, the patronage
of all pastorates and benefices usurped by the government, even public
worship subjected to state control by the prohibition of superstitious
practices, etc. But amid many other infelicities of this autocratic
procedure was specially the gradual dying out of the old race of bishops,
which obliged the government to seek again an understanding with Rome; and
so it actually happened in June, 1817, after Montgelas’ dismissal, that a
concordat was drawn up. By this the Roman Catholic apostolic religion
secured throughout the whole kingdom those rights and prerogatives which
were due to it according to divine appointment and canonical ordinances,
which, strictly taken, meant supremacy throughout the land. In addition,
two archbishoprics and seven bishoprics were instituted, the restoration
of several cloisters was agreed to, and the unlimited administration of
theological seminaries, the censorship of books, the superintendance of
public schools and free correspondence with the holy see were allowed to
the bishops. On the other hand, the king was given the choice of bishops
(to be confirmed by the pope), the nomination of a great part of the
priests and canons, and the _placet_ for all hierarchical publications.
After many vain endeavours to obtain amendments, the king at last, on
October 17th, ratified this concordat; but, to mollify his highly incensed
Protestant subjects, he delayed the publication of it till the
proclamation of the new civil constitution on May 18th following. The
concordat was then adopted, as an appendage to an edict setting forth the
ecclesiastical supremacy of the state, securing perfect freedom of
conscience to all subjects, as well as equal civil rights to members of
the three Christian confessions, and demanding from them equal mutual
respect. The irreconcilableness of this edict with the concordat was
evident, and the newly appointed bishops as well as the clerical
parliamentary deputies, declared by papal instruction that they could not
take the oath to the constitution without reservation, until the royal
statement of Tegernsee, September 21st, that the oath taken by Catholic
subjects simply referred to civil relations, and that the concordat had
also the validity of a law of the state, induced the curia to agree to it.
But the government nevertheless continued to insist as before upon the
supremacy of the state over the church, enlarged the claims of the royal
_placet_, put the free intercourse with Rome again under state control,
arbitrarily disposed of church property and supervised the theological
examinations of the seminarists, made the appointment of all clergy
dependent on its approbation, and refused to be misled in anything by the
complaints and objections of the bishops.
2. _The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under Louis I., 1825-1848._—Zealous
Catholic as the new king was, he still held with unabated tenacity to the
sovereign rights of the crown, and the extreme ultramontane ministry of
Von Abel from 1837 was the first to wring from him any relaxations, _e.g._
the reintroduction of free intercourse between the bishops and the holy
see without any state control. But it could not obtain the abolition of
the _placet_, and just as little the eagerly sought permission of the
return of the Jesuits. On the other hand the allied order of Redemptorists
was allowed, whose missions among the Bavarian people, however, the king
soon made dependent on a permission to be from time to time renewed. His
tolerant disposition toward the Protestants was shown in 1830, by his
refusing the demand of the Catholic clergy for a Reverse in mixed
marriages, and recognising Protestant sponsors at Catholic baptisms. But
yet his honourable desire to be just even to the Protestants of his realm
was often paralysed, partly by his own ultramontane sympathies, partly and
mainly by the immense influence of the Abel ministry, and the religious
freedom guaranteed them by law in 1818 was reduced and restricted. Among
other things the Protestant press was on all sides gagged by the minister,
while the Catholic press and preaching enjoyed unbridled liberty. Great as
the need was in southern Bavaria the government had strictly forbidden the
taking of any aid from the _Gustavus Adolphus Verein_. Louis saw even in
the name of this society a slight thrown on the German name, and was
specially offended at its vague, nearly negative attitude towards the
confession. Yet he had no hesitation in affording an asylum in Catholic
Bavaria to the Lutheran confessor Scheibel (§ 177, 2) whom Prussian
diplomacy had driven out of Lutheran Saxony, and did not prevent the
university of Erlangen, after its dead orthodoxy had been reawakened by
the able Reformed preacher Krafft (died 1845), becoming the centre of a
strict Lutheran church consciousness in life as well as science for all
Germany. The adoration order of 1838, which required even the Protestant
soldiers to kneel before the host as a military salute, occasioned great
discontent among the Protestant population, and many controversial
pamphlets appeared on both sides. When finally the parliament in 1845 took
up the complaint of the Protestants, a royal proclamation followed by
which the usually purely military salute formerly in use was restored. In
1847 the ultramontane party, with Abel at its head, fell into disfavour
with the king, on account of its honourable attitude in the scandal which
the notorious Lola Montez caused in the circle of the Bavarian nobility;
but in 1848 Louis was obliged, through the revolutionary storm that burst
over Bavaria, to resign the crown.
3. _The Bavarian Ecclesiastical Polity under Maximilian II., 1848-1864,
and Louis II._ (died 1886).—Much more thoroughly than his father did
Maximilian II. strive to act justly toward the Protestant as well as the
Catholic church, without however abating any of the claims of
constitutional supremacy on the part of the state. In consequence of the
Würzburg negotiations (§ 192, 4), the Bavarian bishops assembled at
Freysing, in November, 1850, presented a memorial, in which they demanded
the withdrawal of the religious edict included in the constitution of
1818, as in all respects prejudicial to the rights of the church granted
by the concordat, and set forth in particular those points which were most
restrictive to the free and proper development of the catholic church. The
result was the publication in April, 1852, of a rescript which, while
maintaining all the principles of state administration hitherto followed,
introduced in detail various modifications, which, on the renewal of the
complaints in 1854, were somewhat further increased as the fullest and
final measure of surrender.—The change brought about in 1866 in the
relation of Bavaria to North Germany led the government under Louis II. to
introduce liberal reforms, and the offensive and defensive alliance which
the government concluded with the heretical Prussia, the failure of all
attempts on the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war to force it in
violation of treaty to maintain neutrality, and then to prevent Bavaria
becoming part of the new German empire founded in 1871 at the suggestion
of her own king, roused to the utmost the wrath of the Bavarian clerical
patriots. In the conflicts of the German government, in 1872, against the
intolerable assumptions, claims and popular tumults of the ultramontane
clergy, the department of public worship, led by Lutz, inclined to take an
energetic part. But this was practically limited to the passing of the
so-called _Kanzelparagraphen_ (§ 197, 4) in the _Reichstag_. Comp. § 197,
14.
4. _Attempts at Reorganization of the Lutheran Church._—Since 1852, Dr.
von Harless (§ 182, 13), as president of the upper consistory at Munich,
stood at the head of the Lutheran church of Bavaria. Under his presidency
the general synod at Baireuth in 1853 showed a vigorous activity in the
reorganization of the church. On the basis of its proceedings the upper
consistory ordered the introduction of an admirable new hymnbook. This
occasioned considerable disagreement. But when, in 1856, the upper
consistory issued a series of enactments on worship and discipline, a
storm, originating in Nuremberg, burst forth in the autumn of that same
year, which raged over the whole kingdom and attacked even the state
church itself. The king was assailed with petitions, and the spiritual
courts went so far in faint-heartedness as to put the acceptance and
non-acceptance of its ordinances to the vote of the congregations.
Meanwhile the time had come for calling another general synod (1857). An
order of the king as head of the church abolished the union of the two
state synods in a general synod which had existed since 1849, and forbad
all discussion of matters of discipline. Hence instead of one, two synods
assembled, the one in October at Anspach, the other in November at
Baireuth. Both, consisting of equal numbers of lay and clerical members,
maintained a moderate attitude, relinquishing none of the privileges of
the church or the prerogatives of the upper consistory, and yet
contributed greatly to the assuaging of the prevalent excitement. Also the
lay and clerical members of the subsequent reunited general synods held
every fourth year for the most part co-operated successfully on moderate
church lines. The synod held at Baireuth in 1873 unanimously rejected an
address sent from Augsburg inspired by “Protestant Union” sympathies, as
to their mind “for the most part indistinct and where distinct
unevangelical.”
5. _The Church of the Union in the Palatine of the Rhine._—In the Bavarian
_Palatine of the Rhine_ the union had been carried out in 1818 on the
understanding that the symbolical books of both confessions should be
treated with due respect, but no other standard recognised than holy
scripture. When therefore the Erlangen professor, Dr. Rust, in 1832
appeared in the consistory at Spires and the court for that time had
endeavoured to fill up the Palatine union with positive Christian
contents, 204 clerical and lay members of the Diocesan Synod presented to
the assembly of the states of the realm, opportunely meeting in 1837, a
complaint against the majority of the consistory. As this memorial yielded
practically no result, the opposition wrought all the more determinedly
for the severance of the Palatine church from the Munich Upper Consistory.
This was first accomplished in the revolutionary year 1848. An
extraordinary general synod brought about the separation, and gave to the
country a new democratic church constitution. But the reaction of the blow
did not stop there. The now independent consistory at Spires, from 1853
under the leadership of Ebrard, convened in the autumn of that year a
general synod, which made the _Augustana Variata_ of 1540 as representing
the consensus between the _Augustana_ of 1530 and the Heidelberg as well
as the Lutheran catechism, the confessional standard of the Palatine
church, and set aside the democratic election law of 1848. When now the
consistory, purely at the instance of the general synod of 1853, submitted
to the diocesan synod in 1856 the proofs of a new hymnbook, the liberal
party poured out its bitter indignation upon the system of doctrine which
it was supposed to favour. But the diocesan synods admitted the necessity
of introducing a new hymnbook and the suitability of the sketch submitted,
recommending, however, its further revision so that the recension of the
text might be brought up to date and that an appendix of 150 new hymns
might be added. The hymnbook thus modified was published in 1859, and its
introduction into church use left to the judgment of presbyteries, while
its use in schools and in confirmation instruction was insisted upon
forthwith. This called forth protest after protest. The government wished
from the first to support the synodal decree, but in presence of growing
disturbance, changed its attitude, recommended the consistory to observe
decided moderation so as to restore peace, and in February, 1861, called a
general synod which, however, in consequence of the prevailingly strict
ecclesiastical tendencies of its members, again expressed itself in favour
of the new hymnbook. Its conclusions were meanwhile very unfavourably
received by the government. Ebrard sought and obtained liberty to resign,
and even at the next synod, in 1869, the consistory went hand in hand with
the liberal majority.
§ 196. The South German Smaller States and Rhenish Alsace and Lorraine.
The Protestant princely houses of South Germany had by the Lüneville Peace
obtained such an important increase of Catholic subjects, that they had to
make it their first care to arrange their delicate relations by concluding
a concordat with the papal curia in a manner satisfactory to state and
church. But all negotiations broke down before the exorbitant claims of
Rome, until the political restoration movements of 1850 led to
modifications of them hitherto undreamed of. The concordats concluded
during this period were not able to secure enforcement over against the
liberal current that had set in with redoubled power in 1860, and so one
thing after another was thrown overboard. Even in the Protestant state
churches this current made itself felt in the persistent efforts, which
also proved successful, to secure the restoration of a representative
synodal constitution which would give to the lay element in the
congregations a decided influence.
1. _The Upper Rhenish Church Province._—The governments of the South
German States gathered in 1818 at Frankfort, to draw up a common concordat
with Rome. But owing to the utterly extravagant pretensions nothing
further was reached than a new delimitation in the bull “_Provida
sollersque_,” 1821, of the bishoprics in the so-called Upper Rhenish
Church Province: the archbishopric of Freiburg for Baden and the two
Hohenzollern principalities, the bishoprics of Mainz for Hesse-Darmstadt,
Fulda for Hesse-Cassel, Rottenburg for Württemberg, Limburg for Nassau and
Frankfort; and even this was given effect to only in 1827, after long
discussions, with the provision (bull _Ad dominicæ gregis custodiam_) that
the choice of the bishops should issue indeed from the chapter, but that
the territorial lord might strike out objectionable names in the list of
candidates previously submitted to him. The actual equality of Protestants
and Catholics which the pope had not been able to allow in the concordat,
was now in 1880 proclaimed by the princes as the law of the land. Papal
and episcopal indulgences had to receive approval before their
publication; provincial and diocesan synods could be held only with
approval of the government and in presence of the commissioners of the
prince; taxes could not be imposed by any ecclesiastical court; appeal
could be made to the civil court against abuse of spiritual power; those
preparing for the priesthood should receive scientific training at the
universities, practical training in the seminaries for priests, etc. The
pope issued a brief in which he characterized these conditions as
scandalous novelties, and reminded the bishops of Acts v. 29. But only the
Bishop of Fulda followed this advice, with the result that the Catholic
theological faculty at Marburg was after a short career closed again, and
the education of the priests given over to the seminary at Fulda.
Hesse-Darmstadt founded a theological faculty at Giessen in 1830; Baden
had one already in Freiburg, and Würtemberg had in 1817 affiliated the
faculty at Ellwanger with the university of Tübingen, and endowed it with
the revenues of a rich convent. In all these faculties alongside of
rigorous scientific exactness there prevailed a noble liberalism without
the surrender of the fundamental Catholic faith. The revolutionary year,
1848, first gave the bishops the hope of a successful struggle for the
unconditional freedom of the church. In order to enforce the Würzburg
decrees (§ 192, 4), the five bishops issued in 1851 a joint memorial. As
the governments delayed their answer, they declared in 1852 that they
would immediately act as if all had been granted them; and when at last
the answer came, on most points unfavourable, they said in 1853, that,
obeying God rather than man, they would proceed wholly in accordance with
canon law.
2. _The Catholic Troubles in Baden down to 1873._—The Grand Duchy of
Baden, with two-thirds of its population Catholic, where in 1848 the
revolution had shattered all the foundations of the state, and where
besides a young ruler had taken the reins of government in his hands only
in 1852, seemed in spite of the widely prevalent liberality of its clergy,
the place best fitted for such an attempt. The Archbishop of Freiburg,
_Herm. von Vicari_, in 1852, now in his eighty-first year, began by
arbitrarily stopping, on the evening of May 9th, the obsequies of the
deceased grand-duke appointed by the Catholic Supreme Church Council for
May 10th, prohibiting at the same time the saying of mass for the dead
(_pro omnibus defunctis_) usual at Catholic burials, but in Baden and
Bavaria hitherto not refused even to Protestant princes. More than one
hundred priests, who disobeyed the injunction, were sentenced to perform
penances. In the following year he openly declared that he would forthwith
carry out the demands of the episcopal memorial, and did so immediately by
appointing priests in the exercise of absolute authority; and by holding
entrance examinations to the seminary without the presence of royal
commissioners as required by law. As a warning remained unheeded, the
government issued the order that all episcopal indulgences must before
publication be subscribed by a grand-ducal special commissioner appointed
for the purpose. Against him, as well as against all the members of the
Supreme Church Council, the archbishop proclaimed the ban, issued a
fulminating pastoral letter, which was to have been read with the
excommunication in all churches, and ordered preaching for four weeks for
the instruction of the people on these matters. At the same time he
solemnly protested against all supremacy of the state over the church. The
government drove the Jesuits out of the country, forbad the reading of the
pastoral, and punished disobedient priests with fines and imprisonment.
But the archbishop, spurred on by Ketteler, Bishop of Mainz, advanced more
boldly and recklessly than ever. In May, 1854, the government introduced a
criminal process against him, during the course of which he was kept
prisoner in his own house. The attempts of his party to arouse the
Catholic population by demonstrations had no serious result. At the close
of the investigation the archbishop was released from his confinement and
continued the work as before. The government, however, still remained
firm, and punished every offence. In June, 1855, however, a provisional
agreement was published, and finally in June, 1859, a formal concordat,
the bull _Æterni patris_, was concluded with Rome, its concessions to the
archbishop almost exceeding even those of Austria (§ 198, 2). In spite of
ministerial opposition the second chamber in March, 1860, brought up the
matter before its tribunal, repudiated the right of the government to
conclude a convention with Rome without the approbation of the states of
the realm, and forbad the grand-duke to enforce it. He complied with this
demand, dismissed the ministry, insisted, in answer to the papal protest,
on his obligation to respect the rights of the constitution, and on
October 9th, 1860, sanctioned jointly with the chambers a law on the legal
position of the Catholic and Protestant churches in the state. The
archbishop indeed declared that the concordat could not be abolished on
one side, and still retain the force of law, but in presence of the firm
attitude of the government he desisted, and satisfied himself with giving
in 1861 a grudging acquiescence, by which he secured to himself greater
independence than before in regard to imposing of dues and administration
of the church property. Conflicts with the archbishop, however, and with
the clerical minority in the chamber, still continued. The archbishop died
in 1868. His see remained vacant, as the chapter and the government could
not agree about the list of candidates; the interim administration was
carried on by the vicar-general, Von Kübel (died 1881), as administrator
of the archdiocese, quite in the spirit of his predecessor. The law of
October 9th, 1860, had prescribed evidence of general scientific culture
as a condition of appointment to an ecclesiastical office in the
Protestant as well as the Catholic church. Later ordinances required in
addition: Possession of Baden citizenship, having passed a favourable
examination on leaving the university, a university course of at least two
and half years, attendance upon at least three courses of lectures in the
philosophical faculty, and finally also an examination before a state
examining board, within one and half years of the close of the university
curriculum, in the Latin and Greek languages, history of philosophy,
general history, and the history of German literature (later also the so
called _Kulturexamen_). The Freiburg curia, however, protested, and in
1867 forbad clergy and candidates to submit to this examination or to seek
a dispensation from it. The result was, that forthwith no clergymen could
be definitely appointed, but up to 1874 no legal objection was made to
interim appointments of parochial administrators. The educational law of
1868 abolished the confessional character of the public schools. In 1869
state recognition was withdrawn from the festivals of Corpus Christi, the
holy apostles, and Mary, as also, on the other hand, from the festivals of
Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. In 1870 obligatory civil marriage was
introduced, while all compulsion to observe the baptismal, confirmational,
and funeral rites of the church was abolished, and a law on the legal
position of benevolent institutions was passed to withdraw these as much
as possible from the administration of the ecclesiastical authorities. On
the subsequent course of events in Baden, see § 197, 14.
3. _The Protestant Troubles in Baden._—The union of the Lutheran and
Reformed churches was carried out in the Grand Duchy of Baden in 1821. It
recognised the normative significance of the _Augustana_, as well as the
Lutheran and Heidelberg catechisms, in so far as by it the free
examination of scripture as the only source of Christian faith, is again
expressly demanded and applied. A synod of 1834 provided this state church
with union-rationalistic agenda, hymnbook, and catechism. When there also
a confessional Lutheran sentiment began again in the beginning of 1850 to
prevail, the church of the union opposed this movement by gensdarmes,
imprisonment and fines. The pastor Eichhorn, and later also the pastor
Ludwig, with a portion of their congregations left the state church and
attached themselves to the Breslau Upper Church Conference, but amid
police interference could minister to their flocks only under cloud of
night. After long refusal the grand-duke at last in 1854 permitted the
separatists the choice of a Lutheran pastor, but persistently refused to
recognise Eichhorn as such. Pastor Haag, who would not give up the
Lutheran distribution formula at the Lord’s supper, was after solemn
warning deposed in 1855. On the other hand the positive churchly feeling
became more and more pronounced in the state church itself. In 1854 the
old rationalist members of the Supreme Church Council were silenced, and
Ullmann of Heidelberg was made president. Under his auspices a general
synod of 1855 presented a sketch of new church and school books on the
lines of the union consensus, with an endeavour also to be just to the
Lutheran views. The grand-duke confirmed the decision and the country was
silent. But when in 1858 the Supreme Church Council, on the ground of the
Synodal decision of 1855, promulgated the general introduction of a new
church book, a violent storm broke out through the country against the
liturgical novelties contained therein (extension of the liturgy by
confession of sin and faith, collects, responses, Scripture reading,
kneeling at the supper, the making a confession of their faith by
sponsors), the Heidelberg faculty, with Dr. Schenkel at its head, leading
the opposition in the Supreme Church Council. Yet Hundeshagen, who in the
synod had opposed the introduction of a new agenda, entered the lists
against Schenkel and others as the apologist of the abused church book.
The grand-duke then decided that no congregation should be obliged to
adopt the new agenda, while the introduction of the shorter and simpler
form of it was recommended. The agitations these awakened caused its
rejection by most of the congregations. Meanwhile in consequence of the
concordat revolution in 1860, a new liberal ministry had come into power,
and the government now presented to the chambers a series of thoroughly
liberal schemes for regulating the affairs of the evangelical church,
which were passed by large majorities. Toward the end of the year the
government, by deposing the Supreme Church Councillor Heintz began to
assume the patronage of the supreme ecclesiastical court. Ullmann and Bähr
tendered their resignations, which were accepted. The new liberal Supreme
Church Council, including Holtzmann, Rothe, etc., now published a sketch
of a church constitution on the lines of ecclesiastical constitutionalism,
which with slight modifications the synod of July, 1861, adopted and the
grand-duke confirmed. It provided for annual diocesan synods of lay and
clerical members, and a general synod every five years. The latter
consists of twenty-four clerical and twenty-four lay members, and six
chosen by the grand-duke, besides the prelate, and is represented in the
interval by a standing committee of four members, who have also a seat and
vote in the Supreme Church Council.—Dr. Schenkel’s “_Leben Jesu_” of 1864
led the still considerable party among the evangelical clergy who adhered
to the doctrine of the church to agitate for his removal from his position
as director of the Evangelical Pastors’ Seminary at Heidelberg; but it
resulted only in this, that no one was obliged to attend his lectures. The
second synod, held almost a year behind time in 1867, passed a liberal
ordination formula. At the next synod in 1871, the orthodox pietistic
party had evidently become stronger, but was still overborne by the
liberal party, whose strength was in the lay element. Meanwhile a
praiseworthy moderation prevailed on both sides, and an effort was made to
work together as peaceably as possible.—In Heidelberg a considerable
number attached to the old faith, dissatisfied with the preaching of the
four “Free Protestant” city pastors, after having been in 1868 refused
their request for the joint use of a city church for private services in
accordance with their religious convictions (§ 180, 1), had built for this
purpose a chapel of their own, in which numerously attended services were
held under the direction of Professor Frommel of the gymnasium. When a
vacancy occurred in one of the pastorates in 1880, this believing
minority, anxious for the restoration of unity and peace, as well as the
avoidance of the separation, asked to have Professor Frommel appointed to
the charge. At a preliminary assembly of twenty-one liberal church members
this proposal was warmly supported by the president, Professor Bluntschli,
by all the theological professors, with the exception of Schenkel and
eighteen other liberal voters, and agreed to by the majority of the two
hundred liberals constituting the assembly. But when the formal election
came round the proposal was lost by twenty-seven to fifty-one votes.
4. _Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau._—In 1819 the government of the Grand Duchy
of _Hesse_ recommended the union of all _Protestant_ communities under one
confession. Rhenish Hesse readily agreed to this, and there in 1822 the
union was accomplished. In the other provinces, however, it did not take
effect, although by the rationalism fostered at Giessen among the clergy
and by the popular current of thought in the communities, the Lutheran as
well as the Reformed confession had been robbed of all significance. But
since 1850 even there a powerful Lutheran reaction among the younger
clergy, zealously furthered by a section of the aristocracy of the state,
set in, especially in the district on the right bank of the Rhine, which
has eagerly opposed the equally eager struggles of the liberal party to
introduce a liberal synodal representative constitution for the
evangelical church of the whole state. These endeavours, however, were
frustrated, and at an extraordinary state synod of 1873, on all
controverted questions, the middle party gave their vote in favour of the
absorptive union. The state church was declared to be the united church.
The clause that had been added to the government proposal: “Without
prejudice to the status of the confessions of the several communities,”
was dropped; the place of residence and not the confession was that which
determined qualifications in the community; the ordination now expressed
obligation to the Reformation confessions generally, etc. The members of
the minority broke off their connection with the synod, and seventy-seven
pastors presented to the synod a protest against its decisions. The
grand-duke then, on the basis of these deliberations, gave forthwith a
charter to the church constitution, in which indeed the Lutheran,
Reformed, and United churches were embraced in one evangelical state
church with a common church government; but still also, by restoring the
phrase struck out by the synod from § 1, the then existing confessional
status of the several communities was preserved and the confession itself
declared beyond the range of legislation. Yet fifteen Lutheran pastors
represented that they could not conscientiously accept this, and the upper
consistory hastened to remove them from office shortly before the shutting
of the gates, _i.e._, before July 1st, 1875, when by the new law (§ 197,
15) depositions of clergy would belong only to the supreme civil court.
The opposing congregations now declared, in 1877, their withdrawal from
the state church, and constituted themselves as a “free Lutheran church in
Hesse.”—The _Catholic_ church in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, had under the
peaceful bishops of Mainz, Burg (died 1833) and Kaiser (died 1849), caused
the government no trouble. But it was otherwise after Kaiser’s death. Rome
rejected Professor Leopold Schmid of Giessen, favoured at Darmstadt and
regularly elected by the chapter (§ 187, 3), and the government yielded to
the appointment of the violent ultramontane Westphalian, Baron von
Ketteler. His first aim was the extinction of the Catholic faculty at
Giessen (§ 191, 2); he rested not until the last student had been
transferred from it to the newly erected seminary at Mainz (1851). No less
energetic and successful were his endeavours to free the Catholic church
from the supremacy of the state in accordance with the Upper Rhenish
episcopal memorial. The Dalwigk ministry, in 1854, concluded a
“provisional agreement” with the bishop, which secured to him unlimited
autonomy and sovereignty in all ecclesiastical matters, and, to satisfy
the pope with his desiderata, these privileges were still further extended
in 1856. To this convention, first made publicly known in 1860, the
ministry, in spite of all addresses and protests, adhered with unfaltering
tenacity, although long convinced of its consequences. The political
events of 1886, however, led the grand-duke in September of that year to
abrogate the hateful convention. But the minister as well as the bishop
considered this merely to refer to the episcopal convention of 1850, and
treated the agreement with the pope of 1856 as always still valid. So
everything went on in the old way, even after Ketteler’s supreme influence
in the state had been broken by the overthrow of Dalwigk in 1871. Comp. §
197, 15.—The Protestant church in the Duchy of _Nassau_ attached itself to
the union in 1817. The conflict in the Upper Rhenish church overflowed
even into this little province. The Bishop of Limburg, in opposition to
law and custom, appointed Catholic clergy on his own authority, and
excommunicated the Catholic officers who supported the government, while
the government arrested the temporalities and instituted criminal
proceedings against bishop and chapter. After the conclusion of the
Württemberg and Baden concordats, the government showed itself disposed to
adopt a similar way out of the conflict, and in spite of all opposition
from the States concluded in 1861 a convention with the bishop, by which
almost all his hierarchical claims were admitted. Thus it remained until
the incorporation of Nassau in the Prussian kingdom in 1866.
5. In _Protestant Württemberg_ a religious movement among the people
reached a height such as it attained nowhere else. Pietism, chiliasm,
separatism, the holding of conventicles, etc., assumed formidable
dimensions; solid science, philosophical culture, and then also
philosophical and destructive critical tendencies issuing from Tübingen
affected the clergy of this state. Dissatisfaction with various novelties
in the liturgy, the hymnbook, etc., led many formally to separate from the
state church. After attempts at compulsion had proved fruitless, the
government allowed the malcontents under the organizing leadership of the
burgomaster, G. W. Hoffman (died 1846), to form in 1818 the community of
Kornthal, with an ecclesiastical and civil constitution of its own after
the apostolic type. Others emigrated to South Russia and to North America
(§ 211, 6, 7). Out of the pastoral work of pastor Blumhardt at Möttlingen,
who earnestly preached repentance, there was developed, in connection with
the healing of a demoniac, which had been accompanied with a great
awakening in the community, the “gift” of healing the sick by absolution
and laying on of hands with contrite believing prayer. Blumhardt, in order
to afford this gift undisturbed exercise, bought the Bad Boll near
Göppingen, and officiated there as pastor and miraculous healer in the way
described. He died in 1880.—After the way to a synodal representation of
the whole evangelical state church had been opened up in 1851 by the
introduction, according to a royal ordinance, of parochial councils and
diocesan synods, the consistory having also in 1858 published a scheme
referring thereto, the whole business was brought to a standstill, until
at last in 1867, by means of a royal edict, the calling of a State Synod
consisting of twenty-five clerical and as many lay members was ordered,
and consequently in February, 1869, such a synod met for the first time.
Co-operation in ecclesiastical legislation was assigned to it as its main
task, while it had also the right to advise in regard to proposals about
church government, also to make suggestions and complaints on such
matters, but the confession of the evangelical church was not to be
touched, and lay entirely outside of its province. A liberal enactment
with regard to dissenters was sanctioned by the chamber in 1870.
6. _The Catholic Church in Württemberg._—Even after the founding of the
bishopric of Rottenberg the government maintained strictly the previously
exercised rights of sovereignty over the Catholic church, to which almost
one-third of the population belonged, and the almost universally prevalent
liberalism of the Catholic clergy found in this scarcely any offence. A
new order of divine service in 1837, which, with the approval of the
episcopal council, recommended the introduction of German hymns in the
services, dispensing the sacraments in the German language, restriction of
the festivals, masses, and private masses, processions, etc., did indeed
cause riots in several places, in which, however, the clergy took no part.
But when in 1837, in consequence of the excitement caused throughout
Catholic Germany by the Cologne conflict (§ 193, 1), the hitherto only
isolated cases of lawless refusal to consecrate mixed marriages had
increased, the government proceeded severely to punish offending
clergymen, and transported to a village curacy a Tübingen professor, Mack,
who had declared the compulsory celebration unlawful. Called to account by
the nuncio of Munich for his indolence in all these affairs and severely
threatened, old Bishop Keller at last resolved, in 1841, to lay before the
chamber a formal complaint against the injury done to the Catholic church,
and to demand the freeing of the church from the sovereignty of the state.
In the second chamber this motion was simply laid _ad acta_, but in the
first it was recommended that the king should consider it. The bishop,
however, and the liberal chapter could not agree as to the terms of the
demand, contradictory opinions were expressed, and things remained as they
were. But Bishop Keller fell into melancholy and died in 1845. His
successor took his stand upon the memorial and declaration of the Upper
Rhenish bishops, and immediately in 1853 began the conflict by forbidding
his clergy, under threats of severe censure, to submit as law required to
civil examinations. The government that had hitherto so firmly maintained
its sovereign rights, under pressure of the influence which a lady very
nearly related to the king exercised over him, gave in without more ado,
quieted the bishop first of all by a convention in 1854, and then entered
into negotiations with the Roman curia, out of which came in 1857 a
concordat proclaimed by the bull _Cum in sublimi_, which, in surrender of
a sovereign right of the state over the affairs of the church, far exceeds
that of Austria (§ 198, 2). The government left unheeded all protests and
petitions from the chambers for its abolition. But the example of Baden
and the more and more decided tone of the opposition obliged the
government at last to yield. The second chamber in 1861 decreed the
abrogation of the concordat, and a royal rescript declared it abolished.
In the beginning of 1862 a bill was submitted by the new ministry and
passed into law by both chambers for determining the relations of the
Catholic church to the state. The royal _placet_ or right of permitting or
refusing, is required for all clerical enactments which are not purely
inter-ecclesiastical but refer to mixed matters; the theological
endowments are subject to state control and joint administration; boys’
seminaries are not allowed; clergymen appointed to office must submit to
state examination; according to consuetudinary rights, about two-thirds of
the benefices are filled by the king, one-third by the bishops on
reporting to the civil court, which has the right of protest; clergy who
break the law are removable by the civil court, etc. The curia indeed
lodged a protest, but the for the most part peace-loving clergy reared,
not in the narrowing atmosphere of the seminaries but amid the scientific
culture of the university, in the halls of Tübingen, submitted all the
more easily as they found that in all inter-ecclesiastical matters they
had greater freedom and independence under the concordat than before.
7. _The Imperial Territory of Alsace and Lorraine since 1871._—After
Alsace with German Lorraine had again, in consequence of the
Franco-Prussian war, been united to Germany and as an imperial territory
had been placed under the rule of the new German emperor, the secretary of
the Papal States, Cardinal Antonelli, in the confident hope of being able
to secure in return the far more favourable conditions, rights and claims
of the Catholic church in Prussia with the autocracy of the bishops
unrestricted by the state, declared in a letter to the Bishop of
Strassburg, that the concordat of 1801 (§ 203, 1) was annulled. But when
the imperial government showed itself ready to accept the renunciation,
and to make profit out of it in the opposite way from that intended, the
cardinal hasted in another letter to explain how by the incorporation with
Germany a new arrangement had become necessary, but that clearly the old
must remain in force until the new one has been promulgated. Also a
petition of the Catholic clergy brought to Berlin by the bishop himself,
which laid claim to this unlimited dominion over all Catholic educational
and benevolent institutions, failed of its purpose. The clergy therefore
wrought for this all the more zealously by fanaticizing the Catholic
people in favour of French and against German interests. On the epidemic
about the appearance of the mother of God called forth in this way, see §
188, 7. In 1874 the government found itself obliged to close the so-called
“little seminaries,” or boys’ colleges, on account of their fostering
sentiments hostile to the empire. Yet in 1880 the newly appointed imperial
governor, Field-marshal von Manteuffel (died 1885), at the request of the
States-Committee, allowed Bishop Räss of Strassburg to reopen the seminary
at Zillisheim, with the proviso that his teachers should be approved by
the government, and that instruction in the German language should be
introduced. Manteuffel has endeavoured since, by yielding favours to the
France-loving Alsatians and Lorrainers, and to their ultramontane clergy,
to win them over to the idea of the German empire, even to the evident
sacrifice of the interests of resident Germans and of the Protestant
church. But such fondling has wrought the very opposite result to that
intended.
§ 197. The so-called Kulturkampf in the German Empire.(106)
Ultramontanism had for the time being granted to the Prussian state, which
had not only allowed it absolutely free scope but readily aided its growth
throughout the realm (§ 193, 2), an indulgence for that offence which is
in itself unatoneable, having a Protestant dynasty. Pius IX. had himself
repeatedly expressed his satisfaction at the conduct of the government.
But the league which Prussia made in 1866 with the “church-robbing
Sub-alpine,” _i.e._ Italian, government, was not at all to the taste of
the curia. The day of Sadowa, 3rd July, 1866, called from Antonelli the
mournful cry, _Il mondo cessa_, “The world has gone to ruin,” and the
still more glorious day of Sedan, 2nd September, 1870, completely put the
bottom out of the Danaid’s vessel of ultramontane forbearance and
endurance. This day, 18th January, 1871, had as its result the overthrow
of the temporal power of the papacy as well the establishment of a new and
hereditary German empire under the Protestant dynasty of the Prussian
Hohenzollerns. German ultramontanism felt itself all the more under
obligation to demand from the new emperor as the first expiation for such
uncanonical usurpation, the reinstatement of the pope in his lost temporal
power. But when he did not respond to this demand, the ultramontane party,
by means of the press favourable to its claims, formally declared war
against the German empire and its governments, and applied itself
systematically to the mobilization of its entire forces. But the empire
and its governments, with Prussia in the van, with unceasing
determination, supported by the majority of the States’ representatives,
during the years 1871-1875 proceeded against the ultramontanes by
legislative measures. The execution of these by the police and the courts
of law, owing to the stubborn refusal to obey on the part of the higher
and lower clergy, led to the formation of an opposition, commonly
designated after a phrase of the Prussian deputy, Professor Virchow,
“_Kulturkampf_,” which was in some degree modified first in 1887. The
imperial chancellor, Prince Bismarck, uttered at the outset the confident,
self-assertive statement, “We go not to Canossa,”—and even in 1880, when
it seemed as if a certain measure of submission was coming from the side
of the papacy, and the Prussian government also showed itself prepared to
make important concessions, he declared, “We shall not buy peace with
Canossa medals; such are not minted in Germany.” Since 1880, however, the
Prussian government with increasing compliance from year to year set aside
and modified the most oppressive enactments of the May laws, so as
actually to redress distresses and inconveniences occasioned by clerical
opposition to these laws, without being able thereby to obtain any
important concession on the part of the papal curia, until at last in
1887, after the government had carried concession to the utmost limit, the
pope put his seal to definitive terms of peace by admitting the right of
giving information on the part of the bishops regarding appointments to
vacant pastorates, as well as the right of protest on the part of the
government against those thus nominated.
1. _The Aggression of Ultramontanism._—Even in the revolution year, 1848,
German ultramontanism, in order to obtain what it called the freedom of
the church, had zealously seconded many of the efforts of democratic
radicalism. Nevertheless, in the years of reaction that followed, it
succeeded in catching most of the influential statesmen on the limed twig
of the assurance that the episcopal hierarchy, with its unlimited sway
over the clergy and through them over the feelings of the people,
constituted the only certain and dependable bulwark against the
revolutionary movements of the age, and this idea prevailed down to 1860,
and in Prussia down to 1871. But the overthrow of the concordat in Baden,
Württemberg and Darmstadt by the states of the realm after a hard
conflict, the humiliation of Austria in 1866, and the growth in so
threatening a manner since of the still heretical Prussia, produced in the
whole German episcopate a terrible apprehension that its hitherto
untouched supremacy in the state would be at an end, and in order to ward
off this danger it was driven into agitations and demonstrations partly
secret and partly open. On 8th October, 1868, the papal nuncio in Munich,
Monsignor Meglia, uttered his inmost conviction regarding the Württemberg
resident thus: “Only in America, England, and Belgium does the Catholic
church receive its rights; elsewhere nothing can help us but the
revolution.” And on 22nd April, 1869, Bishop Senestray of Regensburg
declared plainly in a speech delivered at Schwandorff: “If kings will no
longer be of God’s grace, I shall be the first to overthrow the throne....
Only a war or revolution can help us in the end.” And war at last came,
but it helped only their opponents. Although at its outbreak in 1870 the
ultramontane party in South Germany, especially in Bavaria, for the most
part with unexampled insolence expressed their sympathy with France, and
after the brilliant and victorious close of the war did everything to
prevent the attachment of Bavaria to the new German empire, their North
German brethren, accustomed to the boundless compliance of the Prussian
government, indulged the hope of prosecuting their own ends all the more
successfully under the new regime. Even in November, 1870, Archbishop
Ledochowski of Posen visited the victorious king of Prussia at Versailles,
in order to interest him personally in the restoration of the Papal
States. In February, 1871, in the same place, fifty-six Catholic deputies
of the Prussian parliament presented to the king, who had meanwhile been
proclaimed Emperor of Germany, a formal petition for the restoration of
the temporal power of the pope, and soon afterwards a deputation of
distinguished laymen waited upon him “in name of all the Catholics of
Germany,” with an address directed to the same end. The _Bavarian
Fatherland_ (Dr. Sigl) indeed treated it with scorn as a
“belly-crawling-deputation, which crawled before the magnanimous
hero-emperor, beseeching him graciously to use said deputation as his
spittoon.” And the _Steckenberger Bote_, inspired by Dr. Ketteler,
declared: “We Catholics do not entreat it as a favour, but demand it as
our right.... Either you must restore the Catholic church to all its
privileges or not one of all your existing governments will endure.” At
the same time as the insinuation was spread that the new German empire
threatened the existence of the Catholic church in Germany, a powerful
ultramontane election agitation in view of the next Reichstag was set on
foot, out of which grew the party of the “Centre,” so called from sitting
in the centre of the hall, with Von Ketteler, Windthorst, Mallinkrodt
(died 1874), and the two Reichenspergers, as its most eloquent leaders.
Even in the debate on the address in answer to the speech from the throne
this party demanded intervention, at first indeed only diplomatic, in
favour of the Papal States. In the discussion on the new imperial
constitution A. Reichensperger sought to borrow from the abortive German
landowners’ bill of 1848, condemned indeed as godless by the syllabus (§
185, 2), principles that might serve the turn of ultramontanism regarding
the unrestricted liberty of the press, societies, meetings, and religion,
with the most perfect independence of all religious communities of the
State. Mallinkrodt insisted upon the need of enlarged privileges for the
Catholic church owing to the great growth of the empire in Catholic
territory and population. All these motions were rejected by the
Reichstag, and the Prussian government answered them by abolishing in
July, 1871, the Catholic department of the Ministry of Public Worship,
which had existed since 1841 (§ 193, 2). The _Genfer Korrespondenz_,
shortly before highly praised by the pope, declared: If kings do not help
the papacy to regain its rights, the papacy must also withdraw from them
and appeal directly to the hearts of the people. “Understand ye the
terrible range of this change? Your hours, O ye princes, are numbered!”
The Berlin _Germania_ pointed threateningly to the approaching _revanche_
war in France, on the outbreak of which the German empire would no longer
be able to reckon on the sympathy of its Catholic subjects; and the
_Ellwanger kath. Wochenblatt_ proclaimed openly that only France is able
to guard and save the Catholic church from the annihilating projects of
Prussia. And in this way the Catholic people throughout all Germany were
roused and incited by the Catholic press, as well as from the pulpit and
confessional, in home and school, in Catholic monasteries and nunneries,
in mechanics’ clubs and peasants’ unions, in casinos and assemblies of
nobles. Bishop Ketteler founded expressly for purposes of such agitations
the Mainz Catholic Union, in September, 1871, which by its itinerant
meetings spread far and wide the flame of religious fanaticism; and a
Bavarian priest, Lechner, preached from the pulpit that one does not know
whether the German princes are by God’s or by the devil’s grace.
2. _Conflicts Occasioned by Protection of the Old Catholics,
1871-1872._—That the Prussian government refused to assist the bishops in
persecuting the Old Catholics, and even retained these in their positions
after excommunication had been hurled against them, was regarded by those
bishops as itself an act of persecution of the Catholic church. To this
opinion they gave official expression, under solemn protest against all
encroachments of the state upon the domain of Catholic faith and law, in a
memorial addressed to the German emperor from Fulda, on September 7th,
1871, but were told firmly and decidedly to keep within their own
boundaries. Even before this Bishop _Krementz of Ermeland_ had refused the
_missio canonica_ to Dr. Wollmann, teacher of religion at the Gymnasium of
Braunsberg, on account of his refusing to acknowledge the dogma of
infallibility, and had forbidden Catholic scholars to attend his
instructions. The minister of public worship, Von Mühler, decided, because
religious instruction was obligatory in the Prussian gymnasia, that all
Catholic scholars must attend or be expelled from the institution. The
Bavarian government followed a more correct course in a similar case that
arose about the same time; for it recognised and protected the religious
instructions of the anti-infallibilist priest, Renftle in Mering, as
legitimate, but still allowed parents who objected to withhold their
children from it. And in this way the new Prussian minister, Falk,
corrected his predecessor’s mistake. But all the more decidedly did the
government proceed against Bishop Krementz, when he publicly proclaimed
the excommunication uttered against Dr. Wollmann and Professor Michelis,
which had been forbidden by Prussian civil law on account of the
infringement of civil rights connected therewith according to canon law.
As the bishop could not be brought to an explicit acknowledgment of his
obligation to obey the laws of the land, the minister of public worship on
October 1st, 1872, stripped him of his temporalities. But meanwhile a
second conflict had broken out. The Catholic field-provost of the Prussian
army and bishop _in partibus_, Namszanowski, had under papal direction
commanded the Catholic divisional chaplain, Lünnemann of Cologne, on pain
of excommunication, to discontinue the military worship in the garrison
chapel, which, by leave of the military court, was jointly used by the Old
Catholics, and so was desecrated. He was therefore brought before a court
of discipline, suspended from his office in May, 1872, and finally, by
royal ordinance in 1873, the office of field-provost was wholly abolished.
3. _Struggles over Educational Questions, 1872-1873._—In the formerly
Polish provinces of the Prussian kingdom the Polonization of resident
Catholic Germans had recently assumed threatening proportions. The
archbishop of Posen and Gnesen, Count _Ledochowski_, whom the pope during
the Vatican Council appointed primate of Poland, was the main centre of
this agitation. In the Posen priest seminary he formed for himself, in a
fanatically Polish clergy, the tools for carrying it out, and in the
neighbouring Schrimm he founded a Jesuit establishment that managed the
whole movement. Where previously Polish and German had been preached
alternately, German was now banished, and in the public schools, the
oversight of which, as throughout all Prussia, lay officially in the hands
of the clergy, all means were used to discourage the study of the German
language, and to stamp out the German national sentiment. But even in the
two western provinces the Catholic public schools were made by the
clerical school inspectors wholly subservient to the designs of
ultramontanism. In order to stem such disorder the government, in
February, 1872, sanctioned the _School Inspection Law_ passed by the
parliament, by which the right and duty of school inspection was
transferred from the church to the state, so that for the sake of the
state the clerical inspectors hostile to the government were set aside,
and where necessary might be replaced by laymen. A pastoral letter of the
Prussian bishops assembled at Fulda in April of that year complained
bitterly of persecution of the church and unchristianizing of the schools,
but advised the Catholic clergy under no circumstances voluntarily to
resign school inspection where it was not taken from them. By a rescript
of the minister of public worship in June, the exclusion of all members of
spiritual orders and congregations from teaching in public schools was
soon followed by the suppression of the Marian congregations in all
schools, and it was enjoined in March, 1873, that in Polish districts,
where other subjects had been taught in the higher educational
institutions in the German language, this also would be obligatory in
religious instruction. Ledochowski indeed directed all religious teachers
in his diocese to use the Polish language after as they had done before,
but the government suspended all teachers who followed his direction, and
gave over the religious instruction to lay teachers. The archbishop now
erected private schools for the religious instruction of gymnasial
teachers, and the government forbad attendance at them.
4. _The Kanzelparagraph and the Jesuit law, 1871-1872._—While thus the
Prussian government took more and more decided measures against the
ultramontanism that had become so rampant in its domains, on the other
hand, its mobile band of warriors in cassock, dress coat, and blouse did
not cease to labour, and the imperial government passed some drastic
measures of defence applicable to the whole empire. At the instance of the
Bavarian government, which could not defend itself from the violence of
its “patriots,” the Federal Council asked the Reichstag to add a new
article to the penal code of the empire, threatening any misuse of the
pulpit for political agitation with imprisonment for two years. The
Bavarian minister of public worship, Lutz, undertook himself to support
this bill before the Reichstag. “For several decades,” he said, “the
clergy in Germany have assumed a new character; they are become the simple
reflection of Jesuitism.” The Reichstag sanctioned the bill in December,
1871. Far more deeply than this so-called _Kanzelparagraph_, the operation
of which the agitation of the clergy by a little circumspection could
easily elude, did the _Jesuit Law_, published on July 4th, 1872, cut into
the flesh of German ultramontanism. Already in April of that year had a
petition from Cologne demanding the expulsion of the Jesuits been
presented to the Reichstag. Similar addresses flowed in from other places.
The Centre party, on the other hand, organized a regular flood of
petitions in favour of the Jesuits. The Reichstag referred both to the
imperial chancellor, with the request to introduce a law against the
movements of the Jesuits as dangerous to the State. The Federal Council
complied with this request, and so the law was passed which ordained the
removal of the Jesuits and related orders and congregations, the closing
of their institutions within six months, and prohibited the formation of
any other orders by their individual members, and the government
authorised the banishment of foreign members and the interning of natives
at appointed places. A later ordinance of the Federal Council declared the
Redemptorists, Lazarists, Priests of the Holy Ghost, and the Society of
the Heart of Jesus to be orders related to the Society of Jesus. Those
affected by this law anticipated the threatened interning by voluntarily
removing to Belgium, Holland, France, Turkey, and America.
5. _The Prussian Ecclesiastical Laws, 1873-1875._—In order to be able to
check ultramontanism, even in its pædagogical breeding places, the
episcopal colleges and seminaries, and at the same time to restrict by law
the despotic absolutism of the bishops in disciplinary and beneficiary
matters, the Prussian government brought in other four ecclesiastical
bills, which in spite of violent opposition on the part of the Centre and
the Old Conservatives, were successively passed by both houses of
parliament, and approved by the king on May 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th,
1873. Their most important provisions are: As a condition for admission to
a spiritual office the state requires citizenship of the German empire,
three years’ study at a German university, and, besides an exit gymnasial
examination preceding the university course, a state examination in
general knowledge (in philosophy, history, and German literature), in
addition to the theological examination. The episcopal boys’ seminaries
and colleges are abolished. The priest seminaries, if the minister of
worship regards them as fit for the purpose, may take the place of the
university course, but must be under regular state inspection. The
candidates for spiritual offices, which must never be left vacant more
than a year, are to be named to the chief president of the province, and
he can for cogent reasons lodge a protest against them. Secession from the
church is freely allowed, and releases from all personal obligations to
pay ecclesiastical dues and perform ecclesiastical duties. Excommunication
is permissible, but can be proclaimed only in the congregation concerned,
and not publicly. The power of church discipline over the clergy can be
exercised only by German superiors and in accordance with fixed
processional procedure. Corporal punishment is not permissible, fines are
allowed to a limited extent, and restraint by interning in so-called
_Demeriti_ houses, but only at furthest of three months, and when the
party concerned willingly consents. Church servants, whose remaining in
office is incompatible with the public order, can be deposed by civil
sentence. And as final court of appeal in all cases of complaint between
ecclesiastical and civil authorities as well as within the ecclesiastical
domain, a royal court of justice for ecclesiastical affairs is
constituted, whose proceedings are open and its decision final.—But even
the May Laws soon proved inadequate for checking the insolence of the
bishops and the disorders among the Catholic population occasioned
thereby. In December, 1873, therefore, by sovereign authority there was
prescribed a new formula of the episcopal Oath of Allegiance, recognising
more distinctly and decisively the duty of obedience to the laws of the
state. Then next a bill was presented to the parliament, which had been
kept in view in the original constitution, demanding obligatory civil
marriage and abolition of compulsory baptism, as well as the conducting of
civil registration by state officials. In February, 1874, it was passed
into law. On the 20th and 21st _May, 1874_, two other bills brought in for
extending the May Laws of the previous year, in consequence of which a
bishop’s see vacated by death, a judicial sentence, or any other cause,
must be filled within the space of a year, and the chapter must elect
within ten days an episcopal administrator, who has to be presented to the
chief president, and to undertake an oath to obey the laws of the state.
If the chapter does not fulfil these requirements, a lay commissioner will
be appointed to administer the affairs of the diocese. During the
episcopal vacancy, all vacant pastorates, as well as all not legally
filled, can be at once validly supplied by the act of the patron, and,
where no such right exists, by congregational election. Parochial
property, on the illegal appointment of a pastor, is given over to be
administered by a lay commissioner.—The empire also came to the help of
the May Laws by an imperial enactment of May 4th, 1874, sanctioned by the
emperor, which empowers the competent state government to intern all
church officers discharged from their office and not yielding submission
thereto, as well as all punished on account of incompetence in their
official duties, and, if this does not help, to condemn them to loss of
their civil rights and to expulsion from the German federal
territory.—Also in its next session the imperial house of representatives
again gave legislative sanction to the _Kulturkampf_; for in January,
1875, it passed a bill presented by the Federal Council on the deposition
on oath as to personal rank, and on divorce with obligatory civil
marriage, which, going far beyond the Prussian civil law of the previous
year, and especially ridding Bavaria of its strait-jacket canon marriage
law enforced by the concordat, abolished the spiritual jurisdiction in
favour of that of the civil courts, and gave it to the state to determine
the qualifications for, as well as the hindrances to, divorce, without,
however, touching the domain of conscience, or entrenching in any way upon
the canon law and the demands of the church.
6. _Opposition in the States to the Prussian May Laws._—Bishop Martin of
Paderborn had even beforehand refused obedience to the May Laws of 1873.
After their promulgation, all the Prussian bishops collectively declared
to the ministry that “they were not in a position to carry out these
laws,” with the further statement that they could not comply even with
those demands in them which in other states, by agreement with the pope,
are acknowledged by the church, because they are administered in a
one-sided way by the state in Prussia. On these lines also they proceeded
to take action. First of all, the refractoriness of several of the
seminaries drew down upon them the loss of endowment and of the right of
representation; and in the next place, the refusal of the bishops to
notify their appointment of clergymen led to their being frequently fined,
while the church books and seals were taken away from clergymen so
appointed, all the official acts performed by them were pronounced invalid
in civil law, and those who performed them were subjected to fines. But
here, too, again Bishop Martin, well skilled in church history (he had
been previously professor of theology in Bonn), had beforehand in a
pastoral instructed his clergy that “since the days of Diocletian there
had not been seen so violent a persecution of the name of Jesus Christ.”
Soon after this Archbishop Ledochowski, in an official document addressed
to the Chief President of Poland, compared the demand to give notification
of clerical appointments with the demand of ancient Rome upon Christian
soldiers to sacrifice to the heathen gods. And by order of the pope
prayers were offered in all churches for the church so harshly and cruelly
persecuted. And yet the whole “persecution” then consisted in nothing more
than this, that a newly issued law of the state, under threat of fine in
case of disobedience, demanded again of the bishops paid by the state what
had been accepted for centuries as unobjectionable in the originally
Catholic Bavaria, and also for a long while in France, Portugal, and other
Romish countries, what all Prussian bishops down to 1850 (§ 193, 2) had
done without scruple, what the bishops of Paderborn and Münster even had
never refused to do in the extra-Prussian portion of these dioceses
(Oldenburg and Waldeck), as also the Prince-Bishop of Breslau, since the
issuing of the similar Austrian May Laws (§ 198, 4) in the Austro-Silesian
part of his diocese, what the episcopal courts of Württemberg and Baden
had yielded to, although in almost all these states the demand referred to
broke up the union with the papal curia. Yet before a year had passed the
cases of punishment for these offences had so increased that the only very
inadequate fines that could be exacted by the seizure of property had to
be changed into equivalent sentences of imprisonment. The first prelate
who suffered this fate was Archbishop Ledochowski, in February, 1874. Then
followed in succession: Eberhard of Treves, Melchers of Cologne, Martin of
Paderborn, and Brinkmann of Münster. The ecclesiastical court of justice
expressly pronounced deposition against Ledochowski in April, 1874;
against Martin in January, 1875, and against the Prince-Bishop Förster of
Breslau in October, 1875, who alone had dared to proclaim in his diocese
the encyclical _Quod nunquam_ (Par. 7). But the latter had even beforehand
withdrawn the diocesan property to the value of 900,000 marks to his
episcopal castle, Johannisberg, in Austro-Silesia, where with a truly
princely income from Austrian funds he could easily get over the loss of
the Prussian part of his revenues. Martin, who had been interned at Wesel,
fled in August, 1875, under cloud of night, to Holland, from whence he
transferred his agitations into Belgium, and finally to London (died
1879). Ledochowski found a residence in the Vatican. Brinkmann was deposed
in March, and Melchers in June, 1876, after both had beforehand proved
their enjoyment of martyrdom by escaping to Holland. Eberhard of Treves
anticipated his deposition from office by his death in May, 1876. Blum of
Limburg was deposed in June, 1877, and Beckmann of Osnabrück died in
1878.—In the Prussian parliament and German Reichstag the Centre party,
supported by Guelphs, Poles, and the Social Democrats, had meanwhile with
anger, scorn, and vituperation, with and without wit, fought not only
against all ecclesiastical, but also against all other legislative
proposals, whose acceptance was specially desired by the government. And
all the representatives of the ultramontane press within and without
Europe vied with one another in violent denunciation of the ecclesiastical
laws, and in unmeasured abuse of the emperor and the empire. But almost
without exception the Roman Catholic officials in Prussia, as well as the
Protestants and Old Catholics, carried out “the Diocletian persecution of
Christians” in the judicial and police measures introduced by the church
laws. A number of Catholic notables of the eastern provinces of their own
accord, in a dutiful address to the emperor, expressly accepted the
condemned laws, and won thereby the nickname of “State Catholics.” The
great mass of the Catholic people, high and low, remained unflinchingly
faithful to the resisting clergy in, for the most part, only a passive
opposition, although even, as the Berlin _Germania_ expressed it, “the
Catholic rage at the Bismarckian ecclesiastical polity could condense
itself into one Catholic head” in a murderous attempt on the chancellor in
quest of health at Kissingen, on July 13th, 1874. It was the cooper,
Kullmann, who, fanaticised by exciting speeches and writings in the
Catholic society of Salzwedel, sought to take vengeance, as he himself
said, upon the chancellor for the May Laws and “the insult offered to his
party of the Centre.”—In the further course of the Prussian _Kulturkampf_,
however, fostered by the aid of the confessional, the insinuating
assiduity of the clerical press, and the all-prevailing influence of the
thoroughly disciplined Catholic clergy over the popish masses, the Centre
grew in number and importance at the elections from session to session, so
that from the beginning of 1880, by the unhappy division of the other
parties in the Reichstag as well as Chamber, it united sometimes with the
Conservatives, sometimes and most frequently with the Progressionists and
Democrats renouncing the _Kulturkampf_, and was supported on all questions
by Poles, Danes, Guelphs, and Alsatian-Lorrainers, as clerical interest
and ultramontane tactics required, in accordance with the plan of campaign
of the commander-in-chief, especially of the quondam Hanoverian minister,
Windthorst, dominated far more by Guelphic than by ultramontane
tendencies. The Centre was thus able to turn the scale, until, at least in
the Reichstag, after the dissolution and new election of 1887, its
dominatory power was broken by the closer combination of the conservative
and national liberal parties.
7. _Share in the Conflict taken by the Pope._—_Pius IX._ had congratulated
the new emperor in 1871, trusting, as he wrote, that his efforts directed
to the common weal “might bring blessing not only to Germany, but also to
all Europe, and might contribute not a little to the protection of the
liberty and rights of the Catholic religion.” And when first of all the
Centre party, called forth by the election agitation of German
ultramontanism, opened its politico-clerical campaign in the Reichstag, he
expressed his disapproval of its proceedings upon Bismarck’s complaining
to the papal secretary Antonelli. Yet a deputation of the Centre sent to
Rome succeeded in winning over both. In order to build a bridge for the
securing an understanding with the curia, now that the conflict had grown
in extent and bitterness, the imperial government in May, 1872, appointed
the Bavarian Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe to the vacant post of ambassador to
the Vatican. But the pope, with offensive recklessness, rejected the
well-meant proposal, and forbade the cardinal to accept the imperial
appointment. From that time he gave free and public expression on every
occasion to his senseless bitterness against the German empire and its
government. In an address to the German Reading Society at Rome in July,
1872, he allowed himself to use the most violent expressions against the
German chancellor, and closed with the prophetic threatening: “Who knows
but the little stone shall soon loose itself from the mountain (Dan. ii.
34), which shall break in pieces the foot of the colossus?” But even this
diatribe was cast in the shade by the Christmas allocution of that year,
in which he was not ashamed to characterize the procedure of the German
statesmen and their imperial sovereign as “_impudentia_.” And after the
publication of the first May Laws he addressed a letter to the emperor, in
which, founding upon the fact that even the emperor like all baptized
persons belonged to him, the pope, he cast in his teeth that “all the
measures of his government for some time aimed more and more at the
annihilation of Catholicism,” and added the threatening announcement that
“these measures against the religion of Jesus Christ can have no other
result than the overthrow of his own throne.” The emperor in his answer
made expressly prominent his divinely appointed call as well as his own
evangelical standpoint, and with becoming dignity and earnestness
decidedly repudiated the unmeasured assumptions of the papacy, and
published both letters. In the same style of immoderate pretension the
pope again, in November, 1875, in one encyclical after another, gave vent
to his anger against emperor and empire, especially its military
institutions. In place of the deposed and at that time imprisoned
archbishop, Ledochowski, he appointed in 1874 a native apostolic legate,
who was at last ascertained to be the Canon Kurowski, when he was in
October, 1875, condemned to two years’ imprisonment. But the pope took the
most decided and successful step by the _Encyclical Quod nunquam, of 5th
February, 1875_, addressed to the Prussian episcopate, in which he
characterized the Prussian May Laws as “not given to free citizens to
demand a reasonable obedience, but as laid upon slaves, in order to force
obedience by fears of violence,” and, “in order to fulfil the duties of
his office,” declared quite openly to all whom it concerns and to the
Catholics throughout the world: “_Leges illas irritas esse, utpote quæ
divinæ Ecclesiæ constitutioni prorsus adversantur_”; but upon those
“godless” men who make themselves guilty of the sin of assuming spiritual
office without a divine call, falls _eo ipso_ the great excommunication.
On the other hand he rewarded, in March, 1875, Archbishop Ledochowski,
then still in prison, but afterwards, in February, 1876, settled in Rome,
for his sturdy resistance of those laws, with a cardinal’s hat, and to the
not less persistent Prince-Bishop Förster of Breslau he presented on his
jubilee as priest the archiepiscopal pall. In the next Christmas
allocution he romanced about a second Nero, who, while in one place with a
lyre in his hand he enchanted the world by lying words, in other places
appeared with iron in his hand, and, if he did not make the streets run
with blood, he fills the prisons, sends multitudes into exile, seizes upon
and with violence assumes all authority to himself. Also to the German
pilgrims who went in May, 1877, to his episcopal jubilee at Rome, he had
still much that was terrible to tell about this “modern Attila,” leaving
it uncertain whether he intended Prince Bismarck or the mild, pious German
emperor himself.
8. _The Conflict about the Encyclical Quod nunquam of 1875._—By this
encyclical the pope had completely broken up the union between the
Prussian state and the curia, resting upon the bull _De salute animarum_
(§ 193, 1); for he, bluntly repudiating the sovereign rights of the civil
authority therein expressly allowed, by pronouncing the laws of the
Prussian state invalid, authorized and promoted the rebellion of all
Catholic subjects against them. The Prussian government now issued three
new laws quickly after one another, cutting more deeply than all that went
before, which without difficulty received the sanction of all the
legislative bodies. I. The so called _Arrestment Act_ (_Sperrgesetz_) of
April 22nd, 1875, which ordered the immediate suspension of all state
payments to the Roman Catholic bishoprics and pastorates until those who
were entitled to them had in writing or by statement declared themselves
ready to yield willing obedience to the existing laws of the state. II. A
law of May 31st, 1875, ordering the _Expulsion of all Orders and such like
Congregations_ within eight months, the minister of public worship,
however, being authorized to extend this truce to four years in the case
of institutions devoted to the education of the young, while those which
were exclusively hospital and nursing societies were allowed to remain,
but were subject to state inspection and might at any time be suppressed
by royal order. III. A law of June 12th, 1875, declaring the formal
_Abrogation of the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth Articles of the
Constitution_ (§ 193, 2). And finally in addition there came the
enforcement during this session of the Chamber of laws previously
introduced on the rights of the Old Catholics (§ 190, 2), and, on June
20th, 1875, on the administration of church property in Catholic parishes.
The latter measures aimed at withdrawing the administration referred to
from the autocratic absolutism of the clergy, and transferring it to a lay
commission elected by the community itself, of which the parish priest was
to be a member, but not the president. Although the Archbishop of Cologne
in name of all the bishops before its issue had solemnly protested against
this law, because by it “essential and inalienable rights of the Catholic
church were lost,” and although the recognition of it actually involved
recognition of the May Laws and the ecclesiastical court of justice, yet
all the bishops declared themselves ready to co-operate in carrying out
the arrangements for surrendering the church property to the
administration of a civil commission. They thus indeed secured thoroughly
ultramontane elections, but at the same time put themselves into a
position of self-contradiction, and admitted that the one ground of their
opposition to the May Laws, that they were one-sidedly wrought by the
state, was null and void.
9. _Papal Overtures for Peace._—_Leo XIII._, since 1878, intimated his
accession to the Emperor William, and expressed his regret at finding that
the good relations did not continue which formerly existed between Prussia
and the holy see. The Emperor’s answer expressed the hope that by the aid
of his Holiness the Prussian bishops might be induced to obey the laws of
the land, as the people under their pastoral care actually did; and
afterwards while in consequence of the attempt on his life of June 2nd,
1873, he lay upon a sickbed, the crown prince on June 10th answered other
papal communications by saying, that no Prussian monarch could entertain
the wish to change the constitution and laws of his country in accordance
with the ideas of the Romish church; but that, even though a thorough
understanding upon the radical controversy of a thousand years could not
be reached, yet the endeavour to preserve a conciliatory disposition on
both sides would also for Prussia open a way to peace which had never been
closed in other states. Three weeks later the Munich nuntio Masella was at
Kissingen and conferred with the chancellor, Prince Bismarck, who was
residing there, about the possibility of a basis of reconciliation.
Subsequently negotiations were continued at Gastein, and then in Vienna
with the there resident nuntio Jacobini, but were suspended owing to
demands by the curia to which the state could not submit. Still the pope
attempted indirectly to open the way for renewed consultation, for he
issued a brief dated February 24th, 1880, to “Archbishop Melchers of
Cologne” (deposed by the royal court of justice), in which he declared his
readiness to allow to the respective government boards notification of new
elected priests before their canonical institution. Thereupon a
communication was sent to Cardinal Jacobini that the state ministry had
resolved, so soon as the pope had actually implemented this declaration of
his readiness, to make every effort to obtain from the state
representatives authority to set aside or modify those enactments of the
May Laws which were regarded by the Romish church as harsh. But the pope
received this compromise of the government very ungraciously and showed
his dissatisfaction by withdrawing his concession, which besides referred
only to the unremovable priests, therefore not to _Hetzkaplane_ and
succursal or assistant priests, and presupposed the obtaining the
“_agrément_,” _i.e._ the willingly accorded consent, of the state, without
by any means allowing the setting aside of the party elected.
10. _Proof of the Prussian Government’s willingness to be Reconciled,
1880-1881._—Notwithstanding this brusque refusal on the part of the papal
curia, the government, at the instance of the minister of public worship,
Von Puttkamer (§ 193, 6), resolved in May, 1880, to introduce a bill which
gave a wide discretionary power for moderating the unhappy state of
matters that had prevailed since the passing of the May Laws, throughout
Catholic districts, where 601 pastorates stood wholly vacant and 584
partly so, and nine bishoprics, some by death and others by deposition.
Although the need of peace was readily admitted on both sides, the
Liberals opposed these “Canossa proposals” as far too great; the Centre,
Poles, and Guelphs as far too small. Yet it obtained at last in a form
considerably modified, through a compromise of the conservatives with a
great part of the national liberals the consent of both chambers. This
law, sanctioned on July 14th, 1880, embraced these provisions: 1. The
royal court shall no longer depose from office any church officers, but
simply pronounce incapable of administering the office; 2-4. The ministry
of the state is authorized to give the episcopal administrator charged by
the church with the interim administration of a vacant bishopric a
dispensation from the taking of the prescribed oath; further, an
administration by commission of ecclesiastical property may be revoked as
well as appointed; also state endowments that had been withdrawn are to be
restored for the benefit of the whole extent of the diocese; 5. Spiritual
official acts of a duly appointed clergyman by way merely of assistance in
another vacant parish are to be allowed; 6. The minister of the interior
and of public worship are empowered to approve of the erection of new
institutions of religious societies which are devoted wholly to the care
of the sick, as to allow revocably to them the care and nurture of
children not yet of school age; and more recently added were 7, the
particular, according to which Articles 2, 3, and 4 cease to operate after
January 1st, 1882. The government was particularly careful to carry out
the provisions temporarily recognised in Article 3, for the restoration of
orderly episcopal administration by regularly elected episcopal
administrators in bishoprics made vacant by death. Fulda, which was
longest vacant, from October, 1873, had to be left out of account, since
in that case there was only one member of the chapter left and so a
canonical election was impossible. But without difficulty in March, 1881,
the Vicar-General Dr. Höting for Osnabrück and Canon Drobe for Paderborn,
without taking the oath of allegiance, succeeded in obtaining independent
administration of the property as well as the restoration of state pay for
the entire dioceses, though they did not give the notification required by
the May Laws for the interim administration. In October, 1881, the deposed
Prince Bishop Förster of Breslau died, and the suffragan bishop, Gleich,
elected by the chapter, undertook with consent of the government the
office of episcopal administrator.—Meanwhile the pope, by a hearty letter
of congratulation to the emperor on his birthday, March 22nd, had given
new life to the suspended peace negotiations. And now also, when the
respective chapters transferred their right of election to the pope, the
orderly appointments of the Canon Dr. Korum of Metz, a pupil of the Jesuit
faculty of Innspruck, very warmly recommended by Von Manteuffel, governor
of Alsace and Lorraine, to the episcopal see of Treves, in August, 1881,
of Vicar-General Kopp of Hildesheim to Fulda in December, 1881, of the
episcopal administrators Höting and Drobe, in March and May, 1882,
respectively to Osnabrück and Paderborn, were duly carried into effect.
For Breslau the chapter drew up a list of seven candidates, but the
government pointed out the Berlin provost, Rob. Herzog, as a mild and
conciliatory person. The chapter now laid its right of election in the
hands of the pope, and in May, 1882, Herzog was raised to the dignity of
prince-bishop. There now remained vacant only the sees of Cologne, Posen,
Limburg and Münster, which had been emptied by the depositions of the
civil courts.—Meanwhile, too, the negotiations carried on at the instance
of the government by privy councillor Von Schlözer, with the curia at Rome
for the restoration of the embassy to the Vatican had been brought to a
close. The chamber voted for this purpose an annual sum of 90,000 marks,
and Schlözer himself was appointed to the post in March, 1882.
11. _Conciliatory Negotiations, 1882-1884._—With January 1st, 1882, the
three enactments of the July law of 1880, which might be enforced at the
discretion of the government, ceased to operate. Von Gossler, minister of
public worship since June, 1881, on behalf of government, introduced a new
bill into the Chamber on January 16th, 1882, for their re-enactment and
extension, which by a compromise between the Conservatives and the Centre,
after various modifications secured a majority in both houses. This second
revised law embraced the following points: 1. Renewal of the three
above-named enactments till April 1st, 1884; 2. Restoration of the
“Bishop’s Paragraph,” lost in 1880, in this new form: If the king has
pardoned a bishop set aside by the ecclesiastical court, he becomes again
the bishop of his diocese recognised by the state; 3. The setting aside of
the examination in general knowledge (_Kulturexamen_) for those who bring
a certificate of having passed the Gymnasium exit examination, or have
attended with diligence lectures on philosophy, history and German
literature during a three years’ course at a German university, or at a
Prussian seminary of equal rank, and have given proof of this by
presenting evidence to the chief president; 4. The setting aside of the
rights of the patron and congregation of themselves filling the vacant
pastorates during a vacancy in the episcopal see. The new law obtained
royal sanction on _May 31st, 1882_. But its two most important articles, 2
and 3, remained for a long time a dead letter, and even Article 1 was only
carried out by the resumption of the state emoluments for the
Hohenzollerns and the five newly instituted bishoprics (Par. 10), but not
for the other seven. But the ill humour of the ultramontane Hotspurs was
raised to the boiling point by the fate of the bill introduced by the
Centre into the Reichstag to set aside the Expatriation Law of May 4th,
1874, which seemed to the government indispensable on account of its
applicability to the agitations against the empire of the Polish clergy.
This bill, after violent debates, was carried on January 18th, 1882, by a
two-thirds majority; but it was cast out by the Federal Council on June
6th, almost unanimously, only Bavaria and Reuss _jüngere Linie_ voting in
its favour. This was the result mainly of the failure of all the attempts
of Von Schlözer to render the government’s concessions acceptable to the
papal curia.—On the other hand, the government of its own accord brought
in a third revision scheme in June, 1883, by which it sought to relieve as
far as possible the troubles of the Catholic church. By adopting this law:
(1) The obligation of notification on the part of the bishops and the
right of the state to protest on the change of temporary assistants and
substitutes into regular spiritual officers, were abolished; as also (2)
the competence of the court for ecclesiastical affairs in appeals against
the protest of the chief president, which now therefore, according to the
generally prevailing rule, are referred to the minister of worship, the
whole ministry, the parliament, the king; (3) the immunity from punishment
in the execution of their office guaranteed in Article 5 of the July law
of 1880 (Par. 10) was extended to all spiritual offices whether vacant or
not; (4) the ordaining of individual candidates in vacant dioceses by
bishops recognised by the state was declared to be legal. In spite of
repeated declarations of the curia that it could and would agree to the
notification only after a previous sufficient guarantee of perfectly free
training of the clergy and free administration of the spiritual office,
the king while residing at the Castle of Mainau on Lake Constance, on July
11th, 1883, sanctioned the so-called Mainau Law that had passed both
houses, and on the 14th, the minister of public worship demanded that the
Prussian bishops, without making notification, should fill up vacancies in
pastorates by appointing assistants, and should name those candidates who
were eligible for such appointment under the conditions of the May Law of
the previous year (Par. 3). The pope at last, in September, 1883, allowed
the dispensation required, but for that time only and without prejudice
for the future. By the end of May, 1,884 applications had been made to the
senior of the Prussian episcopate appointed to receive such, Marnitz of
Kulm, by 1,443 clergymen, of whom the government rejected only 178 who had
studied at the Jesuit institutions of Rome, Louvain, and Innsbrück.—In
December, 1883, Bishop Blum of Limburg, and in January, 1884, Brinkmann of
Münster were restored by royal grace, and for both dioceses, as well as
for Ermeland, Kulm and Hildesheim, and at last also on March 31st, shortly
before the closing of the door, even for Cologne, in this case, however,
revocably, the arrest of salaries ceased, so that only the two
archiepiscopal sees of Cologne and Posen remained vacant, and only Posen
continued bereft of its endowments. On the other hand the government
allowed the three discretionary enactments that were in operation till
April 1st, 1884, to lapse without providing for their renewal. Also the
proposal for abolishing the Expatriation Law of November, 1884, introduced
anew by the Centre and again adopted by the Reichstag by a great majority,
was thrown out by the Federal Council; but in the beginning of December,
on the opening of the new Reichstag, it was again brought in by the Centre
and passed, but was left quite unnoticed by the Federal Council. The
repeated motions of the Centre for payment of the bishops’ salaries from
the state exchequer, as well as for immunity to those who read mass and
dispensed the sacraments, were again thrown out by the House of Deputies
in April, 1885.
12. _Resumption on both sides of Conciliatory Measures, 1885-1886._—The
next subject of negotiation with the curia was the re-institution of the
archiepiscopal see of Posen-Gnesen. In March, 1884, the pope had nominated
Cardinal Ledochowski secretary of the committee on petitions, in which
capacity he had to remain in Rome. He now declared himself willing to
accept Ledochowski’s resignation of the archbishopric if the Prussian
government would allow a successor who would possess the confidence of the
holy see as well as of the Polish inhabitants of the diocese. But of the
three noble Polish chauvinists submitted by the Vatican the government
could accept none. Since further no agreement could be reached on the
question of the bishop’s obligation to make notification and the state’s
right to protest, the negotiations were for a long time at a standstill,
and were repeatedly on the point of being broken off. But from the middle
of 1885, a conciliatory movement gained power, through the counsels of the
more moderate party among the cardinals. Archbishop Melchers, who lived as
an exile in Maestricht, was called to Rome, and as a reward for his
assistance was made cardinal, and the pope consecrated as his successor in
the archbishopric of Cologne, Bishop Krementz of Ermeland (Par. 2), who
also was acknowledged by the Prussian government and introduced to Cologne
on December 15th, 1885, with great pomp, with 20,000 torches and twenty
bands of music. After a long list of candidates had been set aside by one
side and the other, some here, some there, the pope at last fell from his
demand for one of Polish nationality, and in March, 1886, appointed to the
vacant see Julius Dinder, dean of Königsberg, a German by nation but
speaking the Polish language.—Meanwhile at other points advance was made
in the peaceful, yea, even friendly, relations between the pope and the
Prussian government. The diplomatist Leo showed his admiring regard for
the diplomatist Bismarck by sending him a valuable oil-painting of himself
by a Münich master, and the latter astonished the world by making the pope
umpire in a threatening conflict with Spain on the possession of the
Caroline islands. His decision on the main question was indeed in favour
of Spain, but not unimportant concessions were also made to Germany. The
pope sent the prince two Latin poems as _pretium affectionis_, and
conferred upon him, the first Protestant that had ever been so honoured,
at the close of 1885 or beginning of 1886, the highest papal order, the
insignia of the Order of Christ, with brilliants, after the cardinal
secretary of state Jacobini as president of the papal court of arbitration
had been rewarded with the Prussian order of the Black Eagle, and the
other members of the court with other high Prussian orders; and at the end
of April, 1886, the German emperor sent the pope himself thanks for his
mediation, with an artistic and costly Pectoral (§ 59, 7) worth 10,000
marks.—The government had, meanwhile, on February 15th, 1886, brought in a
new proposal of revision of church polity, the fourth, and in order to
secure the advice of a distinguished representative of the Prussian
episcopate, called Bishop Kopp of Fulda to the House of Peers. But as his
demands for concessions, suggested to him, not by the pope, but by the
Centre, went far beyond what was proposed, they were for the most part
decidedly opposed by the minister of worship and rejected by the house.
The law confirmed by the king on May 24th, 1886, made the following
changes: Complete abolition of the examination in general culture; freeing
of the seminaries recognised by the minister as suitable for clerical
training, as well as faculties established in universities, seminaries and
gymnasia from any special state inspection (as laid down in the May Laws),
and subjecting such to the common laws affecting all similar educational
institutions. Removal of restrictions requiring ecclesiastical
disciplinary procedure to be only before German ecclesiastical courts;
Abolition of the Court for Ecclesiastical Affairs and transference of its
functions partly to the ministry of worship, which now as court of appeal
in matters of church discipline dealt only with those cases which entailed
a loss or reduction of official income, partly to the Berlin supreme
court, which has jurisdiction in case of a breach of the law of the state
by a church officer as well as in case of a refusal to fulfil the oath of
obedience; The discretionary enactments of the government of 1880 (Par.
10) are again enforced and the modifications of these in Article 6 of that
law are extended to all other institutions engaged on the home propaganda;
All reading of private masses and dispensing of sacraments are no longer
subjected to the infliction of penalties.—Some weeks before royal sanction
was given to this law, Cardinal Jacobini had, at the instance of the pope,
expressed his profound satisfaction with the success of the advice in the
House of Peers, as also particularly at the prospect of other concessions
promised by the government. In an official communication to the president
of the House of Deputies, he proposed the addition that the notification
of new appointments to vacant pastorates should begin from that date. In
August there followed, on the part of the government, the hitherto refused
dispensation for those trained by the Jesuits in Rome and Innsbrück, and
in November, with consent of the minister of public worship, the
re-opening of the episcopal seminaries at Fulda and Treves.
13. _Definitive Conclusion of Peace, 1887._—In February, 1887, the state
journal published a new form of oath for the bishops, sanctioned by royal
ordinance, in which the obligation hitherto enforced “to conscientiously
observe the laws of the state,” was omitted, and the asseveration added,
“that I have not, by the oath, taken to his Holiness the pope and the
church, undertaken any obligation which can be in conflict with the oath
of fidelity as a subject of his Royal Majesty.”—The promised fifth
revision, meanwhile accepted by the pope in its several particulars and
acknowledged by him as sufficient basis for a definitive peace, was on
February 13th, 1887, contrary to precedent, first laid before the House of
Peers. Bishop Kopp proposed a great number of changes and additions, of
which several of a very important nature were accepted. The most important
provisions of this law, which was passed on _April 29th, 1887_, are the
following: The obligation on bishops to make notification applies only to
the conferring of a spiritual office for life, and the right of protest by
the state must rely upon a basis named and belonging to the civil domain;
All state compulsion to lifelong reinstatement in a vacant office is
unlawful; The previously insured immunity for reading mass and dispensing
the sacraments is now applied to members of all spiritual orders again
allowed in the kingdom; The duty of ecclesiastical superiors to
communicate disciplinary decisions to the Chief President is given up.
Those orders and congregations which devote themselves to aiding in
pastoral work, the administering of Christian benevolence, and, on Bishop
Kopp’s motion, those which engage in educational work in girl’s high
schools and similar institutions, as well as those which lead a private
life, are to be allowed and are to be also restored to the enjoyment of
their original possessions; The training of missionaries for foreign work
and the erection of institutions for this purpose are to be permitted to
the privileged orders and congregations.—Bishop Kopp, and also the pope,
with lively gratitude, accepted these ordinances as making the
reconciliation an accomplished fact; but they also expressed the hope that
the success of this peaceful arrangement will be such as shall lead to
further important concessions to the rightful claims of the Catholic
church. After this conclusive revision, besides the extremely contracted
obligation of notification by the bishops and the almost completely
insignificant right of civil protest, there remain of the _Kulturkampf_
laws only: the _Kanzelparagraph_, the Jesuit and the exile enactments (all
of them imperial and not Prussian laws), and the abrogation of the three
articles of the Prussian constitution (Par. 8). Insignificant as the
concessions of the papal curia may seem in comparison to the almost
complete surrender of the Prussian government, it can hardly be said that
Bismarck has been untrue to his promise not to go to Canossa. With him the
main thing ever was to restore within the German empire the peace that was
threatened by thunderclouds gathering from day to day in the political
horizon in east and west, and thus, as also by nurturing and developing
the military forces, to set aside the danger of war from without. But for
this end, the sovereignty of the Centre, which hampered him on every side,
allying itself with all elements in the Chamber and Reichstag hostile to
the government and the empire, must be broken. But this was possible only
if he succeeded in breaking up the unhallowed artificial amalgamation of
Catholic church interests for which the Centre contended with the
political tendencies of the party hostile to the empire by recognising
those interests in a manner satisfactory to the pope and to all
right-minded loyal German Catholics, and so estranging them from the
political schemes of the leader of the Centre. This indeed would have
scarcely been possible with Pius IX., but with the much clearer and
sharper Leo XIII. there was hope of success. And the statesmanlike insight
and self-denial of the prince succeeded, though at first only in a limited
measure, and this was a much more important gain for the state than the
papal concessions of episcopal notification and the state’s right of
protest.—When in the beginning of 1887, at the same time that the fear was
greatest of a war with France and Russia, the renewal and enlargement of
the military budget, hitherto for seven years, was necessary, and its
refusal by the Centre and its adherents was regarded as certain, Bismarck
prevailed on the pope to intervene in his favour. The pope did it in a
confidential communication to the president of the Centre, in which he
urged acceptance of the septennial act in the Reichstag for the security
of the Fatherland and the conserving of peace on the continent, expressly
referring to the friendly and promising attitude of the imperial
government to the papacy and the Catholic church. But the president kept
the communication secret from the members of his party, and they continued
strenuously and unanimously opposed to the Septennate. The Reichstag was
consequently dissolved. The pope now published this correspondence with
the leaders of the Centre, thirty-seven Rhenish nobles separated from the
party, and the new elections to the Reichstag were mainly favourable to
the government. Although the Deputy Windthorst as chief leader of the
Prussian _Ecclesia militans_ had on every occasion protested his and his
party’s profoundest reverence for and conditional submission to every
expression of the papal will, and shortly before (§ 186, 3) had styled the
pope “Lord of the whole world,” he opposed himself, as he had done on the
Septennate question, on the fifth revision of the ecclesiastical laws, to
the will of the infallible pope by publishing a memorial proving the
absolute impossibility of accepting this proposed law, which, however,
this time also he failed to carry out.
14. _Independent Procedure of the other German Governments._—(1)
_Bavaria’s_ energy in the struggle against ultramontanism (Par. 4) soon
cooled. Yet in 1873 the Redemptorists were instructed to discontinue their
missionary work (§ 186, 6), and all theological students were forbidden to
attend the Jesuit German College at Rome (§ 151, 1). Also in 1875, the
jubilee processions organized by the episcopate without obtaining the
royal _Placet_ were inhibited.—(2) _Württemberg_, which since 1862
possessed more civil jurisdiction over Catholic church affairs and
exercised it more freely (§ 196, 6) than Prussia laid claim to in 1873,
could all the more easily maintain ecclesiastical peace, since its
peaceful Bishop Hefele (§ 189, 3, 4; 191, 7) avoided all occasion of
conflict and strife.—(3) In _Baden_ the _Kulturkampf_ that had here
previously broken out (§ 196, 2) was continued all the more keenly. In
1873 public teaching, holding of missions and assisting in pastoral work,
had been refused to all religious orders and fraternities. But the main
blow, followed by the comprehensive church legislation of February 19th,
1874, which closed all boys’ seminaries and episcopal institutions,
allowed none to hold a clerical office or discharge any ecclesiastical
function without a three years’ course at a German university and a state
examination in general culture (§ 196, 2), strictly forbad all influencing
of public elections by the clergy, and made deposition follow the second
conviction of a church officer. The expedient hitherto resorted to of
appointing mere deputy priests so as to avoid the examination, was
consequently frustrated. The rapid increase of vacant pastorates, after
five years’ opposition, at last moved the episcopal curia to sue for peace
at the hands of the government, and when the latter showed an exceedingly
conciliatory spirit, the curia with consent of the pope in February, 1880,
withdrew its prohibition of the request for dispensation from the state
examination, and the government now on its part with the Chambers passed a
law, by which the obligation to undergo this examination was abolished,
and the certificate of the exit examination, three years’ attendance at a
German university, and diligent attention to at least three courses of the
philosophical faculty, was held as sufficient evidence of general culture.
The Baden _Kulturkampf_ seems to have been definitely concluded by the
election and recognition of Dr. Orbin to the see of Freiburg, vacant for
fourteen years, when he without scruple took the oath of allegiance. This,
however, did not check, far less put an end to the tumults of the
fanatical ultramontane Irredenta.
15.—(4) _Hesse-Darmstadt_ in 1874 followed the example of Prussia and
Baden in excluding all spiritual orders from teaching in public schools,
and on April 23rd, 1875, issued five ecclesiastical laws which were
directed to restoring under penal sanctions the state of the law, which
before 1850 (§ 196, 4) had been unquestioned. Essentially in harmony with
the Prussian May Laws of 1873 and 1874, they go beyond these in several
particulars. All clergymen receiving appointments, _e.g._, must have gone
through a full university course; all religious orders and congregations
were to be allowed to die out; public roads and squares could be used for
ecclesiastical festivals only by permission of the government to be
renewed on each occasion. The “contentious” Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, who
stirred up the fire to the utmost with the Prussian brand, and had kindled
also a similar flame in Hesse over the proposal of this law, held still
that to view martyrdom at a distance was the better part, and carefully
avoided any overt act of disobedience. But he immediately refused to
co-operate in restoring the Catholic theological faculty at Giessen, and
the government consequently abandoned the idea. The Mainz see after
Ketteler’s death in 1877 remained long vacant, as the government felt
obliged to reject the electoral list submitted by the chapter. A candidate
satisfactory to the Vatican and the government was only found in May,
1886, in the person of Dr. Haffner, a member of the chapter. After Prussia
had concluded its definitive peace with Rome, the Hessian government, in
May, 1887, laid before the house of representatives a revision of
ecclesiastical legislation of 1875, like that of Prussia, only not going
so far, for which meanwhile the approval of the papal curia had been
obtained. It agrees to the erection of a Catholic clerical seminary, and
Catholic students’ residences in this seminary and in the state-gymnasia;
erection of independent boys’ institutions preparatory to the seminary for
priests is, however, still refused; the existing duty of bishops to make
notification, and the right of the state to protest in regard to
appointments to vacant pastorates are also retained. There is no word of
rehabilitating religious orders and congregations, nor of any limitation
of the law about the exercise of ecclesiastical punishment and means of
discipline.—(5) Last of all among the German states affected by the
_Kulturkampf_, the kingdom of _Saxony_, with only 73,000 Catholic
inhabitants, at the instance of the second Chamber in 1876, came forward
with a Catholic church law modelled upon the Prussian May Laws, with its
several provisions modified, in spite of the contention of the talented
heir to the throne, Prince George, that the power of the state in relation
to the Catholic church could only be determined by a concordat with the
Roman curia.
§ 198. Austria-Hungary.
To the emperor of Austria there was left, after the re-organization of
affairs by the Vienna Congress, of the Roman empire, only the name of
defender of the papal see, and the Catholic church, and the presidency of
the German Federal Council. The remnants of the Josephine ecclesiastical
constitution were gradually set aside and Catholicism firmly established
as the state religion; yet the government asserted its independence
against all hierarchical claims, and granted, though only in a very
limited degree, toleration to Protestantism. The revolution year 1848
removed indeed some of these limits, but the period of reaction that
followed gave, by means of a concordat concluded with the curia in 1855,
to the ultramontane hierarchy of the country an unprecedented power in
almost all departments of civil life, and prejudicial also to the
interests of the Protestant church. After the disastrous issue of the
Italian war in 1859, and still more that of the German war in 1866, the
government was obliged to make an honest effort to introduce and develop
liberal institutions. And after an imperial patent of 1861 had secured
religious liberty, self-administration, and equal rights to the Protestant
church, the constitutional legislation of 1868 freed Catholic as well as
Protestant civil, educational, and ecclesiastical matters from the
provisions of the concordat that most seriously threatened them, and by
the declaration of papal infallibility in 1870 the government felt
justified in regarding the entire concordat as antiquated and declaring it
abolished. In its place a Catholic church act was passed by the state in
1874. But the _Kulturkampf_ struggle which was thus made imminent also for
Austria was avoided by pliancy on both sides.
1. _The Zillerthal Emigration._—In the Tyrolese _Zillerthal_ the knowledge
of evangelical truth had spread among several families by means of
Protestant books and Bibles. When the Catholic clergy from 1826 had pushed
to its utmost the clerical guardianship by means of auricular confession,
an opposition arose which soon from the refusal to confess passed on to
the rejection of saint worship, masses for the dead, purgatory,
indulgences, etc., and ended in the formal secession of many to the
evangelical church in 1830, with a reference to the Josephine edict of
toleration. The emperor Francis I., to whom on the occasion of his visit
to Innsbrück in 1832 they presented their petition, promised them
toleration. But the Tyrolese nobles protested, and the official decision,
given at last in 1834, ordered removal to Transylvania or return to the
Catholic church. The petitioners now applied, as those of Salzburg had
previously done (§ 165, 4), by a deputation to the king of Prussia, who,
after by diplomatic communications securing the emperor’s consent to
emigration, assigned them his estate of Erdmannsdorf in Silesia for
colonization. There now the exiles, 399 in number, settled in 1837, and,
largely aided by the royal munificence, founded a new Zillerthal.
2. _The Concordat._—After the revolution year 1848, the government were
far more yielding toward the claims of the hierarchy than under the old
Metternich _régime_. In April, 1850, an imperial patent relieved the papal
and episcopal decrees of the necessity of imperial approval, and on August
18th, 1855, a concordat with the pope was agreed to, by which
unprecedented power and independence was granted to the hierarchy in
Austria for all time to come. The first article secured to the Roman
Catholic religion throughout the empire all rights and privileges which
they claimed by divine institution and the canon law. The others gave to
the bishops the right of unrestricted correspondence with Rome, declared
that no papal ordinance required any longer the royal _placet_, that
prelates are unfettered in the discharge of their hierarchical
obligations, that religious instruction in all schools is under their
supervision, that no one can teach religion or theology without their
approval, that in catholic schools there can be only catholic teachers,
that they have the right of forbidding all books which may be injurious to
the faithful, that all cases of ecclesiastical law, especially marriage
matters, belong to their jurisdiction, yet the apostolic see grants that
purely secular law matters of the clergy are to be decided before a civil
tribunal, and the emperor’s right of nomination to vacant episcopal sees
is to continue, etc. The inferior clergy, who were now without legal
protection against the prelates, only reluctantly bowed their necks to
this hard yoke; the liberal Catholic laity murmured, sneered, and raged,
and the native press incessantly urged a revision of the concordat, the
necessity of which became ever more apparent from concessions made
meanwhile willingly or grudgingly to the “Non-Catholics.” But only after
Austria, by the issue of the German war of 1866, was restricted to her own
domain, and finally freed from the drag of its ultramontane Italian
interests, found herself obliged to make every effort to reconcile the
opposing parties within her own territories, could these views prove
successful. But since the government nevertheless held firmly by the
principle that the concordat, as a state contract regularly concluded
between two sovereigns, could be changed only by mutual consent, the
liberal majority of the house of deputies resolved to make it as harmless
as possible by means of domestic legislation, and on June 11th, 1867, the
deputy Herbst moved the appointment of a committee for drawing up three
bills for restoring civil marriage, emancipation of schools from the
church, and equality of all confessions in the eye of the law. The motion
was carried by a hundred and thirty-four votes against twenty-two. The
Cisleithan (_i.e._ Austrian excluding Hungary) episcopate, with Cardinal
Rauscher of Vienna at their head, presented an address to his apostolic
majesty demanding the most rigid preservation of the concordat, denouncing
civil marriage as concubinage, and the emancipation of schools as their
dechristianizing. An imperial autograph letter to Rauscher rebuked with
earnest words the inflammatory proceedings of the bishops, and at the same
time the ultramontane ambassador to Rome, Baron Hübner, was recalled.
After the arrangement with Hungary was completed, the first Cisleithan,
the so-called Burger, ministry was constituted under the presidency of
Prince Auersperg, composed of the most distinguished leaders of the
parliamentary majority. All the three bills were passed by a large
majority, and obtained imperial sanction on _May 25th, 1868_. The papal
nuncio of Vienna protested, the pope in an allocution denounced the new
Austrian constitution as _nefanda sane_ and the three confessional laws as
_abominabiles leges_. “We repudiate and condemn these laws,” he says, “by
apostolic authority, as well as everything done by the Austrian government
in matters of church policy, and determine in the exercise of the same
authority that these decrees with all their consequences are and shall be
null and void.” But all Vienna, all Austria held jubilee, and the
Chancellor von Beust rejected with energy the assumptions of the curia
over the civil domain. The bishops indeed issued protests and inflammatory
pastorals, and forbad the publication of the marriage act, but submitted
to the threats of compulsion by the supreme court, and Bishop Rudigier of
Linz, who went furthest in inciting to opposition, was in 1869 taken into
court by the police, and sentenced to twelve days’ imprisonment, but
pardoned by the emperor. Toward the Vatican Council Austria assumed at
first a waiting policy, then in vain remonstrated, warned, threatened, and
finally, on July 30th, 1870, after the proclamation of infallibility,
declared that the concordat was antiquated and abolished, because by this
dogma the position of one of the contracting parties had undergone a
complete change.
3. _The Protestant Church in Cisleithan Austria._—Down to 1848
Protestantism of both confessions in Austria enjoyed only a very limited
toleration. The storms of this year first set aside the hated official
name of “Non-Catholics,” and won permission for Protestant places of
worship to have bells and towers. But the repeated petitions for
permission to found branches of the _Gustavus Adolphus Union_, the
persistently maintained law that Catholic clergymen, even after they had
formally become Protestants, could not marry, because the _character
indelibilis_ of priestly consecration attached itself even to apostates,
and many such facts, prove that the government was far from intending to
grant to the Protestants civil equality with the Catholics. But the
unfortunate result of the Sardinian-French war of 1859, and the fear
thereby increased of the falling asunder of the whole Austrian federation,
induced the government to address itself earnestly to the introduction of
liberal institutions, and also to do justice to the Protestant church. The
presidency of the two Protestant consistories in Vienna, hitherto given to
a Catholic, was now assigned to a Protestant; meetings of the Gustavus
Adolphus Union were now allowed, and a share was given to the Protestant
party in the ministry of public worship by the appointment of three
evangelical councillors. After the entrance on office of the liberal
minister Von Schmerling, an imperial patent was issued on April 8th, 1864,
by which unrestricted liberty of faith, independent administration of all
ecclesiastical, educational, and charitable matters, free election of
pastors, even from abroad, full exercise of civil and political rights,
and complete equality with Catholics was given to the Protestants of the
German and Slavonian crown territories. Also in 1868, under the
reactionary ministry of Belcredi, on the expiry of the legal term of the
Evangelical Supreme Church Council, it was reorganized, two evangelical
school councillorships were created, and the pecuniary position of the
evangelical clergy considerably improved. But in spite of all privileges
legally granted to the evangelical church, it continued in many cases, in
presence of the concordat, which down to 1870 still remained in force,
exposed to the whims and caprice, sometimes of the imperial courts,
sometimes of the Catholic clergy.
4. _The Clerical Landtag Opposition in the Tyrol._—In the _Tyrol_, after
the publication of the imperial patent of April, 1861, a violent movement
was set on foot by clerical agitation. The Landtag, by a great majority,
pronounced the issuing of it the most serious calamity which the country,
hitherto honest, true, and happy in its undivided attachment to the
Catholic faith, could have suffered, and concluded that Non-Catholics in
the Tyrol should only by way of dispensation be allowed, but that
publicity of Protestant worship and formation of Protestant congregations
should be still forbidden. The Schmerling ministry, indeed, refused to
confirm these resolutions. The agitation of the clergy, however, which
fanned in all possible ways the fanaticism of the people, grew from year
to year, until at last the Belcredi ministry of 1866 came to an agreement
with the Landtag, sanctioned by the emperor, according to which the
creation of an evangelical landed proprietary in the Tyrol was not indeed
formally forbidden, but permission for an evangelical to possess land had
in each case to be obtained from the Landtag. The ecclesiastical laws of
1868 next called forth new conflicts. Twice was the Landtag closed because
of the opposition thus awakened, until finally in September, 1870, the
estates took the oath to the new constitution with reservation of
conscience. But now, when in December, 1875, the ministry of worship gave
approval to the formal constituting of two evangelical congregations in
the Tyrol, at Innsbrück and Meran, the clerical press was filled with
burning denunciations, and the majority of the Landtag meeting in the
following March thought to give emphasis to their protest by leaving the
chamber, and so bringing the assembly to a sudden close. In June, 1880,
the three bishops of the Tyrol uttered in the Landtag a fanatical protest
against the continuance of the meanwhile established congregations, which
the Landtag majority renewed in July, 1883.
5. _The Austrian Universities._—Stremayr, minister of public worship,
introduced in 1872 a scheme of university reorganization, by which the
exclusively Catholic character which had hitherto belonged to the Austrian
universities, especially those of Vienna and Prague, should be removed. Up
to this time a Non-Catholic could there obtain no sort of academical
degree, but this was now to be obtainable apart from any question of
confession. The office of chancellor, held by the archbishops of Prague
and Vienna, was restricted to the theological faculty, to the state was
assigned the right of nominating all professors, even in the theological
faculty, and the German language was recommended as the medium of
instruction. Candidates of theology have to pass through a full and
comprehensive course of theological science in a three years’ university
curriculum, before they can be admitted into an episcopal seminary for
practical training. In spite of the opposition of the superior clergy, the
bill passed even in the House of Peers, and became law in 1873.—In
Innsbrück, where according to ancient custom the rector was chosen from
the four faculties in succession, the other faculties protested against
the election when, in 1872, the turn came to the theological (Jesuit)
faculty, and they carried their point. The new organization law gave the
choice of rector to the whole professoriate, and a subsequent imperial
order withdrew from the general of the Jesuits the right of nominating all
theological professors.—Much was done, too, for the elevation of the
evangelical theological faculty in Vienna by bringing able scholars from
Germany, by giving a right to the promotion to the degree of doctor of
theology, etc. But its incorporation in the university, though often moved
for, was hindered by the continued opposition of the Catholic theologians
as well as philosophers, and in 1873 it did not meet with sufficient
support in the House of Peers. Even the use of certain halls in the
university buildings, promised by the minister, could not yet be obtained.
6. _The Austrian Ecclesiastical Laws, 1874-1876._—At last the government
in January, 1874, introduced the long-promised Catholic church legislation
into the Reichstag, intended to supply blanks occasioned by the setting
aside of the concordat. Its main contents are these:
I. The concordat, hitherto only diplomatically dealt with, is now
legislatively annulled; the bishops have to present all their manifestoes
not before but upon publication to the state government for its
cognisance; every vacancy of an ecclesiastical office, as well as every
new appointment to such, is to be notified to the civil court, which can
raise objections against such appointment within thirty days; the minister
of worship then decides on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the
candidate; legal deposition of a church officer involves withdrawal of the
emoluments; the performance of unusual practices in public worship of a
demonstrative character can be prohibited by the civil court; any misuse
of ecclesiastical authority in restraining any one from obeying the laws
of the land or from exercising his civil rights is strictly interdicted.
II. The ecclesiastical revenues and the income of the cloisters are
subjected to a progressive taxation on behalf of a religious fund, mainly
for improving the condition of the lower clergy, for which the episcopate
hitherto, in spite of all entreaties, had done practically nothing. III.
Newly formed religious societies received state recognition if their
denomination and principles contain nothing contrary to law and morality
or offensive to those of another faith. IV. The state grants or refuses
its approval of the establishment of spiritual orders, congregations, and
ecclesiastical societies; institutions and legacies for them amounting to
over three thousand gulden require state sanction; any member is free to
quit any order; all orders must report annually on the personal changes
and disciplinary punishments that have taken place; at any time when
occasion calls for it they may be subjected to a visitation by the civil
court.(107)—In vain did the pope by an encyclical seek to rouse the
episcopate to violent opposition, in vain did he adjure the emperor in a
letter in his own hand not to suffer the church to be put into such
disgraceful bondage; the House of Deputies approved the four bills, and
the emperor in _May, 1874_, confirmed at least the first three, while the
fourth was being debated in the House of Peers. The bishops now issued a
joint declaration that they could obey these laws only in so far as they
“were in harmony with the demands of justice as stated in the concordat.”
But it did not go to the length of actual conflict. Neither to the pope
and episcopate, nor to the government was such a thing convenient at the
time. Hence the attitude of reserve on both sides, which kept everything
as it had been. And when notwithstanding Bishop Rudigier of Linz,
threatened with fines on account of his refusal to notify the newly
appointed priests, appealed to the pope, he obtained through the Vienna
nuncio permission to yield on this point, “_non dissentit tolerari
posse_.” But all the more urgently did the nuncio strive to prevent the
passing of the sweeping cloister law. In January, 1876, it was passed in
the House of Peers with modifications, to which, however, the emperor
refused his assent. Also the revised marriage law of the same date, which
removed the hindrances to marriage incorporated even in the book of civil
law, and no longer recognised differences of religion, Christians and
non-Christians, the remarriage of separated parties of whom at the time of
the first marriage only one party belonged to the Catholic church, higher
consecration and the vows of orders, did not pass the House of Peers.
7. _The Protestant Church in the Transleithan Provinces._—In _Hungary_
since 1833 the Reichstag had by bold action won for the Protestants full
equality with the Catholics, but in consequence of the revolution, the
military lordship of the Protestant Haynau in 1850 again put in fetters
all independent life in both Protestant churches. The Haynau decree was,
indeed, again abrogated in 1854, but full return to the earlier autonomy
of the church, in spite of all petitions and deputations, could never be
regained, all the less as Hungary in all too decided a manner rejected the
constitutional proposals submitted by the Government in 1856. The liberal
imperial patent of September 1st, 1859, which secured independent
administration and development to the Protestant church in the crown
possessions of Hungary, got no better reception. In the German-Slavonian
districts of North Hungary, as well as in Croatia, Slavonia, and Austrian
Servia, it was greeted with jubilation and gratitude, but the Magyar
Hungarians declined on many, for the most part frivolous, grounds, mainly
because it emanated from the emperor, and did not originate in an
autonomous synod. When the government showed its intention of going
forward with it, the opposition was carried to the utmost extreme, so that
the emperor was obliged temporarily to suspend proceedings in May, 1860.
Still the ecclesiastical joined with the political movement continued to
increase until in 1867 the imperial chancellor, Von Beust, succeeded in
quieting both for a time by the Hungarian Agreement. On June 8th of that
year, the emperor, Francis Joseph, on ratifying the agreement, was
solemnly crowned King of Hungary. The hated patent had been shortly before
revoked by an imperial edict, with the direction to order church matters
in a constitutional way. After a complete reconciliation, at a General
Protestant Convention in December, 1867, with the Patent congregations,
hitherto denounced as unpatriotic, it was concluded that to the state
belonged only a right of protection and oversight of the church, which is
autonomous in all its internal affairs, but to all confessions perfect
freedom in law, and that there should be not a separate religious
legislation for each, but a common one for all confessions. A committee
first appointed in 1873 for this purpose, with the motto, “A Free Church
in a Free State,” constituted, and then adjourned _ad kalendas Græcas_.
§ 199. Switzerland.
The Catholic church of Switzerland, after long continued troubles,
obtained again a regular hierarchical organization in 1828. Since that
time the Jesuits settled there in crowds, and assumed to themselves in
most of the Catholic cantons the whole direction of church and schools.
The unfortunate issue of the cantonal war of 1847 led indeed to their
banishment by law, but, favoured by the bishops, they knew how still to
re-enter by back doors and secretly to regain their earlier influence. The
city of Calvin was the centre of their plots, not only for Switzerland,
but also for all Cisalpine Europe, until at last the overstrained bow
broke, and the Swiss governments became the most decided and
uncompromising opponents of the ultramontane claims. In 1873 the papal
nuncio, in consequence of a papal encyclical insulting the government, was
banished.—In Protestant Switzerland, besides the destructive influence of
the Illumination, antagonistic to the church, and radical liberalism,
there appeared a soil receptive of pietism, separatism, and fanaticism,
whose first cultivation has been ascribed to Madame Krüdener (§ 176, 2).
In the Protestant church of German Switzerland the religious and
theological developments stood regularly in lively connexion with similar
movements in Germany, while those in the French cantons received their
impulse and support from France and England. From France, to which they
were allied by a common language, they learned the unbelief of the
encyclopædists (§ 165, 14), while travelling Englishmen and those residing
in the country for a longer period introduced the fervour and superstition
of Methodism and other sects.
1. _The Catholic Church in Switzerland till 1870._—The ecclesiastical
superintendence of Catholic Switzerland was previously subject to the
neighbouring foreign bishoprics. But for immediate preservation of its
interests the curia had appointed a nunciature at Lucerne in 1588. When
now, in 1814, the liberal Wessenberg (§ 187, 3), already long suspected of
heresy, was called as coadjutor to Constance, the nuncio manœuvred with
the Catholic confederates till these petitioned the pope for the
establishment of an independent and national bishopric. But when each of
the cantons interested claimed to be made the episcopal residence
negotiations were at last suspended, and in 1828 six small bishoprics were
erected under immediate control of Rome. At the end of 1833 the diocesan
representatives of Basel and St. Gall assembled in Baden to consult about
the restoration of a national Swiss Metropolitan Union and a common state
church constitution for securing church and state against the
encroachments of the Romish hierarchy. But Gregory XIV. condemned the
articles of conference here agreed upon, which would have given to
Switzerland only what other states had long possessed, as false,
audacious, and erroneous, destructive of the church, heretical, and
schismatic, and among the Catholic people a revolt was stirred up by
ultramontane fanaticism, under the influence of which the whole action was
soon frustrated. On the occasion of a revision of the constitution of the
canton of Aargau, a revolt, led by the cloisters, broke out in 1841. But
the rebels were defeated, and the grand council resolved upon the closing
of all cloisters, eight in number. Complaint made against this at the diet
was regarded as satisfied by the Aargau Agreement of 1843 restoring three
nunneries. An opposition was organized against the revision of the
constitution of Canton _Lucerne_ in 1841. The liberal government was
overthrown, and the new constitution, in which the state insisted on its
_placet_ in ecclesiastical matters and the granting of cantonal civil
rights to those only who professed attachment to the Roman Catholic
church, was submitted to the pope for approval. At last, in 1844, the
academy of Lucerne was given over to the Jesuits, for which Joseph Leu,
the popular agitator, as member of the grand council, had wrought
unweariedly since 1839. In Canton _Vaud_ the parties of old or clerical
and young Switzerland contended with one another for the mastery. The
latter suffered an utter defeat in 1844, and the constitution which was
then carried allowed the right of public worship only to the Catholic
church. In consequence of this victory of the clerical party Catholic
Switzerland with Lucerne at its head became a main centre of
ultramontanism and Jesuitism. At the diet of 1844, indeed, Aargau,
supported by numerous petitions from the people, moved for the banishment
of all Jesuits from all Switzerland, but the majority did not consent. The
Jesuit opponents expelled from Lucerne now organized twice over a free
volunteer corps to overthrow the ultramontane government and force the
expulsion of the Jesuits, but on both occasions, in 1844 and 1845, it
suffered a sore defeat. In face of the threateningly growing increase of
the excitement, which made them fear a decisive intervention of the diet,
the Catholic cantons formed in 1845 a _separate league_ (_Sonderbund_) for
the preservation of their faith and their sovereign rights. This
proceeding, irreconcilable with the Act of Federation, led to a civil war.
The members of the _Sonderbund_ were defeated, the ultramontane
governments had to resign, and the Jesuits departed in 1847. The new
Federal constitution which Switzerland adopted in 1848, secured
unconditional liberty of conscience and equality of all confessions, and
the expulsion of the Jesuits in terms of the law. But since that time
ultramontanism has gained the supremacy in Catholic Switzerland, and in
spite of the existing law against the Jesuits all the threads of the
ultramontane clerical movements in Switzerland were in the Jesuits’ hands.
These were never more successful than in Canton _Geneva_, where the
radical democratic agitator Fazy leagued himself closely with
ultramontanism to compass the destruction of the old Calvinistic
aristocracy, and by bringing in large numbers the lower class Catholics
from the neighbouring France and Savoy he obtained a considerable Catholic
majority in the canton, and in the capital itself made Catholics and
Protestants nearly equal.
2. _The Geneva Conflict, 1870-1883._—The Catholic church of Canton Geneva,
on the founding of the six Swiss bishoprics by a papal bull, had been
incorporated “for all time to come,” after the style of the concordat,
with the bishopric of Freiburg-Lausanne. But the government made no
objection when the newly elected priest of Geneva, Mermillod, a Jesuit of
the purest water, assumed the title and rank of an episcopal vicar-general
for the whole canton. But when in 1864 the pope nominated him bishop of
Hebron _in partibus_ and auxiliary bishop of Geneva, it made a protest.
Nevertheless, when, in the following year, Bishop Marilley of Freiburg by
papal orders transferred to him absolute power for the canton with
personal responsibility, and in 1870 formally renounced all episcopal
rights over it, so that the pope now appointed the auxiliary bishop
independent bishop of Geneva, it was evident a step had been taken that
could not be recalled. The government renewed its protest and made it more
vehement, in consequence of which, in January, 1873, by a papal brief
which was first officially communicated to the government after it had
already been proclaimed from all Catholic pulpits, Mermillod was appointed
apostolic vicar-general with unlimited authority for Canton Geneva, and
the district was thus practically made a Catholic mission field. A demand
made of him by the state to resign this office and title and divest
himself of every episcopal function, was answered by the declaration that
he would obey God rather than man. The _Bund_ then expelled him from
Federal territory until he would yield to that demand. From Ferney, where
he settled, he unceasingly stirred up the fire of opposition among the
Genevan clergy and people, but the government decidedly rejected all
protests, and by a popular vote obtained sanction for a Catholic church
law which restricted the rights of the diocesan bishop who might reside in
Switzerland, but not in Canton Geneva, and without consent of the
government could not appoint there any episcopal vicar, and transferred
the election of priests and priests’ vicars to the congregations. The next
elections returned Old Catholics, since the Roman Catholic population did
not acknowledge the law condemned by the pope and took no part in the
voting. By decision of the grand council of 1875 the abolition of all
religious corporations was next enacted, and all religious ceremonies and
processions in public streets and squares forbidden. Leo XIII. made an
attempt to still the conflict, for in 1879 he gave Bishop Marilley the
asked for discharge, and confirmed his elected successor, Cosandry, as
bishop of Freiburg, Lausanne, and Geneva, without however removing
Mermillod from his office of vicar apostolic of Geneva. But this actually
took place after the death of Cosandry in 1882 by the appointment of
Mermillod as his successor in 1883. As he now ceased to style himself a
vicar apostolic, the Federal council removed the decree of banishment as
the occasion of it had ceased, but left each canton free as to whether or
not it should accept him as bishop. Freiburg, Neuenburg, and Vaud accepted
him, and Mermillod had a brilliant entry into Freiburg, which he made his
episcopal residence. But Geneva refused to recognise him, because it had
already officially attached itself to the Old Catholic Bishop Herzog of
Berne, and Mermillod went so far in his ostentatious love of peace as to
declare that he would not in future enter Genevan territory.
3. _Conflict in the Diocese of Basel-Soleure, 1870-1880._—Bishop Lachat of
Soleure, whose diocese comprised the Cantons Bern, Soleure, Aargau, Basel,
Thurgau, Lucerne, and Zug, had been previously in conflict with the
diocesan conference, _i.e._ the delegates of the seven cantons entrusted
with the oversight of the ecclesiastical administration, on account of
introducing the prohibited handbook on morals of the Jesuit Gury (§ 191,
9), which ended in the closing of the seminary aided by the government,
and the erection of a new seminary at his own cost. Although the diocesan
conference next forbad the proclamation of the new Vatican dogma, the
bishop threatened excommunicated Egli in Lucerne in 1871, and Geschwind in
Starrkirch in 1872, who refused. The conference ordered the withdrawal of
this unlawful act, and on the bishop’s refusal, deposed him in January,
1873. The dissenting cantons, Lucerne and Zug, indeed declared that after
as well as before they would only recognise Lachat as lawful bishop, the
chapter refused to make the required election of administrator of the
diocese, the clergy in Soleure and in _Bernese Jura_ without exception
took the side of the bishop, as also by means of a popular vote the great
majority of Catholics in Thurgau. But amid all this the conference did not
yield in the least. Lachat was compelled by the police to quit his
episcopal residence, and withdrew to a village in Canton Lucerne. The
council of the Bernese government resolved to recall the refractory clergy
of the Jura, took their names off the civil register and forbad them to
exercise any clerical functions. The outbreaks incited by rebel clergy in
the Jura were put down by the military, sixty-nine clergymen were exiled,
and, so far as the means allowed, replaced by liberal successors
introduced by the Old Catholic priest Herzog (§ 190, 3) in Olten. In
November, 1875, permission to return home was granted to the exiles in
consequence of the revised Federal constitution of 1874, according to
which the banishment of Swiss burghers was no longer allowed. The Bernese
government felt all the more disposed to carry out this enactment of the
National Council, as it believed that it had obtained the legal means for
checking further rebellion and obstinacy among those who should return. On
January, 1874, by popular vote a law was sanctioned reorganizing the whole
ecclesiastical affairs of the _Canton Bern_. By it all clergy, Catholic as
well as Protestant, are ranked as civil officers, the choice of whom rests
with the congregations, the tenure of office lasting for six years. All
purely ecclesiastical affairs for the canton rest in the last instance
with a synod of the particular denomination, for the several congregations
with a church committee, both composed of freely elected lay and clerical
members. But if a dispute in a particular congregation should arise about
a synodal decree, the congregational assembly decides on its validity or
non-validity for the particular congregation. All decrees of higher church
courts and pastorals must have state approval, which must never be refused
on dogmatic grounds. If a congregation splits over any question, the
majority claims the church property and pastor’s emoluments, etc. And this
law was next extended in October 31st, 1875, in the matter of penal law by
the so-called Police Worship Law. It imposes heavy fines up to 1000 francs
or a year’s imprisonment for any clerical agitation against the law,
institutions or enactments of the civil courts, as well as for every
outbreak of hostilities against members of other religious bodies, refuses
to allow any interference of foreign spiritual superiors without leave
granted by government in each particular case, forbids all processions and
religious ceremonies outside of the fixed church locality, etc. In the
same year the first Catholic Cantonal Synod declared its attachment to the
Christian or Old Catholic church of Switzerland. But it was otherwise
after the newly elected Grand Council of the canton of its own accord, on
September 12th, 1878, granted the returned Jura clergy complete amnesty
for all the past, and on the assumption of future submission to existing
laws of state, recognised them again eligible for election to spiritual
offices which had previously been denied them. Not only did the Roman
Catholic people regularly take part in elections of priests, church
councils, and synods, undoubtedly with the approval of the new pope Leo
XIII., who had in February addressed a conciliatory letter to the members
of the Federal Council, but also the extremest of the Jura now submitted
without scruple to the new election required by the law, and won therein
for the most part the majority of votes. In the Catholic Cantonal Synod
convened in Bern, in January, 1880, were found seventy-five Roman
Catholics and only twenty-five Old Catholic deputies. The latter were
naturally defeated in all controversies. The synod declared that the
connexion with the Christian Catholic national bishopric was annulled,
that auricular confession was obligatory, that marriages of priests were
forbidden, etc. Since now the law assigns the state pay of the priest as
well as all the church property in the case of a split to the majority for
the time being, the inevitable consequence was that Old Catholics of the
Jura district were deprived of all share in these privileges, and had to
make provision for their own support. Also in Canton _Soleure_, the law
that all pastors must be re-elected after the expiry of six years, came in
force in 1872, and then the thirty-two Roman Catholic clergymen concerned
were with only two exceptions re-elected, while, on the other hand, the
Old Catholic priest Geschwind of Starrkirch was rejected.—But all efforts
to restore the bishopric of Basel-Soleure came to grief over the person of
Bishop Lachat, whom the curia would not give up and the Federal Council
would not again allow, until at last a way out of the difficulty was
found. The canton Tessin, which previously in church matters belonged to
the Italian dioceses of Milan and Como, was, in 1859, by decree of the
Federal Council, detached from these. But Tessin insisted on the founding
of a bishopric of its own, while the Federal Council wished to join it to
the bishopric of Chur. Thus the matter remained undecided, till in
September, 1884, the papal curia came to an understanding with the Federal
Council that Lachat should be appointed vicar-apostolic for the newly
founded bishopric of Tessin, and that to the vacated bishopric of
Basel-Soleure the “learned as well as mild” Provost Fiala of Soleure
should be called. In this way all the cantons referred to, with the
exception of Bern, were won.(108)
4. _The Protestant Church in German Switzerland._—Among all the German
cantons, _Basel_ (§ 172, 5), which unweariedly prosecuted the work of home
and foreign missions, fell most completely under the influence of
rationalism and then of the liberal Protestant theology. While pietism
obtained powerful support and encouragement in its missionary institutions
and movements, and there, though developing itself on Reformed soil,
assumed, in consequence of its manifold connection with Germany, a colour
almost more Lutheran than Reformed, the university by eminent theological
teachers of scientific ability represented the Mediation school in
theology of a predominantly Reformed type. In the Canton _Zürich_, on the
other hand, the advanced theology, theoretical and practical, obtained an
increasing and finally an almost exclusive mastery in the university and
church. But yet, when in 1839 the Grand Council called Dr. David Strauss
to a theological professorship, the Zürich people rose to a man against
the proposal, the appointment was not enforced, the Grand Council was
overthrown, and Strauss pensioned. The victory and ascendency of this
reaction, however, was not of long continuance. Theological and
ecclesiastical radicalism again won the upper hand and maintained it
unchecked. In the other German cantons the most diverse theological
schools were represented alongside of one another, yet with steadily
increasing advantage to liberal and radical tendencies. The theological
faculty at _Bern_ favoured mainly a liberal mediation theology, and an
attempt of the orthodox party in 1847, to set aside the appointment of
Professor E. Zeller by means of a popular tumult, miscarried. From 1860
ecclesiastical liberalism prevailed in German Protestant Switzerland,
frequently going the length of the extremest radicalism and showing its
influence even in the cantonal and synodal legislation. The starting of
the “_Zeitstimmen für d. ref. Schweiz_,” in 1859, by Henry Lang, who had
fled in 1848 from Württemberg to Switzerland, and died in 1876 as pastor
in Zürich, marked an epoch in the history of the radical liberal movement
in Swiss theology. In Fred. Langhans, since 1876 professor at Bern, he had
a zealous comrade in the fight. During 1864-1866, Langhans published a
series of violent controversial tracts against the pietistic orthodox
party in Switzerland, which zealously prosecuted foreign missions, and in
1866 he founded the _Swiss Reform __ Union_, while Alb. Bitzius, son of
the writer known as Jer. Gotthelf (§ 174, 8) started as its organ the
“_Reformblätter aus d. bernischen Kirche_,” which was subsequently
amalgamated with the _Zeitstimmem_.—After more or less violent conflicts
with pietistic orthodoxy, still always pretty strongly represented,
especially in the aristocracy, the emancipation of the schools from the
church and the introduction of obligatory civil marriage were accomplished
in most cantons, even before the revised Federal constitution of 1874 and
the marriage law of 1875 gave to these principles legal sanction
throughout the whole of Switzerland. In almost all Protestant cantons the
re-election or new election to all spiritual offices every six years was
ordained by law, in many the freeing of the clergy from any creed
subscription with the setting aside of confessional writings as well as of
the orthodox liturgy, hymnbooks and catechisms was also carried, and the
withdrawing of the Apostles’ Creed from public worship and from the
baptismal formula was enjoined. The Basel synod in 1883, by thirty-six to
twenty-seven votes, carried the motion to make baptism no longer a
condition of confirmation; and although the Zürich synod in 1882 still
held baptism obligatory for membership in the national church, the
Cantonal Council in 1883, on consulting the law of the church, overturned
this decision by 140 against 19 votes.
5. _The Protestant Church in French Switzerland._—The French philosophy of
the eighteenth century had given to the Reformed church of _Geneva_ a
prevailingly rationalistic tendency. Notwithstanding, or just because of
this, Madame Krüdener, in 1814, with her conventicle pietism, found an
entrance there, and won in the young theologian Empaytaz a zealous
supporter and an apostle of conversion preaching. In the next year a
wealthy Englishman, Haldane, appeared there as the apostle of methodistic
piety, and inspired the young pastor Malan with enthusiasm for the revival
mission. Empaytaz and Malan now by speech and writing charged the national
church with defection from the Christian faith, and won many zealous
believers as adherents, especially among students of theology. The
_Vénérable Compagnie_ of the Geneva clergy, hitherto resting on its lees
in rationalistic quiet, now in 1817 thought it might still the rising
storm by demanding of theological candidates at ordination the vow not to
preach on the two natures in Christ, original sin, predestination, etc.,
but thereby they only poured oil on the fire. The adherents of the daily
increasing evangelical movement withdrew from the national church, founded
free independent communities and _Réunions_ under the banner of the
restoration of Calvinistic orthodoxy, and were by their enemies nicknamed
_Momiers_, _i.e._ mummery traders or hypocrites. The government imprisoned
and banished their leaders, while the mob, unchecked, heaped upon them all
manner of abuse. The persecution came to an end in 1830. Thereafter
settling down in quiet moderation, it founded in 1831 the _Société
évangélique_, which, in 1832, established an _Ecole de Théologie_, and
became the centre of the Free church evangelical movement. From that time
the _Eglise libre_ of Geneva has existed unmolested alongside of the
_Eglise Nationale_, and the opposition at first so violent has been
moderated on both sides by the growth of conciliatory and mediating
tendencies. Since 1850, two divergent parties have arisen within the bosom
of the free church itself, which without any serious conflict continued
alongside of one another, until in May, 1883, the majority of the
presbytery resolved to make a peaceful separation, the stricter forming
the congregation of the _Pelisserie_, and the more liberal that of the
_Oratoire_. At the same time a committee was appointed to draw up a
confession upon which both could unite in lasting fellowship. But when
this failed, a formal and complete separation was agreed upon at the new
year.—From Geneva the Methodist revival spread to _Vaud_. The religious
movement got a footing, especially in Lausanne. The Grand Council,
however, did not allow the contemplated formation of an independent
congregation, and in 1824 forbad all “sectarian” assemblies, while the mob
raged even more wildly than at Geneva against the “_Momiers_.” The
excitement increased when, in 1839, by decision of the Grand Council, the
Helvetic Confession was abrogated. When in 1845 a revolutionary radical
government came into office at Lausanne, the refusal of many clergymen to
read from the pulpit a political proclamation, caused a thorough division
in the church, for the preachers referred to were in a body driven out of
the national church. A Free church of Vaud now developed itself alongside
of the national church, sorely oppressed and persecuted by the radical
government, and spread into other Swiss cantons. It owed its freedom from
sectarian narrowness mainly to the influence of the talented and
thoroughly independent Alex. Vinet, who devoted his whole energies and
brilliant eloquence to the interests of religious freedom and liberty of
conscience and to the struggle for the separation of church and state.
Vinet was from 1817 teacher of the French language and literature in
Basel, then from 1837 to 1845 professor of practical theology at Lausanne,
but on the reconstruction of the university he was not re-elected. He died
in 1847.(109)—In the canton _Neuchatel_ the State Council in 1873
introduced a law, which granted unconditional liberty of conscience,
freedom in teaching and worship without any sort of restriction on clergy,
teachers and congregations. The Grand Council by forty-seven votes to
forty-six gave it its sanction, notwithstanding the almost unanimous
protest of the evangelical synod, and refused to appeal to a popular vote.
When an appeal to the Federal Council proved fruitless, somewhere about
one half of the pastors, including the theological professors and all the
students, left the state church, and formed an _Eglise libre_; while the
other half regarded it as their duty to remain in the national church so
long as they were not hindered from preaching God’s word in purity and
simplicity. Both parties had a common meeting point in the _Union
évangélique_, and a law originally passed in favour of the Old Catholics,
which secured to all seceders a right to the joint use of their respective
churches, proved also of advantage to the Free church.—The canton _Geneva_
issued, in 1874, a Protestant law of worship, which with dogma and liturgy
also threw overboard ordination, and maintained that the clergy are
answerable only to their conscience and their electors. Yet at the new
election of the consistory in 1879, at the close of the legal term of four
years, the evangelical and moderate party again obtained the supremacy,
and a law introduced by the radical party in the Grand Council, demanding
the withdrawal of the budget of worship and the separation of church and
state, was, on July 4th, 1880, thrown out by universal popular vote, by a
majority of 9,000 to 4,000.
§ 200. Holland and Belgium.
Among the most serious mistakes in the new partition of states at the
Vienna Congress was the combining in one kingdom of the United Netherlands
the provinces of Holland and Belgium, diverse in race, language,
character, and religion. The contagion of French Revolution of July, 1830,
however, caused an outbreak in Brussels, which ended in the separation of
Catholic Belgium from the predominantly Protestant Holland. Belgium has
since then been the scene of unceasing and changeful conflicts between the
liberal and ultramontane parties, whose previous combination was now
completely shattered. And while, on the other hand, in the Reformed state
church of Holland, theological studies, leaning upon German science, have
taken a liberal and even radical destructive course, the not
inconsiderable Roman Catholic population has fallen, under Jesuit leading,
more and more into bigoted obscurantism.
1. _The United Netherlands._—The constitution of the new kingdom created
in 1814 guaranteed unlimited freedom to all forms of worship and complete
equality of all citizens without distinction of religious confession.
Against this the Belgian episcopate protested with bishop Maurice von
Broglie, of Ghent, at their head, who refused, in 1817, the prayers of the
church for the heretical crown princess and the _Te Deum_ for the newborn
heir to the throne. As he went so far as to excite the Catholic people on
all occasions against the Protestant government, the angry king, William
I., summoned him to answer for his conduct before the court of justice.
But he eluded inquiry by flight to France, and as guilty of high treason
was sentenced to death, which did not prevent him from his exile
unweariedly fanning the flames of rebellion. The number of cloisters grew
from day to day and also the multitude of clerical schools and seminaries,
in which the Catholic youth was trained up in the principles of the most
violent fanaticism. The government in 1825 closed the seminaries, expelled
Jesuit teachers, forbad attendance at Jesuit schools abroad, and founded a
college at Louvain, in which all studying for the church were obliged to
pass through a philosophical curriculum. The common struggle for
maintaining the liberty of instruction promised by the constitution made
political radicalism and ultramontanism confederates, and the government,
intimidated by this combination, agreed, in a concordat with the pope in
1827, to modify the obligatory into a facultative attendance at Louvain
College. The inevitable consequence of this was the speedy and complete
decay of the college. But the confederacy of the radicals and
ultramontanes continued, directing itself against other misdeeds of the
government, and was not broken up until in 1830 it attained its object by
the disjunction of Belgium and Holland.
2. _The Kingdom of Holland._—In the prevailingly _Reformed_ national
church rationalism and latitudinarian supernaturalism had to such an
extent blotted out the ecclesiastical distinctions between Reformed,
Remonstrants, Mennonites, and Lutherans, that the clergy of one party
would unhesitatingly preach in the churches of the others. Then rose the
poet Bilderdijk, driven from political into religious patriotism, to
denounce with glowing fury the general declension from the orthodoxy of
Dort. Two Jewish converts of his, the poet and apologist Isaac da Costa,
and the physician Cappadose, gave him powerful support. A zealous young
clergyman, Henry de Cock, was theological mouthpiece of the party. Because
he offended church order, especially by ministering in other
congregations, he was suspended and finally deposed in 1834. The greater
part of his congregation and four other pastors with him formally declared
their secession from the unfaithful church, as a return to the orthodox
Reformed church. As separatists and disturbers of public worship, they
were fined and imprisoned, and were at last satisfied with the recognition
granted them of royal grace in 1839, as a separate or _Christian Reformed
Church_. It consists now of 364 congregations, embracing about 140,000
souls, with a flourishing seminary at Kampen. The _Reformed State Church_,
with three-fourths of all the Protestant population, persevered in and
developed its liberalistic tendencies. The State Synod of 1883 expressly
declared that the Netherland Reformed Church demands from its teachers not
agreement with all the statements of the confessional writings, but only
with their spirit, gist, and essence; and the synod of 1877, by the vote
of a majority, stated that no sort of formulated confession should be
required even of candidates for confirmation. Yet even amid such
proceedings from various sides, a churchly and evangelical reaction of
considerable importance set in. Three great parties within the state
church carried on a life and death struggle with one another: (1) The
Strict Calvinists, whose leader is Dr. Kuyper, formerly pastor in
Amsterdam; (2) The so-called Middle Party, which falls into two divisions:
the, just about expiring, Ethical Irenical Party, with the Utrecht
professor Van Oosterzee (died 1882), and the Evangelical Party with the
Gröningen professor Hofstede de Groot, since 1872 Emeritus, as leaders, of
which the former, subordinating the confession, regards the Christian life
as the main thing in Christianity, and the latter declares itself prepared
to take the gospel alone for its creed and confession; and (3) The
so-called Modern Party, which, with Professors Scholten and Kuenen as
leaders, has its centre at Leyden, and in theology carries out with
reckless energy the destructive critical principles of the school of Baur
and Wellhausen (§ 182, 7, 18). The “_Moderns_” are also the founders and
leaders of the “_Protestant Federation_” after the German model (§ 180),
with its annual assemblies since 1873, in opposition to which a
“_Confessional Union_” holds its annual meetings at Utrecht, and operates
by means of evangelists and lay preachers in places where there are only
“Modern” pastors. The higher and cultured classes in the congregations
mostly favour the Gröningen and some also the Leyden school, but the great
majority of the middle and lower classes are adherents of Kuyper, and have
frequently secured majorities in the Congregational Church Council.—The
Dutch school law of 1856 banished every sort of confessional religious
education from public schools supported by the state, and so called forth
the erection of numerous denominational schools independent of the state,
and the founding of a “_Union for Christian Popular Education_,” which has
spread through the whole country. The university law sanctioned, after
violent debates in the chamber, in 1876, establishes in place of the old
theological faculties, professorships for the science of religion
generally, with the exception of dogmatics and practical theology, and
left it with the Reformed State Synod to care for these two subjects,
either in a theological seminary or by founding for itself the two
theological professorships in the universities and supporting them from
the sums voted for the state church. The synod decided on the latter
course, and appointed to the new chairs men of moderate liberal views. The
adherents of the strict Calvinistic party, however, founded a Free
Reformed University at Amsterdam, which was opened in autumn, 1880. Its
first rector was Kuyper.—The _Lutheran Church_ of fifty congregations and
sixty-two pastors, with about 60,000 souls, has also had since 1816 a
theological seminary. In it neological tendencies prevail.
3. The founding of the Free University at Amsterdam, referred to above,
led to a series of violent conflicts which threatened to break up the
whole Reformed church of the Netherlands by a wild schism. The Reformed
State Synod, consisting mainly of Gröningen theologians, but also
numbering many members belonging to the Modern or Leyden school, and
constituting the supreme ecclesiastical court, had, in spite of its
eleventh rule, which makes “the maintenance of the doctrine” a main task
of all church government, for a long time admitted the principle of
unfettered freedom of teaching, and ordained that even evidence of
orthodoxy on the part of candidates for confirmation would no longer be
regarded as a condition of their acceptance, their examination referring
only to their knowledge, the examining clergy and not the assisting elders
being judges in this matter. When now the Free University had been founded
in direct opposition to the synod, the latter resolved to reject all its
pupils at the examination of candidates, and when, in the summer of 1885,
its first student presented himself, actually carried out this resolution.
Thereupon the university transferred the examination to a committee,
elected by itself, consisting of orthodox Reformed pastors and elders, and
a small village congregation agreed to elect the candidate for its poorly
endowed, and so for seventeen years vacant, pastorate. But the synod
refused him ordination. Therefore the director of a strict Calvinistic
Gymnasium, formerly a pastor, performed the ceremony, and the congregation
announced its secession from the synodal union. At the same time in
Amsterdam a second conflict arose over the question of candidates for
confirmation. Three pastors of the “modern” school demanded the elders
subject to them, among them Dr. Kuyper, to take part as required in the
examining of their candidates; but these refused to give their assistance,
because the previous training had not been according to Scripture and the
confession, and also the majority of the church council approved of this
refusal, as the parents had complained, and declared that the certificate
of morality demanded by other pastors could be made out only if candidates
for confirmation had previously formally and solemnly confessed their
genuine and hearty faith in Jesus Christ as the only and all-sufficient
Saviour, which these, however, in accordance with the Dutch practice of
the eighteenth century, declined to do. The controversy was carried by
appeal through all the church courts, and finally the State Synod ordered
the church council to make delivery of the certificates within six weeks
on pain of suspension. But this was brought about before the expiry of
that period by the outbreak of a far more serious conflict over matters of
administration. In Amsterdam the administration of church property lay
with a special commission, responsible to the church council, consisting
of members, one half from the church council and the other half from the
congregations. If in the beginning of January, 1886, the threatened
suspension and deposition of the church council should be carried out, in
accordance with proper order until the appointment of a new council all
the rights of the same, therefore also that of supervising that
commission, would fall to the “classical board” (§ 143, 1) as the next
highest court. In order to avoid this, the fateful resolution was passed
on December 14th, 1885, to alter § 41 of the regulations, so that, if the
church council in the discharge of its duty to govern the community in
accordance with God’s word and the legalized church confession, it would
be so hindered therein that it might feel in conscience obliged to obey
God rather than man and accept suspension and deposition, and a church
council should be appointed, the administrative commission would be
obliged to remain subject, not to this, but to the original commission.
The “classical board” annulled this resolution, suspended on January 4th,
1886, for continued obstinacy the previous church council, and constituted
itself, pending decision on the part of discipline, interim administrator
of all its rights and duties. The suspended majority, however, called a
meeting for the same day, and when it found the doors of its meeting place
closed, sent for a locksmith to break them open. They were prevented by
the police, who then, by putting on a safety lock, strengthening the
boards of the door by mailed plates, and setting a watch, greatly reduced
the chances of an entrance. But the opposition sent to the watchers a
letter by a policeman demanding that the representatives of the church
council should be allowed to pass; upon which these, regarding it as an
order of the police, withdrew. They then had the mailed plates sawn, took
possession of the hall and the archives and treasure box lying there, and
refused admission to the classical board. While then the question of law
and possession was referred to the courts of law, and there the final
decision would not be given before the lapse of a year, the disciplinary
procedure took its course through all the ecclesiastical courts and ended
in the deposition of all resisting elders and pastors. The latter preached
now to great crowds in hired halls. From the capital the excitement
increased by means of violent publications on both sides, spread over the
whole land and produced discord in many other communities. Wild and
uproarious tumults first broke out in Leidendorf, a suburb of Leyden. The
pastor and the majority of the church council refused to enter on their
congregational list two girls who had been confirmed by liberal churchmen
elsewhere, and with by far the greater part of the congregation seceded
from the synodal union. The classical board now, in July, 1886, declared
the pastorate vacant, and ordered that a regular interim service should be
conducted on Sundays by the pastors of the circuit. The uproar among the
people, however, was thereby only greatly increased, so that the civil
authorities were obliged to protect the deputed preachers, by a large
military escort, from rude maltreatment, and to secure quiet during public
worship by a company of police in church. And similar conflicts soon broke
out on like occasions and with similar consequences in many other places
throughout all parts of the land. In December, 1886, the Amsterdam church
council also declared its secession from the state church, and a
numerously attended “Reformed Church Congress” at Amsterdam, in January,
1887, summoned by Kuyper in the interests of the crowd of seceders,
resolved to accept the decision of the law in regard to church
property.(110)
4. Even after the separation of Belgium there was still left a
considerable number of _Catholics_, about three-eighths of the population,
most numerous in Brabant, Limburg, and Luxemburg, and these were, as of
old, inclined to the most bigoted ultramontanism. This tendency was
greatly enhanced when the new constitutional law of 1848 announced the
principle of absolute liberty of belief, in consequence of which the
Jesuits crowded in vast numbers, and the pope in 1853 organized a new
Catholic hierarchy in the land, with four bishops and an archbishop at
Utrecht, under the control of the propaganda. The Protestant population
went into great excitement over this. The liberal ministry of Thorbecke
was obliged to resign, but the chambers at length sanctioned the papal
ordinance, only securing the Protestant population against its
misapplication and abuse.—On the withdrawal of the French in 1814 there
were only eight cloisters remaining; but in 1861 there were thirty-nine
for monks and 137 for nuns, and since then the number has considerably
increased.—The Dutch _Old Catholics_ (§ 165, 8), on account of their
protest against the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (§ 185, 2),
enjoined upon the Catholic church by the pope, were anew excommunicated,
and joined the German Old Catholics in rejecting the decrees of the
Vatican Council (§ 190, 1).
5. _The Kingdom of Belgium._—Catholic Belgium obtained after its
separation from Holland a constitution by which unlimited freedom of
religious worship and education, and the right of confessing opinion and
of associating, were guaranteed, and to the state was allowed no
interference with the affairs of the church beyond the duty of paying the
clergy. Also in Leopold I., 1830-1865, of the house of Saxe-Coburg, it had
a king who though himself a Protestant was faithful to the constitution,
and, according to agreement, had his children trained up in the Roman
Catholic church. The confederacy of radicalism and ultramontanism,
however, was broken by the irreconciliable enmity and violent conflict in
daily life and in the chambers among clerical and liberal ministers. The
ultramontanes founded at Louvain in 1834 a strictly Catholic university,
which was under the oversight of the bishops and the patronage of the
Virgin; while the liberals promoted the erection of an opposition
university for free science at Brussels. That the Jesuits used to the
utmost for their own ends the liberty granted them by the constitution by
means of missions and the confessional, schools, cloisters, and
brotherhoods of every kind is what might have been expected. But
liberalism also knew how to conduct a propaganda and to bring the clergy
into discredit with the educated classes by unveiling their intrigues,
legacy-hunting, etc., while these exercised a great influence chiefly upon
bigoted females. The number of cloisters, which on the separation from
Holland amounted only to 280, had risen in 1880 in that small territory to
1,559, with 24,672 inmates, of whom 20,645 were nuns.
6. After the ultramontane party had enjoyed eight years of almost
unchallenged supremacy, the Malou ministry favourable to it was overthrown
in June, 1878, and a liberal government, under the presidency of
Frère-Orban, took its place. Then began the _Kulturkampf_ in Belgium. The
charge of public education was taken from the ministry of the interior,
and a special minister appointed in the person of Van Humbeeck. He began
by changing all girls’ schools under the management of sisters of
spiritual orders into communal schools, and in January, 1879, brought in a
bill for reorganizing elementary education, which completely secularized
the schools; deprived the clergy of all official influence over them, and
relegated religious instruction to the care of the family and the church,
the latter, however, having the necessary accommodation allowed in the
school buildings. The chambers approved the bill, and the king confirmed
it, in spite of all protests and agitation by the clergy. The clerical
journals put a black border on their issue which published it; the
provincial councils under clerical influence nullified as far as possible
all money bequests for the public schools, and the bishops assembled in
August at Mechlin resolved to found free schools in all communities, and
to refuse absolution to all parents who entrusted their children to state
schools and all teachers in them, in order thus to cause a complete decay
of the public schools, which indeed happened to this extent that within a
few months 1,167 communal schools had not a single Catholic scholar. On
complaint being made by the government to Leo XIII., he expressed through
the Brussels nuncio his regret and disapproval of the proceedings of the
bishops; but, on the other hand, he not only privately praised them on
account of their former zeal in opposing the school law, but also incited
them to continued opposition. When this double dealing of the curia was
discovered, the government in June, 1880, broke off all diplomatic
relations with the Vatican by recalling their ambassador and giving the
nuncio his passports. The ministerial president publicly in the chamber of
deputies characterized the action of the Holy See as “_fourberie_.”
Whereupon the pope at the next consistory called princes and peoples as
witnesses of this insult. In May, 1882, the results of the inquiry into
clerical incitements against the public was read in the chamber, where
such startling revelations were made as these: Priests taught the children
that they should no longer pray for the king when he had committed the
mortal sin of confirming the school law; the ministers are worse than
murderers and true Herods; a priest even taught children to pray that God
might cause their “liberal” parents to die, etc. Amid such conflicts the
Catholic party in parliament split into the parties of the _Politici_, who
were willing to submit to the constitution, and that of the
_Intransigenti_, who, under the direction of the bishops and the
university of Louvain, held high above everything the standard of the
syllabus. The latter fought with such passionateness, that the pope felt
obliged in 1881 to enjoin upon the episcopate “that prudent attitude”
which the church in such cases always maintains in “enduring many evils”
which for the time cannot be overcome. But undeterred, the government
continued to restrict the claims of the clergy, so far as these were not
expressly guaranteed by the constitution.—In June, 1884, as the result of
the elections for the chamber of deputies, the clerical party again were
in power. Malou was once more at the head of a ministry in favour of the
clericals, caused the king to dissolve the senate, and in the new
elections won there also a majority for his party. No sooner were they in
power than the clerical ministry, in conjunction with the majority in the
chambers, proceeded with inconsiderate haste, amid the most violent,
almost daily repeated explosions from the now intensely embittered liberal
and radical section of the population, which only seemed to increase their
zeal, to employ their absolute power to the utmost in the interest of
clericalism. The restoration of diplomatic relations with the papal curia
in the spirit of absolute acquiescence in its schemes was the grand aim of
the reaction, as well as a new school law by which the schools were
completely given over again to the clergy and the orders. But when at the
next communal elections a liberal majority was returned, and protests of
the new communal councils poured in against the school law on behalf of
the vast number of state certificated teachers reduced by it to hunger and
destitution, the Malou ministry found itself obliged to resign in October,
1884. Its place was taken by the moderate ultramontane Beernaert ministry,
which sought indeed to quiet the excitement by mild measures, but held
firmly in all essential points to the principles of its predecessor.
7. An exciting episode in the Belgium _Kulturkampf_ is presented by the
appearance of Bishop _Dumont of Tournay_, who, previously an enthusiastic
admirer of Pius IX. and a vigorous defender of the infallibility dogma,
also a zealous patron of stigmatization miracles at Bois d’Haine (§ 188,
4), now suddenly turned round on the school question and refused to obey
the papal injunction. For this he was first suspended, and then in 1880
formally deposed by the pope. He afterwards wrote letters in the most
advanced liberal journals with violent denunciations of the pope, whom he
would not recognise as pope, but only as Bishop of Rome, and so styled him
not Leo, but only Pecci. In these letters Dumont makes the interesting
communication that the virgin Louise Lateau, favoured of God, has
threatened with excommunication the “intruder” Durousseaux, nominated by
the pope as his successor, because she continues to reverence Dumont as
the only legitimate Bishop of Tournay. The Vatican pronounced him insane,
and the chapter appealed to the civil authorities to have him declared
incapable in the sight of the law, which, however, they refused, because
they could not regard Dumont’s insanity as proved. On the other hand,
Dumont refused to renounce his episcopal office, and accused Durousseaux
of having by night, with the help of a locksmith, obtained entrance to his
episcopal palace, and having taken forcible possession of a casket lying
there, which, besides the diocesan property to the value of five millions,
contained also about one and a half millions of his own private means.
Pending the issue of the conflict, as to which of the two should be
regarded as the true bishop, the palace was now officially sealed up. The
attempt to arrest the robbed casket had to be abandoned, because meanwhile
the canon Bernard, as keeper of the treasures of the diocese, had fled
with its contents to America. He was, however, on legal warrant imprisoned
in Havanna and brought back to Belgium in 1882. In April, 1884, the
dispute of the bishops was definitively closed by the judgment of the
supreme tribunal, according to which Dumont, having been legitimately
deposed, has no more claim to the title and revenues of his earlier
office; and in 1886 the supreme court of appeal at Brussels condemned
Bernard “on account of serious breach of trust” to three years’
imprisonment.
8. _The Protestant Church_ was represented in Belgium only by small
congregations in the chief cities and some Reformed Walloon village
congregations. But for several decades, by the zealous exertions of the
Evangelical Society at Brussels with thirty-four pastors and evangelists,
the work of evangelization not only among Catholic Walloons, but also
among the Flemish population, has made considerable progress,
notwithstanding all agitation and incitement of the people by the Catholic
clergy, so that several new evangelical congregations, consisting mostly
of converts, have been formed. In two small places indeed the whole
communities, roused by episcopal arbitrariness, have gone over.—The pastor
Byse employed by the Evangelical Society at Brussels has taken up the idea
that all men by the fall have lost their immortality, and that it could be
restored again by faith in Christ, while all the unreconciled are given
over to annihilation, the second death of Revelation ii. 11, xx. 15. So
long as he maintained this theory merely as a private opinion the society
took no offence at it, but when he began to proclaim it in his preaching
and in his instruction of the young, and declined to yield to all advice
on the matter, the synod of 1882 resolved upon his dismissal. But a great
part of his congregation still remain faithful to him.
§ 201. The Scandinavian Countries.
Notwithstanding the common Scandinavian-national and
Lutheran-ecclesiastical basis on which the civil and religious life is
developed, it assumed in the three Scandinavian countries a completely
diversified course. While in Denmark the civil life bore manifold traces
of democratic tendencies and thereby the relations between church and
state were loosened, Sweden, with a tenacity almost unparalleled in
Protestant countries, has for a long period held fast in exclusive
attachment to the idea of a state church. On the other hand Denmark was
far more open to influences from without hostile to the church, on the one
side those of rationalism, on the other, those of the anti-ecclesiastical
sects, especially of the Baptists and Mormons, than Sweden, which in its
certainly barren, if not altogether dead orthodoxy till after the middle
of the century was almost hermetically sealed against all heterogeneous
influences, but yet could not altogether over-master the pietistically or
methodistically coloured movements of religious yearning that arose among
her own people. Norway, again, although politically united with Sweden,
has, both in national character and in religious development, shown its
more intimate relationship with Denmark.
1. _Denmark._—From the close of last century rationalism has had a home in
Denmark. In 1825 Professor Clausen, a moderate adherent of the neological
school, published a learned work on the opposition of “Catholicism and
Protestantism,” identifying the latter with rationalism. First of all in
that same year Pastor _Grundtvig_ (died 1872), “a man of poetic genius,
and skilled in the ancient history of the land,” inspired with equal
enthusiasm for the old Lutheranism of his fathers and for patriotic
Danism, entered the lists and replied with powerful eloquence, lamenting
the decay of Christianity and the church. He was condemned by the court of
justice as injurious, after he had during the process resigned his
pastoral office. A like fate befell the orientalist Lindberg, who charged
Clausen with the breach of his ordination vow. The adherents of Grundtvig
met for mutual edification in conventicles, until at last in 1832 he
obtained permission again to hold public services. Not less influential
was the work of Sören _Kierkegaard_ (died 1855), who, largely in sympathy
with Grundtvig, without ecclesiastical office, in his writings earnestly
pled for a living subjective piety and unweariedly maintained an
uncompromising struggle against the official Christianity of the
secularized clergy. The wild, unmeasured Danomania of 1848-1849, during
the military conflict with Germany, drew opponents together and made them
friends. Grundtvig declaimed against everything German, and of the two
factors, which he had formerly regarded as the pivots on which universal
history turned, Danism and Lutheranism, he now let go Lutheranism as of
German origin. He therefore proposed the abrogation of the distinctive
German-Lutheran confessions, placed the Apostles’ Creed before and above
the Bible and, pressing in a one-sided manner the doctrine of baptismal
grace, demanded a “joyous Christianity,” denied the necessity of continued
preaching and exercise of repentance, and wished especially to introduce
into the schools the Norse mythology as introductory to the study of
Christianity. His adherents wrought with the anti-church party for the
abolition of the union of church and state. The Danish constitutional law
of 1849 abolished the confessional churches of the state church, and
Catholics, Reformed, Moravians, and Jews were granted equal civil rights
with the Lutherans. Since then the Catholic church has made slow but
steady progress in the country, and the increasing Baptist movement was
also favoured by a law of the Volkthing of 1857, which abolished
compulsory baptism, and only required the enrolment of all children in the
church books of their respective districts within the period of one year.
Civil marriage had also been granted to dissenters in 1851, and in 1868
the peculiar institution of “electing communities” was founded, by means
of which twenty families from one or more parishes which declare
themselves dissatisfied with the pastors appointed them, may, without
leaving the national church, form an independent congregation under
pastors chosen by themselves and maintained at their own cost. The
_Schleswig-Holstein_ revolution in 1848, occasioned enormous confusion and
disturbance in the ecclesiastical conditions of the district. Over a
hundred German pastors were expelled and forty-six Schleswig parishes
deprived of the use of the German language in church and school. In 1864
both provinces were at last by the Austrian and Prussian alliance rent
from the Danish government, and in consequence of the German war of 1866
were incorporated with Prussia.
2. _Sweden._—In Sweden there was formed in 1803, in opposition to the
barren orthodoxy of the state church, a religious association which, if
not altogether free of pietistic narrowness, was yet without any heretical
doctrinal tendency, and exercised a quiet and wholesome influence. From
the diligent _reading_ of Scripture and the works of Luther that prevailed
among its members it obtained the name of _Läsare_. The state proceeded
against its members with fines and imprisonment, according to the old
conventicle law of 1726, and the mob treated them with insults and
violence. But in 1842 a fanatical tendency began to show itself under the
leadership of a peasant, Erich Jansen, who induced many “_Readers_” to
quit the church and to cast into the fire even Luther’s Postils and
Catechism as quite superfluous alongside of Holy Scripture. They mostly
emigrated to America in 1846. The law of the land since 1686 threatened
every Swede who seceded from the Lutheran state church with imprisonment
and exile, loss of civil privileges and the right of inheritance. As might
therefore be supposed the French Marshal Bernadotte, who in 1818, under
the name of Charles XIV., ascended the throne of Sweden, had been
previously in 1810 obliged to repudiate the Catholic confession. Even in
1857 the Reichstag rejected a royal proposal to set aside the Secession as
well as the Conventicle Act. But in the very next year, the holding of
conventicles under clerical supervision, and in 1860, the secession to
other ecclesiastical denominations, were allowed by law. The constitution
of 1865 still indeed made adherence to the Lutheran confession a condition
of qualification for a seat in either of the chambers. The Reichstag of
1870 at last sanctioned the admission of all Christian dissenters and also
of Jews to all offices of state as well as to the membership of the
Reichstag. On behalf of dissenters, especially of the numerous Baptists
and Methodists, the right of civil marriage was granted in 1879. In 1877,
Waldenström, head-master of the Latin school at Gefle, without
ecclesiastical ordination, began zealously and successfully by speech and
writings (to secure the widest possible circulation of which a joint stock
company with large capital was formed) to work for the revival of the
Christian life in the Lutheran national church. He vigorously contended
against the church doctrine of atonement and justification, repudiating
the idea of vicarious penal suffering, and broke through all church order
by allowing the sacrament of the Lord’s supper to be dispensed by laymen.
He thus put himself, with his numerous following, directed by lay
preachers in their own prayer meetings and mission halls, into direct
opposition to the church, but by the wise forbearance of the
ecclesiastical authorities he has not yet been formally ejected.(111)
3. _Norway._—In Norway, toward the end of last century, rationalism was
dominant in almost all the pulpits, and only a few remnants of Moravian
revivalism raised a voice against it. But in 1796, a simple unlearned
peasant _Hans Nielsen Hauge_, then in his twenty-fifth year made his
appearance as a revival preacher, creating a mighty spiritual movement
that spread among the masses throughout the whole land. He had obtained
his own religious knowledge from the study of old Lutheran practical
theology, and arising at a period of extraordinary spiritual excitement,
“his call,” as Hase says, “to be a prophet was like that of the herdsman
of Tekoa.” From 1799 he continued itinerating for five years, persecuted,
reproached, and calumniated by the rationalistic clergy, ten times cast
into prison, under a law of 1741, which forbad laymen to preach, and then
set free, until he had gone over all Norway even to its farthest and
remotest corners, preaching unweariedly everywhere in houses and in the
open air often three or four times a day, and nourishing besides the flame
which he had kindled by voluminous writings and an extensive
correspondence. He directed his preaching not only against the rationalism
of the state clergy, but also against the antinomian religion of feeling,
of “Blood and Wounds” theology introduced in earlier days by the
Moravians, with a one-sided emphasis and exaggeration indeed, but still in
all essentials maintaining the basis and keeping within the lines of
Lutheran orthodoxy. In 1804 he was charged with tendencies dangerous to
church and state, obtaining money from peasants on false pretences,
inciting the people against the clergy, etc., and again cast into prison.
The trial this time was carried on for ten years, until at last in 1814
the supreme court sentenced him on account of his invectives against the
clergy to pay a fine, but pronounced him not guilty on the other charges.
Broken down in spirit and body by his long imprisonment, he could not
think of engaging again in his former work. He died in 1824. Numerous
peasant preachers, however, issuing from his school were ready to go forth
in his footsteps, and till this day the salutary effects of his and their
activity are seen in wide circles. The law of 1741 which had been made to
tell against them was at last abrogated by the Storthing in 1842. In 1845
the right of forming Christian sects was recognised, and in 1851 even the
Jews were allowed the right of settlement previously refused them, and the
security of all civil privileges. Since that time even in Norway the
Catholic church has made considerable progress; in June, 1878, it had
eleven churches and fourteen priests.
§ 202. Great Britain and Ireland.
During the course of the century a breach from without was made upon the
stronghold of the Anglican established church and its legal standing
throughout the United Kingdom. The strong coherence of the Anglican
episcopal church had already been weakened internally by the rise within
its own bosom of High, Low, and Broad tendencies. The advance of the
first-named party to tractarianism and ritualism opened the door to Romish
sympathies, while in the last-named school German rationalism and
criticism found favour, and the low church party was not ashamed to go
hand-in-hand with the evangelical pietistic and methodistic tendencies of
the dissenters. There followed numerous conversions to Rome, especially
from the aristocratic ranks of the upper ten thousand. The Emancipation
Act of 1829 opened the door to both Houses of Parliament to the Catholics,
and in 1858 the same privileges were extended to the Jews. Also the
bulwarks which the state church had in the old universities of Oxford and
Cambridge were undermined, and in 1871 were completely overthrown by the
legal abolition of all confessional tests. Down to 1869 the hierarchy of
the episcopal state church, though clearly alien to the country,
maintained its legal position in Catholic Ireland, till at last the Irish
Church Bill brought it there to an end. Repeatedly have bills been
introduced in the House of Commons, though hitherto without success, by
members of the incessantly agitating Liberation Society, to disestablish
the churches of England, Scotland, and Wales.(112)
1. _The Episcopal State Church._—The two opposing parties of the state
church corresponded to the two political parties of Tories and Whigs. The
_high church party_, which has its most powerful representatives in the
aristocracy, holds aloof from the dissenters, seeks to maintain the
closest connexion between church and state, and eagerly contends for the
retention of all old ecclesiastical forms and ordinances in constitution,
worship, and doctrine. On the other hand the _evangelical or low church
party_, which is more or less methodistically inclined, holds free
intercourse with dissenters, associating with them in home and foreign
mission work, etc., and with various shades of differences advocates the
claims of progress against those of immobility, the independence of the
church against its identification with the state, the evangelical freedom
and general priesthood of believers against orthodoxy and hierarchism.
From their midst arose a movement in 1871, occasioned by the Oxford
“Essays and Reviews” and the works of Bishop Colenso, which resulted in
the publication, under the authority of the bishops, of the “Speaker’s
Commentary,” so-called because suggested by Denison, who had long been
speaker of the House of Commons. It is a learned, thoroughly conservative
commentary on the whole Bible by the ablest theologians of England. On the
revision of the English translation of the Bible see § 181, 4. Besides
these two parties, however, there has arisen a third, the broad church
party. It originated with the distinguished poet and philosopher,
Coleridge (died 1834), and includes many of the most excellent and
scholarly of the clergy, especially those most eminent for their
acquaintance with German theology and philosophy. They do not form an
organized ecclesiastical party like the evangelicals and high church men,
but endeavour not only to overcome the narrowness and severity of the
former, but also to secure a broader basis and a wider horizon for
theology as well as for the church.(113)—The struggle for the legalizing
of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister has been energetically pressed
since 1850, but though the House of Commons has repeatedly passed the
bill, it has been hitherto by small majorities, under the influence of the
bishops, rejected by the House of Lords.—A non-official _Pan-Anglican
Council_ of English bishops from all parts of the world, excluding the
laity and inferior clergy, with pre-eminently anti-Romish and
anti-ritualistic tendencies, was held in London in 1867 (cf. § 175, 5).
When it met the second time in 1878, it was attended by nearly one hundred
bishops, one of them a negro. Of the three weeks’ debates and their
results, however, no detailed account has been published.
2. _The Tractarians and Ritualists._—The activity of the dissenters and
the episcopal evangelical party’s attachment to them stirred up the
adherents of the high church party to vigorous guarding of their
interests, and drove them into a one-sided exaggerated accentuation of the
Catholic element. The centre of this movement since 1833 was the
university of Oxford. Its leaders were Professors Pusey and Newman, its
literary organ the _Tracts for the Times_, from which the party received
the name of _Tractarians_. This was a series of ninety treatises,
published 1833-1841, on the basis of Anglo-Catholicism, which sought,
while holding by the Thirty-nine Articles, to affirm with equal
decidedness the genuine Protestantism over against the Roman papacy, and,
in the importance which it attached to the apostolical succession of the
episcopate and priesthood and the apostolical tradition for the
interpretation of Scripture, the genuine Catholicism over against every
form of ultra-Protestantism. In this way, too, their dogmatics in all the
several doctrines, as far as the Thirty-nine Articles would by any means
allow, was approximated to the Roman Catholic doctrine, and indeed
by-and-by passed over entirely to that type of doctrine. Newman’s Tract 90
caused most offence, in which, with thoroughly jesuitical sophistry, it
was argued that the Thirty-nine Articles were capable of an explanation on
the basis of which they might be subscribed even by one who occupied in
regard to the church doctrine and practice an essentially Roman Catholic
standpoint. The university authorities now felt obliged to declare
publicly that the tracts were by no means sanctioned by them, and that
especially the application of the principles of Tract 90 to the conduct of
students in the matter of subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles is not
allowable. Bishop Bagot of Oxford, hitherto favourable to the tractarians,
refused to permit the continued issue of the tracts. The other bishops
also for the most part spoke against them in their pastorals, and a flood
of controversial pamphlets roused the wrath of the non-Catholic populace.
But on the other hand tractarianism still found favour among the higher
clergy and the aristocracy. In 1845 Newman went over to the Catholic
church, and has since led a retired life devoted to theological study.
Pius IX. paid him no attention, but in 1879 Leo XIII. acknowledged and
rewarded his services to the Catholic church by elevating him to the rank
of cardinal. The majority of the tractarians disapproved of Newman’s step
and remained in the Anglican church. Thus acted Pusey (died 1882), the
recognised leader of the party, after whom they were now called
_Puseyites_. Many, however, followed Newman’s example, so that by the end
of 1846 no less than one hundred and fifty clergymen and prominent laymen
were received into the widely opened door of the Catholic church.(114)—The
following twelve years, 1846-1858, were occupied by two
dogmatico-ecclesiastical conflicts vitally affecting the interests of the
tractarians. (1) _The Gorham Case._ The Thirty-nine Articles took
essentially Lutheran ground in treating of baptism, recognising it as a
vehicle of regeneration and divine sonship, and the tractarians laid
uncommonly great stress upon this article. So also the Bishop of Exeter,
Dr. Philpotts, refused to institute the Rev. Cornelius Gorham because of
his views on this subject. Gorham accused him before the Archbishop of
Canterbury, but the Court of Arches decided in favour of the bishop. The
Court of Appeal, however, the judicial committee of the Privy Council,
annulled the episcopal judgment, and ordered that Gorham should be
installed in his office. In vain did Philpotts, by a protest before the
Court of Queen’s Bench, and then before the Court of Common Pleas, against
the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in this case, in vain, too, did
Blomfield, Bishop of London, insist upon the revival of Convocation, which
for one and a half centuries had been inoperative as a spiritual
parliament with upper and lower houses, and in vain did a tractarian
assembly of more than 1,500 distinguished clergymen and laymen lodge a
solemn protest. The judgment of the Privy Council stood, and Gorham was
inducted to his office in 1850. Many of the protesters now went over to
the Catholic church, and about 600 others, like the Puritan Pilgrim
Fathers 230 years before (§ 143, 4), under ecclesiastical oppression,
emigrated to New Zealand.—(2) _The Denison Eucharist Case._—The Puseyite
Archdeacon Denison of Taunton, in the diocese of Bath and Wells, had in
1851 in open defiance of the Thirty-nine Articles, which represent
Calvin’s views of the Lord’s Supper, affirmed in preaching and writing
that unbelievers as well as believers eat and drink the body and blood of
the Lord. Over this he was involved in a sharp discussion with a
neighbouring clergyman called Ditcher. In 1854 Ditcher accused Denison
before his bishop, who, after vain efforts to reconcile the parties,
referred the matter to the Court of Arches, which sought, but in vain, to
end the strife by compromise. Ditcher now in 1856 brought his complaint
before the _Queen’s Bench_, which obliged the archbishop to take up the
matter again. A commission appointed by him declared that the complaint
was quite justifiable, and threatened Denison, when he refused any sort of
retraction, with deposition. But the Court of Appeal in 1858 stayed the
judgment on the ground of a technical error in procedure, and Denison
remained in office.
3. From the middle of 1850 the tractarians, who had hitherto confined
themselves to the development of the Romanizing system of doctrine, began
to apply its consequences to the church ritual and the Christian life, and
so won for themselves the name of _Ritualists_, which has driven out their
earlier designation. Wherever possible they showed their Catholic zeal by
introducing images, crucifixes, candles, holy water, mass dresses, mass
bells, and boy choristers, urged the restoration of the seven sacraments,
especially of extreme unction, auricular confession, the sacrificial
theory and Corpus Christi day, of prayers for the dead and masses for
souls, invocation of saints and the blessed Virgin; they also praised
celibacy and monasticism, etc. Ritualism has from the first shown singular
skill in party organization. The _English Church Union_, founded in 1860,
has now nearly 200,000 members, of these about 3,000 clergymen and 50
bishops, and it embraces 300 branches over the whole domain of the
Anglican church. Numerous brotherhoods and sisterhoods, guilds and orders,
organized after the style of Roman Catholic monasticism, promote the
interests of ritualism, and zealously prosecute home and foreign mission
work. The _Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament_ originated in 1862, was
able in 1882 to celebrate Corpus Christi day in 250 churches along with
the Romish church, dispensing only with the procession. The _Society of
the Holy Cross_, founded in 1873 consists only of priests, and forms a
kind of directory for all branches of the ritualistic propaganda. The
_English Order of St. Augustine_ has a threefold division, into spiritual
brothers who are preparing for priests’ orders, lay brothers who are being
qualified as lay preachers, both under the strictest vows, and a sort of
tertiaries, who are free from vows. Among the sisterhoods which already
supply nurses to all the great hospitals of the capital, the most
important is that called “by the name of Jesus.” They take, like the
Beguines of the middle ages, the three vows, but not as binding for life.
By the ultra high church party the genuine apostolic succession of the
ordination of the first Protestant archbishop, Matthew Parker, and so the
genuineness of all subsequent ordinations going back to him, were doubted;
three Anglican bishops are said to have had episcopal consecration anew
conferred on them by a Greek Catholic bishop. The reckless and wilful
procedure of the ritualists in imitating the Roman Catholic ritual in
public worship called forth frequent violent disturbances at their
services, and noisy crowds flocked to their churches. Most frequent and
violent were the riots in 1859 and 1860 in the parish of St. George’s,
London, where scarcely any service was held without disgraceful scenes of
hissing, whistling, stamping, and cries of “No popery.” The offscouring of
all London flocked to the Sunday services as to a public entertainment.
Instead of hymns, street songs were sung, instead of responses blasphemous
cries were shouted forth, while cushions and prayer-books were hurled at
the altar decorations, etc. These unseemly proceedings were caused by the
ritualistic rector, Bryan King, who had introduced the objectionable
ceremonial, and obstinately continued it in spite of the decided
opposition and protests of his colleague, Mr. Allen. King’s removal in
1860 first put an end to these disturbances, which police interference
proved utterly unable to check. The ritualistic _Church Union_, called
into existence by these proceedings, was opposed by an anti-ritualistic
_Church Association_, and from both multitudes of complaints and appeals
were brought before the ecclesiastical and civil tribunals. The first case
they brought up was that of Rev. A. H. MacConochie, of Holborn, who,
having been admonished by the ecclesiastical courts on account of his
ritualistic practices in 1867, appealed to the Privy Council. And although
this court decided in 1869 that all ceremonies not authorized by the
prayer-book are to be regarded as forbidden, he and his followers
continued to act on the principle that whatever is not there expressly
prohibited ought to be permitted. The _Public Worship Regulation Bill_,
introduced by Archbishop Tait, and passed by Parliament, which
legislatively determined the procedure in ritualistic cases, did not
prevent the constant advance of this movement. The _Court of Arches_ now
issued a suspension against the accused, and condemned them to prison when
they continued to officiate, until they declared themselves ready to obey
or to demit their office. Tooth of Hatcham, Dale of London, Enraght of
Bordesdale, and Green of Miles Platting were actually sent to prison in
1880. But the first three were soon liberated by the Court of Appeal
finding some technical flaw in the proceedings against them, while Green,
in whose case no such flaw appeared, lay in confinement for twenty months.
The ritualists still persistently continued their practice, and their
opponents renewed their prosecutions; these were followed by appeals to
the higher courts, presenting of petitions to both the Houses of
Parliament, addresses with vast numbers of signatures for and against to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, to Convocation which had meanwhile been
restored, to the Cabinet, to the Queen, etc. The result was that many
cases were abandoned, some obnoxious parties transferred elsewhere, and a
very few deposed.
4. _Liberalism in the Episcopal Church._—The more liberal tendency of the
broad church party had also many supporters who scrupled not to pass
beyond the traditional bounds of English orthodoxy. In opposition to the
orthodoxy zealousy inculcated at Oxford, rationalism found favour at the
rival university of Cambridge, and vigorous support was given to the views
of the Tübingen school of Baur in the London _Westminster Review_. And
even in high church Oxford, there were not wanting teachers in sympathy
with the critical and speculative rationalism of Germany. Great excitement
was caused in 1860 by the “_Essays and Reviews_,” which in seven treatises
by so many Oxford professors contested the traditional apologetics and
hermeneutics of English theology, and set a sublimated rationalism in its
place. In Germany these not very important treatises would probably have
excited little remark, but in the English church they roused an
unparalleled disturbance; more than nine thousand clergymen of the
episcopal church protested against the book, and all the bishops
unanimously condemned it. The excitement had not yet subsided when from
South Africa oil was poured upon the flames. Bishop Colenso of Natal (died
1883), who had zealously carried on the mission there, but had openly
expressed the conviction that it is unwise, unscriptural, and unchristian
to make repudiation by Caffres living in polygamy, of all their wives but
one, a condition of baptism, had occasioned still greater offence by
publishing in 1863 in seven vols. a prolix critical disquisition on the
Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, in which he contested the authenticity
and unconditional credibility of these books by arguments familiar long
ago but now quite antiquated and overthrown in Germany. During a journey
to England undertaken for his defence he was excommunicated and deposed by
a synod of the South African bishops in Capetown. The Privy Council, as
supreme ecclesiastical court in England, cleared him, as well as the
authors of the Essays, from the charge of heresy. An important aid for the
dissemination of liberal religious views is afforded by the Hibbert
Lectureship. Robert Hibbert (died 1849), a wealthy private gentleman in
London, assigned the yearly interest of a considerable sum for “the
spreading of Christianity in its simplest form as well as the furthering
of the unfettered exercise of the individual judgment in matters of
religion.” The Hibbert trustees are eighteen laymen who dispense the
revenues in supplementing the salaries of poorly paid clergymen of liberal
views, in providing bursaries for theological students at home and abroad,
and in other such like ways, but since 1878 especially, by advice of
distinguished scholars, in the endowment of annual courses of lectures,
afterwards published, on subjects in the domain of philosophy, biblical
criticism, the comparative science of religion and the history of
religion. The first Hibbert Lecturer was the celebrated Oxford professor,
Max Müller, in 1878. Among other lecturers may be named Renan of Paris in
1880; Kuenen of Leyden in 1882; Pfleiderer of Berlin, in 1885. The battle
waged with great passionateness on both sides since 1869 for and against
the removal of the Athanasian Creed, or at least its anathemas, from the
liturgy has not yet been brought to any decided result.
5. _Protestant Dissenters in England._—Down nearly to the end of the
eighteenth century all the enactments and restrictions of the Toleration
Act of 1689 (§ 155, 3) continued in full force. But in 1779 the obligation
of Protestant dissenters to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles was
abolished, and the acknowledgment of the Bible as God’s revealed word
substituted. The right of founding schools of their own, hitherto denied
them, was granted in 1798. In 1813 the Socinians were also included among
the dissenters who should enjoy these privileges. After a severe struggle
the _Corporation and Test Acts_ were set aside in 1826, affording all
dissenters entrance to Parliament and to all civil offices. The necessity
of being married and having their children baptized in an episcopal church
was removed by the Marriage and Registration Act of 1836 and 1837, and
divorce suits were removed from the ecclesiastical to a civil tribunal in
1857. In 1868 compulsory church rates for the episcopal parish church were
abolished. Lord Russell’s University Bill of 1854, by restricting
subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles to the theological students,
opened the universities of Oxford and Cambridge to dissenters, while the
University Tests Bill of 1871 made the adherents of all religious
confessions eligible for all university honours and emoluments at both
seminaries. Thus one restriction after another was removed, so that at
last the episcopal church has nothing of her exclusive privileges left
beyond the rank and title of a state church, and the undiminished
possession of all her ancient property, from which her prelates draw
princely revenues.
6. _Scotch Marriages in England._—The saints of the English Revolution had
indeed resolved in 1653 to introduce civil marriage (§ 162, 1). But the
reaction under Cromwell set this unpopular law aside, and the Restoration
made marriage by an Anglican clergyman, even for dissenters, an
indispensable condition of legal recognition. But in no country,
especially among the higher orders, were private marriages, without the
knowledge and consent of the family, so frequent as here, and clergymen
were always to be found unscrupulous enough to celebrate such weddings in
taverns or other convenient places. When an end had been put to such
irregularities on English soil by an Act of Parliament of 1753, lovers
seeking secret marriage betook themselves to Scotland. In that country
there prevailed, and still prevails, the theory that a declaration of
willingness on both sides constitutes a perfectly valid marriage. The
Scottish ecclesiastical law indeed requires church proclamation and
ceremony, but failure to observe this requirement is followed only by a
small pecuniary fine. Fugitive English couples generally made the
necessary declaration before a blacksmith at Gretna-Green, who was also
justice of the peace in this small border village, and were then
legitimately married people according to Scottish law. Only in 1856 were
all marriages performed in this manner without previous residence in
Scotland pronounced by Act of Parliament invalid.
7. _The Scottish State Church._—The Presbyterian Church of Scotland, from
the beginning strictly Calvinistic in constitution, doctrine and practice,
has, generally speaking, preserved this character. Only in recent times
has the endeavour of the so-called _Moderates_ to introduce a milder type
of doctrine won favour. The Established Church, as a national church
properly so-called and recognised by law, dates from the political union
of England and Scotland in the kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, and the
Anglican Episcopal Church there was then reduced to a feebly represented
dissenting denomination. Patronage, set aside indeed in the Reformation
age, but restored under Queen Anne in 1712, and since then, in spite of
all opposition from the stricter party, continued, because often misused
to secure the intrusion of inacceptable ministers upon congregations, gave
occasion to repeated secessions. Thus the _Secession Church_ broke off in
1732, and the _Relief Church_ in 1752, the latter going beyond the
former’s protest against patronage by unconditional repudiation of
Erastianism, _i.e._ the theory of the necessary connection of Church and
State (§ 144, 1), and the assertion of the spiritual independence of the
church, and expressed firmly the principles of Voluntaryism, _i.e._ the
payment of all ecclesiastical officers, etc., by voluntary contributions.
Both parties united in 1847 in the _United Presbyterian Church_, which now
embraces one-fifth of the population.—Twice that number joined the
secession of the Free Church in 1843. The General Assembly of the Church
of Scotland granted to congregations in 1834 the right of vetoing
presentations to vacancies. The civil courts, however, upheld the absolute
right of patrons, and at the Assembly of 1843 about two hundred of the
most distinguished ministers, with the great Dr. Chalmers (died 1847) at
their head, left the state church, and, as _Non-Intrusionists_, founded
the _Free Church of Scotland_, which at its own cost formed new parishes
and distinguished itself by Christian zeal in every direction. It differs
from the _United Presbyterian Church_ in restricting its opposition to the
abuse of patronage, without repudiating right off every sort of state aid
and endowment as unevangelical. But even to it the law passed in 1846,
granting to all congregations the right of veto, seemed now no longer a
sufficient motive to return to the state church. Even when in 1874,
parliament, at the call of the government, formally abolished the rights
of patronage through all Scotland and gave to the congregations the right
of choosing their own ministers, the General Assembly of the Free Church
by a great majority refused to reunite with the state church brought so
near it, because it conceded to the civil courts unwarrantable
interference with its internal affairs, especially the right of suspending
its clergy.(115)
8. _Scottish Heresy Cases._—The Glasgow presbytery lodged before the
United Presbyterian Synod in Edinburgh of 1878 a charge against the Rev.
Fergus Ferguson of heresy, because his teaching was in conflict with the
church doctrine of the atonement in saying that sinners, apart from
Christ’s intervention, would not suffer eternal punishment but extinction,
and that the same fate still lay before unbelievers and the impenitent.
After five days’ violent discussion, the majority of the synod, while
strongly dissenting from his views and urging him to avoid it in his
preaching and catechising, resolved to retain him in office as having
proved his adherence to the orthodox doctrine of the atonement. But when,
at next year’s synod, the Rev. D. Macrae of Gourock asserted that, in
spite of the Westminster Confession, it was allowable for ministers to
deny the eternity of punishment, and would not promise to preach
otherwise, he was unanimously deposed.—Far more exciting and long
continued were the proceedings begun in the Free Church in 1876, against
Professor Robertson Smith of Aberdeen, who was charged before his
presbytery with offensive statements about angels, but especially with
contradicting the inspiration of Scripture by contesting the Mosaic
authorship of Deuteronomy. After various proposals of deposition,
suspension, rebuke, acquittal, had been made, the General Assembly of
1880, after much deliberation and discussion, by a majority found the
charge of heterodoxy not proven, but earnestly exhorted the accused to
greater circumspection and moderation, and the decision was greeted with
thundering applause from the students and waving of handkerchiefs from the
ladies present. But when, very soon after this acquittal, several other
contributions by him appeared in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, on the
Hebrew Language and Literature, and Haggai, in the spirit of the
Wellhausen criticism (§ 182, 18), as also an article on Animal Worship
among the Arabians and in the Old Testament, in the _Journal of
Philology_, the _Commission_ sitting in Edinburgh reinstituted proceedings
against him. In October, 1880, Smith vindicated before that court his
scientific attitude toward the Old Testament, maintaining that a moderate
criticism of the biblical books was reconcilable with the maintenance of
their inspired authority. The majority of the Commission, however, voted
for his expulsion from his chair. Smith protested both against the
competence and against the judgment of the Commission, but declared
himself ready to submit to the judgment of the General Assembly. Meanwhile
he accepted an invitation from Glasgow to deliver public lectures there on
the Old Testament, which were received with extraordinary favour. This
course was published under the title: “_The Old Testament in the Jewish
Church_.” The General Assembly of May, 1881, now decided by a large
majority to remove him from his academical chair, with retention of his
license and his professor’s salary, which latter, however, Smith declined.
But his numerous sympathizers presented him with a scientific library
worth £3,000, and promised an annual stipend equal to his former salary.
In 1883 he received the appointment as Professor of Arabic in Cambridge
and the large revenues of that office allowed him to decline the offer of
his friends.(116)
9. _The Catholic Church in Ireland._—The Catholic inhabitants of Ireland
under Protestant proprietors, and forced to pay tithes for the support of
the Protestant clergy, were always deprived of civil rights. In 1809
O’Connell (died 1847), an agitator of great popular eloquence, placed
himself at the head of the oppressed people, in order in a constitutional
way to secure religious and political freedom and equality. At last, in
1829, the Emancipation Bill, supported by Peel and Wellington, was passed,
which on the basis of the formal declaration of the whole Catholic
episcopate that papal infallibility and papal sovereignty in civil matters
was not part of the Catholic faith nor could be joined therewith either in
Ireland or anywhere else in the Catholic world, gave to Catholics
admission to parliament and to all civil and military appointments. But
the hated tithes remained, and were enforced, when refused, by military
force. After long debates in both houses of parliament, the Tithes Bill
was adopted in 1838, which transferred the tithe as a land-tax from
tenants to proprietors, which, however, was only a postponing of the
question. It was thus regarded by O’Connell. He declared that justice for
Ireland could only be got by abolishing the legislative union with Great
Britain existing since 1800, and restoring her independent parliament. For
this purpose he organized the Repeal Association. In 1840 another no less
powerful popular agitator arose in the person of the Irish Capuchin,
Father Mathew, the apostle of temperance, who with unparalleled success
persuaded thousands of those degraded by drink to take vows of abstinence
from spirituous liquors. He kept apart from all political agitation, but
the fruits of his exertions were all in its favour. O’Connell in 1843
organized monster meetings, attended by hundreds of thousands. The
government had him tried, the jury found him guilty, but the House of
Lords quashed the conviction and liberated him from prison in 1844. The
Peel ministry now sought to soothe the excitement by passing in 1845 the
Legacy Act, which allowed Catholics to hold property in their own names,
and the Maynooth Bill, by which the theological seminary at Maynooth
received a rich endowment from the State. Continued famine, and consequent
emigration of several hundreds of thousands to America and Australia,
relieved Ireland of a considerable portion of its Catholic population,
while Protestant missions by Bible and tract circulation and by schools
had some success in evangelizing those who remained. On November 5th,
1855, the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, the Redemptorists at
Kingstown, near Dublin, erected and burnt a great bonfire in the public
streets of Bibles which they had seized, and the primate archbishop of
Ireland justified it by reference to the example of the believers at
Ephesus (Acts xix. 19).
10. The Fenian movement, originating among the American Irish, which since
1863 created such terror among the English, was the result of political
rather than religious agitation. Although this movement failed in its
proper end, namely the complete separation of Ireland from England, it yet
forced upon the government the conviction of the absolute necessity of
meeting the just demands of the Irish by thorough-going reforms and
putting an end to the oppressions which the native farmers suffered at the
hands of foreign landowners, and the grievances endured by the Catholic
church by the maintenance of the Anglican church established in Ireland.
The carrying out of these reforms was the service rendered by the
Gladstone ministry. By the Irish Land Bill of 1870 the land question was
solved according to the demands of justice, and by the Irish Church Bill
of 1869, which deprived the Anglican church in Ireland of the character of
a state church and put it on the same footing as other denominations, the
church question was similarly settled. The dignitaries of the Anglican
church thus lost their position as state officials and their seats in the
House of Lords. The rich property of the hitherto established church was
calculated and applied partly to compensating for losses caused by this
reform, partly to creating benevolent institutions for the general good.
But neither the Church Bill, nor the Land Bill, nor the Universities Bill,
which in 1880 founded by state aid a Catholic university in Dublin,
secured the reconciliation of the Irish. “Eternal hatred of England” was
and is the battle cry; “Ireland for the Irish, and only for them,” is
their watchword. In order to carry out this scheme an Irish “National
League” was formed, and innumerable secret “Moonlighters,” under the
supposed leadership of “Captain Moonshine,” committed atrocities by
burning farm steadings and mutilating cattle, murdering and massacring by
dagger and revolver, petroleum and dynamite, and directed their operations
against the representatives of the government, against proprietors who
sought rent, against tenants who paid rent, against officials who
endeavoured to enforce it, and against everything that was, or was called,
English. In order to cut at the root of this lawlessness, which by
proclamation of a state of siege was only restricted, not overthrown, the
government of 1881 passed further agrarian reforms: All tenant rights were
to be purchased by the surplus of the fund formed by the disestablishment
of the Irish church, and where this did not suffice, by state grants, and
the right to conclude contracts for rent and to determine its amount was
transferred from the proprietors to a newly-constituted land court,
without whose permission, after the lapse of the fifteen years’ term, no
rent contract could be made. But even this did not stop almost daily
repeated murders and acts of destruction. The government now sought the
aid of the pope through the mediation of a Catholic member of parliament
on a visit to Rome; but these merely confidential negotiations led to no
considerable result. In May, 1883, the curia, on the occasion of a
collection promoted by the National League as a magnificent national
present to the great (Protestant) leader of the agitation, Mr. Parnell, in
a circular letter, forbad “_proprio motu_,” the bishops in the strictest
manner taking any part in the movement, and urged them to dissuade their
members from doing so. But only Archbishop McCabe of Dublin (died 1885),
from the first an opponent of the League, issued a pastoral against it to
be read in all the pulpits of his diocese. The other bishops ignored the
papal command, and among the Catholic people the opinion obtained that
they owed to the pope obedience in spiritual but not in political matters.
The collections for the Parnell fund were continued with redoubled zeal.
The attempts of dynamitards, supplied with materials by their American
compatriots, and other agrarian offences have not yet been finally
stopped.
11. _The Catholic Church in England and Scotland._—The Emancipation Act,
passed mainly for the relief of the Irish, naturally also benefited
English Catholics, who in 1791 had been allowed to hold Catholic services.
Led by the numerous accessions of Puseyites to entertain the most
extravagant hopes, Pius IX. in 1850 issued a bull, by which the Roman
Catholic hierarchy in England was reinstituted with twelve suffragan
bishoprics under one archbishop of Westminster. The bull occasioned great
excitement in the Protestant population (_Anti-Papal Aggression_), and the
_Ecclesiastical Titles Bill_ forbade the use of ecclesiastical titles not
sanctioned by the law of the land. After the first excitement had passed,
the Catholic bishops, at their head the learned and brilliant and zealous
ultramontane Cardinal Archbishop Wiseman (died 1865), and his successor,
surpassing him, if not in genius and learning, at least in ultramontane
zeal, the Puseyite convert Manning, made a cardinal in 1875, used with
impunity their condemned titles, until in 1871 the Ecclesiastical Titles
Bill was formally revoked by act of parliament. Conversions in noble
families were particularly numerous in the later decades. Since 1850 the
number of Catholics in England and Scotland has quadrupled. This has been
caused in great part by Irish emigration, for the middle and lower ranks
of the English have scarcely been affected by the conversion fever, which
as the latest form of the fitful humour of the English had so rich a
harvest in the families of the nobility. In 1780 all London had only one
Catholic place of worship, the chapel of the Sardinian embassy, which on
June 2nd of that year was wrecked and burnt by a raging mob. Now the
English capital has two episcopal dioceses, ninety-four Catholic churches
and chapels (besides about 900 Anglican churches) with 313 clergymen, and
forty-four cloisters. In the House of Lords sit twenty-eight Roman
Catholic peers, and in both countries there are forty-seven Catholic
baronets. Since 1847 England has a specifically Catholic university at
Kensington, under the episcopate, and with the pope as its supreme head,
which, however, with its poor staff of teachers and its expensive course
attracts but a few of the Catholic youth of England. Since the Anti-Papal
Aggression of 1850 failed, the Protestant people have shown themselves
comparatively indifferent to such assumptions of the papacy.—In the Act of
Union of 1707 (§ 155, 3), _Scotland_ was guaranteed the absolute exclusion
of every sort of Roman Catholic hierarchy for all time to come. But in
recent times the number of its Catholic inhabitants so greatly increased,
that Pius IX. in his last years, not unaided by the English government,
eagerly urged the re-establishment of the hierarchy, and Leo XIII. was
able at his first consistory of the college of cardinals in March, 1878,
to make appointments to the two newly-erected archdioceses and their
bishoprics. On the following Easter Sunday the allocution relating thereto
was read in all Catholic churches in Scotland. The restoration was thus
carried out in spite of all protests and demonstrations of Scottish
Protestants.
12. _German Lutheran Congregations in Australia._—Besides the dominant
Anglican church, emigration has led to the formation of a considerable
number of German Lutheran congregations, which are distributed in three
synods. 1. The Victoria Synod was founded in 1852 by pastor Göthe. It
adopted at first the union platform, but subsequently attached itself more
decidedly to the Lutheran confession. 2. Pastor Karch, who in 1830
emigrated with a number of Prussian Lutherans, in order to avoid the
union, laid the foundation of the Immanuel Synod. Since 1875 it has been
supplied with preachers from the missionary institute of Neuendettelsau.
It is distinguished by its missionary zeal for the conversion of the
natives, pursues with special interest the study of the prophetic word,
and makes chiliasm an open question which need not rend the church. 3. The
South Australian Synod, on the other hand, is the decided opponent of any
sort of chiliasm, and has assumed an attitude of violent antagonism to the
Immanuel Synod.
§ 203. France.
In France, lauded as the eldest daughter of the church after the overthrow
of the first Empire, ultramontanism, under the secret and open
co-operation of the Jesuits, has ever arisen with revived youth and vigour
out of all the political convulsions which have since passed over the
land. And though indeed Gallicanism seemed again to obtain strength under
the second Empire and, down to the close of that period, found many able
champions among learned theologians like Bishop Maret (§ 189, 1), and even
among exalted prelates like the noble Archbishop Darboy of Paris, a martyr
of his office under the Commune (§ 212, 4), its influence faded gradually,
and in the latest phase of France’s political development, the third
republic, seems utterly to have disappeared, so that even the
“_Kulturkampf_” which broke out in 1879 could not give it life again.—The
number of Protestant churches and church members, in spite of bloody
persecutions during the Bourbon restoration, and many arbitrary
restrictions by Catholic prefects under the citizen king and the second
Empire, by numerous accessions of whole congregations and groups of
congregations through zealous evangelization efforts, by means of school
instruction, itinerant preaching, and Bible colportage, has increased
during the century fourfold. In the Reformed church the opposition of
methodistically tinctured orthodoxy, reinforced from England and French
Switzerland, and rationalistic freethinking, led to sharp conflicts. Also
in the Lutheran church, more strongly influenced by Germany, similar
discussions arose, but a more conciliatory spirit prevailed and violent
struggles were avoided.
1. _The French Church under Napoleon I._—In 1801 Napoleon as Consul
concluded with Pius VII. a Concordat which, adopting the concordat of
Francis I. (§ 111, 14), abandoning the pragmatic sanction of Bourges, and
only haggling about the limits to be fixed for the two powers, gave no
consideration to the idea of a wholesome internal reform of the French
Church: Catholicism is the acknowledged religion of the majority of the
French people; the church property belongs to the state, with the
obligation to maintain the clergy and ordinances; the clergy who had taken
the oath and those who were expatriated were all to resign, but were
eligible for election; new boundaries were to be marked out for the
episcopal dioceses with reference to the political divisions of the
country; the government elects and the pope confirms the bishops, and
these, with approval of the government, appoint the priests. The one-sided
_Organic Articles_ of the first Consul of 1802, which were annexed to the
publication of the Concordat as a code of explanatory regulations, made
any proclamation of papal orders and decrees of all foreign councils
dependent on previous permission of the government, as also the calling of
synods and consultative assemblies of the clergy. They further ordained
that all official services of the clergy should be gratuitous, and
transferred to the civil council the right and duty of strict inquiry into
any clerical breach of civil laws and any misuse or excessive exercise of
clerical authority. The thirty-first article, however, created that
unhappy order of _Desservants_ or curates, the result of which was that
interim appointments were made to most of the benefices in order to
squeeze state pay in supplement to the inadequate ecclesiastical
endowments, and so their holders were at the absolute mercy of the bishops
who could transport or dispense with them at any moment. For further
particulars about the friendly and hostile relations of Napoleon and the
pope, see § 185, 1. By an imperial decree of 1810, the four articles of
the Gallican Church (§ 156, 3) were made laws of the Empire; and a French
National Council of 1811 sought to complete the reconstruction of the
church according to Napoleon’s ideas, but proved utterly incapable for
such a task, and was therefore dissolved by the emperor himself.—To pacify
the Protestants, dissatisfied with the Concordat, amid flattering
acknowledgment of their services to the state, to science and to the arts,
an appendix was attached to the Organic Articles, securing to them liberty
of religious worship and political and municipal equality with Catholics.
For training ministers for the Reformed Church a theological seminary was
founded at Montauban, and for Lutherans an academy with a seminary at
Strassburg. Napoleon also afterwards proved himself on every occasion
ready to help the Protestants. He was equally forward in recognising
public opinion in France. The National Institute of France in 1804 offered
a prize for an essay on the influence of Luther’s Reformation on the
formation and advance of European national life, and awarded it to the
treatise of the Catholic physician Villers (_Essai sur l’influence de la
réf. de Luther_, etc.), which in all respects glorified Protestantism.
Even the Catholic clergy during the first Empire exhibited an easy temper
and tolerance such as was never shown before or since. The obligatory
civil marriage law introduced by the Revolution in 1792, obtained place in
the _Code Napoléon_ in 1804, and was with it introduced in Belgium and the
provinces of the Rhine.(117)
2. _The Restoration and the Citizen Kingdom._—The _Charter_ of the Bourbon
Restoration under Louis XVIII. (1814-1824) and Charles X. (1824-1830) made
Catholicism the state religion and granted toleration and state protection
to the other confessions. A new concordat concluded with Pius VII. in
1817, by which that of Napoleon of 1801, with the Organic Articles of the
following year, were abrogated, and the state of matters previous to 1789
restored, was so vigorously opposed by the nation, that the ministry were
obliged to withdraw the measure introduced in both chambers for giving it
legislative sanction. Ultramontanism, however, in its boldest form,
steadily favoured by the government, soon prevailed among the clergy to
such an extent that any inclination to Gallicanism was denounced as heresy
and intolerance of Protestantism lauded as piety. In southern France the
rekindled hatred of the Catholic mob against the Reformed broke out in
1815 in brutal and bloody persecution. The government kept silence till
the indignation of Europe obliged it to put down the atrocities, but the
offenders were left unpunished. Connivance in such lawlessness on the part
of the government contributed largely to its overthrow in the July
revolution of 1830. The Catholic Church then lost again the privilege of a
state religion, and the hitherto persecuted and oppressed Protestants
obtained equal rights with the Catholics. But even under the new
constitutional government of Orleans, ultramontanism soon reasserted
itself. The Protestants had to complain of much injury and injustice from
Catholic prefects, and the Protestant minister Guizot claimed for France
the protectorate of the whole Catholic world. The Reformed Church
meanwhile flourished, though vacillating between methodistic narrowness
and rationalistic shallowness, growing both inwardly and outwardly, and
also the Lutheran communities, which outside of Alsace were only thinly
scattered, enjoyed great prosperity. In the February revolution of 1848
the Catholic clergy readily yielded obedience to the citizen king Louis
Philippe, and, on the ground that the Catholic church is suited to any
form of government which only grants liberty to the church, did not refuse
their benediction to the tree of freedom with the sovereign people at the
barricades.
3. _The Catholic Church under Napoleon III._—Louis Napoleon, as president
of the new republic (1848-1852), and still more decidedly as emperor
(1852-1870), inclined to follow the traditions of his uncle, regarded the
concordat of 1801 as still legally in force and seemed specially anxious
to arouse zeal for the Gallican liberties. Although his bayonets secured
the pope’s return to Rome (§ 185, 2) and even afterwards supported his
authority there, he did not fulfil the heart’s wish of the emperor by the
people’s grace to place the imperial crown upon his head in his own
person. Severely strained relations between the imperial court and the
episcopate resulted in 1860 from a pamphlet against the papacy inspired by
the government (§ 185, 3). Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, was one of the
oldest and most determined defenders of the interests of the papal see,
and from Poitiers the emperor was pretty openly characterized as a second
Pilate. The government did not venture directly to interfere between the
two, but reminded the bishops that the emperor’s differences with the pope
referred only to temporal affairs. It also forbade the forming of separate
societies for the collecting of Peter’s pence, and dissolved the societies
of St. Vincent, instituted for benevolent purposes, but misused for
ultramontane agitations. When Archbishop Desprez of Toulouse, like his
predecessors in 1662 and 1762, on May 16th, 1862, with pompous phrases of
piety appointed the jubilee festival of the “_fait glorieux_,” by which at
Toulouse three hundred years before, by means of shameful treachery and
base breach of pledges 4,000 Protestants were murdered (§ 139, 15), a
shout of indignation rose from almost all French journals and the
government forbade the ceremonial. It also refused permission to proclaim
the papal encyclical with the syllabus (§ 185, 2) and condemned several
bishops who disobeyed for misuse of their office. Under the influence of
the ultramontane empress Eugenie, however, the relation of the government
to the curia and the higher clergy of the empire, since the one could not
do without the other, became more friendly and intimate, till the day of
Sedan, September 2nd, 1870, put an end to the Napoleonic empire and the
temporal power of the papacy which it had maintained.
4. _The Protestant Churches under Napoleon III._—After the revolution of
1848, the Lutherans at an assembly in Strassburg and the Reformed in Paris
consulted about a new organization of their churches. But as the latter
resolved in order to maintain constitutional union amid doctrinal
diversity, entirely to set aside symbol and dogma, pastor Fr. Monod and
Count Gasparin, the noble defenders of French Protestantism, lodged a
protest, and with thirty congregations of the strict party constituted a
new council at Paris in 1849, independent of the state, as the _Union des
églises évangéliques de France_ with biennial synods. Louis Napoleon gave
to the Reformed Church a central council in Paris with consistories and
presbyteries; to the Lutheran, an annual general consistory as a
legislative court and a standing directory as an administrative court. The
Lutheran theological faculty at Strassburg with its vigorous
unconfessional science represents the westernmost school of
Schleiermacher’s theology. The academy at Montauban, with Adolph Monod at
its head, represents Reformed orthodoxy, not strictly confessional but
coloured by methodistic piety, and Coquerel in Paris, was the head of the
rationalistic party of the Reformed national church. The lead in the
reaction against rationalism since 1830 has been taken by the _Société
évangélique_ at Paris, which, aiming at the Protestantising of France, and
using for this end Bible colportage, tract distribution, the sending out
of evangelists, school instruction, etc., has developed an extraordinarily
restless and successful activity. It has been powerfully supported by the
evangelical society of Geneva. The number of Protestant clergymen in
France has steadily risen, and almost every year in and out of the
Catholic population new evangelical congregations have been formed, in
spite of endless difficulties put in the way by Catholic courts. In
Strassburg, in 1854, the Jesuits persuaded the Catholic prefects to recall
and arrest the revenues of the former St. Thomas institute, which since
the Reformation had been applied to the maintenance of a Protestant
gymnasium. The prefect of Paris, however, was instructed to desist from
his claims. In the speech from the throne in 1858, the emperor declared
that the government secured for Protestants full liberty of worship,
without forgetting, however, that Catholicism is the religion of the
majority, and the _Moniteur_ commented on this imperial speech so
evidently in the spirit of the _Univers_, that the prefects could not be
in doubt how to understand it. By General Espinasse, who, after the Orsini
attempt on the emperor’s life in 1858, officiated for a long time as
Minister of the Interior, the prefects were expressly instructed, to
extend their espionage of the ill-affected press to the proceedings of the
evangelical societies, and to prohibit the colportage of Protestant
Bibles. On a change of minister, however, the latter enactment was
withdrawn, and only agents of foreign Bible societies were interfered
with. By an imperial decree of 1859, the right of permitting of the
opening of new Protestant churches and chapels was taken from the local
courts and transferred to the imperial council of state. For every
Protestant congregation, so soon as it numbered 400 souls, the legal state
salary for the clergymen would be paid.
5. _The Catholic Church in the Third French Republic._—The Gambetta
government, the national vindication of the 4th September, 1870, resigned
its power in February, 1871, into the hands of the National Assembly
elected by the whole nation, which, although through clerical influence
upon the electors predominantly monarchical and clerical, appointed the
old Voltairean Thiers (died, 1877), formerly ministerial president under
Louis Philippe, as alone qualified for the difficult post of president of
the republic. In the necessary second vote, indeed, there was a
considerable increase of the republican and as such thoroughly
anti-clerical party; but even in its ranks it was admitted that the
establishment of France as leader of all Europe in the fight against
ultramontanism and the co-operation therein of the clergy were the
absolutely indispensable means for the political _Revanche_, after which
the hearts of all Frenchmen longed as the hart for the water streams. A
petition from five bishops and other dignitaries to the National Assembly
for the restoration of the temporal power of the pope was set aside as
inopportune. But Archbishop Guibert of Paris, without asking the
government, proclaimed the infallibility dogma, and the minister of
instruction, Jules Simon, contented himself with warning the episcopate in
a friendly way against any further illegal steps of that kind. The
clerical party was also successful in its protest to the National Assembly
against the education law, which by raising the standard of instruction,
placing it under the supervision of the state and making inspection of
schools obligatory, proposed to put an end to the terrible ignorance of
the French people as the chief cause of their deep decay. Bishop Dupanloup
of Orleans was appointed president of the commission for examining it, and
so its fate was sealed. Meanwhile the people, by frequent manifestations
of the Virgin, were roused to a high pitch of religious excitement. Crowds
of pilgrims encouraged by miraculous healings flocked to our Lady of La
Salette, at Lourdes, etc. (§ 188, 6), and the consecration of _Notre Dame
de la Deliverance_ at Bayeux was celebrated as a brilliant national
festival. When in May, 1873, Thiers gave way before the machinations of
his opponents and, under the new president, Marshal Macmahon, the
thoroughly clerical ministry of the Duc de Broglie got the helm of
affairs, the pilgrimage craze, mariolatry and ultramontane piety, aided by
the prefects and mayors, increased to an unparalleled extent among all
ranks. Under the Buffet ministry of 1875 the influence of clericalism was
unabated. To him it owed its most important acquisition, the right of
creating free Catholic universities wholly independent of the State, with
the privilege of conferring degrees. But when in 1876 the new elections
for the National Assembly gave an anti-clerical majority, Buffet was
obliged to resign. The new Dufaure ministry, with the Protestant
Waddington as minister of instruction, declared indeed that it continued
the liberty of instruction, but decidedly refused the right of conferring
degrees. The proposal to this effect met with the hearty support of the
new chamber of deputies. But all the greater was the jubilation of the
clericals when the senate by a small majority refused its consent, and all
the more eagerly was the founding of new free Catholic universities
carried on, at Paris, Angers, Lyons, Lille and Toulouse, but
notwithstanding every effort they only attracted a very small number of
scholars,—in 1879, when they flourished most, at all the five there were
only 742 students.
6. _The French _“Kulturkampf,”_ 1880._—The Dufaure ministry was succeeded
in December, 1876, by the semi-liberal ministry of Jules Simon, which
again was driven out in a summary fashion by president Macmahon on May
16th, 1877, and replaced, on the dissolution of the chamber, by a clerical
ministry under Duc de Broglie. But in the newly elected chamber the
republican anti-clerical majority was so overwhelming that Macmahon, on
January 30th, 1879, abandoning his motto of government, _J’y suis et j’y
reste_, was at last obliged, between the alternatives offered him by
Gambetta, _Se soumettre ou se démettre_, to choose the latter. His
successor was Grévy, president of the Chamber, who entrusted the
protestant Waddington with the forming of a new ministry in which Jules
Ferry was minister of instruction. Ferry brought in a bill in March to
abolish the representation of the clergy in the High Council of Education
by four archiepiscopal deputies, continuing indeed the free Catholic
universities, but requiring their students to enroll in a state university
which alone could hold examinations and give degrees, and finally enacting
by Article 7 that the right of teaching in all educational institutions
should be refused to members of all religious orders and congregations not
recognised by the state. The chamber deputies accepted this bill without
amendment on July 9th, but the senate on March 7th, 1880, after passing
six articles refused to adopt the seventh. On March 29th, the president of
the republic issued on his own authority two decrees, based indeed upon
earlier enactments (1789-1852), gone into desuetude indeed, but never
abrogated (§ 186, 2), demanded the dissolution of the Society of Jesus,
containing 1,480 members in 56 institutions, within three months, and
insisted that the orders and congregations not recognised by the State,
embracing 14,033 sisters in 602 institutions and 7,444 brothers in 384
institutions, in the same time should by production of their statutes and
rules seek formal recognition or else be broken up. A storm of protests on
the part of the bishops greeted these “_March Decrees_,” and riotous
demonstrations made before the Minister of Instruction at his residence at
Lille expressed the protests of the students of the Catholic university
there. The pope now broke his reserve and by a nuncio sent the president
of the republic a holograph letter in which he declared that he must
interfere on behalf of the Jesuits and the threatened orders, because they
were indispensably necessary to the wellbeing of the church. He did not
wish that they should have recourse to unlawful means, but it must be
understood that they would appeal to the courts for protection of their
threatened civil liberties. When therefore on the morning of June 30th the
police began their work of expelling the Jesuits from their houses, these
lodged a complaint before the courts of invasion of their domestic peace
and infringement of their personal liberty. Their schools were closed on
August 31st, the end of the school year; meanwhile they had taken the
precaution to transfer most of them to such as would be ready afterwards
to restore them. The enforcement of the second of the March Decrees
against the other orders was delayed for a while. A compromise proposed by
the episcopate, favoured by the pope and not absolutely rejected even by
the minister Freycinet, Waddington’s successor, according to which instead
of the required application for recognition all these orders should sign a
declaration of loyalty, undertaking to avoid all participation in
political affairs and to do nothing opposed to existing order, brought
about the overthrow of this ministry in September, 1880, by the
machinations from other motives of the president of the chamber and latent
dictator, Leon Gambetta. At the head of the new ministry was Ferry, who
held the portfolio of instruction, and under him the carrying out of the
second March Decree began on October 16th, 1880. Up to the meeting of the
chamber in November 261 monasteries had been vacated; the rest, as from
the first all female congregations, were spared, so that France with its
colonies and mission stations still number 4,288 male and 14,990 female
settlements of spiritual orders, the former with about 32,000, the latter
with about 166,200 inmates.—The expulsion of the Jesuits, as well as the
more recent of the other orders, was, however, stoutly opposed. The police
told off for this duty found doors shut and barricaded against them or
defended by fanatical peasants and mobs of shrieking women, so that they
had often to be stormed and broken up by the military. Still more
threatening than this opposition was the reaction which began to assert
itself at the instance of the almost thoroughly ultramontane jurists of
the country, a survival of the times of Napoleon III. and Macmahon. An
advocate Rousse, who publicly stated the opinion that the March Decrees
were illegal and therefore not binding, was supported by 2,000 attorneys
and over 200 corporations of attorneys and by many distinguished
university jurists. More than 200 state officials and many judiciary and
police officers, together with several officers of the army, tendered
their resignations so as to avoid taking part in the execution of the
decrees. When it became clear that unfavourable verdicts would be given by
the courts invoked by the Jesuits against the executors of the decree, as
indeed was soon actually done by several courts, the government lodged an
appeal against their competence before the tribunal of conflicts which
also actually in regard to all such cases pronounced them incompetent and
their decisions therefore null and void; but the complainers insisted that
their complaints should be taken to a Council of State as the only court
suitable to deal with charges against officials, which, as might be
expected, was not done.
7. In the future course of the French “Kulturkampf” the most important
proceedings of the government were the following: The abolition of the
institute of military chaplains, highly serviceable in ultramontanizing
the officers, was carried out in 1880, as well as the requirement that the
clergy and teachers should give military service for one year, and
subsequently also military escorts to the Corpus Christi procession were
forbidden. In 1880 the Municipal Council of Paris, with the concurrence of
the prefect of the Seine, forbad the continuance of the beautiful building
of the church of the Heart of Jesus begun in 1875 on Montmartre (§ 188,
12), confiscating the site that had been granted for it. In 1881 the
churchyards were relieved of their denominational character, and the
following year the right of managing them, with permission of merely civil
interment without the aid of a clergyman, was transferred from the
ecclesiastical to the civil authorities. By introducing in 1880 high
schools for girls with boarding establishments an end was put to the
education of girls of the upper ranks in nunneries, which had hitherto
been the almost exclusive practice. Far more sweeping was the School Act
brought in by the radical minister of worship, Paul Bert, and first
enforced in October, 1886, which made attendance compulsory, relegated
religious instruction wholly to the church and home, and absolutely
excluded all the clergy from the right of giving any sort of instruction
in the public schools, and demanded the removal of all crucifixes and
other religious symbols from the school buildings. In December, 1884, a
tax was imposed on the property of all religious orders, also the state
allowance for the five Catholic seminaries with only thirty-seven students
was withdrawn, and many other important deductions made upon the budget
for Catholic worship, which at first the senate opposed, but at last
agreed to. The Divorce Bill frequently introduced since 1881, which
permitted parties to marry again, and gave disposal of the matter to the
civil court, got the assent of the senate only in the end of July, 1884.
The clericals were also greatly offended by the decree passed in May,
1885, which closed the church of St. Genoveva, the former Pantheon, as a
place of worship and made it again a burial place for distinguished
Frenchmen. This resolution was first carried out by placing there the
remains of Victor Hugo. Amid these and many other injuries to its
interests the Roman curia, concentrating all its energies upon the German
“Kulturkampf,” endeavoured to keep things back in a moderate way. Yet in
July, 1883, the pope addressed to president Grévy a friendly but earnest
remonstrance, which he treated simply as a private letter and, without
communicating it officially to his cabinet, answered that apart from
parliament he could not act, but that so far as he and his ministry were
able they would seek to avoid conflict with the holy see. And in fact the
government, especially after the overthrow of the Gambetta ministry in
1882, often successfully opposed the proposal of the radical chamber,
_e.g._ the separation of church and state, the abrogation of the
concordat, the recall of the embassy to the Vatican, the abolition of
religious oaths in the proceedings of the courts, the stopping of the
state subvention of a million francs for payment of salaries in seminaries
for priests, etc.
8. _The Protestant Churches under the Third Republic._—Since the French
Reformed began to emulate their Catholic countrymen in wild Chauvinism,
fanatical hatred of Germany and unreasoning enthusiasm for the _Revanche_,
they were left by the advancing clerical party unmolested in respect of
life, confession and worship during the time of war. The Lutherans on the
other hand, consisting, although on French territory, mainly of German
emigrants and settlers, even their French members not so disposed to
Chauvinistic extravagance, were obliged to atone for this double offence
by expulsion from house and home and by various injuries to their
ecclesiastical interests. After the conclusion of peace, especially under
Thiers’ moderate government, this fanaticism gradually cooled down, so
that the expelled Germans returned and the churches and institutions that
had been destroyed were restored, so far as means would allow. By the
decree of Waddington, the minister of instruction, of date March 27th,
1877, instead of the theological faculty of Strassburg, now lost for the
French Lutheran church, one for both Protestant churches was founded in
Paris.—The _Lutheran Church_, in consequence of the cession of
Alsace-Lorraine, had only sixty-four out of 278 pastorates and six out of
forty-four consistories remaining. At the general synod convened at Paris,
in July, 1872, by the government for reorganising the Lutheran church it
was resolved: To form two inspectorates independent of each other—Paris,
predominantly orthodox, Mömpelgard, predominantly liberal; the general
assembly, which meets every third year alternately at Mömpelgard and
Paris, to consist of delegates from both. The two inspectorates are to
correspond in administrative matters directly with the minister of public
instruction, but in everything referring to confession, doctrine, worship
and discipline, the general assembly is the supreme authority. In regard
to the confessional question they agreed to the statement, that the holy
Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of faith, and the Augsburg
Confession the basis of the legal constitution of the church. An express
undertaking on the part of the clergy to this effect is not, however,
insisted upon. Only in 1879 could this constitution obtain legal sanction
by the State, and that only after considerable modification in the
direction of liberalism, especially in reference to electoral
qualification. In consequence of this the first ordinary general assembly
held in Paris in May, 1881, found both parties in a conciliatory
mood.—_The Reformed Church_, with about 500 pastorates and 105
consistories, summoned by order of government a newly constituted General
Assembly at Paris, in June, 1872. Prominent among the leaders of the
orthodox party was the aged ex-minister Guizot; the leaders of the
liberals were Coquerel and Colani. The former supported the proposal of
Professor Bois of Montauban, who insisted on the frank and full confession
of holy Scripture as the sovereign authority in matters of faith, of
Christ as the only Son of God, and of justification by faith as the legal
basis of instruction, worship and discipline; while the latter protested
against every attempt to lay down an obligatory and exclusive confession.
The orthodox party prevailed and the dissenters who would not yield were
struck off the voting lists. When now in consequence of the complaint of
the liberal party the summoning of an ordinary general assembly was
refused by the government, the orthodox party repeatedly met in “official”
provincial and general assemblies without state sanction. The council of
state then declared all decisions regarding voting qualifications passed
by the synod of 1872 to be null and void, the minister of worship, Ferry,
ordered the readmission of electors struck from the lists, and his
successor Bert legalized, by a decree of March 25th, 1882, the division of
the Parisian consistorial circuit into two independent consistories of
Paris and Versailles, moved for by the liberal party but opposed by the
orthodox. But upon the elections for the new consistory of Paris, ordered
in spite of all protests, and for the presbyteries of the eight parishes
assigned to it, contrary to all expectation, in seven of these the
elections with great majorities were in favour of the orthodox, and the
first official document issued by the new consistory was a solemn protest
against the decree to which it owed its existence. Under such
circumstances the government as well as the liberal party had no desire
for the calling of an official general assembly, and the latter resolved
at a general assembly at Nimes, in October, 1882, to institute official
synods of their own for consultation and protection of their own
interests.
§ 204. Italy.
In Italy matters returned to their old position after the restoration of
1814. But liberalism, aiming at the liberty and unity of Italy, gained the
mastery, and where for the time it prevailed, the Jesuits were expelled,
and the power of the clergy restricted; where it failed, both came back
with greatly increased importance. The arms of Austria and subsequently
also of France stamped out on all sides the revolutionary movements. Pius
IX., who at first was not indisposed, contrary to all traditions of the
papacy, to put himself at the head of the national party, was obliged
bitterly to regret his dealings with the liberals (§ 185, 2). Sardinia,
Modena and Naples put the severest strain upon the bow of the restoration,
while Parma and Tuscany distinguished themselves by adopting liberal
measures in a moderate degree. Sardinia, however, in 1840 came to a better
mind. Charles Albert first broke ground with a more liberal constitution,
and in 1848 proclaimed himself the deliverer of Italy, but yielded to the
arms of Austria. His son Victor Emanuel II. succeeded amid singularly
favourable circumstances in uniting the whole peninsula under his sceptre
as a united kingdom of Italy governed by liberal institutions.
1. _The Kingdom of Sardinia._—Victor Emanuel I. after the restoration had
nothing else to do but to recall the Jesuits, to hand over to them the
whole management of the schools, and, guided and led by them in
everything, to restore the church and state to the condition prevailing
before 1789. Charles Felix (1821-1831) carried still further the
absolutist-reactionary endeavours of his predecessor, and even Charles
Albert (1831-1849) refused for a long time to realize the hopes which the
liberal party had previously placed in him. Only in the second decade of
his reign did he begin gradually to display a more liberal tendency, and
at last in 1848 when, in consequence of the French Revolution, Lombardy
rose against the Austrian rule, he placed himself at the head of the
national movement for freeing Italy from the yoke of strangers. But the
king gloried in as “the sword of Italy” was defeated and obliged to
abdicate. Victor Emanuel II. (1849-1878) allowed meanwhile the liberal
constitution of his father to remain and indeed carried it out to the
utmost. The minister of justice, Siccardi, proposed a new legislative code
which abolished all clerical jurisdiction in civil and criminal
proceedings, as also the right of asylum and of exacting tithes, the
latter with moderate compensation. It was passed by parliament and
subscribed by the king in 1850. The clergy, with archbishop Fransoni of
Turin at their head, protested with all their might against these
sacrilegious encroachments on the rights of the church. Fransoni was on
this account committed for a month to prison and, when he refused the last
sacrament to a minister, was regularly sentenced to deposition and
banishment from the country. Pius IX. thwarted all attempts to obtain a
new concordat. But the government went recklessly forward. As Fransoni
from his exile in France continued his agitation, all the property of the
archiepiscopal chair was in 1854 sequestered and a number of cloisters
were closed. Soon all penalties in the penal code for spreading
non-Catholic doctrines were struck out and non-Catholic soldiers freed
from compulsory attendance at mass on Sundays and festivals. The chief
blow now fell on March 2nd, 1855, in the Cloister Act, which abolished all
orders and cloisters not devoted to preaching, teaching, and nursing the
sick. In consequence 331 out of 605 cloisters were shut up. The pope
ceased not to condemn all these sacrilegious and church robbing acts, and
when his threats were without result, thundered the great excommunication
in July, 1855, against all originators, aiders, and abettors of such
deeds. Among the masses this indeed caused some excitement, but it never
came to an explosion.
2. _The Kingdom of Italy._—Amid such vigorous progress the year 1859 came
round with its fateful Franco-Italian war. The French alliance had not
indeed, as it promised, made Italy free to the Adriatic, but by the peace
of Villafranca the whole of Lombardy was given to the kingdom of Sardinia
as a present from the emperor of the French. In the same year by popular
vote Tuscany, including Modena and Parma, and in the following year the
kingdom of the two Sicilies, as well as the three provinces of the States
of the Church, revolted and were annexed, so that the new kingdom of Italy
embraced the whole of the peninsula, with the exception of Venice, Rome
and the Campagna. Prussia’s remarkable successes in the seven days’ German
war of 1866 shook Venice like ripe fruit into the lap of her Italian ally,
and the day of Sedan, 1870, prepared the way for the addition of Rome and
the Campagna (§ 185, 3).—In Lombardy and then also in Venice, immediately
after they had been taken possession of, the concordat with Austria was
abrogated and the Jesuits expelled. Ecclesiastical tithes on the produce
of the soil were abolished throughout the whole kingdom, begging was
forbidden the mendicant friars as unworthy of a spiritual order,
ecclesiastical property was put under state control and the support of the
clergy provided for by state grants. In 1867 the government began the
appropriation and conversion of the church property; in 1870 all religious
orders were dissolved, with exception for the time being of those in Rome,
wherever they did not engage in educational and other useful works. In
May, 1873, this law was extended to the Roman province, only it was not to
be applied to the generals of orders in Rome. Nuns and some monks were
also allowed to remain in their cloisters situated in unpeopled districts.
The amount of state pensions paid to monks and nuns reached in 1882 the
sum of eleven million lire, at the rate of 330 lire for each person. The
abolition of the theological faculties in ten Italian universities in
1873, because these altogether had only six students of theology, was
regarded by the curia rather as a victory than a defeat. The newly
appointed bishops were forbidden by the pope to produce their credentials
for inspection in order to obtain their salaries from the government. The
loss of temporalities thus occasioned was made up by Pius IX. out of
Peter’s pence flowing in so abundantly from abroad; each bishop receiving
500 and each archbishop 700 lire in the month. Leo XIII., however, felt
obliged in 1879, owing to the great decrease in the Peter’s pence
contributions, to cancel this enactment and to permit the bishops to
accept the state allowance. In consequence of the civil marriage law
passed in 1866 having been altogether ignored by the clergy, nearly
400,000 marriages had down to the close of 1878 received only
ecclesiastical sanction, and the offspring of such parties would be
regarded in the eye of the law as illegitimate. To obviate this difficulty
a law was passed in May, 1879, which insisted that in all cases civil
marriage must precede the ecclesiastical ceremony, and clergymen,
witnesses and parties engaging in an illegal marriage should suffer three
or six months’ imprisonment; but all marriages contracted in accordance
merely with church forms before the passing of this law might be
legitimized by being entered on the civil register.—Finally in January,
1884, the controversy pending since 1873 as to whether the rich property
of the Roman propaganda (§ 156, 9) amounting to twenty million lire should
be converted into state consols was decided by the supreme court in favour
of the curia, which had pronounced these funds international because
consisting of presents and contributions from all lands. But not only was
the revenue of the propaganda subjected to a heavy tax, but also all
increase of its property forbidden. In vain did the pope by his nuncios
call for the intervention of foreign nations. None of these were inclined
to meddle in the internal affairs of Italy. The curia now devised the plan
of affiliating a number of societies outside of Italy to the propaganda
for receiving and administering donations and presents.
3. _The Evangelization of Italy._—Emigrant Protestants of various
nationalities had at an early date, by the silent sufferance of the
respective governments, formed small evangelical congregations in some of
the Italian cities; in Venice and Leghorn during the seventeenth century,
at Bergamo in 1807, at Florence in 1826, at Milan in 1847. Also by aid of
the diplomatic intervention of Prussia and England, the erection of
Protestant chapels for the embassy was allowed at Rome in 1819, at Naples
in 1825, and at Florence in 1826. When in 1848 Italy’s hopes from the
liberal tendencies of Pius IX. were so bitterly disappointed, Protestant
sympathies began to spread far and wide through the land, even among
native Catholics, fostered by English missionaries, Bibles and tracts,
which the governments sought in vain to check by prisons, penitentiaries
and exile. Persecution began in 1851 in Tuscany, where, in spite of the
liberty of faith and worship guaranteed by the constitution of 1848,
Tuscan subjects taking part in the Italian services in the chapel of the
Prussian embassy at Florence were punished with six months’ hard labour,
and in the following year the pious pair Francesco and Rosa Madiai were
sentenced to four years’ rigorous punishment in a penitentiary for the
crime of having edified themselves and their household by reading the
Bible. In vain did the Evangelical Alliance remonstrate (§ 178, 3), in
vain did even the king of Prussia intercede. But when, stirred up by
public opinion in England, the English premier Lord Palmerston offered to
secure the requirement of Christian humanity by means of British ships of
war, the grand-duke got rid of both martyrs by banishing them from the
country in 1853. In proportion as the union of Italy under Victor Emanuel
II. advanced, the field for evangelistic effort and the powers devoted
thereto increased. So it was too since 1860 in Southern Italy. But when in
1866 a Protestant congregation began to be formed at Barletta in Naples, a
fanatical priest roused a popular mob in which seventeen persons were
killed and torn in pieces. The government put down the uproar and punished
the miscreants, and the nobler portion of the nation throughout the whole
land collected for the families of those murdered. The work of
evangelization supported by liberal contributions chiefly from England,
but also from Holland, Switzerland, and the German _Gustav-Adolf-Verein_
(§ 178, 1), advanced steadily in spite of occasional brutal interferences
of the clergy and the mob, so that soon in all the large cities and in
many of the smaller towns of Italy and Sicily there were thriving and
flourishing little evangelical congregations of converted native
Catholics, numbering as many as 182 in 1882.
4. The chief factor in the evangelization of Italy as far as the southern
coast of Sicily was the old _Waldensian Church_, which for three hundred
years had occupied the Protestant platform in the spirit of Calvinism (§
139, 25). Remnants consisting of some 200,000 souls still survived in the
valleys of Piedmont, almost without protection of law amid constant
persecution and oppressions (§ 153, 5), moderated only by Prussian and
English intervention. But when Sardinia headed Italian liberalism in 1848
religious liberty and all civil rights were secured to them. A Waldensian
congregation was then formed in the capital, Turin, which was strengthened
by numerous Protestant refugees from other parts of Italy. But in 1854 a
split occurred between the two elements in it. The new Italian converts
objected, not altogether without ground, against the old Waldensians that
by maintaining their church government with its centre in the valleys, the
so-called “Tables” and their old forms of constitution, doctrine and
worship, much too contracted and narrow for the enlarged boundaries of the
present, they thought more of Waldensianizing than of evangelizing Italy.
Besides, their language since 1630, when a plague caused their preachers
and teachers to withdraw from Geneva, had been French, and the national
Italian pride was disposed on this domain also to unfurl her favourite
banner “_Italia farà da se_.” The division spread from Turin to the other
congregations. At the head of the separatists, afterwards designated the
“_Free Italian Church_” (_Chiesa libera_), stood Dr. Luigi Desanctis, a
man of rich theological culture and glowing eloquence, who, when Catholic
priest and theologian of the inquisition at Rome, became convinced of the
truth of the evangelical confession, joined the evangelical church at
Malta in 1847 and wrought from 1852 with great success in the congregation
at Turin. After ten years’ faithful service in the newly formed free
church he felt obliged, owing to the Darbyite views (§ 211, 11) that began
to prevail in it, to attach himself again in 1864 to the Waldensians, who
meanwhile had been greatly liberalised. He now officiated for them till
his death in 1869 as professor of theology at Florence, and edited their
journal _Eco della verità_. This journal was succeeded in 1873 by the able
monthly _Rivista Cristiana_, edited at Florence by Prof. Emilio
Comba.—After Desanctis left the _Chiesa libera_ its chief representative
was the ex-Barnabite father Alessandro Gavazzi of Naples. Endowed with
glowing eloquence and remarkable popularity as a lecturer, he appeared at
Rome in 1848 as a politico-religious orator, attached himself to the
evangelical church in London in 1850, and undertook the charge of the
evangelical Italian congregation there. He returned to Italy in 1860 and
accompanied the hero of Italian liberty, Garibaldi, as his military
chaplain, preaching to the people everywhere with his leonine voice with
equal enthusiasm of Victor Emanuel as the only saviour of Italy and of
Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of sinners. He then joined the _Chiesa
libera_, and, as he himself obtained gradually fuller acquaintance with
evangelical truth, wrought zealously in organizing the congregations
hitherto almost entirely isolated from one another. At a general assembly
at Milan in 1870, deputies from thirty-two congregations drew up a simple
biblical confession of faith, and in the following year at Florence a
constitutional code was adopted which recognised the necessity of the
pastoral office, of annual assemblies, and a standing evangelization
committee. They now took the name “_Unione della Chiesa libere in
Italia_.” The predominantly Darbyist congregations, which had not taken
part in these constitutional assemblies, have since formed a community of
their own as _Chiesa Cristiana_, depending only on the immediate leading
of the Holy Spirit, rejecting every sort of ecclesiastical and official
organization, and denouncing infant baptism as unevangelical.—Besides
these three national Italian churches, English and American Methodists and
Baptists carry on active missions. On May 1st, 1884, the evangelical
denominations at a general assembly in Florence, with the exception only
of the Darbyist _Chiesa Cristiana_, joined in a confederation to meet
annually in an “Italian Evangelical Congress” as a preparation for
ecclesiastical union. When, however, the various Methodist and Baptist
denominations began to check the progress of the work of union, the two
leading bodies, the Waldensians and the Free Church party, separated from
them. A committee chosen from these two sketched at Florence in 1885 a
basis of union, according to which the Free Church adopted the confession
and church order of the Waldensians, subject to revision by the joint
synods, their theological school at Rome was to be amalgamated with the
Waldensian school at Florence, and the united church was to take the name
of the “Evangelical Church of Italy.” But a Waldensian synod in September,
1886, resolved to hold by the ancient name of the “Waldensian Church.”
Whether the “Free Church” will agree to this demand is not yet known.
§ 205. Spain and Portugal.
No European country has during the nineteenth century been the scene of so
many revolutions, outbreaks and civil wars, of changes of government,
ministries and constitutions, sometimes of a clerical absolutist,
sometimes of a democratic radical tendency, and in none has revolution
gone so unsparingly for the time against hierarchy, clergy and
monasticism, as in unfortunate Spain. Portugal too passed through similar
struggles, which, however, did not prove so dreadfully disordering to the
commonwealth as those of Spain.
1. _Spain under Ferdinand VII. and Maria Christina._—Joseph Bonaparte
(1808-1813) had given to the Spaniards a constitution of the French
pattern, abolishing inquisition and cloisters. The constitution which the
Cortes proclaimed in 1812 carried out still further the demands of
political liberalism, but still declared the apostolic Roman Catholic
religion as alone true to be the religion of the Spanish nation and forbad
the exercise of any other. Ferdinand VII., whom Napoleon restored in
December, 1813, hastened to restore the inquisition, the cloisters and
despotism, especially from 1815 under the direction of the Jesuits highly
esteemed by him. The revolution of 1820 indeed obliged him to reintroduce
the constitution of 1812 and to banish the Jesuits; but scarcely had the
feudal clerical party of the apostolic Junta with their army of faith in
the field and Bourbon French intervention under the Duke of Angoulême
again made his way clear, than he began to crush as before by means of his
Jesuit Camarilla every liberal movement in church and state. But all the
more successful was the reaction of liberalism in the civil war which
broke out after Ferdinand’s death under the regency of his fourth wife,
the intriguing Maria Christina (1833-1837). The revolution now erected an
inquisition, but it was one directed against the clergy and monks, and
celebrated its _autos de fe_; but these were in the form of spoliation of
cloisters and massacres of monks. Ecclesiastical tithes were abolished,
all monkish orders suspended, the cloisters closed, ecclesiastical goods
declared national property, and the papal nuncio sent over the frontier. A
threatening papal allocution of 1841 only increased the violence of the
Cortes, and when Gregory XVI. in 1842 pronounced all decrees of the
government null and void, it branded all intercourse with Rome as an
offence against the state.
2. _Spain under Isabella II., 1843-1865._—Ferdinand VII., overlooking the
right of his brother Don Carlos, had, by abolishing the Salic law, secured
the throne to Isabella, his own and Maria Christina’s daughter. After the
Cortes of 1843 had declared Isabella of age in her thirteenth year, the
Spanish government became more and more favourable to the restoration.
After long negotiations and vacillations under constantly changing
ministries a concordat was at last drawn up in 1851, which returned the
churches and cloisters that had not been sold, allowed compensation for
what had been sold, reduced the number of bishoprics by six, put education
and the censorship of the press under the oversight of the bishops, and
declared the Catholic religion the only one to be tolerated. But although
in 1854 the Holy Virgin was named generalissima of the brave army and her
image at Atocha had been decorated by the queen with a band of the Golden
Fleece, a revolution soon broke out in the army which threatened to deal
the finishing stroke to ultramontanism. Meanwhile it had not fully
permeated the republican party. The proposal of unrestricted liberty to
all forms of worship was supported by a small minority, and the new
constitution of 1855 called upon the Spanish nation to maintain and guard
the Catholic religion which “the Spaniards profess”; yet no Spaniard was
to be persecuted on account of his faith, so long as he did not commit
irreligious acts. A new law determined the sale of all church and cloister
property, and compensation therefore by annual rents according to the
existing concordat. Several bishops had to be banished owing to their
continued opposition; the pope protested and recalled his legates.
Clerical influence meanwhile regained power over the queen. The sale of
church and cloister property was stopped, and previous possessors were
indemnified for what had been already sold. Owing to frequent change of
ministry, each of which manifested a tendency different from its
predecessor, it was only in 1859 that matters were settled by a new
concordat. In it the government admitted the inalienability of church
property, admitted the unrestricted right of the church to obtain new
property of any kind, and declared itself ready to exchange state paper
money for property that had fallen into decay according to the estimation
of the bishops. The queen proved her Catholic zeal at the instigation of
the nun Patrocinio by fanatical persecution of Protestants, and hearty but
vain sympathies for the sufferings of the pope and the expatriated Italian
princes. Pius IX. rewarded Isabella, who seemed to him adorned with all
the virtues, by sending her in 1868 the consecrated rose at a time when
she was causing public scandal more than ever by her private life, and by
her proceedings with her paramour Marforio had lost the last remnant of
the respect and confidence of the Spanish nation. Eight months later her
reign was at an end. The provisional government now ordered the
suppression of the Society of Jesus, as well as of all cloister and
spiritual associations, and in 1869 the Cortes sanctioned the draught of a
new civil constitution, which required the Spanish nation to maintain the
Catholic worship, but allowed the exercise of other forms of worship to
strangers and as cases might arise even to natives, and generally made all
political and civil rights independent of religious profession.
3. _Spain under Alphonso XII., 1875-1885._—When Isabella’s son returned to
Spain in January, 1875, in his seventeenth year, he obtained the blessing
of his sponsor the pope on his ascending the throne, promised to the
Catholic church powerful support, but also to non-Catholics the
maintenance of liberty of worship. How he meant to perform both is shown
by a decree of 10th February, 1875, which, abolishing the civil marriage
law passed by the Cortes in 1870, gave back to the Catholic church the
administration of marriage and matters connected therewith; for all
persons living in Spain, however, “who professed another than the true
faith,” as well as for “the bad Catholics,” to whom ecclesiastical
marriage on account of church censures is refused, liberty was given to
contract a civil marriage; but this did not apply to apostate priests,
monks, and nuns, to whom any sort of marriage is for ever refused, and
whose previously contracted marriages are invalid, without, however,
affecting the legitimacy of children already born of such
connections.—Against the draught of the new constitution, whose eleventh
article indeed affords toleration to all dissenting forms of worship, but
prohibits any public manifestation thereof outside of their place of
worship and burial grounds, Pius IX. protested as infringing upon the
still existing concordat in its “noblest” part, and aiming a serious blow
at the Catholic church. The Cortes, however, sanctioned it in 1876.
4. _The Evangelization of Spain._—A number of Bibles and tracts, as well
as a religious paper in Spanish called _el Albo_, found entrance into
Spain from the English settlement at Gibraltar, without Spain being able
even in the most flourishing days of the restoration to prevent it, and
evangelical sympathies began more or less openly to be expressed. Franc.
Ruat, formerly a lascivious Spanish poet, who was awakened at Turin by the
preaching of the Waldensian Desanctis, and by reading the Bible had
obtained knowledge of evangelical truths, appeared publicly after the
publication of the new constitution of 1855 as a preacher of the gospel in
Spain. The reaction that soon set in, however, secured for him repeated
imprisonments, and finally in 1856 sentence of banishment for life. He
then wrought for several years successfully in Gibraltar, next in London,
afterwards in Algiers among Spanish residents, till the new civil
constitution of 1868 allowed him to return to Spain, where, in the service
of the German mission at Madrid, he gathered around him an evangelical
congregation, to which he ministered till his death in 1878. While
labouring in Gibraltar he won to the evangelical faith among others the
young officer Manuel Matamoros, living there as a political refugee. This
noble man, whose whole career, till his death in exile in 1866, was a sore
martyrdom for the truth, became the soul of the whole movement, against
which the government in 1861 and 1862 took the severest measures. By
intercepted correspondence the leaders and many of the members of the
secret evangelical propaganda were discovered and thrown into prison. The
final judgment condemned the leaders of the movement to severe punishment
in penitentiaries and the galleys. Infliction of these sentences had
already begun when the queen found herself obliged, by a visit to Madrid
in 1863 of a deputation of the Evangelical Alliance (§ 178, 3), consisting
of the most distinguished and respected Protestants of all lands, to
commute them to banishment.—After Isabella’s overthrow in 1868, permission
was given for the building of the first Protestant church in Madrid, where
a congregation soon gathered of more than 2,000 souls. In Seville an
almost equally strong congregation obtained for its services what had been
a church of the Jesuits. Also at Cordova a considerable congregation was
collected, and in almost all the other large cities there were largely
attended places of worship. Several of those banished under Isabella, who
had returned after her overthrow, Carrasco, Trigo, Alhama, and others,
increased by new converts who had received their theological training at
Geneva, Lausanne, etc., and supported by American, English and German
fellow-labourers, such as the brothers F. and H. Fliedner, wrought with
unwearied zeal as preachers and pastors, for the spreading and deeper
grounding of the gospel among their countrymen. With the restoration of
the monarchy in 1875, the oppression of the Protestants was renewed with
increasing severity. The widest possible interpretation was given to the
prohibition of every public manifestation of dissenting worship in Article
XI. of the constitution. The excesses and insults of the mob, whose
fanaticism was stirred up by the clergy, were left unpunished and
uncensured. Even the most sorely abused and injured Protestants were
themselves subjected to imprisonment as disturbers of the peace. No
essential improvement in their condition resulted from the liberal
ministry of Sagasta in 1881. Nevertheless the number of evangelical
congregations continued steadily though slowly to increase, so that now
they number more than sixty, with somewhere about 15,000 native Protestant
members.—Besides these an _Iglesia Española_ arose in 1881, consisting of
eight congregations, which may be regarded to some extent as a national
Spanish counterpart to the Old Catholicism of Germany. Its founder and
first bishop is Cabrera, formerly a Catholic priest, who, after having
wrought from 1868 in the service of the Edinburgh (Presbyterian)
Evangelization Society as preacher in Seville, and then in Madrid,
received in 1880 episcopal consecration from the Anglican bishop Riley of
Mexico (§ 209, 1), then visiting Madrid. Although thus of Anglican origin,
the church directed by him wishes not to be Anglican, but Spanish
episcopal. It attaches itself therefore, while accepting the thirty-nine
Articles of the Anglican Church, in the sketch of its order of service in
the Spanish language, more to the old Mozarabic ritual (§ 88, 1) than to
the Anglican liturgy.(118)
5. _The Church in Portugal._—Portugal after some months followed the
example of the Spanish revolution of 1820. John VI. (1816-1826) confirmed
the new constitution, drawn up after the pattern of the democratic Spanish
constitution of 1812, enacting the seizure of church property and the
suppression of the monasteries. But a counter revolution, led by the
younger son of the king, Dom Miguel, obliged him in 1823 to repudiate it
and to return to the older constitution. But he persistently resisted the
reintroduction of the Jesuits. After his death in 1826, the legitimate
heir, Pedro I. of Brazil, abandoned his claims to the Portuguese throne in
favour of his daughter Donna Maria II. da Gloria, then under a year old,
whom he betrothed to his brother Dom Miguel. Appointed regent, Dom Miguel
took the oath to the constitution, but immediately broke his oath, had
himself proclaimed king, recalled the Jesuits, and, till his overthrow in
1834, carried on a clerical monarchical reign of terror. Dom Pedro, who
had meanwhile vacated the Brazilian throne, as regent again suppressed all
monkish orders, seized the property of the church, and abolished
ecclesiastical tithes, but died in the same year. His daughter Donna
Maria, now pronounced of age and proclaimed queen (1834-1853), amid
continual revolutions and changes of the constitution, manifested an
ever-growing inclination to reconciliation with Rome. In 1841 she
negotiated about a concordat, and showed herself so submissive that the
pope rewarded her in 1842 with the consecrated golden rose. But the
liberal Cortes resisted the introduction of the concordat, and maintained
the right of veto by the civil government as well as the rest of the
restrictions upon the hierarchy, and the _Codigo penal_ of 1882 threatened
the Catholic clergy with heavy fines and imprisonment for every abuse of
their spiritual prerogatives and every breach of the laws of the State. In
1857 a concordat was at last agreed to, which, however, was adopted by the
representatives of the people not before 1859, and then only by a small
majority. Its chief provisions consist in the regulating of the patronage
rights of the crown in regard to existing and newly created bishoprics.
The relation of government to the curia, however, still continued
strained. The constitution declares generally that the Catholic Apostolic
Romish Church is the state religion. A Portuguese who passes over from it
to another loses thereby his civil rights as a citizen. Yet no one is to
be persecuted on account of his religion. The erection of Protestant
places of worship, but not in church form, and also of burial grounds,
where necessary, is permitted.—Evangelization has made but little progress
in Portugal. The first evangelical congregation, with Anglican episcopal
constitution, was founded at Lisbon by a Spanish convert, Don Angelo
Herrero de Mora, who in the service of the Bible Society had edited a
revision of the old Spanish Bible in New York, and had there been
naturalized as an American citizen. Consisting originally of American and
English Protestants, about a hundred Spanish and Portuguese converts have
since 1868 gradually attached themselves to it, the latter after they had
been made Spanish instead of Portuguese subjects. After the pattern of
this mother congregation, two others have been formed in the neighbourhood
of Lisbon and one at Oporto.
§ 206. Russia.
The Russian government since the time of Alexander I. has sought amid many
difficulties to advance the education and enlightenment of the people, and
to elevate the orthodox church by securing a more highly cultured clergy,
and to increase its influence upon the life of the people; a task which
proved peculiarly difficult in consequence of the wide-spread
anti-ecclesiastical spirit (§ 210, 3) and the incomparably more dangerous
antichristian Nihilism (§ 212, 6).—The Catholic church, mainly represented
in what had before been the kingdom of Poland, had, in consequence of the
repeated revolutionary agitation of the Poles, in which the clergy had
zealously taken part by stirring up fanaticism among the people and
converting their religion and worship into a vehicle of rebellion, so
compromised itself that the government, besides taking away the national
political privileges, reduced more and more the rights and liberties
granted to the church as such.—The prosperous development of the
evangelical church in Russia, which, through the absolutely faultless
loyalty of its members, had hitherto enjoyed the hearty protection of the
government, in 1845 and 1846, and afterwards in 1883, in consequence of
numerous conversions among Esthonian and Livonian peasants, was checked by
incessant persecutions.
1. _The Orthodox National Church._—The evangelical influences introduced
from the West during the previous century, especially among the higher
clergy, found further encouragement under Alexander I., A.D. 1801-1825.
Himself affected by the evangelical pietism of Madame Krüdener (§ 176, 2),
he aimed at the elevation of the orthodox church in this direction,
founded clerical seminaries and public schools, and took a lively interest
in Bible circulation among the Russian people. But under Nicholas I., A.D.
1825-1855, a reaction proceeding from the holy synod set in which
unweariedly sought to seal the orthodox church hermetically against all
evangelical influences. Also during the reign of Alexander II., A.D.
1855-1881, a reign singularly fruitful in civil reforms, this tendency was
even more rigidly illustrated, while with the consent and aid of the holy
synod every effort was put forth to improve the church according to its
own principles. Specially active in this work was Count Tolstoi, minister
of instruction and also procurator of the holy synod. A committee presided
over by him produced a whole series of useful reforms in 1868, which were
approved by the synod and confirmed by the emperor. While the inferior
clergy had hitherto formed an order by themselves, all higher ranks of
preferment were now opened to them, but, on the other hand, the obligation
of priests’ sons to remain in the order of their fathers was abolished.
The clamant abuse of putting mere clerks and sextons to do the work of
priests was also now put a stop to, and training in clerical seminaries or
academies was made compulsory. Previously only married men could hold the
offices of deacon and priest; now widowers and bachelors were admitted, so
soon as they reached the age of forty years. In order to increase the poor
incomes many churches had not their regular equipment of clergy, and
instead of the full set of priest, deacon, sub-deacon, reader, sexton, and
doorkeeper, in the poorer churches there were only priest and reader.
Order was restored to monastic life, now generally grown dissolute, by a
fixed rule of a common table and uniform dress, etc. In 1860 an Orthodox
Church Society for Missions among the peoples of the Caucasus, and in 1866
a second for Pagans and Mohammedans throughout the empire, were founded,
both under the patronage of the empress. The Russian church also cleverly
took advantage of political events to carry on missionary work in Japan (§
184, 6). A society of the “Friends of Intellectual Enlightenment,” founded
in St. Petersburg in 1872, aimed chiefly at the religious improvement of
the cultured classes in the spirit of the orthodox church by means of
tracts and addresses, while agreeing with foreign confessions as to the
nature and characteristics of the true church. Under Alexander III., since
A.D. 1881, the emperor’s former tutor Pobedownoszew, with the conviction
of the incomparable superiority of his church, and believing that by it
and only by it could the dangerous commotions of the present be overcome
(§ 212, 6) and Russia regenerated, as procurator of the holy synod has
zealously wrought in this direction.—But meanwhile a new impulse was given
to the evangelical movement in aristocratic circles by Lord Radstock, who
appeared in St. Petersburg in 1870. The addresses delivered by him in
French in the salons of the fashionable world won a success scarcely to be
looked for. The most famous gain was the conversion of a hitherto proud,
worldly, rich and popular Colonel of the Guards, called Paschcow, who now
turned the beautiful ball-room of his palatial residence into a
prayer-meeting room, and with all the enthusiasm of a neophyte proclaimed
successfully among high and low the newly won saving truth in a Biblical
evangelical spirit, though not without a methodistic flavour. The
excitement thus created led to police interference, and finally, when he
refused to abstain from spreading his religious views among the members of
the orthodox church by the circulation of evangelical tracts in the
Russian language, he was, at the instigation of the holy synod and its all
powerful procurator, banished first from St. Petersburg and then in 1884
from the empire, whereupon he withdrew to London.
2. _The Catholic Church._—After the Greeks in the old West Russian
provinces (§ 151, 3), who had been forcibly united to Rome in 1596, had
again in 1772, in consequence of the first partition of Poland, come under
Russian rule, the government sought to restore them also to the orthodox
national church. This was first accomplished under Nicholas I., when at
the synod of Polosk in 1839 they themselves spontaneously expressed a wish
to be thus reunited with the mother church. Rome thus lost two million
members. But the allocution directed against this robbery by Gregory XVI.
was without effect, and the public opinion of Europe saw a case of
historical justice in this reunion, though effected not without severe
measures against those who proved obstinate and rebellious. Yet there
always remained a considerable remnant, about one-third of a million,
under the bishop of Chelun, in the Romish communion. But even these in
1875, after many disturbances with the prelate Popiel at their head,
almost wholly severed their connection with the pope, and were again
received into the bosom of the orthodox national church. In a memorial
addressed to the emperor for this purpose, they declared they were led to
this on the one hand by the continual endeavour of the curia and its
partisans, by Latinizing their old Greek liturgy and Polandizing the
people, to overthrow their old Russian nationality, and on the other hand,
by their aversion to the new papal dogmas of the immaculate conception of
Mary and the infallibility of the pope.—The insurrection of the Poles
against Russian rule in 1830, which even Pope Gregory XVI. condemned, bore
bitter fruits for the Catholic church of that country. The organic statute
of 1832 indeed secured anew to the Poles religious liberty, but the
bishops were prohibited holding any direct communication with Rome, the
clergy deprived of all control over the schools, and the Russian law
regarding mixed marriages made applicable to that province. By an
understanding with the curia in 1847 the choice of the bishops was given
to the emperor, their canonical investiture to the pope. The mildness with
which Alexander II. treated the Poles and the political troubles in the
rest of Europe fostered the hope of restoring the old kingdom of Poland.
Reckless demonstrations were made in the beginning of 1861, pilgrimages to
the graves of the martyrs of freedom were organized, political memorial
festivals were celebrated in churches, a general national mourning was
enjoined, mourning services were held, revolutionary songs were sung in
churches, etc. The Catholic clergy headed the movement and canonized it as
a religious duty. In vain the government sought to put it down by making
liberal concessions, in vain they applied to Pius IX. to discountenance
it. When in October the country lay in a state of siege, and the military
forced their way into the churches to apprehend the ringleaders of
rebellion, the episcopal administrator, Bialobezeski, denounced that as
church profanation, had all the Catholic churches in Warsaw closed, and
answered the government’s request to reopen them by making extravagant
demands and uttering proud words of defiance. The military tribunal
sentenced him to death, but the emperor commuted this to one year’s
detention in a fortress, with loss of all his dignities and orders.
Meanwhile the eyes of the pope had at length been opened. He now confirmed
the government’s appointment of Archbishop Felinsky, who entered Warsaw in
February, 1862, and reopened the churches. After the suppression of the
revolt in 1864, almost all cloisters, as nurseries of revolution, were
abolished; in the following year the whole property of the church was
taken in charge by the State, and the clergy supported by state pay. The
pope, enraged at this, gave violent expression to his feelings to the
Russian ambassador at Rome during the New Year festivities of 1866,
whereupon the government completely broke off all relations with the
curia. Consequently in 1867 all the affairs of the Catholic church were
committed to the clerical college at St. Petersburg, and intercourse
between the clergy and the pope prohibited. Hence arose many conflicts
with Catholic bishops, whose obstinacy was punished by their being
interned in their dioceses. In 1869 the Russian calendar was introduced,
and Russian made the compulsory language of instruction. But in 1870
greater opposition was offered to the introduction of Russian in the
public services by means of translations of the common Polish prayer and
psalm-books. Pietrowitsch, dean of Wilna, read from the pulpit the ukase
referring to this matter, but then cast it together with the Russian
translations into the flames, with violent denunciations of the
government, and gave information against himself to the governor-general.
He was agreeably to his own desire imprisoned, and then transported to
Archangel. The same sentence was pronounced against several other
obstinate prelates and clergy, among them Archbishop Felinsky, and thus
further opposition was stamped out.—Leo XIII. soon after entering on his
pontificate in 1878 took the first step toward reconciliation. His efforts
reached a successful issue first in February, 1883. The deposed prelates
were restored from their places of banishment, with promise of a liberal
pension, and were allowed to choose their residences as they pleased, only
not within their former dioceses. In their stead the pope consecrated ten
new bishops nominated by the emperor, who amid the jubilation of the
people entered their episcopal residences. With reference to the Roman
Catholic seminaries and clerical academies at Warsaw, the curia granted to
the government the right of control over instruction in the Russian
language, literature and history, but committed instruction in canonical
matters solely to the bishops, who, after obtaining the approval of the
government, appointed the rector and inspector and canonical teachers.
Vacant pastorates were filled by the bishops, and only in the case of the
more important was the approval of the government required. As to the
language to be used, it was resolved that only where the people speak
Russian were the clergy obliged to employ that language in preaching and
in their pastoral work.
3. _The Evangelical Church._—The Lutheran church in Russia, comprising two
and a half millions of Germans, Letts, Esthonians and Finns, is strongest
in Livonia, Esthonia and Courland, is the national church in Finland, and
is also largely represented in Poland, in the chief cities of Russia, and
in the numerous German colonies in South Russia. In 1832 it obtained, for
the Baltic provinces and the scattered congregations in central Russia, a
church constitution and service book, the latter on the basis of the old
Swedish service book, the former requiring all religious teachers in
church and school to accept the Formula of Concord. Annual provincial
synods have the initiative in calling in, when necessary for legislative
purposes, the aid of the general synod.—In Poland the Reformed and
Lutheran churches were in 1828 united under one combined consistory. By an
imperial ukase of 1849, however, the independent existence of both
churches was restored. Protestants enjoyed all civil rights and had
absolute liberty in the exercise of their religion; but in central Russia
down to recent times, when a more liberal spirit began to prevail, they
were prohibited putting bells in their churches. The old prohibition of
evangelical preaching and the teaching of religion in the Russian tongue
also continued; but the attempt made for some decades in St. Petersburg
and the surrounding district to preach the gospel to Germans who had lost
their mother tongue, in the Russian language, has been hitherto
ungrudgingly allowed by the government. Quitting the national church or
returning from it to a church that had been left before, is visited by
severe penalties, and children of mixed marriages, where one parent
belongs to the national orthodox church, are claimed by law for that
church. Only Finland counts among her privileges the right of assigning
children of mixed marriages to the church of the father. The Lutheran
church in Livonia, with the island of Oesel, suffered considerable, and
according to the law of the land irreparable, loss by the secession of
sixty or seventy thousand Letts and Esthonians to the orthodox church
under the widespread delusion that thereby their economic position would
be improved. Disillusions and regret came too late, and the ever
increasing desire for restoration to the church forsaken in a moment of
excitement could only obtain arbitrary and insufficient satisfaction in
Lutheran baptism of infants seemingly near death, and in permission at
irregular intervals and without previous announcement to sit at the Lord’s
Table according to the Lutheran rite. In 1865, not indeed legislatively
but administratively, the contracting of mixed marriages in the Baltic
provinces was permitted without the enforcement of the legal enactment
requiring that the children should be trained in the Greek church. In
Esthonia, however, in 1883 there was a new outbreak of conversions in
Leal, where five hundred peasants went over to the orthodox church,
declaring their wish to be of the same faith as the emperor and the whole
of the Russian people. By imperial decree in 1885 the suspension of the
law against withdrawing again from the national church, which had existed
for twenty years, was abolished. At the instigation of Pobedownoszew the
Imperial Council granted an annual subsidy of 100,000 roubles for
furthering orthodoxy in the Baltic provinces. No evangelical church could
be built in these provinces without the approval of the orthodox bishop of
the diocese, and any evangelical pastor who should dissuade a member of
his church from his purpose of joining the orthodox church, was liable to
punishment.—In order to supply the want of churches and schools, preachers
and teachers in the Lutheran congregations of Russia, a society was formed
in 1858 similar to the _Gustav-Adolfs-Verein_, under the supervision of
the General Consistory of St. Petersburg, which has laboriously and
zealously endeavoured to improve the condition of the oppressed
church.(119)
§ 207. Greece and Turkey.
In the spirited struggle for liberty Greece freed herself from the tyranny
of the Turkish Mohammedan rule and obtained complete civil independence.
But the same princes representing all the three principal Christian
confessions, who in 1830 gave their sanction to this emancipation within
lamentably narrow limits, in 1840 conquered again the Holy Land for the
Turks out of the hands of a revolting vassal. And so inextricable were,
and still are, the political interests of the Christian States of Europe
with reference to the East, that in the London parliament of 1854 it could
be affirmed that the existence of Turkey in a condition of utter impotence
was so necessary, that if it did not exist, it would require to be
created. On two occasions has Russia called out her whole military force
to emancipate from the Turkish yoke her Slavic brethren of a common race
and common faith, without being able to give the finishing blow to the
“sick man” who had the protection of European diplomacy.
1. _The Orthodox Church of Greece._—Deceived in their expectations from
the Vienna Congress, the Greeks tried to deliver themselves from Turkish
tyranny. In 1814 a _Hetairia_ was formed, branches of which spread over
the whole land and fostered among the people ideas of freedom. The war of
independence broke out in 1821. Its first result was a fearful massacre,
especially in Constantinople. The patriarch Gregorius with his whole synod
and about 30,000 Christians were in three months with horrid cruelty
murdered by the Turks. The London Conference of 1830 at last declared
Greece an independent state, and an assembly of Greek bishops at Nauplia
in 1833 freed the national church of Greece from the authority of the
patriarch of Constantinople, who was under the control of Turkey. Its
supreme direction was committed to a permanent Holy Synod at Athens,
instituted by the king but in all internal matters absolutely independent.
The king must belong to the national church, but otherwise all religions
are on the same footing. Meanwhile the orthodox church is fully
represented, the Roman Catholic being strongest, especially in the
islands. The University of Athens, opened in 1856 with professors mostly
trained in Germany, has not been unsuccessful in its task even in the
domain of theology.
2. _Massacre of Syrian Christians, 1860._—The Russo-Turkish war ending in
the beginning of 1856, in which France and England, and latterly also
Sardinia took the part of the sick man, left the condition of the
Christians practically unchanged. For though the Hatti Humayun of 1856
granted them equal civil rights with the Moslems, this, however well meant
on the part of the Sultan of that time, practically made no improvement
upon the equally well meant Hatti Sherif of Gülhane of 1839. The outbreak
of 1860 also proved how little effect it had in teaching the Moslems
tolerance towards the Christians. Roused by Jesuit emissaries and trusting
to French support, the Maronites of Lebanon indulged in several provoking
attacks upon their old hereditary foes the Druses. These, however, aided
by the Turkish soldiery were always victorious, and throughout all Syria a
terrible persecution against Christians of all confessions broke out,
characterized by inhuman cruelties. In Damascus alone 8,000, in all Syria
16,000 Christians were murdered, 3,000 women taken to the harems, and 100
Christian villages destroyed. After the massacre had been stopped, 120,000
Christians wandered about without food, clothing, or shelter, and fled
hither and thither in fear of death. Fuad Pasha was sent from
Constantinople to punish the guilty, and seemed at first to proceed to
business energetically; but his zeal soon cooled, and French troops, sent
to Syria to protect the Christians, were obliged, yielding to pressure
from England, where their presence was regarded with suspicion, to
withdraw from the country in June, 1861.
3. _The Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Struggle._—The Bulgarian church, with
somewhere about two and a half million souls, was from early times subject
to the patriarch of Constantinople (§ 73, 3), who acted toward it like a
pasha. He sold the Bulgarian bishoprics and archbishoprics to the highest
bidders among the Greek clergy, who were quite ignorant of the language of
the country, and had only one end in view, namely to recoup themselves by
extorting the largest possible revenue. No thought was given to the
spiritual needs of the Bulgarians, preaching was wholly abandoned, the
liturgy was read in a language unknown to the people. It was therefore not
to be wondered at that the Bulgarian church was for years longing for its
emancipation and ecclesiastical independence, and made every effort to
obtain this from the Porte. Turkey, however, sympathized with the
patriarch till the revolt in Crete in 1866-1869 and threatening political
movements in Bulgaria broke out. Then at last in 1870 the sultan granted
the establishment of an independent Slavic ecclesiastical province under
the designation of the Bulgarian Exarchate, with liberty to attach itself
to the other Slavic provinces upon a two-thirds majority of votes. The
patriarch Gregorius protested, but the Sublime Porte would not thereby be
deterred, and in May, 1872, Anthimos the Exarch elect was installed. The
patriarch and his synod now stigmatized _Phyletism_, the struggle for a
national church establishment, as accursed heresy, and excommunicated the
exarch and the whole Bulgarian church. Only the patriarch Cyril of
Jerusalem dissented, but he was on that account on his return home treated
with indignity and abuse and was deposed by a synod at Jerusalem.
4. _The Armenian Church._—To the Gregorian-Armenian patriarch at
Constantinople (§ 64, 3), equally with his orthodox colleague (§ 67, 7),
had been assigned by the Sublime Porte civil jurisdiction as well as the
primacy over all members of his church in the Turkish empire. When now in
1830, at the instigation of France, an independent patriarchate with equal
rights was granted to the United Armenians (§ 72, 2), the twofold
dependence on the Porte and on the Roman curia created difficulties, which
in the meantime were overcome by giving the patriarch, who as a Turkish
official exercised civil jurisdiction, a primacy with the title of
archbishop as representative of the pope. The United Armenians, like the
other united churches of the East, had from early times enjoyed the
liberty of using their ancient liturgy, their old ecclesiastical calendar,
and their own church constitution with free election of their bishops and
patriarchs, and these privileges were left untouched down to 1866. But
when in that year the Armenian Catholic patriarch died, the archbishop
Hassun was elected patriarch, and then a fusion of the two ecclesiastical
powers was brought about, which was expected to lead to absolute and
complete subjection under papal jurisdiction and perfect assimilation with
the Romish constitution and liturgy, at the same time Hassun with a view
to securing a red hat showed himself eager and zealous in this business.
By the bull _Reversurus_ of 1867 Pius IX. claimed the right of nominating
the patriarchs of all united churches of the East, of confirming bishops
chosen by these patriarchs, in cases of necessity even choosing these
himself, and deciding all appeals regarding church property. But the
Mechitarists of St. Lazzaro (§ 164, 2) had already discovered the
intriguing designs of France and made these known among their countrymen
in Turkey. These now, while Monsignore Hassun was engaged combating the
infallibility dogma at the Vatican Council of 1870, drove out his
creatures and constituted themselves into a church independent of Rome,
without however, joining the Gregorian-Armenians. The influence of France
being meanwhile crippled by the Prussian victory, the Porte acquiesced in
the accomplished fact, confirmed the appointment of the newly chosen
patriarch Kupelian, and refused to yield to the pope’s remonstrances and
allocutions. In 1874, however, it also recognised the Hassun party as an
independent ecclesiastical community, but assigned the church property to
the party of Kupelian, and banished Hassun as a fomenter of disturbance,
from the capital. The hearty sympathies which on the outbreak of the
Russo-Turkish war the Roman curia expressed so loudly and openly for the
victory of the crescent over the schismatic Russian cross, made the
Sublime Porte again regard the Hassunites with favour, so that Hassun in
September, 1877, returned to Constantinople, where the churches were given
over to his party and a great number of the Kupelianists were won over to
his side. He was eagerly aided not only by the French but also by the
Austrian ambassador, and the patriarch Kupelian, now sorely persecuted
from every side, at last resigned his position and went in March, 1879, to
Rome to kneel as a penitent before the pope. By an irade of the sultan,
Hassun was now formally restored, and in 1880 he was adorned with a red
hat by Leo XIII. Shortly before this the last of the bishops of the
opposing party, with about 30,000 souls, had given in his submission.
5. _The Berlin Treaty, 1878._—Frequent and severe oppression, refusal to
administer justice, and brutal violence on the part of the Turkish
government and people toward the defenceless vassals drove the Christian
states and tribes of the Balkan peninsula in 1875 into a rebellion of
desperation, which was avenged, especially in Bulgaria in 1876, by
scandalous atrocities upon the Christians. When the half-hearted
interference of European diplomacy called forth instead of actual reforms
only the mocking sham of a pretended free representative constitution,
Russia held herself under obligation in 1877 to avenge by arms the wrongs
of her brethren by race and creed, but owing to the threats of England and
Austria could not fully reap the fruits of her dearly bought victory as
had been agreed upon in the Treaty of San Stefano. By the _Berlin
Conference_, however, of 1878 the principalities of Roumania, Servia, and
Montenegro, hitherto under the suzerainty of Turkey, were declared
independent, and to them, as well as to Greece, at the cost of Turkey, a
considerable increase of territory was granted, the portion between the
Balkans and the Danube was formed into the Christian principality of
Bulgaria under Turkish suzerainty, but East Roumelia, south of the
Balkans, now separated from Bulgaria, obtained the rank of an autonomous
province with a Christian governor-general. To Thessaly, Epirus, and Crete
were granted administrative reforms and throughout the European territory
left to the Porte it was stipulated that full religious and political
rights be granted to members of all confessions. The administration of
Bosnia and Herzegovina was given over to Austria, and that of Cyprus, by
means of a separate treaty, to England. The greater part of Armenia, lying
in Asia, belongs to Russia.
§ 208. The United States of America.(120)
The Republic of the United States of America, existing since the
Declaration of Independence in 1776, and recognised by England as
independent since the conclusion of Peace in 1783, requires of her
citizens no other religious test than belief in one God. Since the
settlers had often left their early homes on account of religious matters,
the greatest variety of religious parties were gathered together here, and
owing to their defective theological training and their practical turn of
mind, they afforded a fruitful field for religious movements of all sorts,
among which the revivals systematically cultivated by many denominations
play a conspicuous part. The government does not trouble itself with
religious questions, and lets every denomination take care of itself.
Preachers are therefore wholly dependent on their congregations, and are
frequently liable to dismissal at the year’s end. Yet they form a highly
respected class, and nowhere in the Protestant world is the tone of
ecclesiastical feeling and piety so prevailingly high. In the public
schools, which are supported by the State, religious instruction is on
principle omitted. The Lutheran and Catholic churches have therefore
founded parochial schools; the other denominations seek to supply the want
by Sunday schools. The candidates for the ministry are trained in colleges
and in numerous theological seminaries.
1. _English Protestant Denominations._—The numerous Protestant
denominations belong to two great groups, English and German. Of the first
named the following are by far the most important: (1) _The
Congregationalists_ are the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers who
emigrated in 1620 (§ 143, 4). They profess the doctrines of the
Westminster Confession (§ 155, 1).—(2) _The Presbyterians_, of Scotch
origin, have the same confession as the Congregationalists, but differ
from them by having a common church government with strict Synodal and
Presbyterial constitution. By rejecting the doctrine of predestination the
Cumberland Presbyterians in 1810 formed a separate body and have since
grown so as to embrace in the south-western states 120,000
communicants.—(3) _The Anglican Episcopal Church_ is equally distinguished
by moderate and solid churchliness. Even here, however, Puseyism has
entered in and the Romish church has made many proselytes. But when at the
general conference of the Evangelical Alliance at New York in 1873, bishop
Cummins of Kentucky took part in the administration of the Lord’s Supper
in the Presbyterian church and was violently attacked for this by his
Puseyite brethren, he laid the foundation of a “Reformed Episcopal
Church,” in which secession other twenty-five Episcopal ministers joined.
They regard the episcopal constitution as an old and wholesome ordinance
but not a divine institution, also the Anglican liturgy and _Book of
Common Prayer_, though capable of improvement, while they recognise the
ordinations of other evangelical churches as valid, and reject as Puseyite
the doctrine of a special priesthood of the clergy, of a sacrifice in the
eucharist, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the elements,
and of the essential and invariable connection between regeneration and
baptism.—(4) _The Episcopal Methodists_ in America formed since 1784 an
independent body (§ 169, 4). Their influence on the religious life in the
United States has been extraordinarily great. They have had by far the
most to do with the revivals which from the first they have carried to a
wonderful pitch with their protracted meetings, inquiry meetings, camp
meetings, etc. They reached their climax in the camp meetings which, under
the preaching mostly of itinerant Methodist preachers frequently in the
forest under the canopy of heaven, produced religious awakening among the
multitudes gathered from all around. Day and night without interruption
they continued praying, singing, preaching, exhorting; all the horrors of
hell are depicted, the excitement increases every moment, penitent
wrestlings with sighs, sobs, groans, convulsions and writhings, occur on
every side; grace comes at last to view; loud hallelujahs, thanksgivings
and ascription of praise by the converted mix with the moanings of those
on “the anxious bench” pleading for grace, etc. In San Francisco in 1874
there were “_Baby-Revivals_,” at which children from four to twelve years
of age, who trembled with the fear of hell, sang penitential hymns, made
confession of sin, and wrote their names on a sheet in order to engage
themselves for ever for Jesus. Since 1847 the Methodist church had been
divided into two hostile camps, a southern and a northern. The first named
tolerated slavery, while the members of the latter were decided
abolitionists and excommunicated all slave-owners as unworthy of the name
of Christian. Another party, the Protestant Methodists, has blended the
episcopal and congregational constitution.—(5) _The Baptists_ are split up
into many sects. The most numerous are the Calvinistic Baptists. Their
activity in proselytising is equally great with their zeal for missions to
the heathen. In opposition to them the Free-Will Baptists are Arminian and
the Christian Baptists have adopted Unitarian views.(121)
2. _The German Lutheran Denominations._—The German emigration to America
began in Penn’s time. In the organization of church affairs, besides
Zinzendorf and the Herrnhut missionaries, a prominent part was taken by
the pastor Dr. Melchior Mühlenberg (died 1787), a pupil of A. H. Francke,
and the Reformed pastor Schlatter from St. Gall; the former sent by the
Halle Orphanage, the latter by the Dutch church. The Orphanage sent many
earnest preachers till rationalism broke in upon the society. As at the
same time the stream of German emigration was checked almost completely
for several decades, and so all intercourse with the mother country
ceased, crowds of Germans, impressed by the revivals, went over to the
Anglo-American denominations, and in the German denominations themselves
along with the English language entered also English Puritanism and
Methodism. In 1815 German emigration began again and grew from year to
year. At the synod of 1857 the Lutheran church with 3,000 pastors divided
into three main divisions: (1) The American Lutheran church had become in
language, customs, and doctrine thoroughly Anglicised and Americanized;
Zwinglian in its doctrine of the sacraments, it was Lutheran in scarcely
anything but the name, until in its chief seminary at Gettysburg in
Pennsylvania in 1850 a reaction set in in favour of genuine Lutheran and
German tendencies. (2) A greatly attenuated Lutheranism with unionistic
sympathies and frequent abandonment of the German language also found
expression in the congregations of the Old Pennsylvanian Synod. (3) On the
other hand, the strict Lutheran church held tenaciously to the exclusive
use of the German language and the genuine Lutheran confession. The
Prussian emigration with Grabau and the Saxon Lutheran settlers with
Stephan constituted its backbone (§ 194, 1). To them a number of Bavarian
Lutherans attached themselves who had emigrated under the leadership of
Löhe, whose missionary institute at Neuendettelsau supplied them with
pastors. The Saxon Lutherans were meanwhile grouped together in the
Missouri Synod, which Löhe’s missionaries also joined, so that it soon
acquired much larger proportions than the Buffalo Synod formed previously
by the Prussian Lutherans under Grabau. But very soon the two synods had a
violent quarrel over the idea of office and church which, owing to the
reception by the Missouri Synod of several parties excommunicated by the
Buffalo Synod, led to the formal breach of church fellowship between the
two parties. The Missouri Synod, with Dr. Walther at its head, attached
all importance to sound doctrine; the clerical office was regarded as a
transference of the right of the congregation and excommunication as a
congregational not a clerical act. The Buffalo Synod, on the other hand,
in consequence of serious conflict with pietistic elements, had been
driven into an overestimation of external order, of forms of constitution
and worship, and of the clerical office as of immediately divine
authority, and carried this to such a length as led to the dissolution of
the synod in 1877. Löhe’s friends, who had not been able to agree with
either party, formed themselves into the Synod of Iowa, with their
seminary at Wartburg under Fritschel. On all questions debated between the
synods they took a mediating position. The Missourians, however, would
have nothing to do with them, while those of Buffalo long maintained
tolerably friendly relations with them. But the historical view of the
symbols taken by the Iowans, their inclination toward the new development
of Lutheran theology, and above all their attitude toward biblical
chiliasm, which they wished to treat as an open question, seemed to those
of Buffalo, as well as to the Missourians, a falling away from the church
confession, and led to their excommunication by that party also.—In
opposition to all this splitting up into sections a General Council of the
Lutheran Church in America was held in 1866, which sought to combine all
Lutheran district synods, of which twelve, out of fifty-six, with 814
clergymen, joined it, Iowa assuming a friendly and Missouri a distinctly
hostile attitude. The ninth assembly at Galesburg in Illinois in 1875 laid
down as its fundamental principle, “Lutheran pulpits only for Lutheran
preachers, and Lutheran altars only for Lutheran communicants.” The native
Americans, however, insisted upon exceptions being allowed, _e.g._ in
peril of death, etc. On the question of the limits of these exceptions,
however, subsequent assemblies have not been able to agree.
3. But also in the Synodal Conference founded and led by the Missouri
Synod, embracing five synods, doctrinal controversies sprang up in 1860. A
large number with Dr. Walther at their head held a strict doctrine of
_predestination_ which they regarded as the mark of genuine Lutheranism.
God has, they taught, chosen a definite number of men from eternity to
salvation; these shall and must be saved. Salvation in Christ is indeed
offered to all, but God secures it only for His elect, so that they are
sure of it and cannot lose it again, not indeed _intuitu fidei_ but only
according to His sovereign grace. Even one of the elect may seem
temporarily to fall from grace, but he cannot die without returning into
full possession of it. Prof. Fritschel protested against this in 1872 as
essentially Calvinistic, and opposition also arose in the Missouri
Pastoral Conference. Prof. Asperheim, of the seminary of the Norwegian
Synod at Madison in Wisconsin, who first pronounced against it in 1876,
was deprived of his office and obliged to withdraw from the synod. The
controversy broke out in a violent form at the conferences of about 500
pastors held at Chicago in 1880 and at Milwaukee three months later in
1881, at the former of which Prof. Stellhorn of Fort Wayne, at the latter
Prof. Schmidt of Madison, offered a vigorous opposition. Walther closed
the conference with the words: “You ask for war, war you shall have.” The
result was that the whole of the Ohio Synod and a large portion of the
Norwegian Wisconsin Synod, broke away from communion with the Missouri
Synod.—Walther and his adherents went so far in their fanaticism as to
pronounce not only their American opponents but all the most distinguished
Lutheran theologians of Germany, Philippi as well as Hofmann, Luthardt as
well as Kahnis, Vilmar as well as Thomasius, Harms as well as Zöckler,
etc., bastard theologians, semipelagians, synergists and rationalists, and
to refuse church fellowship not only with all Lutheran national churches
in Europe, but also with German Lutheran Free Churches, which did not
unconditionally attach themselves to them. These Missouri separatist
communities, though everywhere quite unimportant, are in Europe strongest
in the kingdom of Saxony; they have also a few representatives in Nassau,
Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria and Hesse.
4. _German-Reformed and other German-Protestant Denominations._—The
German-Reformed church has its seminary at Mercersburg in Pennsylvania.
Its confession of faith is the Heidelberg Catechism, its theology an
offshoot of German evangelical union theology, but with a distinctly
positive tendency. Although the union theology there prevailed among the
Reformed as well as the Lutherans, a German Evangelical Church Union was
formed at St. Louis in 1841 which wished to set aside the names Reformed
and Lutheran. It established a seminary at Marthasville in Missouri. The
Herrnhuters are also represented in America. Several German Methodist
sects have recently sprung up: 1. The “United Brethren in Christ,” with
500 preachers, founded by a Reformed preacher Otternbein (died 1813). 2.
The “Evangelical Communion,” commonly called _Albrechtsleute_, founded by
Jac. Albrecht, originally a Lutheran layman, whom his own followers
ordained in 1803, with 500 or 600 preachers working zealously and carrying
on mission work also in Germany (§ 211, 1). 3. The Weinbrennians or Church
of God, founded by an excommunicated Reformed pastor of that name in 1839.
They carry the Methodist revivalism to the most extravagant excess and are
also fanatical opponents of infant baptism.
5. _The Catholic Church._—A number of English Catholics under Lord
Baltimore settled in Maryland in 1634. The little community grew and soon
filled the land. There alone in the whole world did the Roman Catholic
church though dominant proclaim the principle of toleration and religious
equality. Consequently Protestants of various denominations crowded
thither, outnumbered the original settlers, and rewarded those who had
hospitably received them with abuse and oppression. The Catholics were
also treated in other states as idolaters and excluded from public offices
and posts of honour. Only after the Declaration of Independence in 1783
was this changed by the sundering of the connection of church and state
and the proclamation of absolute religious liberty. The number of
Catholics was greatly increased by numerous emigrations, specially from
Ireland and Catholic Germany. They now claim seven million members, with a
cardinal at New York, 13 archbishops, 64 bishops, about 7,000 churches and
chapels. A beautiful cathedral was erected in New York in 1879, the
immense cost of which, exceeding all expectation, was at last defrayed by
very unspiritual and unecclesiastical methods, _e.g._ lotteries, fairs,
dramatic exhibitions, concerts, and even dearly sold kisses, etc. The
Roman Catholics have also a university at St. Louis, 80 colleges, and 300
cloisters.
§ 209. The Roman Catholic States of South America.
To the predominantly Protestant North America the position of the Roman
Catholic states of South America forms a very striking contrast. Nowhere
else was the influence and power of the clergy so wide-spread and deeply
rooted, nowhere else has the depravation of Catholicism reached such a
depth of superstition, obscurantism, and fanaticism. During the second and
third decades of our century the Spanish states, favoured by the
revolutionary movement in the mother country, one after another asserted
their independence, and the Portuguese Brazil established herself as an
independent empire under the legitimate royal prince of Portugal, Pedro I.
in 1822. Although the other new states adopted a republican constitution,
they could not throw aside the influence of the Catholic clergy and carry
out the principles of religious freedom proclaimed in their constitutions.
The Catholicism of the Creoles, half-castes, and mulattoes was of too
bigoted a kind and the power of the clergy too great to allow any such
thing. Mexico went furthest in the attempt, and Brazil, under Dom Pedro
II. from 1831, astonished the world by the vigorous measures of its
government in 1874 against the assumptions of the higher clergy.—In spite
of all hindrances a not inconsiderable number of small evangelical
congregations have been formed in Romish America, partly through
emigration and partly by evangelization.
1. _Mexico._—Of all the American states, Mexico, since its independence in
1823, has been most disturbed by revolutions and civil wars. The rich and
influential clergy, possessing nearly a half of all landed property, was
the factor with which all pretenders, presidents and rulers had to reckon.
After most of the earlier governments had supported the clergy and been
supported by them, the ultimately victorious liberal party under president
Juarez shook off the yoke in 1859. He proclaimed absolute religious
freedom, introduced civil marriage, abolished cloisters, pronounced church
possessions national property and exiled the obstinate bishops. The
clerical party now sought and obtained foreign aid. Spain, France and
England joined in a common military convention in 1861 in supporting
certain claims of citizens repudiated by Juarez. Spain and England soon
withdrew their troops, and Napoleon III. openly declared the purpose of
his interference to be the strengthening of the Latin race and the
monarchical principle in America. At his instigation the Austrian
Grand-Duke Maximilian was elected emperor, and that prince, after
receiving the pope’s blessing in Rome, began his reign in 1864. Distrusted
by all parties as a stranger, in difficulties with the curia and clergy
because he opposed their claims to have their most extravagant privileges
restored, shamefully left in the lurch by Napoleon from fear of the
threatening attitude of the North American Union, and then sold and
betrayed by his own general Bazaine, this noble but unfortunate prince was
at last sentenced by Juarez at a court-martial to be shot in 1867. Juarez
now maintained his position till the end of his life in 1872, and strictly
carried out his anticlerical reforms. After his death clericalism again
raised her head, and the Jesuits expelled from Guatemala swarmed over the
land. Yet constitutional sanction was given to the Juarez legislation at
the congress of 1873. The Jesuits were driven across the frontiers,
obstinate priests as well as a great number of nuns, who had gathered
again in cloisters and received novices, were put in prison.—Also
_Evangelization_ advanced slowly under sanction of law, though regarded
with disfavour by the people and interfered with often by the mob. It
began in 1865 with the awakening of a Catholic priest Francisco Aguilar
and a Dominican monk Manuel Aguas, through the reading of the Scriptures.
They laid the foundation of the “_Iglesia de Jesus_” of converted
Mexicans, with evangelical doctrine and apostolic-episcopal constitution,
which has now 71 congregations throughout the whole country with about
10,000 souls. This movement received a new impulse in 1869, when a
Chilian-born Anglican episcopal minister of a Spanish-speaking
congregation in New York, called Riley, took the control of it and was in
1879 consecrated its bishop. Besides this independent “_Church of Jesus_”
North American missionaries of various denominations have wrought there
since 1872 with slow but steady success.
2. _In the Republics of Central and Southern America_, when the liberal
party obtained the helm of government through almost incessant civil wars,
religious freedom was generally proclaimed, civil marriage introduced, the
Jesuits expelled, cloisters shut up, etc. But in _Ecuador_, president
Moreno, aided by the clergy, concluded in 1862 a concordat with the curia
by which throughout the country only the Catholic worship was tolerated,
the bishops could condemn and confiscate any book, education was under the
Jesuits, and the government undertook to employ the police in suppressing
all errors and compelling all citizens to fulfil all their religious
duties. And further the public resolved in 1873, although unable to pay
the interest of the national debt, to hand over a tenth of all state
revenues to the pope. But Moreno was murdered in 1875. The Jesuits, who
were out of favour, left Quito. The tithe hitherto paid to the pope was
immediately withheld, and in 1877 the concordat was abrogated. As Ecuador
in Moreno, so _Peru_ at the same time in Pierola had a dictator after the
pope’s own heart. The republic had his misgovernment to thank for one
defeat after another in the war with Chili.—_Bolivia_ in 1872 declared
that the Roman Catholic religion alone would be tolerated in the country,
and suffered, in common with Peru, annihilating defeats at the hand of
Chili.—When at St. Iago in Chili, during the festival of the Immaculate
Conception in 1863, the Jesuit church La Compania was burnt and in it more
than 2,000 women and children consumed, the clergy pronounced this
disaster an act of grace of the blessed Virgin, who wished to give the
country a vast number of saints and martyrs. But here, too, the conflicts
between church and state continued. In 1874 the Chilian episcopate
pronounced the ban against the president and the members of the national
council and of the Lower House who had favoured the introduction of a new
penal code which secured liberty of worship, but it remained quite
unheeded. When then the archiepiscopal chair of St. Iago became vacant in
1878, the pope refused on any condition to confirm the candidate appointed
by the government. After the decisive victory over Peru and Bolivia, the
government again in December, 1881, urgently insisted upon their
presentation. The curia now sent to Chili, avowedly to obtain more
accurate information, an apostolic delegate who took advantage of his
position to stir up strife, so that the government was obliged to insist
upon his recall. As the curia declined to do so, his passports were sent
to the legate in January, 1883, and a presidential message was addressed
to the next congress which demanded the separation of the church and
state, with the introduction of civil marriage and register of civil
station, as the only remaining means for putting down the confusion caused
by papal tergiversation. The result of the long and heated debates that
followed was the promulgation of a law by which Catholicism was deprived
of the character of the state religion and the perfect equality of all
forms of worship was proclaimed.—_Guatemala_ in 1872 expelled the Jesuits
whose power and wealth had become very great. In 1874 the president
Borrias opened a new campaign against the clergy by forbidding them to
wear the clerical dress except when discharging the duties of their
office, and closing all the nunneries.—In _Venezuela_, in 1872, Archbishop
Guevara of Caracas, who had previously come into collision with the
government by favouring the rebels, forbade his clergy taking part in the
national festival, and put the cathedral in which it was to be celebrated
under the interdict. Deposed and banished on this account, he continued
from the British island of Trinidad his endeavours to stir up a new
rebellion. The president, Guzman Blanco, after long fruitless negotiations
with the papal nuncio, submitted in May, 1876, to the congress at St.
Domingo the draft of a bill, which declared the national church wholly
independent of Rome. The congress not only homologated his proposals, but
carried them further, by abolishing the episcopal hierarchy and assigning
its revenues to the national exchequer, for education. Now at last the
Roman curia agreed to the deposition of Guevara and confirmed the
nomination of his previously appointed successor. But president Blanco now
asked congress to abolish the law, and this was agreed to.—In the United
States of _Colombia_ since 1853, and in the _Argentine Republic_ since
1865, perfect liberty of faith and worship have been constitutionally
secured. From the latter state the Jesuits had been banished for a long
time but had managed to smuggle themselves in again. When in the beginning
of 1875 Archbishop Aneiros of Buenos Ayres addressed to the government
which favoured the clerical party rather than to the congress which was
the only competent court, a request to reinvest the Jesuits with the
churches, cloisters, and properties held by them before their expulsion, a
terrible outbreak took place, which the archbishop intensified to the
utmost by issuing a violent pastoral. A mob of 30,000 men, convened by the
students of the university, wrecked the palace of the archbishop, then
attacked the Jesuit college, burnt all its furniture and ornaments on the
streets and by means of petroleum soon reduced the building itself to
flames. Only with difficulty did the military succeed in preventing
further mischief. In October, 1884, the papal nuncio was expelled,
because, when the government decidedly refused his request to prevent the
spread of Protestant teaching and to place Sunday schools under the
oversight of the bishops, he replied in a most violent and passionate
manner. About the same time the republic of _Costa-rica_ issued a law
forbidding all religious orders, pronouncing all vows invalid, and
threatening banishment against all who should contravene these enactments,
and also an education act which forbade all public instruction apart from
that provided by the State.
3. _Brazil._—In Brazil down to 1884, the “Catholic Apostolic Roman
Religion” was, according to the constitution, the religion of the empire.
But from 1828 there was a Protestant congregation in Rio de Janeiro, and
through the inland districts, in consequence of immigration, there were
100 small evangelical congregations, with twenty-five ordained pastors,
whose forms of worship were of various kinds. In earlier times Protestant
marriage was regarded as concubinage, but in 1851 a law was passed which
gave it civil recognition. But the bishops held to their previous views
and demanded of married converts a repetition of the ceremony. Since 1870,
however, the government has energetically opposed the claims of the clergy
who wished only to acknowledge the authority of Rome. Protestant marriages
were pronounced equally legitimate with Catholic marriages, no civil
penalties are incurred by excommunication, all papal bulls are subject to
the approval of the government, and it was insisted that announcement
should be made of all clergy nominated. The clergy considered freemasonry
the chief source of all this liberal current, and against it therefore
they directed all their forces. The pope assisted by his brief of May,
1873, condemning freemasonry. At the head of the rebel prelates stood Don
Vitalis Gonsalvez de Oliveira, bishop of Olinda and Pernambuco. He
published the papal brief without asking the imperial permission,
pronounced the ban upon all freemasons and suspended the interdict over
all associations which refused to expel masonic brothers from their
membership. In vain the government demanded its withdrawal. It then
accused him of an attack upon the constitution. The supreme court ordered
his detention, and he was placed in the state prison at Rio de Janeiro in
January, 1874. The trial ended by his being sentenced to four years’
imprisonment, which the emperor as an act of grace commuted to detention
in a fortress, and set him free in a year and a half. In consequence of
this occurrence the Jesuits were, in 1874, expelled from the country. The
increasing advent of monks and nuns from Europe led the government, in
1884, to appoint a commission to carry out the law already passed in 1870,
for the secularization of all monastic property after providing pensions
for those entitled to support. In the same year all naturalized
non-Catholics were pronounced eligible for election to the imperial
parliament and to the provincial assemblies. The members belonging to the
evangelical churches now number about 50,000, of whom 30,000 are
Germans.(122)
V. Opponents of Church and of Christianity.
§ 210. Sectarians and Enthusiasts in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox
Russian Domains.
It cannot be denied that since the Tridentine attempt to define the church
doctrine far fewer sects condemning the church as such have sprung from
Roman Catholicism than from Protestantism. Yet such phenomena are not
wanting in the nineteenth century. Their scarcity is abundantly made up
for by the numberless degenerations and errors (§ 191) which the Catholic
church or its representatives in the higher and lower grades of the clergy
not only fell into, but actually provoked and furthered, and thus
encouraged an unhealthy love for religious peculiarities. Were the absence
of new heretical, sectarian and fanatical developments something to be
gloried in for itself alone, the Eastern church, with its absolute
stability, would obtain this distinction in a far higher degree. In the
Russian church, however, the multitude of sects which amid manifold
oppressions and persecutions continue to exist to the present day, in
spite of many persistent and even condemnable errors, witnesses to a deep
religious need in the Russian people.
1. _Sects and Fanatics in the Roman Catholic Domain_ (§ 187, 6-8, §
190).—On the Catholic Irvingites see § 211, 10.—(1) _The Order of New
Templars_ sprang from the Freemasons (§ 172, 2). Soon after their
establishment in France the Jesuits sought to carry out their own
hierarchical ideas. The fable of an uninterrupted connection between
freemasonry as a “temple of humanity” and the Templars of the Middle Ages,
and the introduction therewith in their secret ceremonies of exercises,
borrowed from the chivalry of romance, afforded a means toward this end.
The idea was started in the Jesuit college at Claremont and was approved
and accepted by the local lodge. In A.D. 1754 a great number of their
noble members, who were disgusted with the Jesuit templar farce, withdrew
in order as “New Templars” to continue the old order in the spirit of
modern times. In consequence, however, of the revolution that broke out in
A.D. 1789 they could no longer hold their ground as a band of nobles.
Napoleon favoured the reorganization of the order freed from those limits.
The day of Molay’s death (§ 112, 7) was publicly celebrated with great
pomp in Paris, A.D. 1808 and the order spread among all French
populations. On the Bourbon restoration the grand-master was, at the
instigation of the Jesuits, cast into prison and the order suppressed.
After the July revolution he was liberated and a new temple was opened in
Paris in A.D. 1833. The show-loving Parisians for a long time took
pleasure in the peculiar rites and costume of the templars. When this
interest declined the order passed out of view. Its religion, which
professed to be a primitive revelation carried down in the Greek and
Egyptian mysteries, from which Moses borrowed, then further developed by
Christ and transmitted in esoteric tradition by John and his successors
the grand-masters of the templars, taught a divine trinity of being, act
and consciousness, the eternity of the world alongside of God and an
indwelling of God in man. It declared the Roman Catholic church to be the
only true Christianity (_église chrétienne primitive_). Its sacred book
consisted of an apocryphal gospel of John in accordance with its own
notions.—(2) On the communistic society of _St. Simonians_, which also
sprang up in France, see § 212, 2.—(3) St. Simon’s secretary was _Aug.
Comte_, the founder of the Positivist philosophical school (§ 174, 2) and
he maintained intimate relations with his master all through life. In his
later years he undertook by carrying his philosophical doctrine into the
practical domain to sketch out a “religion of humanity,” and thus became
the founder of a Positivist religious sect. The men of science indeed who
had adopted his philosophical principles (Littré, Renan, Taine, Lewes,
Leslie Stephens, Tyndall, Huxley, Draper, etc.), repudiate it; but in the
middle and lower ranks some were found longing for an object of worship,
who endeavoured on the basis of his _Calendrier positiviste_ and
_Catechisme positiviste_ to form a religious society for the worship of
humanity. His festival calendar divides the year into thirteen months of
four weeks each, named after the thirteen great benefactors of mankind
(among whom Christ does not appear), while the weeks are named after
lesser heroes. By the profound veneration of woman, which savours greatly
of Mariolatry, as well as by the fantastic worship of heroes, geniuses and
scholars, which is a mimicry of the popish saint worship, and by the
adoption of a sacerdotalism like that of Catholicism, this religion of
humanity shows itself to be an antichristian growth on Roman Catholic
soil.
2.—(4) _Thomas Pöschl_, in the second decade of the century, presents an
instance of a degeneration of originally pietistic tendencies into
mischievous fanaticism. A Catholic priest at Ampfelwang near Linz, he
sought under the influence of Sailer’s mysticism to awaken in his
congregation a more lively Christianity by means of prayer meetings and
the circulation of tracts, in which he proclaimed the approaching end of
the world. When the district in which he lived was, in 1814, attached to
Austria, he was committed to prison, and his followers accepted as their
leader the peasant _Jos. Haas_, who led them further still into fanatical
excesses. His fanaticism at length went so far that on Good Friday of 1817
a young maiden belonging to their party suffered a voluntary death after
the example of Christ for her brothers and sisters. Pöschl professed the
deepest horror at this cruel deed for which he was blamed. He died in
close monastic confinement in 1837.—(5) The Antinomian sect of the
_Antonians_, most numerous in the Canton Bern, had its beginning among the
Roman Catholics. Its founder was Antoni Unternährer, born and reared at
Shüpfheim, near Lucerne, in the Catholic faith. From 1802 he resided at
Amfoldingen, near Thun, where he stood in high repute among the peasants
as a quack doctor, gave himself out as the son of God a second time become
man, and proclaimed by word and writing the perfect redemption from the
curse of the law by the introduction of the true freedom of the sons of
God, which was to show itself first of all in the absolutely unrestricted
intercourse of the sexes. After two years’ confinement in a house of
correction he was banished from the Canton Bern and transported to his
native place, where, abandoning all pastoral duties, he died in a police
cell in 1814. The sect, which had meanwhile spread widely, and at Gsteig
near Interlaken had obtained a new leader in the person of Benedict
Schori, a third incarnation of Christ, could not be finally suppressed,
notwithstanding the liberal use of the prison, till the beginning of 1840.
Even at this day scattered remnants of Antonians are to be found in Canton
Bern.—(6) When the Austrian constitution of 1849 gave unconditional
religious toleration, the Bohemian _Adamites_ (§ 115, 5), of whom remnants
under the mask of Catholicism had continued down to the nineteenth
century, ventured again publicly to engage in proselytising efforts. An
official enquiry instituted on this occasion declared that the sect,
consisting of Bohemian peasants and artisans, had its headquarters among
the mystics of the Krüdener school, that its religious doctrine was a
mixture of communism, freethinking and quietism, and that its members were
in their ordinary public life blameless, but that in their secret nightly
assemblies, where they dispensed with clothes, they celebrated orgies
regardless of marriage or relationship.—(7) _David Lazzaretti_, formerly a
carrier in Tuscany, appeared in his native place after an absence of
several years, in 1872, declaring that he was descended from a natural son
of Charlemagne and had been entrusted by the Apostle Peter with a message
to the pope, pointing to a cross that had been burnt upon his brow by the
apostle himself. He startled those of the Vatican, where he was quite
unknown, by declaring that the bones of his ancestors lay under the ruins
of an old Franciscan cloister in Sabina, of whose existence nobody was
aware, the discovery of which seemed to vouch for his claims. These were
all the more readily admitted when it was found that he made the
restoration of the Pope’s temporal power his main task. The number of his
adherents, mostly peasants, soon increased immensely, reaching, it is
said, 40,000. On Monte Labro they built a church with a strong “David’s
Tower,” over which “St. David” appointed two priests who, when they had
made certain changes in worship at the call of the prophet, were
excommunicated by the bishop. David now began to spread his socialistic
and communistic ideas. He insisted that his adherents should surrender
their goods to him as representative of the society, and promised down to
December 31st, 1890, the introduction of community of goods throughout
Italy and afterwards in other countries. In Arcidosso, the prophet’s
birthplace, a beginning was to be made, but in its overthrow on August
18th, 1878, he met his death, and his befooled followers waited in vain
for the fulfilment of his dying promise that he would rise again on the
third day.
3. _Russian Sects and Fanatics._—After the attempt under Nicholas I. at
the forcible conversion of the _Raskolniks_, especially the purely
schismatic _Starowerzians_ or Old Believers (§ 163, 10), had proved
fruitless, the government of Alexander II. by patience and concession took
a surer way to reconciliation and restoration. In October, 1874, their
marriages, births and deaths, which had hitherto been without legal
recognition, were put on the regular register and so their lawful rights
of inheritance were secured. Under Alexander III. in 1883 an imperial
decree was issued, which gave them permission to celebrate divine service
after their own methods in their chapels, which had not before the legal
standing of churches, and declared them also eligible for public
appointments.—To the _Duchoborzians_ (§ 166, 2), sorely oppressed under
Catherine II. and Paul I., Alexander I., after they had laid before him
the confession which they had adopted, granted toleration, but assigned
them a separate residence in the Taurus district. Under Nicholas I. they
were to the number of 3,000 transported to the Transcaucasian mountains in
1841, where they were called Duchoborje.—The Württemberg Pietist colonists
of South Russia originated among the peasants the widespread sect of the
_Stundists_ soon after the abolition of serfdom in 1863. The originator of
those separatist meetings for the study of Scripture, which led first of
all to the condemnation of image worship and making the sign of the cross
as unbiblical, and subsequently to a complete withdrawal from the worship
of the orthodox church and the forming of conventicles, was the peasant
and congregational elder Ratusny of Osnowa near Odessa, to whom, at a
later period, with equal propagandist zeal, the peasant Balabok attached
himself. The latter was, in 1871, sentenced to one year’s imprisonment at
Kiev and the loss of civil rights, and in 1873, at Odessa, a great
criminal prosecution was instituted against Ratusny and all the other
leaders of the sect, which, however, after proceeding for five years ended
in a verdict of acquittal. A process started in 1878 against the so-called
_Schaloputs_ had a similar issue. This sect, spread most widely among the
Cossacks of Cuban, rejects the Old Testament, the sacraments and the
doctrine of the resurrection, but believes in a continued effusion of the
Holy Spirit upon the prophets of the church who have prepared themselves
for their vocation by complete abstinence from flesh and spirituous liquor
as well as by incessant prayer and frequent fasting.
4. About the middle of the eighteenth century among the “_Men of __ God_,”
the strict interpretation of the prescriptions of their founder Danila
Filipow (§ 163, 10) had led many to abstain wholly from sexual relations;
when a peasant Andrew Selivanov appeared as a reformer and founded the
sect of the _Skopzen_ or mutilators, who, building on misinterpreted
passages of Scripture (Matt. v. 28-30, xix. 12; Rev. xiv. 4) insisted upon
the destruction of sexual desire by castration and excision of the female
breasts, generally performed under anæsthetics, as a necessary condition
of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. The first Skopzic congregation was
gathered round him in the village of Sosnowka. The “men of God” enraged at
his success denounced him to the government. He was punished with the
knout and condemned in 1774 to hard labour at Irkutzk. The idea that Peter
III., who died in 1762, was still alive, then widely prevailed. The “men
of God” had also adopted this opinion, and proclaimed him their
last-appearing Christ, who would soon return from his hiding-place to call
to account all unbelievers. Selivanov, who knew of this, now gave himself
out for the exiled monarch, and was accepted as such by his adherents in
his native place. When Paul I., Peter’s son, assumed the reins of
government in 1796, a Skopzic merchant of Moscow told him secretly that
his father was living at Irkutzk under the name of Selivanov. The emperor
therefore brought him to Petersburg and shut him up as an imbecile in an
asylum. After Paul’s death, however, his adherents obtained his release.
He now lived for eighteen years in honour at Petersburg, till in 1820 the
court again interfered and had him confined in a cloister at Suzdal, where
after some years he died. Sorely persecuted by Nicholas I. many of his
followers migrated to Moldavia and Walachia where they, dwelling in
separate quarters at Jassy, Bucharest and Galatz, lived as owners of
coach-hiring establishments, and by rich presents obtained proselytes.
Still more vigorously was the propaganda carried on in the Moscow colonies
on the Sea of Azov. There in Morschansk lived the spiritual head of all
Russian Skopzen, the rich merchant Plotizyn. After the government got on
the track of this society, Plotizyn’s house was searched and a
correspondence revealing the wide extension of the sect was found,
together with a treasure of several, some say as much as thirty, millions
of roubles, which, however, in great part again disappeared in a
mysterious manner. Plotizyn and his companions were banished to Siberia
and sentenced to hard labour, the less seriously implicated to correction
in a cloister.—The secret doctrine of the Skopzen so far as is known is as
follows: God had intended man to propagate not by sexual intercourse but
by a holy kiss. They broke this command and this constituted the fall. In
the fulness of time God sent his Son into the world. The central point of
his preaching transmitted to us in a greatly distorted form was the
introduction of the baptism of fire (Matt. iii. 11), _i.e._ mutilation by
hot irons for which, in consideration of human weakness, a baptism of
castration may be substituted (Matt. xix. 12). Origen is regarded by them
as the greatest saint of the ancient church; to his example all saints
conformed who are represented as beardless or with only a slight beard.
The promised return of the Christ (in this alone diverging from the
doctrine of the “men of God”), took place in the person of the emperor
Peter III. whom an unstained virgin bore, who was called the empress
Elizabeth Petrovna. The latter after some years transferred the government
to a lady of the court resembling her and retired into private life under
the name of Akulina Ivanovna, where she still remains invisible behind
golden walls, waiting for the things that are to come. Her son Peter III.,
who had also himself undergone the baptism of fire, escaped the snares of
his wife, reappeared under the name of Selivanov, performed many miracles
and converted multitudes, obtained as a reward the knout, and was at last
sent to Siberia. Emperor Paul recalled him and was converted by him. Under
Alexander I. he was again arrested and imprisoned in the cloister of
Suzdal. But he was conveyed thence by a divine miracle to Irkutzk, where
he now lives in secret, whence at his own time he shall return to judge
the living and the dead.—They kept up an outward connection with the state
church although they regarded it as the apocalyptic whore of Babylon. In
their own secret services inspired psalms were sung, and after exciting
dances prophecies were uttered.(123)
§ 211. Sectaries and Enthusiasts in the Protestant Domain.
The United States of America with their peculiar constitution formed the
favourite ground for the gathering and moulding of sects during this age.
There, besides the older colonies of Quakers, Baptists and Methodists from
England, we meet with Swedenborgianism and Unitarianism, while Baptists
and Methodists began to send missionaries into Europe, and from England
the Salvation Army undertook a campaign for the conquest of the world. But
also on the European continent independent fanatical developments made
their appearance.—A new combination of communism with religious enthusiasm
is represented by the Harmonists and by the Perfectionists in North
America. The Grusinian Separatists and the Bavarian Chiliasts are
millenarians of German extraction, of whom the former sought deliverance
from the prevailing antichristian spirit in removal from, and the latter
in removal to, South Russia. The Amen churches sought to gather God’s
people of the Jewish Christian communities together in Palestine, while
the so-called German Temple sought to gather the Gentile Christians. As
Latter Day Saints, besides the Adventists, the Darbyites established
themselves on an independent basis; the Irvingites, with revival of the
apostolic offices and charisms, and their American caricature, the
Mormons, with the addition of socialistic and fantastic gnostic
tendencies. The religion of the Taiping rebellion in China presented the
rare phenomenon of a national Chinese Christianity of native growth, and a
still rarer manifestation is met with in American-European spiritualism
with pretended spirit revelations from the other world.
1. _The Methodist Propaganda._—From 1850 the American Methodists, both the
Albrechtsleute (§ 208, 4) and the Episcopal Methodists, have sent out
numerous missionaries, mostly Germans into Germany, whose zeal has won
considerable success among the country people. In North-West Germany
Bremen is their chief station, whence they have spread to Sweden, Central
and Southern Germany, and Switzerland, and have stations in Frankfort,
Carlsruhe, Heilbronn, and Zürich.—Of a more evanescent character was the
attempt made on Germany by the so-called _Oxford Holiness Movement_. In
1866 the North American Methodists celebrated their centenary in New York
by the appointment of a great revival and holiness committee, in which
were also members of many other denominations. Among them the
manufacturer, _Pearsall Smith_, of Philadelphia, converted in 1871,
exhibited extraordinary zeal. In September, 1874, he held at Oxford great
revival meetings, from which the designation of the Oxford movement had
its origin. By some Germans there present his opinions were carried to
Germany. In spring, 1875, he began his second European missionary tour.
While his two companions, the revivalists Moody and Sankey, travelled
through England for the conversion of the masses, Smith went to Germany,
and proceeding from Berlin on to Switzerland, gave addresses in English,
that were interpreted, in ten of the large cities. The most pious among
clergy and laity flocked from far and near to hear him. The new apostle’s
journey became more and more a triumphal march. He was lauded as a
reformer called to complete the work of Luther; as a prophet, who was to
fructify the barren wastes of Germany with the water of life. The core of
his doctrine was: Perfect holiness and the attainment of absolute
perfection, not hereafter, but now! now! now! with the constant refrain:
“_Jesus saves me now_”; not remission of sins through justification by
faith in the atoning efficacy of Christ’s blood, which only avails for
outward sinful actions, but immediate extinction of sins by Christ in us,
proved in living, unfaltering, inner, personal experience, etc. By a great
international and interconfessional meeting at Brighton, lasting for ten
days, in June, 1875, at which many German pastors, induced by the payment
of travelling expenses, were present, the crown was put upon the work. But
at the height of his triumph, under the daily increasing tension and
excitement the apostle of holiness showed himself to be a poor sinful son
of man, for he strayed into errors, “if not practically, at least
theoretically,” which his admirers at first referred to mental aberration,
but which they hid from the eyes of the world under a veil of mystery.
Toward the end of the Brighton conference he declared to his hearers:
“Thus plunge into a life of divine unconcern!” and, “All Europe lies at my
feet.” And in subsequent private conversations he developed a system of
ethics that “would suit Utah rather than England,” to which he then so
conformed his own conduct that his admirers, “although satisfied of the
purity of his own intentions,” were obliged energetically to repudiate and
with all speed send away across the sea the man whom their own unmeasured
adulation had deceived.
2. _The Salvation Army._—An extremely fantastic caricature of English
Methodism is the _Salvation Army_. The Methodist evangelist, _William
Booth_, who in 1865 founded in one of the lowest quarters of London a new
mission station, fell upon the idea in 1878, in order to make an
impression on the rude masses, to give his male and female helpers a
military organisation, discipline and uniform, and with military banners
and music to undertake a campaign against the kingdom of the devil. The
General of the Salvationists is Booth himself, his wife is his adjutant,
his eldest daughter field-marshal; his fellow-workers male and female are
his soldiers, cadets and officers of various ranks; chief of the staff is
Booth’s eldest son. Their services are conducted according to military
forms; their orchestra of trombone, drum and trumpet is called the
Hallelujah Brass Band. Their journal, with an issue of 400,000, is the
_War Cry_; another for children, is _The Little Soldier_, in which Jane,
four years old, dilates on the experiences of her inner life; and Tommy,
eleven years old, is sure that, having served the devil for eleven years,
he will now fight for King Jesus; and Lucy, nine years old, rejoices in
being washed in the blood of the Lamb. The army attained its greatest
success in England. Its numerous “prisoners of war” from the devil’s army
(prostitutes, drunkards, thieves, etc.) are led at the parade as trophies
of war, and tell of their conversion, whereupon the command of the
general, “Fire a Volley,” calls forth thousands of hallelujahs. Liberal
collections and unsought contributions, embracing several donations of a
£1,000 and more, are given to the General, not only to pay his soldiers,
but also to rent or to purchase and fit up theatres, concert halls,
circuses, etc., for their meetings, and to build large new “barracks.” Its
wonderful success has secured for the army many admirers and patrons, even
in the highest ranks of society. Queen Victoria herself testified to Mrs.
Booth her high satisfaction with her noble work. At the Convocation, too,
in the Upper as well as the Lower House, distinguished prelates spoke
favourably of its methods and results, and so encouraged the formation of
a Church Army, which, under the direction of the mission preacher Aitken,
pursues similar ways to those of the Salvation Army, without, however, its
spectacular displays, and has lately extended its exertions to India. The
temperance party after the same model has formed a Blue Ribbon Army, the
members of which, distinguished by wearing a piece of blue ribbon in the
buttonhole, confine themselves to fighting against alcohol. In opposition
to it public-house keepers and their associates formed a Yellow Ribbon
Army, which has as its ensign the yellow silk bands of cigar bundles. Soon
after the first great success of the Salvation Army, a Skeleton Army was
formed out of the lowest dregs of the London mob, which, with a banner
bearing the device of a skeleton, making a noise with all conceivable
instruments, and singing obscene street songs to sacred melodies,
interrupted the marches of the Salvation, and afterwards of the Church,
Army: throwing stones, filthy rotten apples and eggs, and even storming
and demolishing their “barracks.”—In 1880 a detachment of the Salvation
Army, with Railton at its head, assisted by seven Hallelujah Lasses, made
a first campaign in America, with New York as its head-quarters. In the
following year, under Miss Booth, it invaded France, where it issues a
daily bulletin, “_En Avant_.” In 1882 it appeared in Australia, then in
India, where Chunder Sen, the founder of the Brama-Somaj, showed himself
favourable. In Switzerland it broke ground in 1882, in Sweden in 1884, and
in Germany, at Stuttgart, in November, 1886. Africa, Spain, Italy, etc.,
followed in succession. These foreign corps outside of England also found
considerable success. Almost everywhere they met with opposition, the
magistrates often forbidding their meetings, and inflicting fines and
imprisonment, and the mob resorting to all sorts of violent interference.
Nowhere were both sorts of opponents so persistent as in Switzerland in
1883 and 1884, especially in Lausanne, Geneva, Neuenburg, Bern, Beil, etc.
Although General Booth himself at the annual meeting in April, 1884,
boasted that £393,000 had been collected during the past year for the
purposes of the army, and over 846 barracks in eighteen countries of the
world had been opened, and now even spoke of strengthening the army by
establishing a Salvation Navy, the increasing extravagances caused by the
army itself, as well as the far greater improprieties of those more or
less associated with it, has drawn away many of its former supporters.
3. _Baptists and Quakers._—_Baptist_ sympathies and tendencies often
appeared in Germany apart from an anti-ecclesiastical pietism or
mysticism. But this aberration first assumed considerable proportions when
a Hamburg merchant, Oncken, who had been convinced by his private Bible
reading of the untenableness of infant baptism, was baptized by an
American baptist in 1834, and now not only founded the first German
baptist congregation in Hamburg, but also proved unwearied in his efforts
to extend the sect over all Germany and Scandinavia by missions and tract
distribution. Oncken died in 1884. Thus gradually there were formed about
a hundred new Baptist German congregations in Mecklenburg, Brandenburg
(Berlin), Pomerania, Silesia, East Prussia (Memel, Tilsit, etc.),
Westphalia, Wupperthal, Hesse, Württemberg and Switzerland. In Sweden (250
congregations with 18,000 souls) they were mainly recruited from the
“Readers,” who after 1850 went over in crowds (§ 201, 2). They also found
entrance into Denmark and Courland, but in all cases almost exclusively
among the uncultured classes of labourers and peasants. After long but
vain attempts at suppression by the governments during the reactionary
period of 1850, they obtained under the liberal policy of the next two
decades more or less religious toleration in most states. They called
themselves the society of “baptized Christians,” and maintained that they
were “the visible church of the saints,” the chosen people of God, in
contrast to the “hereditary church and the church of all and sundry,” in
which they saw the apocalyptic Babylon. Even the Mennonites who
“sprinkle,” instead of immersing, “all,” _i.e._ without proper sifting,
they regard as a “hereditary” church. With the Anglo-American Baptists
they do indeed hold fellowship, but take exception to them in several
points, especially about open communion.—A peculiar order of Baptists has
arisen in Hungary in the _Nazarenes_ or Nazirites, or as they call
themselves: “Followers of Christ.” Founded in 1840 by Louis Henefey
originally a Catholic smith, who had returned home from Switzerland, the
sect obtained numerous adherents from all three churches, most largely
from the Reformed church, favoured perhaps by the not yet altogether
extinguished reminiscences of the Baptist persecutions of the eighteenth
century (§ 163, 2). They practised strict asceticism, refused to take
oaths or engage in military service, and kept the bare Puritan forms of
worship, in which any one was allowed to preach whom the Holy Spirit
enlightened. Their congregations embraced weak and strong friends, and
also weak and strong brethren. The strong friends after receiving baptism
joined the ranks of weak brethren, and then again became strong brethren
on their admission to the Lord’s Supper. The church officers were singers,
teachers, evangelists, elders, and bishops.—In North America _Quakerism_,
under the influence of increasing material prosperity, had lost much of
its primitive strictness in life and manners. The more lax were styled
_Wet-_, and their more rigorous opponents _Dry-Quakers_. Enthusiasm over
the American War of Independence of 1776-1783, spreading in their ranks,
led to further departures from the rigid standard of early times. Those
who took weapons in their hands were designated _Fighting Quakers_. The
General Assembly disapproved but tolerated these departures; neither the
Wet nor the Fighting Quakers were excommunicated, but they were not
allowed any part in the government of the community. In 1822 a party
appeared among them, led by Elias Hicks, which carried the original
tendency of Quakerism to separate itself from historical Christianity so
far as to deny the divinity of Christ, and to allow no controlling
authority to Scripture in favour of the unrestricted sway of reason and
conscience. This departure from the traditions of Quakerism, however, met
with vigorous opposition, and the protesting party, known as _Evangelical
Friends_, pronounced more decidedly than ever for the authority of
Scripture. In England, notwithstanding the wealth and position of its
adherents, Quakerism, since the second half of the eighteenth century, has
suffered a slow but steady decrease, while even in America, to say the
least, no advance can be claimed. In Holland, Friesland, and Holstein,
Quaker missionaries had found some success among the Mennonites, without,
however, forming any separate communities. In 1786 some English Quakers
succeeded in winning a small number of proselytes in Hesse, who in 1792,
under the protection of the prince of Waldeck, formed a little
congregation at Friedersthal, near Pyrmont, which still maintains its
existence.—On the sects of Jumpers and Shakers, variously related to
primitive, fanatical Quakerism, see § 170, 7.(124)
4. _Swedenborgians and Unitarians._—In the nineteenth century
_Swedenborgianism_ has found many adherents. In England, Scotland and
North America the sect has founded many missionary and tract societies. In
Württemberg the procurator Hofacker and the librarian Tafel, partly by
editions and translations of the writings of Swedenborg, partly by their
own writings, were specially zealous in vindicating and spreading their
views. A general conference of all the congregations in Great Britain and
Ireland in 1828 published a confession of faith and catechism, and
thirteen journals (three English, seven American, Tafel’s in German, one
Italian and one Swedish) represent the interests of the party. The liberal
spirit of modern times has in various directions introduced modifications
in its doctrine. Its Sabellian opposition to the church doctrine of the
Trinity and its Pelagian opposition to the doctrine of justification, have
been retained, and its spiritualising of eschatological ideas has been
intensified, but the theosophical magical elements have been wholly set
aside and scarcely any reference is ever made to revelations from the
other world.—From early times the _Unitarians_ had a well ordered and
highly favoured ecclesiastical institution in Transylvania (§ 163, 1). But
in England the law still threatened them with a death sentence. This law
had not indeed for a long time been carried into effect, and in 1813 it
was formally abrogated. There are now in England about 400 small Unitarian
congregations with some 300,000 souls. The famous chemist Jos. Priestly
may be regarded as the founder of North American Unitarianism (§ 171, 1),
although only after his death in 1804 did the movement which he
represented spread widely through the country. Then in a short time
hundreds of Unitarian congregations were formed. Their most celebrated
leaders were W. Ellery Channing, who died in 1842, and Theodore Parker,
who died in 1860, both of Boston.
5. _Extravagantly Fanatical Manifestations._—The English woman Johanna
Southcote declared that she was the “woman in the sun” of Revelation xii.
or the Lamb’s wife. In 1801 she came forth with her prophecies. Her
followers, the _New Israelites_ or Sabbatarians, so called because they
observed the Old Testament law of the Sabbath, founded a chapel in London
for their worship. A beautiful cradle long stood ready to receive the
promised Messiah, but Johanna died in 1814 without giving birth to him.—A
horrible occurrence, similar to that recorded in § 210, 2, took place some
years later, in 1823, in the village of Wildenspuch in Canton Zürich.
_Margaret Peter_, a peasant’s daughter, excited by morbid visions in early
youth, was on this account expelled from Canton Aargau, and was carried
still farther in the direction of extreme mysticism by the vicar John
Ganz, by whom she was introduced to Madame de Krüdener (§ 176, 2). Amid
continual heavenly visions and revelations, as well as violent conflicts
with the devil and his evil spirits, she gathered a group of faithful
followers, by whom she was revered as a highly gifted saint, among them a
melancholy shoemaker, Morf, whom Ganz introduced to her. The spiritual
love relationship between the two in an unguarded hour took a sensual form
and led to the birth of a child, which Morf’s forbearing wife after
successfully simulating pregnancy adopted as her own. This deep fall, for
which she wholly blamed the devil, drove her fanaticism to madness. The
ridiculous proceedings in her own house, where for a whole day she and her
adherents beat with fists and hammers what they supposed to be the devil,
led the police to interfere. But before orders arrived from Zürich, she
found refuge in an asylum, and there the end soon came. Margaret assured
her followers that in order that Christ might fully triumph and Satan be
overthrown, blood must be shed for the salvation of many thousand souls.
Her younger sister Elizabeth voluntarily allowed herself to be slain, and
she herself with almost incredible courage allowed her hands and feet to
be nailed to the wood and then with a stroke of the knife was killed,
under the promise that she as well as her sister should rise again on the
third day. The tragedy ended by the apprehension and long confinement of
those concerned in it.—The sect of _Springers_ in Ingermannland had its
origin in 1813. Arising out of a religious excitement not countenanced by
the church authorities, they held that each individual needed immediate
illumination of the Holy Spirit for his soul’s salvation. So soon as they
believed that this was obtained, the presence of the Spirit was witnessed
to by ecstatic prayer, singing and shouting joined with handshaking and
springing in their assemblies. The special illumination required as its
correlate a special sanctification, and this they sought not only in
repudiation of marriage, but also in abstinence from flesh, beer, spirits
and tobacco. The “holy love,” prized instead of marriage, however, here
also led to sensual errors, and the result was that many after the example
of the Skopzen (§ 210, 4) resorted to the surer means of castration.—Among
the Swedish peasants in 1842 appeared the singular phenomenon of the
_Crying Voices_ (_Röstar_). Uneducated laymen, and more particularly women
and even children, after convulsive fits broke out into deep mutterings of
repentance and prophesyings of approaching judgment. The substance of
their proclamations, however, was not opposed to the church doctrine, and
the criers were themselves the most diligent frequenters of church and
sacrament.—In the beginning of 1870 the wife of a settler at Leonerhofe,
near San Leopoldo in Brazil, _Jacobina Maurer_, became famous among the
careless colonists of that region as a pious miracle-working prophetess.
In religious assemblies which she originated, she gave forth her fantastic
revelations based upon allegorical interpretations of Scripture, and
founded a congregation of the “elect” with a communistic constitution, in
which she assumed to herself all church offices as the Christ come again.
Rude abuse and maltreatment of these “Muckers” on the part of the
“unbelieving,” and the interference of the police, who arrested some of
the more zealous partisans of the female Christ, brought the fanaticism to
its utmost pitch. Jacobina now declared it the duty of believers to
prepare for the bliss of the millennium by rooting out all the godless.
Isolated murders were the prelude of the night of horror, June 25th-26th,
1874, on which well organized Mucker-bands, abundantly furnished with
powder and shot, went forth murdering and burning through the district for
miles around. The military sent out against them did not succeed in
putting down the revolt before August 2nd, after the prophetess with many
of her adherents had fallen in a fanatically brave resistance.
6. _Christian Communistic Sects._—The only soil upon which these could
flourish was that of the Free States of North America. Besides the small
Shaker communities (§ 170, 7) still surviving in 1858, the following new
fraternities are the most important: 1. The _Harmonites_. The
dissatisfaction caused among the Württemberg Pietists by the introduction
of liturgical innovations led to several migrations in the beginning of
the century. Geo. Rapp, a simple peasant from the village of Iptingen,
went to America in 1803 or 1804 with about six hundred adherents, and
settled in the valley of Connoquenessing, near Pittsburg in Pennsylvania.
As a fundamental principle of this “Harmony Association,” which honoured
father Rapp as autocratic patriarch, prophet and high priest, and with him
believed in the near approach of the second advent, the community of goods
holds a prominent place. By diligence and industry in agriculture, labour
and manufactures, they reached great prosperity under the able leadership
of their patriarch. In 1807 the community, by a resolution of its own to
which Rapp agreed, resolved to abstain from marriage, so that henceforth
no children were born nor marriages performed. A falling off in numbers
was made up in 1817 by new arrivals from Württemberg and afterwards by the
adoption of children. Industrial reasons led the community in 1814 to
colonize Wabashthal in Indiana, where they built the town of Harmony,
which, however, in 1823, on account of its unhealthy situation, they sold
to the Scotchman Robert Owen (§ 212, 3), and then founded for themselves
the town of Economy, not far from Pittsburg, where they still reside. In
1831 an adventurer, Bernard Müller, appeared among them, who, at
Offenbach, had, for a long time, under the name of Proli, played a
brilliant part as a prophet called to establish universal spiritual
monarchy, and then, when in danger from the courts of law, had fled to
America. In Economy, where he passed himself off as Count Maximilian von
Leon, persecuted on account of his belief in the second coming, he found
as such a hearty welcome, and within a year, by his agitation for the
reintroduction of marriage and worldly enjoyments, drew away a third part
of the community, embracing 250 souls. The dissentients with 105,000
dollars from the common purse withdrew and settled under the leadership of
the pseudo-count as a New Jerusalem society in the neighbouring village of
Philippsburg. But the new patriarch conducted himself so riotously that he
was obliged in 1833 to flee to Louisiana, where in the same year he died
of cholera. His people now in deep distress turned to Dr. Keil, a mystic
come from Prussia, who reorganised them after the pattern of Rapp’s
communistic society, but with liberty to marry, and brought them to a
prosperous condition in two colonies mainly founded by him at Bethel in
Missouri and Aurora in Oregon. Economy, too, flourished in spite of the
heavy losses it sustained, so that now the common property of the
populace, which through celibacy had been reduced to about eighty persons,
amounts to eight million dollars. Father Rapp died in 1847, in his
ninetieth year, confident to the end that he would guide his church unto
the hourly expected advent of Christ.—2. When in 1831 a wave of revival
passed over North America, J. H. Noyes, an advocate’s assistant, applied
himself to the study of the Bible and became the founder of a new sect,
the _Bible Communists_ or _Perfectionists_ of the Oneida Society. He
taught that the promised advent of Christ took place spiritually soon
after the destruction of Jerusalem; by it the kingdom of Adam was ended
and the kingdom of God in the heart of those who knew and received him was
established. The official churches were only state churches, but the true
church was scattered in the hearts of individual saints, until Noyes
collected and organized it into a Bible family. For them there is no more
law, for laws are for sinners and the saints no longer sin. Each saint can
do and suffer whatever the Spirit of God moves him to. All the members of
the congregation constitute one family, live, eat, and work together.
Goods, wives and children are in common. It lies with the wife to accept
or refuse the approaches of a man. But soon this proclaimed freedom from
law sent everything into confusion and disunion; schism—apostasy
prevailed. But Father Noyes now saved his church from destruction by
introducing a correction to this freedom from law in _Sympathy_, _i.e._ in
the agreement of all members of the family. The odium which fell upon the
community from without on account of its “complex marriages,” induced him
at last in August, 1879, although he still always maintained the soundness
of his principle of free love and its final victory over prejudice, to
ordain the introduction of monogamic marriages, and the community
acquiesced. With regard to community of goods, meals and children,
however, they kept to the old lines. The parent community has its seat at
Lenox in Oneidabach in New York State. Alongside of it are three daughter
communities. They have their prophets and prophetesses, but no ritual
service and no Sunday. Their employment (they number about 300 souls) is
mainly fruit culture and the manufacture of snares of every kind for wild
and other animals.(125)
7. _Millenarian Exodus Communities._—1. The _Georgian Separatists_. The
stream of Württemberg emigrants above referred to turned also toward
Southern Russia. The settlers in Transcaucasian Georgia in the long
absence of regular pastors fell into fanatical separation, which the
clergy who followed in 1820 could not overcome. Under the direction of
three elders (one of them an old woman) as representing the Holy Trinity,
they lived quietly, refused to baptize their children, to give their dead
burial according to the rites of the church, to call in physicians in
sickness, and at last rejected the marriage relation. In 1842 their female
elder, Barbara Spohn, wife of a cartwright, appeared in the rôle of a
prophet, proclaiming the near approach of the end of the world and calling
upon her followers to pass through the wilderness to the promised land,
there to enter into the millenial kingdom. They were to take with them no
money, no bread, etc., but only a staff; their clothes and shoes would not
wear old in the desert, they could eat manna and quails, and in the holy
land Christ would dress them in the bridal robe. The government sought in
vain to bring them to reason and to obstruct their way, when about three
hundred of them wished at Pentecost, 1843, to start on their journey. They
were allowed to send three men to Constantinople and Palestine to seek
permission from the Turkish government to settle in a spot near Jerusalem.
But these returned before the close of the year with the news, that
Palestine is not the land that would suit them. This brought the majority
to their senses and they rejoined the church.—2. Equally unfortunate was
the attempt at colonization made in 1878 by some _Bavarian Chiliasts_. The
pastor Clöter in Illenschwang had for a long time in the “_Brüderbote_,”
edited by him, urged the emigration of believers to South Russia, where,
according to his exposition of the apocalyptic prophecy, a secure place of
refuge had been provided by God for believers of the last times during the
near approaching persecutions of antichrist. In June, 1878, the tailor
Minderlein with his family and nineteen other persons started to go
thither. Minderlein died by the way, and his companions after enduring
great hardships were obliged to return, and reached Nuremberg again in
October, absolutely destitute. Clöter, however, was not discouraged by
this misfortune. In December he called his adherents from Bavaria,
Württemberg and Switzerland, together to a conference at Stuttgart, where
they formed themselves into the “_German Exodus Church_.” In the summer,
1880, Clöter himself travelled to South Russia and thought that he found
in the Crimea the fittest place of refuge. On his return he was banished,
but after some days liberated, though deprived of his clerical office. A
final stop was then put to the exodus movement.
8.—3. The _Amen Community_ owed its feeble existence to a Christian Jew,
Israel Pick of Bohemia. Believing that he was not required in baptism to
renounce his Judaism, but that rather thereby he first became a true Jew,
through a onesided interpretation of Old Testament promises to his nation,
he wished to found a colony of the people of God in the Holy Land on
Jewish-Christian principles. The whole Mosaic law, excluding the
observance of the Sabbath and circumcision, was to be the basis, together
with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, of ecclesiastical and civil
organization. He succeeded in winning a few converts here and there, to
whom he gave the name of the Amen Community, because in Christ (the אלהי
אמן Isa. lxv. 16) all the prophecies of the old covenant are Yea and Amen.
Its chief seat was at Munich-Gladbach. In 1859 Pick travelled to Palestine
in order to choose a spot for the settlement of his followers and there
all trace of him was lost.—4. The founder of the _German Temple
Communities_ in Palestine was Chr. Hoffmann, brother of General
Superintendent Hoffmann of Berlin, and son of the founder of the Kornthal
Community (§ 196, 5), in connection with Chr. Paulus, nephew of the well
known Heidelberg professor Paulus (§ 182, 2). In 1854 they issued an
invitation to a conference at Ludwigsburg, for consultation about the
means for gathering the people of God in Palestine. A great crowd of
believers from all parts, numbering some 10,000 families, was to embark
for the holy land to form there a new people of God which, on the
foundation of prophets and apostles, should strictly practise the public
law of the old covenant in all points of civil administration, including
the laws of the sabbath and the jubilee. The conference besought of the
German League that it would use its influence with the Sultan to secure
permission for colonization with self-government and religious freedom. As
the German League simply declined the request, the committee bought the
estate of Kirschenhardthof near Marbach, in order there temporarily and in
a small way to form a social commonwealth observing the Mosaic law. In
1858 Hoffmann went with two of his followers to Jerusalem in order to look
out a place there suitable for their purpose. The result was
unsatisfactory. Therefore he issued in 1861 a summons to take part in a
German Temple. Consequently a number of men from Württemberg, Bavaria, and
Baden, Protestants and Catholics, forsook their churches, ordained priests
and elders, and appointed Hoffmann their bishop and held regular synods.
The final aim of this procedure, however, was always still to find a
settlement in Palestine and erect a temple in Jerusalem which, according
to prophecy, is to form the central sanctuary for the whole world.
Colonization in the East was tried as a means to this end. Since 1869
there have been five organized colonies, with a Temple Chief and a
congregational school, embracing about 1,000 souls, established in
Palestine, _viz._ at Jaffa, Haifa, Sarona, Beyrout, and in 1878 even in
Jerusalem, whither the original colony at Jaffa was transferred. The
German Imperial Government refused indeed in 1879 to give the recognition
sought for to the civil and political organization of the Palestinian
colonies, as in a foreign country beyond its jurisdiction, but granted to
its Lyceum at Jerusalem a yearly contribution of 1,500 marks and to the
schools of Jaffa, Haifa and Sarona from 650 to 1,000. In 1875 Hoffmann
published at Stuttgart a large apologetical and polemical work, “_Occident
und Orient_,” which contained many thoughtful remarks. But since then, in
the central organ of all the Temple Communities inspired by him, the
“_Süddeutsche Warte_,” he has openly and distinctly attached himself to
Ebionitic rationalism, by denying and opposing the fundamental evangelical
doctrine of the trinity, redemption, and the sacraments. These theological
views, however, were by no means shared in by all the Templars, and caused
a split in the community, one section at Haifa with the chief templar
there, Hardegg, at its head, separating from the central body as an
independent “Imperial Brotherhood.” The seceders, joined by many German
and American templar friends, again drew nearer to the Evangelical church
and ultimately became reconciled with it. But Hoffmann has, in his last
work, _Bibelforschungen_ i. ii.: _Röm.- u. Kol. br., Jerus._ 1882, 1884,
carried his polemic against the church doctrine to the utmost extreme of
cynical abuse. He died in December, 1885. At the head of the denomination
now stands his fellow-worker Paulus. From year to year several drop back
into the Evangelical church so that the community is evidently approaching
extinction.
9. _The Community of _“the New Israel.”—The Jewish advocate Jos.
Rabinowitsch at Kishenev in Bessarabia, who had long occupied himself with
plans for the improvement of the spiritual and material circumstances of
his fellow-countrymen, at the outbreak of the persecution of the Jews in
1882 in South Russia eagerly urged their return to the holy land of their
fathers and himself undertook a journey of inspection. There definite
shape seems to have been given to the long cherished thought of seeking
the salvation of his people in an independent national attachment to their
old sacred historical development, broken off 1850 years before, by
acknowledging the Messiahship of Jesus. At least after his return he gave
expression to the sentiment, based on Romans xi.: “The keys of the holy
land are in the hands of our brother Jesus,” which, in consequence of the
high esteem in which he was held by his countrymen, was soon re-echoed by
some 200 Jewish families. His main endeavour now was the formation of
independent national Jewish-Christian communities, after the pattern of
the primitive church of Jerusalem, as “_New Israelites_,” observing all
the old Jewish rites and ordinances compatible with New Testament
apostolic preaching and reconcilable with modern civil and social
conditions. The Torah, the prophets of the Old Testament and the New
Testament writings, are held as absolutely binding, whereas the Talmud and
the post-apostolic Gentile Christian additions to doctrine, worship, and
constitution are not so regarded. Jesus, Rabinowitsch teaches, is the true
Messiah who, as Moses and prophets foretold, was born as Son of David by
the Spirit of God and in the power of that Spirit lived and taught in
Israel, then for our salvation suffered, was crucified and died, rose from
the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven. The
trinity of persons in God as well as the two natures in Christ he rejects,
as not taught in the New Testament and originating in Gentile Christian
speculation. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (and that “according to the
example of Christians of the pure Evangelical confession in England and
Germany”) are recognised as necessary means of grace; but the Lord’s
Supper is to be, according to its institution, a real meal with the old
Jewish prayers. As to the doctrine of the Supper, Rabinowitsch agrees with
the views of the Lutheran church. Circumcision and the observance of the
Sabbath and the feasts (especially the Passover), are retained, not indeed
as necessary to salvation, therefore not binding on Gentile Christians,
but patriotically observed by Jewish-Christians as signs of their election
from and before all nations as the people of God. In January, 1885, with
consent of the Russian Government, the newly-erected synagogue of “the
holy Messiah Jesus Christ” for the small congregation of Rabinowitsch’s
followers at Kishenev was solemnly opened, the Russian church authorities,
the Lutheran pastor Fultin and many young Jews taking part in the service.
Soon afterwards Rabinowitsch received Christian baptism in the chapel of
the Bohemian church at Berlin at the hands of Prof. Mead of Andover,
probably in recognition of the aid sent from America.—A Jewish-Christian
religious communion with similar tendencies has been formed in the South
Russian town of Jellisawetgrad under the designation of a “_Biblical
Spiritual Brotherhood_.”
10. _The Catholic Apostolic Church of the Irvingites._—Edward Irving,
1792-1834, a powerful and popular preacher of the Scotch-Presbyterian
church in London, maintained the doctrine that the human nature of Christ
like our own was affected by original sin, which was overcome and atoned
for by the power of the divine nature. At the same time he became
convinced that the spiritual gifts of the apostolic church could and
should still be obtained by prayer and faith. A party of his followers
soon began to exercise the gift of tongues by uttering unintelligible
sounds, loud cries, and prophecies. His presbytery suspended him in 1832
and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland excommunicated him.
Rich and distinguished friends from the Episcopal church, among them the
wealthy banker, Drummond, afterwards prominent as an apostle (died 1859),
rallied round the man thus expelled from his church, and gave him the
means to found a new church, but, in spite of Irving’s protests, brought
with them high church puseyite tendencies, which soon drove out the
heretical as well as the puritanic tendencies, and modified the fanatical
element into a hierarchical and liturgical formalism. The restoration of
the office of apostle was the characteristic feature of the movement.
After many unsuccessful attempts they succeeded by the divine illumination
of the prophets in calling twelve apostles, first and chief of whom was
the lawyer Cardale (died 1877). By the apostles, as chief rulers and
stewards of the church, evangelists and pastors (or angels, Rev. ii. 1, 8,
etc.) were ordained in accordance with Eph. iv. 11; and subordinate to the
pastors, there were appointed six elders and as many deacons, so that the
office bearers of each congregation embraced thirteen persons, after the
example of Christ and His twelve disciples. In London seven congregations
were formed after the pattern of the seven apocalyptic churches (Rev. i.
20). Prominent among their new revelations was the promise of the
immediately approaching advent of the Lord. The Lord, who was to have come
in the lifetime of the first disciples and so was looked for confidently
by them, delayed indefinitely His return on account of abounding iniquity
and prevented the full development of the second apostolate designed for
the Gentiles and meanwhile represented only by Paul, because the church
was no longer worthy of it. Now at last, after eighteen centuries of
degradation, in which the church came to be the apocalyptic Babylon and
ripened for judgment, the time has come when the suspended apostolate has
been restored to prepare the way for the last things. Very confidently was
it at first maintained that none of their members should die, but should
live to see the final consummation. But after death had removed so many
from among them, and even the apostles one after another, it was merely
said that those are already born who should see the last day. It may come
any day, any hour. It begins with the first resurrection (Rev. xx. 5) and
the “changing” of the saints that are alive (the wise virgins, _i.e._ the
Irvingites), who will be caught up to the Lord in the clouds and in a
higher sphere be joined with the Lord in the marriage supper of the Lamb.
They are safely hidden while antichrist persecutes the other Christians,
the foolish virgins, who only can be saved by means of painful suffering,
and executes judgment on Babylon. This marks the end of the Gentile
church; but then begins the conversion of the Jews, who, driven by
necessity and the persecution of sinful men, have sought and found a
refuge in Palestine. After a short victory of antichrist the Lord visibly
appears among the risen and removed. The kingdom of antichrist is
destroyed, Satan is bound, the saints live and reign with Christ a
thousand years on the earth freed from the curse. Thereafter Satan is
again let loose for a short time and works great havoc. Then comes Satan’s
final overthrow, the second resurrection and last judgment. Their liturgy,
composed by the apostles, is a compilation from the Anglican and Catholic
sources. Sacerdotalism and sacrifice are prominent and showy priestly
garments are regarded as requisite. Yet they repudiate the Romish doctrine
of the bloodless repetition of the bleeding sacrifice, as well as the
doctrine of transubstantiation. But they strictly maintain the
contribution of the tenth as a duty laid upon Christians by Heb. vii. 4.
Their typical view of the Old Testament history and legislation,
especially of the tabernacle, is most arbitrary and baseless. Their first
published statement appeared in 1836 in an apostolic “_Letter to the
Patriarchs, Bishops, and Presidents of the Church of Christ in all Lands,
and to emperors, kings, and princes of all baptized nations_,” which was
sent to the most prominent among those addressed, even to the pope, but
produced no result. After this they began to prosecute their missionary
work openly. But they gave their attention mainly to those already
believers, and took no part in missions to the heathen, as they were sent
neither to the heathen nor to unbelievers, but only to gather and save
believers. In their native land of England, where at first they had great
success, their day seems already past. In North America they succeeded in
founding only two congregations. They prospered better in Germany and
Switzerland, where they secured several able theologians, chief of all
Thiersch, the professor of Theology in Marburg, the Tertullian of this
modern Montanism (died 1885), and founded about eighty small congregations
with some 5,000 members, chief of which are those of Berlin, Stettin,
Königsberg, Leipzig, Marburg, Cassel, Basel, Augsburg, etc. Even among the
Catholic clergy of Bavaria this movement found response; but that was
checked by a series of depositions and excommunications during 1857.—In
1882 the Lutheran pastor Alpers of Gehrden in Hanover was summoned to
appear before the consistory to answer for his Irvingite views. He denied
the charge and referred to his good Lutheran preaching. As, however, he
had taken the sacramental “sealing” from Irvingite apostles, the court
regarded this as proof of his having joined the party and so deposed
him.(126)
11. _The Darbyites and Adventists._—Related on the one hand to Irvingism
by their expectation of the immediately approaching advent and by their
regarding themselves as the saints of the last time who would alone be
saved, the _Darbyites_, on the other hand, by their absolute
independentism form a complete contrast to the Irvingite hierarchism. John
Darby, 1800-1882, first an advocate, then a clergyman of the Anglican
church, breaking away from Anglicanism, founded between 1820 and 1830 a
sectarian, apocalyptic, independent community at Plymouth (whence the name
_Plymouth Brethren_), but in 1838 settled in Geneva, and in 1840 went to
Canton Vaud, where Lausanne and Vevey have become the headquarters of the
sect. All clerical offices, all ecclesiastical forms are of the evil one,
and are evidence of the corruption of the church. There is only one
office, the spiritual priesthood of all believers, and every believer has
the right to preach and dispense the sacraments. Not only the Catholic,
but also the Protestant church is a “Balaam Church,” and since the
departure of the apostles no true church has existed. In doctrine they are
strictly Calvinistic.(127)—The _Adventists_. Regarding the 2,300 days of
Dan. viii. 14 as so many years, W. Miller of New York and Boston
proclaimed in 1833 that the second advent would take place on the night of
October 23rd, 1847, and convinced many thousands of the correctness of his
calculations. When at last the night referred to arrived the believers
continued assembled in their tabernacles waiting, but in vain, for the
promise (Matt. xxiv. 30, 31; 1 Cor. xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17), at “the
voice of the archangel and the trump of God to be caught up in the clouds
to meet the Lord in the air.” This miscalculation, however, did not shake
the Adventists’ belief in the near approach of the Lord, but their number
rather increased from year to year. Most zealous in propagating their
views by journals and tracts, evangelists and missionaries, is a branch of
the sect founded by James White of Michigan, whose adherents, because they
keep the Sabbath in place of the Lord’s Day, are called _Seventh Day
Adventists_.
12. _The Mormons or Latter Day Saints._—Jos. Smith, a broken down farmer
of Vermont, who took to knavish digging for hid treasures, affirmed in
1825, that under direction of divine revelations and visions, he had
excavated on Comora hill in New York State, golden tablets in a stone kist
on which sacred writings were engraved. A prophet’s spectacles, _i.e._,
two pierced stones which as a Mormon Urim and Thummim lay beside them,
enabled him to understand and translate them. He published the translation
in “the Book of Mormon.” According to this book, the Israelites of the ten
tribes had migrated under their leader, Lehi, to America. There they
divided into two peoples; the ungodly Lamanites, answering to the modern
Redskins, and the pious Nephites. The latter preserved among them the old
Israelitish histories and prophecies, and through miraculous signs in
heaven and earth obtained knowledge of the birth of Christ that had
meanwhile taken place. Toward the end of the fourth century after Christ,
however, the Lamanites began a terrible war of extermination against the
Nephites, in consequence of which the latter were rooted out with the
exception of the prophet Mormon and his son Moroni. Mormon recorded his
revelations on the golden tablets referred to, and concealed them as the
future witness for the saints of the last days on the earth. Smith
proclaimed himself now called on of God, on the basis of these documents
and the revelations made to him, to found the church of _The Latter Day
Saints_. The widow of a preacher in New York proved indeed that the Book
of Mormon was almost literally a plagiarism from a historico-didactic
romance written by her deceased husband, Sal. Spaulding. The MS. had
passed into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, formerly a Baptist minister and
then a bookseller’s assistant, subsequently Smith’s right-hand man. But
even this did not disturb the believers. In 1831 Smith with his followers
settled at Kirtland in Ohio. To avoid the daily increasing popular odium,
he removed to Missouri, and thence to Illinois, and founded there, in
1840, the important town of Nauvoo with a beautiful temple. By diligence,
industry and good discipline, the wealth, power and influence of their
commonwealth increased, but in the same proportion the envy, hatred and
prejudices of the people, which charged them with the most atrocious
crimes. In 1844, to save bloodshed the governor ordered the two chiefs,
Jos. and Hiram Smith, to surrender to voluntary imprisonment awaiting a
regular trial. But furious armed mobs attacked the prison and shot down
both. The roughs of the whole district then gathered in one great troop,
destroyed the town of Nauvoo, burned the temple and drove out the
inhabitants. These, now numbering 15,000 men, in several successive
expeditions amid indescribable hardships pressed on “through the
wilderness” over the Rocky Mountains, in order to erect for themselves a
Zion on the other side. Smith’s successor was the carpenter, Brigham
Young. The journey occupied two full years, 1845-1847. In the great Salt
Lake basin of Utah they founded _Salt Lake City_, or the New Jerusalem, as
the capital of their wilderness state _Deseret_. The gold digging of the
neighbouring state of California did not allure them, for their prophet
told them that to pave streets, build houses and sow fields was better
employment than seeking for gold. So here again they soon became a
flourishing commonwealth.
13. In common with the Irvingites, who recognised in them their own
diabolic caricature, the Mormons restored the apostolic and prophetic
office, insisted upon the continuance of the gift of tongues and miracles,
expected the speedy advent of the Lord, reintroduced the payment of
tithes, etc. But what distinguished them from all Christian sects was the
proclamation of polygamy as a religious duty, on the plea that only those
women who had been “sealed” to a Latter-day Saint would share in the
blessedness of life eternal. This was probably first introduced by Young
in consequence of a new “divine revelation,” but down to 1852 kept secret
and denied before “the Gentiles.” The ambiguous book of Mormon was set
meanwhile more and more in the background, and the teachings and
prophecies of their prophet brought more and more to the front. “The Voice
of Warning to all Nations” of the zealous proselyte Parly Pratt, formerly
a Campbellite preacher, exercised a great influence in spreading the sect.
But the most gifted of them all was Orson Pratt, Rigdon’s successor in the
apostolate. To him mainly is ascribed the construction of its later,
highly fantastic religious system which, consisting of elements gathered
from Neo-platonism, gnosticism, and other forms of theosophical mysticism,
embraces all the mysteries of time and eternity. Its fundamental ideas are
these: There are gods without number; all are polygamists and their wives
are sharers of their glory and bliss. They are the fathers of human souls
who here on earth ripen for their heavenly destiny. Jesus is the first
born son of the highest god by his first wife; he was married on earth to
Mary Magdalene, the sisters Martha and Mary and other women. Those saints
who here fulfil their destiny become after death gods, while they are
arranged according to their merit in various ranks and with prospect of
promotion to higher places. At the end of this world’s course, Jesus will
come again, and, enthroned in the temple of Salt Lake City, exercise
judgment against all “Gentiles” and apostates, etc.—The constitution of
the Mormon State is essentially theocratic. At the head stood the
president, Brigham Young, as prophet, patriarch, and priest-king, in whose
hands are all the threads of the spiritual as well as secular
administration. A high council alongside of him, consisting of seventy
members, as also the prophets and apostles, bishops and elders, and
generally the whole richly organized hierarchy, are only the pliable
instruments of his all-commanding will. Every one on entering the society
surrenders his whole property, and after that contributes a tenth of his
yearly income and personal labour to the common purse of the community.
Soon numerous missionaries were sent forth who crossed the Atlantic, and
attained great success, especially in Scotland, England and Scandinavia,
but also in North-West Germany and in Switzerland. On removing the
misunderstanding that prevailed about their social and political
condition, and supplying the penniless out of the rich immigration fund
with the means to make the journey, they persuaded great crowds of their
new converts to accompany them to Utah.
14. In 1849 the Mormons had asked Congress for the apportioning of the
district colonized by them as an independent and autonomous “State” in the
union, but were granted, in 1850, only the constitution of a “territory”
under the central government at Washington, and the appointment of their
patriarch, Young, as its governor. Accustomed to absolute rule, in two
years he drove out all the other officers appointed by the union. He was
then deprived of office, but the new governor, Col. Sefton, appointed in
1854, with the small armament supplied him could not maintain his position
and voluntarily retired. When afterwards in 1858 Governor Cumming,
appointed by president Buchanan, entered Utah with a strong military
force, Young armed for a decisive struggle. A compromise, however, was
effected. A complete amnesty was granted to the saints, the soldiers of
the union entered peacefully into the Salt-Lake City, and Young assumed
tolerably friendly relations with the governor, who, nevertheless, by the
erection of a fort commanding the city made the position safe for himself
and his troops. On the outbreak of the war of Secession in 1861 the troops
of the union were for the most part withdrawn. But all the more
energetically did the central government at the close of the war in 1865
resolve upon the complete subjugation of the rebel saints, having learnt
that since 1852 numerous murders had taken place in the territory, and
that the disappearance of whole caravans of colonists was not due to
attacks of Indians, who would have scalped their victims, but to a secret
Mormon fraternity called Danites (Judges xviii.), brothers of Gideon
(Judges vi. ff.) or Angels of Destruction, which, obedient to the
slightest hint from the prophet, had undertaken to avenge by bloody
terrorism any sign of resistance to his authority, to arrest any tendency
to apostasy, and to guard against the introduction of any foreign element.
The Union Pacific Railway opened in 1869 deprived the “Kingdom of God” of
its most powerful protection, its geographical isolation, while the rich
silver mines discovered at the same time in Utah, peopled city and country
with immense flocks of “Gentiles.” The nemesis, which brought the Mormon
bishop Lee, twenty years after the deed, under the lash of the high court
of justiciary as involved in the horrible massacre of a large party of
emigrants at Mountain Meadows in 1857, would probably have also befallen
the prophet himself as the main instigator of this and many other crimes
had he not by a sudden death two months later, in his seventy-fifth year,
escaped the jurisdiction of any earthly tribunal (died 1877). A successor
was not chosen, but supreme authority is in the hands of the college of
twelve apostles with the elder John Taylor at their head.—Repeated
attempts made since 1874 by the United States authorities by penal
enactments to root out polygamy among the Mormons have always failed,
because its actual existence could never be legally proved. The witness
called could or would say nothing, since the “sealing” was always secretly
performed, and the women concerned denied that a marriage had been entered
into with the accused, or if one confessed herself his married wife she
refused to give any evidence about his domestic relations.—Recently a
split has occurred among the Mormons. By far the larger party is that of
the “Salt Lake Mormons,” which holds firmly by polygamy and all the other
institutions introduced by Young and since his time. The other party is
that of the Kirtland, or Old Mormons, headed by the son of their founder,
Jos. Smith, who had been passed over on account of his youth, which
repudiates all these as unsupported novelties and restores the true
Mormonism of the founder. The Old Mormons not only oppose polygamy, but
also all more recently introduced doctrines. They are called Kirtland
Mormons from the first temple built by their founder at Kirtland in 1814,
which having fallen into ruins, was restored by Geo. Smith, jun., and
became the centre of the Old Mormon denomination. In April 1885 they held
there their first synod, attended by 200 deputies.(128)
15. _The Taepings in China._—Hung-sen-tsenen, born in 1813 in the province
of Shan-Tung, was destined for the learned profession but failed in his
examination at Canton. There he first, in 1833, came into contact with
Protestant missionaries, whose misunderstood words awakened in him the
belief that he was called to perform great things. At the same time he
there got possession of some Christian Chinese tracts. Failing in his
examination a second time in 1837, he fell into a dangerous illness and
had a series of visions in which an old man with a golden beard appeared,
handing to him the insignia of imperial rank, and commanding him to root
out the demons. After his recovery he became an elementary teacher. A
relative called Li visited him in 1843. The Christian tracts were again
sought out and carefully studied. Sen now recognised in the old man of his
visions the God of the Christians and in himself the younger brother of
Jesus. The two baptized one another and won over two young relatives to
their views. Expelled from their offices, they went in 1844 to the
province of Kiang Se as pencil and ink sellers, preached diligently the
new doctrine and founded numerous small congregations of their sect. The
American missionaries at Canton heard of the success of their preaching,
and Sen accepted an invitation to join them in 1847. The missionary
Roberts had a great esteem for him and intended to baptize him, when in
consequence of stories spread about him their relations became strained.
Sen now returned in 1848 to his companions in Kiang Se, who had diligently
and successfully continued their preaching. In 1850 they began to attract
attention by the violent destruction of idols. When now all the remnants
of a pirate band joined them as converts, they were in common with these
persecuted by the government and proclaimed rebels. The expulsion of the
hated Mantshu dynasty, which two hundred years before had displaced the
Ming dynasty, and the overthrow of idolatry were now their main endeavour,
and in 1857 they organized under Sen a regular rebellion for the setting
up of a Taeping dynasty, _i.e._, of universal peace. The Taeping army
advanced unhindered, all Mantschu soldiers who fell into its hands were
massacred, and of the inhabitants of the provinces conquered, only those
were spared who joined their ranks. In March, 1853, they stormed the
second capital of the empire, Nankin, the old residence of the Ming
dynasty. There Sen fixed his residence and styled himself Tien-Wang, the
Divine Prince. He assigned to ten subordinate princes the government of
the conquered provinces, almost the half of the immense empire. Thousands
of bibles were circulated; the ten commandments proclaimed as the
foundation of law, many writings, prayers and poems composed for the
instruction of the people, and these with the bible made subjects of
examination for entrance to the learned order. An Arian theory of the
trinity was set forth; the Father is the one personal God, whose likeness
in bodily human form Sen strictly forbade, destroying the Catholic images
as well as the Chinese idols. Jesus is the first-born son of God, yet not
himself God, sent by the Father into the world in order to enlighten it by
his doctrine and to redeem it by his atoning sufferings. Sen, the younger
brother of Jesus, was sent into the world to spread the doctrine of Jesus
and to expel the demons, the Mantschu dynasty. Reception takes place
through baptism. The Lord’s Supper was unknown to them. Bloody and
bloodless offerings were still tolerated. The use of wine and tobacco was
forbidden; the use of opium and trafficking in it were punished with
death. But polygamy was sanctioned. Saturday, according to the Old
Testament, was their holy day. Their service consisted only of prayer,
singing and religious instruction; but also written prayers were presented
to God by burning.
16. Sen himself had no more visions after 1837. But other ecstatic
prophets arose, the eastern prince Yang and the western prince Siao. The
revelations of the latter were comparatively sober, but those of the
former were in the highest degree blasphemously fanatical. He declared
himself the Paraclete promised by Jesus, and taught that God himself, as
well as Jesus, had a wife with sons and daughters. He was at the same time
a brave and successful general, and the mass of the Taepings were
enthusiastically attached to him. Sen humbly yielded to the extravagances
of this fanatic, even when Yang sentenced him to receive forty lashes.
Sen’s overthrow was already resolved upon in Yang’s secret council, when
Sen took courage and gave the northern prince secret orders to murder Yang
and his followers in one night. This was done, and Sen was weak enough to
allow the executioner of his secret order to be publicly put to death so
as to appease the excited populace. But he thus again in 1856 became
master of the situation.—One of the oldest apostles of Sen, his near
relative Hung Yin, had been turned off at Hong Kong. He there attached
himself to the Basel missionary, Hamberg, who in 1852 baptized him and
made him his native helper. In hope of winning his cousin to the true
Christian faith, he travelled in 1854 to Nankin, which however he did not
reach till January, 1859. Sen received him gladly and made him his war
minister. But his efforts to introduce a purer Christianity among the
Taepings were unsuccessful, for he tried the slippery way of
accommodation, and under pressure from Sen set up for himself a harem. In
October, 1860, on Sen’s repeated invitation, his former teacher, the
missionary Roberts of Nankin, arrived and was immediately made minister
for foreign affairs. The Shanghai missionaries, several of whom visited
Nankin, had interesting interviews with Yin in 1860, but not with the
emperor, as they refused to go on their knees before him. They were
encouraged by Yin to hope for a future much needed purifying of Taeping
Christianity. Yang’s revelations, however, held their ground after as well
as before, and were increased by further absurdities. To such crass
fanaticism was now added the inhuman cruelty with which they massacred the
vanquished and wasted the conquered cities and districts. Had the European
powers ranged themselves in a friendly and peaceful attitude alongside of
the Taepings, China might now have been a Christian empire. Instead of
this the English, on account of the extreme opposition of the Taepings to
the opium traffic, took up a hostile position toward them, while they were
also in disfavour with the French, who had been denounced by them as
idolaters on account of their Romish image worship. Down to the beginning
of 1862, however, Yin’s influence had prevented any hostile proceedings
against the Europeans in spite of many provocations given. But after that
the Taepings refused them any quarter. Roberts fled by night to save his
life. Against disciplined European troops the rebels could not hold their
ground. One city after another was taken from them, and at last, in July
1864, their capital Nankin. Sen was found poisoned in his burning
palace.(129)
17. _The Spiritualists._—The shoemaker’s apprentice, Andrew Jackson Davis
of Poughkeepsie on the Hudson, in his nineteenth year fell into a magnetic
sleep and composed his first work, “The Principles of Nature, Her Divine
Revelations and a Voice to Mankind,” in 1845. He declared its utterances
to be spiritual revelations from the other world. But his later writings
composed in working hours made the same claim, especially the five volume
work, “Great Harmonia, being a Philosophical Revelation of the Natural,
Spiritual, and Celestial Universe,” 1850 ff. Both went through numerous
editions and were translated into German. The great spiritual
manifestation promised in the first work was not long delayed. In a house
bought by the family of Fox in Hydesville in New York State a spectral
knocking was often heard. Through the intercourse which the two youngest
daughters, aged nine and twelve years, had with the ghosts, the skeleton
of a murdered five years’ old child of a pedlar was discovered buried in
the cellar, and when the family soon thereafter left the house, the ghosts
went with them and continued their communications by table turning, table
rapping, table writing, etc. The thing now became epidemic. Hundreds and
thousands of male and female _mediums_ arose and held an extremely lively
and varied intercourse with innumerable departed ones of earlier and later
times. The believers soon numbered millions, including highly educated
persons of all ranks, even such exact chemists as Mapes and Hare. An
abundant literature in books and journals, as well as Sunday services,
frequent camp-meetings and annual congresses formed a propaganda for the
alleged spiritualism, which soon found its way across the ocean and won
enthusiastic adherents for all confessions in all European countries,
especially in London, Paris, Brussels, St. Petersburg, Vienna, Dresden,
Leipzig, etc. They now broke up into two parties called respectively
Spiritualists and Spiritists. The former put in the foreground physical
experiments with astonishing results and miraculous effects; the latter,
with the Frenchman Allan Kardec (_Rivail_) as their leader, give
prominence to the teaching of spirits by direct communication. The former
in reference to the origin of the human soul held by the theory of
traducianism; the latter to that of pre-existence in connection with a
doctrine of re-incarnation of spirits by reason of growing purity and
perfection. The latter see in Christ the incarnation of a spirit of the
highest order; the former merely the purest and most perfect type of human
nature. But neither admit the real central truth of Christianity, the
reconciliation of sinful humanity with God in Christ. Both evaporate the
resurrection into a mere spectral spirit manifestation; and the
disclosures and utterances of the spirits with both are equally trivial,
silly, and vain.—In England the famous palæontologist and collaborateur of
Darwin, Alfr. Russel Wallace, and the no less celebrated physicist Wm.
Crookes, are apologists of spiritualism. The latter declared in 1879 that
to the three well-known conditions of matter, solid, fluid and gaseous,
should be added a fourth, “radiant,” and that there is the borderland
where force and matter meet. And in Germany the acute Leipzig
astrophysicist Fr. Zöllner, after a whole series of spiritualistic séances
conducted by the American medium Slade in 1877 and 1878 had been carefully
scrutinized and tested by himself and several of his most accomplished
scientific colleagues, was convinced of the existence and reality of
higher “four dimension” space in the spirit world, to which by reason of
its fourth dimension the power belonged of passing through earthly bodily
matter. The philosophers I. H. Fichte of Stuttgart and Ulrici of Halle
have admitted the reality of spiritualistic communications and allege them
as proofs of immortality. Among German theologians Luthardt of Leipzig
regards it all as the work of demons who take advantage for their own ends
of the moral-religious dissolution of the modern world and its consequent
nerve shaking that prevails, just as in the ancient world in the
beginnings of Christianity. Zöckler of Greifswald finds an analogy between
it and the demoniacal possession of New Testament times; so too Martensen
in his “Jacob Boehme,” and on the Catholic side W. Schneider; while
Splittgerber refers most of the manifestations in question to a merely
subjective origin in “the right side of the human soul life,” but puts the
materialization of spirits in the category of delusive jugglery.
Spiritualism has scarcely rallied from the obloquy cast upon it by the
unmasking of the tricks of the famous medium Miss Florence Cook in London
in 1880 and of the distinguished spirit materialiser Bastian by the
Grand-duke John of Austria in 1884.(130)
18. To the domain of unquestionable illusion belongs also the
spiritualistic movement of Indian _Theosophism_ or _Occultism_. The
American Col. Olcott of New York had already moved for twenty-two years in
spiritualist circles when in 1874 he met with Madame Blavatsky, widow of a
Russian general who had been governor of Erivan in Armenia. She professed
to have been from her eighth year in communication with spirits, then to
have had secret intercourse with the Mahatmas, _i.e._ spirits of old
Indian penitents, during a seven years’ residence on the Himalayas. She
now promised to introduce the colonel to them. Olcott and Blavatsky
founded at New York in 1875 a society for research in the department of
the mystic sciences, travelled in 1878 to Further India and Ceylon, and
settled finally in Madras, whence by word and writing they proclaimed
through the whole land theosophism or occultism as the religion of the
future, which, consisting in a medley of Hinduism and Buddhism, enriched
by spiritualistic revelations of Mahatmas, vouched for by spiritualistic
signs and miracles and conformed to the most recent philosophical and
scientific researches in America and Europe, aimed at heaping contempt
upon Christianity and finally driving it from the field. As fanatical
opponents of Christian missions in India they were strongly supported by
the Brahman and Buddhist hierarchy, and soon obtained for the theosophical
society founded by them not only numerous adherents from among the natives
but also many Englishman befooled by their spiritualistic swindle. As
apostle and literary pioneer of the new religion appeared an Anglo-Indian
called Sinnett. In spring, 1884, Madame Blavatsky and Col. Olcott went on
a propagandist tour to Europe, where, in England, France, Austria, and
Hungary, they won many converts, while Col. Olcott at Elberfeld and Madame
Blavatsky at Odessa founded branches of their theosophical society.—But
meanwhile in India affairs assumed a threatening aspect. Blavatsky on her
departure had entrusted the keys of her dwelling and her mysterious
cabinet with its various panels, falling doors, etc., to Mr. and Mrs.
Coulomb, who had been hitherto her assistants in all her juggleries.
Madame Coulomb, however, quarrelled with the board of theosophists at
Madras, and revenged herself by placing in the hands of the Scottish
mission letters addressed by Blavatsky to herself and her husband which
supplied evidence that all her spiritualistic manifestations were only
common tricks. In addition she gave public exhibitions in which she
demonstrated to the spectators _ad oculos_ the spiritual manifestations of
the Mahatmas, and subsequently published an “Account of My
Acquaintanceship with Madame Blavatsky, 1872-1884,” with discoveries of
her earlier rogueries. Meanwhile the swindler had herself in December,
1884, returned to Madras in company with several believers gathered up in
England, among others a young English clergyman, Leadbeater, who some days
previously in Ceylon had formally adopted Buddhism. The theosophists now
demanded that the reputed cheat and deceiver should be brought before a
civil court. The president, however, declared that the investigations and
judgment of a profane court of law could not be accepted to the mysteries
of occultism, but promised a careful examination by a commission appointed
by himself, and Blavatsky thought it advisable “for the restoration of her
health in a cooler climate” to make off from the scene of conflict.(131)
§ 212. Antichristian Socialism and Communism.
While the antichristian spirit of the age breaks out in various
theoretical forms in our literature, there also abound social and
communistic movements of a practical kind. Socialism and communism both
aim at a thorough-going reform of the rights of property and possession in
strict proportion to the labour spent thereon. They are, however,
distinguished in this, that while communism declares war against all
private property and demands absolute community of goods, socialism, at
least in its older and nobler forms, proceeding from the idea of precise
correspondence between capital and labour, seeks to have expression given
to this in fact. From the older socialism, which endeavoured to reach its
end in a peaceful way within the existing lines of civil order, a later
social democracy is to be distinguished by its decidedly
politico-revolutionary character and tendency to attach itself more to
communism. This modern socialism thinks to open the way to the realization
of its hare-brained ideas by the confusion and overthrow of existing law
and order.
1. _The Beginnings of Modern Communism._—As early as 1796 Babeuf published
in Paris a communistic manifesto which maintained the thesis that natural
law gives all men an equal right to the enjoyment of all goods. His ideas
were subsequently systematized and developed by Fourier, Proudhon, Cabet,
and Louis Blanc in France, and by Weibling and Stirner in Germany. In a
treatise of 1840 Proudhon answered the question, _Qu’est-ce que la
propriété?_ in words which afterwards became proverbial, and formed the
motto of communism: _La propriété c’est le vol._ But the mere negation of
property affords no permanent standing ground. All altars must be thrown
down; all religion rooted out as the plague of humanity; the family and
marriage, as the fountain of all selfishness, must be abolished; all
existing governments must be overthrown; all Europe must be turned into
one great social democracy. A secret communistic propaganda spread over
all western Europe, had its head centres in Belgium and Switzerland,
crossed the Alps and the Pyrenees, as well as the Channel, and found a
congenial soil even in Russia.
2. _St. Simonism._—The Count St. Simon of Paris, reduced to poverty by
speculation, proposed by means of a thorough organization of industry to
found a new and happy state of things in which there would be pure
enjoyment without poverty and care. An attempted suicide, which led
however to his death in 1825, made him in the eyes of his disciples a
saviour of the world. The July revolution of 1830 gave to the new
universal religion, which reinstated the flesh in its long lost rights and
sought to assign to each individual the place in the commonwealth for
which he was fitted, some advantage. “Father” Enfantin, whom his followers
honoured as the highest revelation of deity, contended with pompous
phrases and in fantastic style for the emancipation of woman and against
the unnatural institution of marriage. But St. Simonism soon excited
public ridicule, was pronounced immoral by the courts of justice, and the
remnants of its votaries fled from the scorn of the people and the
vengeance of the law to Egypt, where they soon disappeared.
3. _Owenists and Icarians._—The Scotch mill-owner _Rob. Owen_ went in 1829
to America, in order there, unhindered by religious prejudices, clerical
opposition, and police interference, to work out on a large scale his
socialistic schemes for improving the world, which in a small way he
believed he had proved already among his Scotch mill-operatives. He bought
for this purpose from the Württemberger Rapp the colony of Harmony (§ 211,
6); but wanting the necessary capital for the socialistic commonwealth
there established, and failing to realize his expectations, discontent,
disorder, and opposition got the upper hand, and in 1826 Owen was obliged
to abandon all his property. He now returned to England, and addressed
himself in treatises, tracts, and lectures to the working classes of the
whole land, in order to win them over to his ideas. A vast brotherhood for
mutual benefit and for the enjoyment of their joint earnings was to put an
end to earth’s misery, which the positive religions had not lessened but
only increased. In 1836, in the great industrial cities socialist unions
with nearly half a million members were formed, with their head centre and
annual congress at Birmingham. The practical schemes of Owen, however, had
no success in England, and his societies no permanency. He died in
1858.—Still more disastrous was the fate of the Icarian Colony, founded in
Texas in 1848 by the Frenchman _Stephen Cabet_, author of “_Voyage en
Icarie, Roman philos. et social_,” 1840, as an attempt to realize his
communistic-philanthropic ideas on the other side of the Atlantic. The
colonists soon found their sanguine hopes bitterly disappointed, and
hurled against their leader reproaches and threats. Some ex-Icarians
accused him in 1849 before the Paris police-court as a swindler, and he
was condemned to two years’ imprisonment and five years’ loss of civil
privileges. Cabet now hastened to France, and on appeal obtained reversion
of his sentence in 1851. Returning to America, he founded a new Icarian
colony at Nauvoo in Illinois. But there, too, everything went wrong, and a
revolt of the colonists obliged him to flee. He died in 1856.(132)
4. _The International Working-Men’s Association._—Local and national
working-men’s unions with a socialistic organization had for a long time
existed in England, France, and Germany. The idea of a union embracing the
whole world was first broached at the great London Exhibition in 1862, and
at a conference in London on September 28th, 1864, at which all industrial
countries of Europe were represented, it assumed a practical shape by the
founding of a universal international working-men’s association. Its
constitution was strictly centralistic. A directing committee in London,
Carl Marx of Treves, formerly _Privatdocent_ of philosophy at Bonn,
standing at its head as dictator, represented the supreme legislative and
governing authority, while alongside of it a general standing council held
the administrative and executive power. The latter was divided into eight
sections, English, American, French, German, Belgian, Dutch, Italian, and
Spanish, and annual international congresses at Geneva, Lausanne,
Brussels, Basel, and the Hague gave opportunity for general consultation
on matters of common interest. Reception as members was granted by the
giving of a diploma after six months’ trial, and involved unconditional
obedience to the statutes and ordinances of the central authorities and
the payment of an annual fee. The number of members, not, however,
exclusively drawn from the working classes, is said to have reached two
and a half millions. The society adopted the current socialistic and
communistic ideas and tendencies. The religious principle of the
association was therefore: atheism and materialism; the political:
absolute democracy; the social: equal rights of labour and profit, with
abolition of private property, hereditary rights, marriage, and family;
and as means for realizing this programme, unaccomplishable by peaceable
methods, revolution and rebellion, fire and sword, poison, petroleum and
dynamite. Such means have been used already in various ways by the
international throughout the Romance countries; but specially in the brief
Reign of Terror of the Paris Commune, March and April, 1871, in the
relatively no less violent attempted revolt at Alcoy in Southern Spain in
July, 1873. But meanwhile differences appeared within the society, which
were formulated at the Hague Congress in 1872, and led to splits, which
greatly lessened its unity, influence, and power to do mischief, so that
this congress may perhaps be regarded as the first beginning of its
end.(133)
5. _German Social Democracy._—_Ferd. Lassalle_, son of a rich Jewish
merchant of Breslau, after a full course of study in philosophy and law,
began in 1848 to take a lively part in the advanced movements of the age,
and when he found among the liberal citizens no favour for his socialistic
ideas turned exclusively to the working classes. In answer to the question
as to what was to be done, by the central committee of a working-men’s
congress at Leipzig, he wrought out in 1863 with great subtlety in an open
letter the fundamental idea of his universal redemption. All plans of
self-help to relieve the distress of working men hitherto proposed
(specially that of Schulze-Delitzsch) break down over the “iron economic
law of wages,” in consequence of which under the dominion of capital and
the large employers of labour wages are always with fatalistic necessity
reduced to the point indispensable for supplying a working man’s family
with the absolute necessaries of life. The working classes, however, have
the right according to the law of nature to a full equivalent for their
labour, but in order to reach this they must be their own undertakers, and
where self-help is only a vain illusion, state help must afford the means.
By insisting on the right to universal suffrage the working classes have
obtained a decided majority in the legislative assemblies, and there
secured a government of the future in accordance with their needs. On
these principles the Universal German Society of Working Men was
constituted, with Lassalle as its president, which position he held till
his death in a duel in 1864. Long internal disputes and personal
recriminations led to a split at the Eisenach Congress in 1869. The
malcontents founded an independent “Social Democratic Working-Men’s
Union,” under the leadership of Bebel and Liebknecht, which, particularly
successful in Saxony, Brunswick, and South Germany, represents itself as
the German branch of the “International Working-Men’s Association.” It
adhered indeed generally to Lassalle’s programme, but objected to the
extravagant adulation claimed for Lassalle by their opponents, the proper
disciples of Lassalle, who had Hasenclaver as their leader and Berlin as
their headquarters, substituted a federal for a centralistic organization,
and instead of a great centralised government in the future desired rather
a federal republic embracing all Europe. But both declared equally in
favour of revolution; they vied with one another in bitter hatred of
everything bearing the name of religion; and wrought out with equal
enthusiasm their communistic schemes for the future. At the Gotha Congress
of 1875 a reconciliation of parties was effected. The social-democratic
agitation thus received a new impulse and assumed threatening proportions.
Yet it required such extraordinary occurrences as the twice attempted
assassination of the aged emperor, by Hodel on May 11th, and Nobiling on
June 2nd, 1878, to rouse the government to legislative action. On the
basis of a law passed in October, 1878, for two and a half years (but in
May, 1880, continued for other three and a half years, and in May, 1884,
and again in April, 1886, on each occasion extended to other two years),
200 socialist societies throughout the German empire were suppressed,
sixty-four revolutionary journals, circulated in hundreds of thousands and
with millions of readers, and about 800 other seditious writings, were
forbidden. But that the social-democratic organization and agitation was
not thereby destroyed is proved by the fact that in August, 1880, in an
uninhabited Swiss castle lent for the purpose, in Canton Zürich, a
congress was held, attended by fifty-six German socialists, with greetings
by letter from sympathisers in all European countries, which among other
things passed the resolution unanimously, no longer as had been agreed
upon at Gotha, to seek their ends by lawful methods, as by the law of the
socialists impossible, but by the way of revolution.—On the other hand,
the German Imperial Chancellor Prince Bismarck in the Reichstag, 1884,
fully admitted the “right of the worker to work,” as well as the duty of
the state to ameliorate the condition of working men as far as possible,
and in three propositions: “Work for the healthy workman, hospital
attendance to the sick, and maintenance to the invalided,” granted all
that is asked for by a healthy social policy.
6. _Russian Nihilism._—In Russia, too, notwithstanding a strictly
exercised censorship, the philosophico-scientific gospel of materialism
and atheism found entrance through the writings of Moleschott, Feuerbach,
Büchner, Darwin, etc. (§ 174, 3), especially among the students. In 1860,
Nihilism, springing from this seed, first assumed the character of a
philosophical and literary movement. It sought the overthrow of all
religious institutions. Then came the women’s question, claiming
emancipation for the wife. The example of the Paris Commune of 1871
contributed largely to the development of Nihilistic idealism, its
political revolutionary socialism. The Nihilist propaganda, like an
epidemic, now seized upon the academic youth, male and female, was spread
in aristocratic families by tutors and governesses, won secret disciples
among civil servants as well as officers of the army and navy, and was
enthusiastically supported by ladies in the most cultured and exalted
ranks. In order to spread its views among the people, young men and women
disguised in peasant’s dress went out among the peasants and artisans,
lived and wrought like them, and preached their gospel to them in their
hours of rest. But their efforts failed through the antipathy and apathy
of the lower orders, and the energetic interference of the government by
imprisonment and banishment thinned the ranks of the propagandists. But
all the more closely did those left bind themselves together under their
central leaders as the “Society for Country and Freedom,” and strove with
redoubled eagerness to spread revolutionary principles by secretly
printing their proclamations and other incendiary productions, and
scattering them in the streets and houses. On January 24th, 1878, the
female Nihilist _Vera Sassulitsch_ from personal revenge dangerously
wounded with a revolver General Trepoff, the dreaded head of the St.
Petersburg police. Although she openly avowed the deed before the court
and gloried in it, she was amid the acclamations of the public acquitted.
This was the hour when Nihilism exercised its fellest terrorism. The fair,
peaceful phrase, “To work, fight, suffer, and die for the people,” was
silenced; it was now, sword and fire, dagger and revolver, dynamite and
mines for all oppressors of the people, but above all for the agents of
the police, for their spies, for all informers and apostates. An
“executive committee,” unknown to most of the conspirators themselves,
issued the death sentence; the lot determined the executioner, who himself
suffered death if he failed to accomplish it. What was now aimed at was
the assassination of higher state officials; then the sacred person of the
emperor. Three bold attempts at assassination miscarried; the revolver
shot of Solowjews on April 14th, 1879; the mine on the railway near Moscow
that exploded too late on November 30th, 1879; the horrible attempt to
blow up the Winter Palace with the emperor and his family on February
17th, 1880; but the fourth, a dynamite bomb thrown between the feet of the
emperor on March 13th, 1881, destroyed the life of this noble and humane
monarch, who in 1861-1863 had freed his people from the yoke of serfdom.
As for years nothing more had been heard of Nihilist attempts, it was
hoped that the government had succeeded in putting down this diabolical
rebellion, but in 1887 the news spread that an equally horrible attempt
had been planned for the sixth anniversary of the assassination of
Alexander II., but fortunately timely precautions were taken against it.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.
_First Century._
14-37. The Emperor Tiberius, § 22, 1.
41-54. The Emperor Claudius, § 22, 1.
44. Execution of James the Elder, § 16.
51. The Council at Jerusalem, § 18, 1.
54-68. The Emperor Nero, § 23, 1.
61. Paul’s Arrival at Rome, § 15.
63. Stoning of James the Just, § 16, 3.
64. Persecution of Christians in Rome, § 22, 1.
66-70. Jewish War, § 16.
81-96. The Emperor Domitian, § 22, 1.
_Second Century._
98-117. The Emperor Trajan, § 22, 2.
115. (?) Ignatius of Antioch, Martyr, § 22, 2.
117-138. The Emperor Hadrian, § 22, 2.
Basilides, Valentinus, § 22, 2, 4.
132-135. Revolt of Barcochba, § 25.
Abt. 150. Celsus, § 23, 3. Marcion, § 27, 11.
138-161. The Emperor Antoninus Pius, § 22, 2.
155. Paschal Controversy between Polycarp and Amicetus, § 37, 2.
161-180. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius, § 22, 3.
165. Justin Martyr, § 30, 9.
166. (155?) Martyrdom of Polycarp, § 22, 3.
172. (156?) Montanus appears as a Prophet, § 40, 1.
177. Persecution of Christians at Lyons and Vienne, § 22, 3.
178. Irenæus made Bishop of Lyons, § 31, 2.
180-192. The Emperor Commodus, § 22, 3.
196. Paschal Controversy between Victor and Polycrates, § 37, 2.
_Third Century._
202. Tertullian becomes Montanist, § 40, 2.
Pantænus dies, § 31, 4.
220. Clement of Alexandria dies, § 31, 4.
235. Settlement of the Schism of Hippolytus, § 41, 1.
235-238. The Emperor Maximinus Thrax, § 22, 4.
243. Ammonius Saccus dies, § 25, 2.
244. Arabian Synod against Beryllus, § 33, 7.
249-251. The Emperor Decius, § 22, 5.
250. The Schism of Felicissimus, § 41, 2.
251. The Novatian Schism, § 41, 3.
253-260. The Emperor Valerian, § 22, 5.
254. Origen dies, § 31, 5.
255-256. Controversy about Heretics’ Baptism, § 35, 5.
258. Cyprian dies, § 31, 11.
260-268. The Emperor Gallienus. The Toleration Edict, § 22, 5.
262. Synod at Rome against Sabellius and Dionysius of Alexandria, § 33, 7.
269. Third Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, § 33, 8.
276. Mani dies, § 29, 1.
284-305. The Emperor Diocletian, § 22, 6.
_Fourth Century._
303. Beginning of Diocletian Persecution, § 22, 6.
306. Synod of Elvira, § 38, 3; 45, 2.
Meletian Schism in Egypt, § 41, 4.
Constantius Chlorus dies, § 22, 7.
311. Galerius dies, § 22, 6.
312. Constantine’s Expedition against Maxentius, § 22, 7.
Donatist Schism in Africa, § 63, 1.
313. Edict of Milan, § 22, 7.
318. Arius is Accused, § 50, 1.
323-337. Constantine the Great, Sole Ruler, § 42, 2.
325. First Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, § 50, 1.
330-415. Meletian Schism at Antioch, § 50, 8.
335. Synod at Tyre, § 50, 2.
336. Athanasius Exiled. Arius dies, § 50, 2.
341. Council at Antioch, § 50, 2.
343. Persecution of Christians under Shapur II., § 64, 2.
344. Synod at Sardica, § 46, 3; 50, 2.
346. Council at Milan against Photinus, § 50, 2.
348. Ulfilas, Bishop of the Goths, § 76, 1.
350-361. Constantius, Sole Ruler, § 42, 2.
351. First Council at Sirmium against Marcellus, § 50, 2.
357. Second Council at Sirmium, Homoians, § 50, 3.
358. Third Council at Sirmium, § 50, 3.
359. Synods at Seleucia and Rimini, § 50, 3.
361-363. Emperor Julian the Apostate, § 42, 3.
362. Synod at Alexandria against Athanasius, § 50, 4.
366-384. Damasus I., Bishop of Rome, § 46, 4.
368. Hilary of Poitiers dies, § 47, 14.
373. Athanasius dies, § 47, 3.
379. Basil the Great dies, § 47, 4.
379-395. Theodosius the Great, Emperor, § 42, 4.
380. Synod at Saragossa, § 54, 2.
381. Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople, § 50, 4.
Ulfilas dies, § 76, 1.
384-398. Siricius, Bishop of Rome, § 46, 4.
385. Priscillian beheaded at Treves, § 54, 2.
390. Gregory Nazianzen dies, § 47, 4.
391. Destruction of the Serapeion at Alexandria, § 42, 6.
393. Council at Hippo Rhegius, § 59, 1.
397. Ambrose dies, § 47, 15.
399. Rufinus Condemned at Rome as an Origenist, § 51, 2.
400. Martin of Tours dies, § 47, 15.
_Fifth Century._
402-417. Innocent I. of Rome, § 46, 5.
403. Synodus ad Quercum, § 51, 3.
Epiphanius dies, § 47, 10.
407. Chrysostom dies, § 47, 8.
408-450. Theodosius II. in the East, § 52, 3.
411. _Collatio cum Donatistis_, § 63, 1.
412. Synod at Carthage against Cœlestius, § 53, 4.
415. Synods at Jerusalem and Diospolis against Pelagius, § 53, 4.
416. Synods at Mileve and Carthage against Pelagius, § 53, 4.
418. General Assembly at Carthage, § 53, 4.
Roman Schism of Eulalius and Bonifacius, § 46, 6.
420. Jerome dies, § 47, 16.
Persecution of Christians under Behram V., § 64, 2.
422-432. Cœlestine I., Bishop of Rome, § 46, 6.
428. Nestorius is made Patriarch of Constantinople, § 52, 3.
429. Theodore of Mopsuestia dies, § 47, 9.
The Vandals in North Africa, § 76, 3.
430. Cyril’s Anathemas, § 52, 3.
Augustine dies, § 47, 18.
431. Third Œcumenical Council at Ephesus, § 52, 3.
432. St. Patrick in Ireland, § 77, 1.
John Cassianus dies, § 47, 21.
440-461. Leo I., the Great, § 46, 7; 47, 22.
444. Cyril of Alexandria dies, § 47, 6.
Dioscurus succeeds Cyril, § 52, 4.
445. Rescript of Valentinian III., § 46, 7.
448. Eutyches excommunicated at Constantinople, § 52, 4.
449. Robber Synod at Ephesus, § 52, 4.
Attack of Angles and Saxons upon Britain, § 77, 4.
451. Fourth Œcumenical Synod at Chalcedon, § 52, 4.
457. Theodoret dies, § 47, 9.
475. Semipelagian Synods at Arles and Lyons, § 53, 5.
476. Overthrow of the West Roman Empire, § 46, 8; 76, 6.
Monophysite Encyclical of Basiliscus, § 52, 5.
482. Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, § 52, 5.
Severinus dies, § 76, 6.
484-519. The Thirty-five Years’ Schism between the East and West, § 52, 5.
492-496. Gelasius I., Bishop of Rome, § 46, 8; 47, 22.
496. Battle of Zülpich. Clovis baptized, § 76, 9.
_Sixth Century._
502. Synodus Palmaris, § 46, 8.
517. Council at Epaon, § 76, 5.
527-565. Justinian I., Emperor, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
529. Synods at Oranges and Valence, § 53, 5.
Monastic Rule of Benedict of Nursia, § 85.
Suppression of the University of Athens, § 42, 4.
533. The Theopaschite Controversy, § 52, 6.
Overthrow of the Vandal Empire, § 76, 3.
544. Condemnation of the “Three Chapters,” § 52, 6.
553. Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople, § 52, 6.
554. Overthrow of the Ostrogoth Empire in Italy, § 76, 7.
563. Council at Braga, § 54, 2.
St. Columba among the Picts and Scots. § 77, 2.
567. Founding of the Exarchate of Ravenna, § 46, 9.
568. The Longobards under Alboin in Italy, § 76, 8.
589. Council at Toledo under Reccared, § 76, 2.
Columbanus and Gallus in the Vosges Country, § 77, 7.
590-604. Gregory I., the Great, § 46, 10; 47, 22.
595. Gregory of Tours dies, § 90, 2.
596. Augustine goes as Missionary to the Anglo-Saxons, § 77, 4.
597. St. Columba dies, § 77, 2.
Ethelbert baptized, § 77, 4.
_Seventh Century._
606. Emperor Phocas recognises the Roman Primacy, § 46, 10.
611-641. Heraclius, Emperor, § 52, 8.
615. Columbanus dies, § 77, 7.
622. Hejira, § 65.
625-638. Honorius I., Pope, § 46, 11.
636. Isidore of Seville dies, § 90, 2.
637. Omar conquers Jerusalem, § 65.
638. Monothelite Ecthesis of Heraclius, § 52, 8.
640. Omar conquers Egypt, § 65.
642-668. Constans II., Emperor, § 52, 8.
646. St. Gallus dies, § 78, 1.
648. The Typus of Constans II., § 52, 8.
649-653. Martin I., Pope, § 46, 11.
649. First Lateran Council under Martin I., § 52, 8.
652. Emmeran at Regensburg, § 78, 2.
657. Constantine of Mananalis, § 71, 1.
662. Maximus Confessor, dies, § 47, 13.
664. Synod at Streoneshalch (_Syn. Pharensis_), § 77, 6.
668-685. Constantinus Pogonnatus, § 52, 8; 71, 1.
677. Wilfrid among the Frisians, § 78, 3.
678-682. Agatho, Pope, § 46, 11.
680. Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople (Trullanum I.), § 52, 8.
690. Wilibrord among the Frisians, § 78, 3.
692. Concilium Quinisextum (Trullanum II.), § 63, 3.
696. Rupert in Bavaria (Salzburg), § 78, 2.
_Eighth Century._
711. The Saracens conquer Spain, § 81.
715-731. Pope Gregory II., § 66, 1; 78, 4.
716. Winifrid goes to the Frisians, § 78, 4.
717-741. Leo III., the Isaurian, Emperor, § 66, 1.
718. Winifrid in Rome, § 78, 4.
722. Winifrid in Thuringia and Hesse, § 78, 4.
723. Winifrid a second time at Rome, consecrated Bishop, etc., § 78, 4.
724. Destruction of the Wonder-working Oak at Geismar, § 78, 4.
726. Leo’s First Edict against Image Worship, § 66, 1.
730. Leo’s Second Edict against Image Worship, § 66, 1.
731. Gregory III., Pope, § 66, 1; 78, 4; 82, 1.
732. Boniface, Archbishop and Apostolic Vicar, § 78, 4.
Battle at Poitiers, § 81.
Separation of Illyria from the Roman See by Leo the Isaurian, § 66, 1.
735. The Venerable Bede dies, § 90, 2.
739. Wilibrord dies, § 78, 3.
741. Charles Martel dies, § 78, 5. Gregory III. dies. Leo the Isaurian
dies.
741-752. Pope Zacharias, § 78, 5, 7; 82, 1.
741-775. Constantinus Copronymus, Emperor, § 66, 2.
742. Concilium Germanicum, § 78, 5.
743. Synod at Liptinä, § 78, 5; 86, 2.
744. Synod at Soissons, § 78, 5.
745. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, § 78, 5.
752. Childeric III. deposed, Pepin the Short, King, § 78, 5; 82, 1.
754. Iconoclastic Council at Constantinople, § 66, 2.
Pepin’s donation to the Chair of St. Peter, § 82, 1.
755. Boniface dies, § 78, 7.
Abt. 760. Rule of St. Chrodegang of Metz, § 84, 4.
767. Synod at Gentilliacum, § 91, 2; 92, 1.
768-814. Charlemagne, § 82, 2, 4; 90, 1, etc.
772-795. Pope Hadrian I., § 82, 2.
772. Destruction of Eresburg, § 78, 9.
774. Charlemagne’s donation to the Chair of St. Peter, § 82, 2.
785. Wittekind and Alboin are baptized, § 78, 9.
787. Seventh Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, § 66, 3.
Founding of Cloister and Cathedral Schools, § 90, 1.
790. _Libri Carolini_, § 92, 1.
792. Synod at Regensburg, § 91, 1.
794. General Synod at Frankfort, § 91, 1; 92, 1.
795-816. Leo III., Pope, § 82, 3.
799. Alcuin’s disputation with Felix at Aachen, § 91, 1.
800. Leo III. crowns Charlemagne, § 82, 3.
_Ninth Century._
804. End of the Saxon War, § 78, 9.
Alcuin dies, § 90, 3.
809. Council at Aachen, on the _Filioque_, § 91, 2.
813-820. Leo the Armenian, Emperor, § 66, 4.
814-840. Louis the Pious, § 82, 4.
817. Reformation of Monasticism by Benedict of Aniane, § 85, 2.
820-829. Michael Balbus, Emperor, § 66, 4.
825. Synod at Paris against Image Worship, § 92, 1.
826. Theodorus Studita dies, § 66, 4.
Ansgar in Denmark, § 80, 1.
827. Establishment of Saracen Sovereignty in Sicily, § 81.
829-842. Theophilus, Emperor, § 66, 4.
833. Founding of the Archbishopric of Hamburg, § 80, 1.
835. Synod at Didenhofen, § 82, 4.
839. Claudius of Turin dies. Agobard of Lyons dies, § 90, 4.
840-877. Charles the Bald, § 90, 1.
842. Feast of Orthodoxy, § 66, 4.
Theodora recommends the out-rooting of the Paulicians, § 71, 1.
843. Compact of Verdun, § 82, 5.
844. Eucharist Controversy of Paschasius Radbertus, § 91, 3.
845-882. Hincmar of Rheims, § 83, 2; 90, 5.
847. Archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen, § 80, 1.
848. Synod of Mainz against Gottschalk, § 91, 5.
850-859. Persecution of Christians in Spain, § 81, 1.
851-852. The Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore, § 87, 2, 3.
853. Synod of Quiersy. _Capitula Carisiaca_, § 91, 5.
855. Synod at Valence in favour of Gottschalk, § 91, 5.
856. Rabanus Maurus dies, § 90, 4.
858-867. Pope Nicholas I., § 82, 7.
858. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, § 67, 1.
859. Synod of Savonnières, § 91, 5.
861. Methodius goes to the Bulgarians, § 73, 3.
863. Cyril and Methodius go to Moravia, § 79, 2.
865. Ansgar dies, § 80, 1.
866. Encyclical of Photius, § 67, 1.
867-886. Basil the Macedonian, Emperor, § 67, 1.
867-872. Hadrian II., Pope, § 82, 7.
869. Eighth Œcumenical Council of the Latins at Constantinople § 67, 1.
870. Treaty of Mersen, § 82, 5.
871. Basil the Macedonian puts down the Paulicians, § 71, 1.
Borziwoi and Ludmilla baptized, § 79, 3.
871-901. Alfred the Great, § 90, 9.
875. John VIII. crowns Charles the Bald Emperor, § 82, 8.
879. Eighth Œcumenical Council of the Greeks at Constantinople, § 67, 1.
886-911. Leo the Philosopher, Emperor, § 67, 2.
891. Photius dies, § 67, 1.
_Tenth Century._
910. Abbot Berno founds Clugny, § 98, 1.
911. The German Carolingians die out, § 82, 8.
911-918. Conrad I., King of the Germans. § 96, 1.
914-928. Pope John X., § 96, 1.
919-936. Henry I., King of the Germans, § 96, 1.
934. Henry I. enforced toleration of Christianity in Denmark, § 93, 2.
936-973. Otto I., Emperor, § 96, 1.
942. Odo of Clugny founds the Clugniac Congregation, § 98, 1.
950. Gylas of Hungary baptized, § 93, 8.
955. Olga baptized in Constantinople, § 73, 4.
960. Atto of Vercelli dies, § 100, 3.
962. Founding of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, § 96, 1.
963. Synod at Rome deposes John XII., § 96, 1.
966. Miecislaw of Poland baptized, § 93, 7.
968. Founding of Archbishopric of Magdeburg, § 93, 9.
970. Migration of Paulicians to Thrace, § 71, 1.
973-983. Otto II., Emperor, § 96, 2.
974. Ratherius of Verona dies, § 100, 3.
983-1002. Otto III., Emperor, § 96, 2, 3.
983. Mistewoi destroys all Christian establishments among the Wends, § 93,
9.
987. Hugh Capet is made King of France, § 96, 2.
988. Wladimir Christianizes Russia, § 73, 4.
992-1025. Boleslaw Chrobry of Poland, § 93, 7.
996-999. Pope Gregory V., § 96, 2.
997-1038. Stephen the Saint, § 93, 8.
997. Adalbert of Prague, Apostle of Prussia, dies, § 93, 13.
999-1003. Pope Sylvester II., § 96, 3.
1000. Olaf Tryggvason dies, § 93, 4.
Christianity introduced into Iceland and Greenland, § 93, 5.
Stephen of Hungary secures the throne, § 93, 8.
_Eleventh Century_
1002-1024. Henry II., Emperor, § 96, 4.
1008. Olaf Skautkoning of Sweden baptized, § 93, 3.
1009. Bruno martyred, § 93, 13.
1012-1024. Pope Benedict VIII., § 96, 4.
1014-1036. Canute the Great, § 93, 2.
1018. Romuald founds the Camaldulensian Congregation, § 98, 1.
1024-1039. Conrad II., Emperor, § 96, 4.
1030. Olaf the Thick of Norway dies, § 93, 4.
1031. Overthrow of the Ommaides in Spain, § 95, 2.
1039-1056. Henry II., Emperor, § 96, 4, 5.
1041. Treuga Dei, § 105, 1.
1046. Synod at Sutri, § 96, 4.
1049-1054. Pope Leo IX., § 96, 5.
1050. Synods at Rome and Vercelli against Berengar, § 101, 2.
1053. Epistle of Michael Cærularius, § 67, 3.
1054. Excommunication of Greek Church by Papal Legates, § 67, 3.
1056-1106. Henry IV., Emperor, § 96, 6-11.
1059. Pope Nicholas II. assigns the choice of Pope to the College of
Cardinals, § 96, 6.
1060. Robert Guiscard founds the Norman Sovereignty in Italy, § 95, 1.
1066. Murder of Gottschalk, King of the Wends, § 93, 9.
1073-1085. Pope Gregory VII., § 96, 7-9.
1075. Gregory’s third Investiture Enactment, § 96, 7.
1077. Henry IV. as a Penitent at Canossa, § 96, 8.
1079. Berengar subscribes at Rome the doctrine of Transubstantiation, §
101, 2.
1086. Bruno of Cologne founds the Carthusian Order, § 98, 2.
1088-1099. Pope Urban II., § 96, 10.
1095. Synod at Clermont, § 94.
1096. First Crusade. Godfrey of Boulogne, § 94, 1.
1098. Synod at Bari. Anselm of Canterbury, § 67, 4.
Robert of Citeaux founds the Cistercian Order, § 98, 1.
1099. Conquest of Jerusalem, § 94, 1.
1099-1118. Pope Paschalis II., § 96, 11.
_Twelfth Century._
1106-1125. Henry V., Emperor, § 96, 11.
1106. Michael Psellus dies, § 68, 5.
1109. Anselm of Canterbury dies, § 101, 1, 3.
1113. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, § 98, 1; 102, 3.
1118. Founding of the Order of Knights Templar. Knights of St. John, § 98,
7.
Basil, head of Bogomili, sent to the stake, § 71, 4.
1119-1124. Calixtus II., Pope, § 96, 11.
1121. Norbert founds the Præmonstratensian Order, § 98, 2.
1122. Concordat of Worms, § 96, 11.
1123. Ninth Œcumenical Council (First Lateran), § 96, 11.
1124. First Missionary Journey of Otto of Bamberg, § 93, 10.
1126. Peter of Bruys burnt, § 108, 7.
1128. Second Missionary Journey of Otto of Bamberg, § 93, 10.
1130-1143. Pope Innocent II., § 96, 13.
1135. Rupert of Deutz dies, § 102, 8.
1139. Tenth Œcumenical Council (Second Lateran), § 96, 13.
1141. Synod at Sens condemns Abælard’s writings, § 102, 2
Hugo St. Victor dies, § 102, 4.
1142. Abælard dies, § 102, 2.
1143. Founding of the Roman Commune, § 96, 13.
1145-1153. Pope Eugenius III., § 96, 13.
1146. Fall of Edessa, § 94, 2.
1147. Second Crusade. Conrad III. Louis VII., § 94, 2.
1149. Henry of Lausanne dies, § 108, 7.
1150. _Decretum Gratiani_, § 99, 5.
1152-1190. Frederick I., Barbarossa, § 96, 14.
1153. Bernard of Clairvaux dies, § 102, 3.
1154. Vicelin dies, § 93, 9.
1154-1159. Hadrian IV., Pope, § 96, 14.
1155. Arnold of Brescia put to death, § 96, 14.
1156. Peter the Venerable dies, § 98, 1.
Founding of Carmelite Order, § 98, 3.
1157. Introduction of Christianity into Finland, § 93, 11.
1159-1181. Pope Alexander III., § 96, 15, 16.
1164. Peter the Lombard dies, § 102, 5.
Council of Clarendon, § 96, 16.
1167. Council at Toulouse (Cathari), § 108, 2.
1168. Christianity of the Island of Rügen, § 93, 10.
1169. Gerhoch of Reichersberg dies, § 102, 6, 7.
1170. Thomas Becket murdered, § 96, 16.
Founding of the Waldensian sect, § 108, 10.
1176. Battle of Legnano, § 6, 15.
1179. Eleventh Œcumenical Council (Third Lateran), § 96, 15.
1180. John of Salisbury dies, § 102, 9.
1182. Maronites are attached to Rome, § 73, 3.
1184. Meinhart in Livonia, § 93, 12.
1187. Saladin conquers Jerusalem, § 94, 3.
1189. Third Crusade. Frederick Barbarossa, § 94, 3.
1190-1197. Henry VI., Emperor, § 96, 16.
1190. Founding of Order of Teutonic Knights, § 98, 8.
1194. Eustathius of Thessalonica dies, § 68, 5.
1198-1216. Pope Innocent III., § 96, 17, 18.
_Thirteenth Century._
1202. Joachim of Floris dies, § 108, 5.
Founding of Order of the Brothers of the Sword, § 93, 12.
Genghis Khan destroys Kingdom of Prester John, § 72, 1.
1204-1261. Latin Empire in Constantinople, § 94, 4.
1207. Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, § 96, 18.
1208. Peter of Castelnau slain, § 109, 1.
1209-1229. Albigensian Crusade, § 109, 1.
1209. Council of Paris against Sect of Amalrich of Bena, § 108, 4.
1212. Battle at Tolosa, § 95, 2.
1213. John Lackland receives England as a Papal Fief, § 96, 18.
1215-1250. Frederick II., Emperor, § 96, 17, 19, 20.
1215. Twelfth Œcumenical Council (Fourth Lateran), § 96, 18.
1216. Confirmation of the Dominican Order, § 98, 5.
1216-1227. Pope Honorius III., § 96, 19.
1217. Fourth Crusade. Andrew II. of Hungary, § 94, 4.
1223. Confirmation of Franciscan Order, § 98, 3.
1226. Francis of Assisi dies, § 98, 3.
1226-1270. Louis IX., the Saint, § 94, 6; 93, 15.
1227-1241. Pope Gregory IX., § 96, 19.
1228. Fifth Crusade. Frederick II., § 94, 5.
Settlement of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia, § 93, 13.
1229. Synod at Toulouse, § 109, 2.
1231. St. Elizabeth dies, § 105, 3.
1232. Inquisition Tribunal set up, § 109, 2.
1233. Conrad of Marburg slain, § 109, 3.
1234. Crusade against Stedingers, § 109, 3.
1237. Union of the Order of Sword with that of Teutonic Knights, § 98, 8.
1243-1254. Pope Innocent IV., § 96, 20.
1245. Thirteenth Œcumenical Council (first of Lyons), § 96, 20.
Alexander of Hales died, § 103, 4.
1248. Foundation stone of Cathedral of Cologne laid, § 101, 11.
Sixth Crusade, Louis IX., § 94, 6.
1253. Robert Grosseteste dies, § 103, 1.
1254. Condemnation of the “_Introductorius in evangelium æternum_,” § 108,
5.
1260. First Flagellant Campaign in Perugia, § 107, 1.
1260-1282. Michael Paläologus, Emperor, § 67, 4.
1261-1264. Urban IV., Pope, § 96, 20.
1262. Arsenian Schism, § 70, 1.
1268. Conradin on the Scaffold. § 96, 20.
1269. Pragmatic Sanction of Louis IX., § 96, 21.
1270. Seventh Crusade, Louis IX., § 94, 6.
1271-1276. Pope Gregory X., § 96, 21.
1272. Italian Mission to the Mongols. Marco Polo, § 93, 15.
David of Augsburg dies, § 103, 10.
Bertholdt of Regensburg dies, § 104, 1.
1273-1291. Rudolph of Hapsburg, Emperor, § 96, 21, 22.
1274. Fourteenth Œcumenical Council (second of Lyons), § 96, 21.
Thomas Aquinas dies, § 103, 6.
Bonaventura dies, § 103, 4.
1275. Strassburg Minster, § 104, 13.
1280. Albert the Great dies, § 103, 5.
1282. Sicilian Vespers, § 96, 22.
1283. Prussia subdued, § 93, 13.
1286. Barhabraeus dies, § 72, 2.
1291. Fall of Acre, § 94, 6.
John of Montecorvino among the Mongols, § 93, 16.
1294. Roger Bacon dies, § 103, 8.
1294-1303. Boniface VIII., Pope, § 110, 1.
1296. Bull _Clericis laicos_, § 110, 1.
1300. First Roman Jubilee, § 117.
Lollards at Antwerp, § 116, 2.
Gerhard Segarelli burnt, § 108, 8.
_Fourteenth Century._
1302. Bull _Unam Sanctam_, § 110, 1.
1305-1314. Pope Clement V., § 110, 2.
1307. Dolcino burnt, § 108, 4.
1308. Duns Scotus dies, § 113, 1.
1309-1377. Residence of Popes at Avignon, § 110, 2-4.
1311-1312. Fifteenth Œcumenical Council at Vienne, § 110, 2.
Suppression of Templar Order, § 112, 7.
1314-1347. Louis the Bavarian, Emperor, § 110, 3, 4.
1315. Raimund Lullus dies, § 93, 17; 103, 5.
1316-1334. Pope John XXII., § 110, 3; 112, 2.
1321. Dante dies, § 116, 6.
1322. Split in the Franciscan Order, § 112, 2.
1327. Meister Eckhart dies, § 114, 1.
1334-1342. Pope Benedict XII., § 110, 4.
1335. Bishop Hemming in Lapland, § 93, 11.
1338. Electoral Union at Rhense, § 110, 5.
1339. Union negotiations at Avignon. Barlaam, § 67, 5.
1340. Nicholas of Lyra dies, § 113, 7.
1341-1351. Hesychast Controversy in Constantinople, § 69, 1.
1342-1352. Pope Clement VI., § 110, 4.
1346-1378. Charles IV., Emperor, § 110, 4.
1347. Rienzi, § 110, 4.
Emperor Louis dies, § 110, 4.
1348. Founding of University of Prague, § 119, 3.
1348-1350. Black Death. Flagellant Campaign, § 116, 3.
1349. Thomas Bradwardine dies, § 113, 2.
1352-1362. Pope Innocent VI., § 110, 4.
1356. Charles IV. issues the Golden Bull, § 110, 4.
1360. Wiclif against the Begging Friars, § 119, 1.
1361. John Tauler dies, § 114, 2.
1362-1370. Pope Urban V., § 110, 4.
1366. Henry Suso dies, § 114, 5.
1367-1370. Urban V. in Rome, § 110, 4.
1369. John Paläologus passes over to the Latin Church, § 67, 5.
1370-1378. Pope Gregory XI., § 110, 4.
1374. Dancers, § 116, 3.
1377. Return of the Curia to Rome, § 110, 4.
1378-1417. Papal Schism, § 110, 6.
1380. Catharine of Siena dies, § 112, 4.
1384. Wiclif dies, § 119, 1.
Gerhard Groot dies, § 112, 9.
1386. Introduction of Christianity into Lithuania, § 93, 14.
1400. Florentius Radewin dies, § 112, 9.
_Fifteenth Century._
1402. Hus becomes Preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel, § 119, 3.
1409. Œcumenical Council at Pisa, § 110, 6.(134)
Withdrawal of the Germans from Prague, § 119, 3.
1410-1415. John XXIII., Pope, § 110, 7.
1410-1437. Sigismund, Emperor, § 110, 7, 8.
1412. Traffic in Indulgences in Bohemia, § 119, 4.
1413. Papal Ban against Hus, § 119, 4.
1414-1418. Sixteenth Œcumenical Council at Constance, § 110, 6; 119, 5.
1415. Hus obtains the crown of martyrdom, § 119, 5.
1416. Jerome of Prague martyred, § 119, 5.
1417-1431. Pope Martin V., § 110, 7.
1420. Calixtines and Taborites, § 119, 7.
1423. General Councils at Pavia and Siena, § 110, 7.
1424. Ziska dies, § 119, 7.
1425. Peter D’Ailly dies, § 118, 3.
1429. Gerson dies, § 118, 3.
1431-1447. Pope Eugenius IV., § 110, 7.
1431-1449. Seventeenth Œcumenical Council at Basel, § 110, 8; 119, 5-7.
1433. Basel Compacts, § 119, 7.
1434. Overthrow of Hussites at Böhmischbrod, § 119, 7.
1438. Papal Counter-Council at Ferrara, § 110, 8.
Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, § 110, 9.
1439. Council at Florence, § 67, 6.
1448. Concordat of Vienna, § 110, 9.
1453. Fall of Constantinople, § 67, 6.
1457. Laurentius Valla dies, § 120, 1.
1458-1464. Pope Pius II., § 110, 11.
1459. Congress of Princes at Mantua, § 110, 10.
1464-1471. Pope Paul II., § 110, 11.
1467. Convention of Bohemian Brethren at Lhota, § 119, 8.
1471. Thomas à Kempis dies, § 114, 5.
1471-1484. Sixtus IV., Pope, § 110, 11.
1483. Luther born on November 10th, § 122, 1.
Spanish Inquisition, § 117, 1.
Close of _Corpus juris canonici_, § 99, 5.
1484-1492. Innocent VIII., Pope, § 110, 11.
1484. Zwingli born January 1st, § 130, 1.
Bull _Summis desiderantes_, § 117, 4.
1485. Rudolph Agricola dies, § 120, 3.
1489. John Wessel dies, § 119, 10.
1492-1503. Alexander VI., Pope, § 110, 12.
1492. Fall of Granada, § 95, 2.
1493-1519. Maximilian I., Emperor, § 110, 13.
1497. Melanchthon born, § 122, 5.
1498. Savonarola sent to the stake, § 119, 11.
_Sixteenth Century._
1502. Founding of University of Wittenberg, § 122, 1.
1508-1513. Pope Julius II., § 110, 13.
1506. Rebuilding of St. Peter’s at Rome, § 115, 13.
1508. Luther becomes Professor at Wittenberg, § 122, 1.
1509. Calvin born on July 10th, § 138, 2.
1509-1547. Henry VIII. of England, § 139, 4.
1511. Luther’s journey to Rome, § 122, 1. Council at Pisa, § 110, 13.
1512. Luther made Doctor of the Holy Scriptures and Preacher, § 112, 1.
1512-1517. Fifth Lateran Council, § 110, 13, 14.
1513-1521. Pope Leo X., § 110, 14.
1514. Reuchlin’s contest with the Dominicans, § 120, 4.
1516. _Epistolæ Obscur. virorum_, § 120, 5.
Erasmus edits the New Testament, § 120, 6.
Zwingli preaches at Mariä Einsiedeln, § 130, 1.
1517. Luther’s Theses, October 31st, § 122, 2.
1518. Luther at Heidelberg and before Cajetan at Augsburg, § 122, 3.
Melanchthon Professor at Wittenberg, § 122, 5.
1519. Miltitz, § 122, 3.
Disputation at Leipzig, § 122, 4.
Zwingli in Zürich, § 130, 1.
Olaf and Laurence Peterson in Sweden, § 139, 1.
1519-1556. Emperor Charles V., § 123, 5.
1520. Bull of Excommunication against Luther, § 123, 2.
Christian II. in Denmark, § 139, 2.
1521. Luther at Worms, § 123, 7.
Melanchthon’s _Loci_, § 121, 1.
Beginning of Reformation in Riga, § 139, 3.
1521-1522. The Wartburg Exile, § 123, 8.
1522. The Prophets of Zwickau in Wittenberg, § 124, 1.
Reuchlin dies, § 120, 4.
1522-1523. Pope Hadrian VI., § 126, 1.
1523. Thomas Münzer in Allstädt, § 124, 4.
Luther’s contest with Henry VIII., § 125, 3.
First Martyrs, Voes and Esch, § 128, 1.
Sickingen’s defeat, § 124, 2.
1523-1534. Pope Clement VII., § 149, 1.
1524. Staupitz dies, § 112, 2.
Carlstadt in Orlamünde, § 124, 3.
Erasmus against Luther, § 125, 2.
Diet of Nuremberg, § 126, 2.
Regensburg League, § 126, 3.
Hans Tausen in Denmark, § 139, 2.
Founding of Theatine Order, § 149, 7.
1525. Eucharist Controversy, § 131, 1.
Luther’s Marriage, § 129.
Albert of Prussia, Hereditary Duke, § 126, 4.
Founding of the Capuchin Order, § 149, 7.
1525-1532. John the Constant, Elector of Saxony, § 124, 5.
1526. Synod at Hamburg, § 127, 2.
Torgau League, § 126, 5.
Diet at Spires, § 126, 6.
Disputation at Baden, § 130, 6.
1527. Diet at Odense, § 139, 2; and at Westeräs, § 139, 1.
1528. The Pack incident, § 132, 1. Disputation at Bern, § 130, 7.
1529. Church Visitation of Saxony, § 127, 1.
Diet at Spires, § 132, 3.
Marburg Conference, § 132, 4.
First Peace of Cappel, § 130, 9.
1530. Diet at Augsburg. _Conf. Augustana_, June 25th, § 132, 6, 7.
1531. Schmalcald League, § 133, 1.
Zwingli dies. Second Peace of Cappel, § 130, 10.
1532-1547. John Frederick the Magnanimous, Elector of Saxony, § 133, 2.
1532. Religious Peace of Nuremberg, § 133, 2.
Farel at Geneva, § 138, 1.
Henry VIII. renounces authority of the Pope, § 139, 4.
1534. Luther’s complete Bible Translation, § 129, 1.
Reformation in Württemberg, § 133, 3.
1534-1535. Anabaptist Troubles in Münster, § 133, 6.
1534-1549. Pope Paul III., § 149, 2.
1535. Vergerius in Wittenberg, § 134, 1.
Calvin’s _Institutio rel. Christ._, § 138, 5.
1536. Erasmus dies, § 120, 6. Wittenberg Concord, § 133, 8.
Calvin in Geneva, § 138, 2. Diet at Copenhagen, § 139, 2.
Menno Simons baptized, § 147, 1.
1537. Schmalcald Articles, § 134, 1.
Antinomian Controversy, § 141, 1.
1538. Nuremberg League, § 134, 2.
Calvin Expelled from Geneva, § 138, 3.
1539. Outbreak at Frankfort, § 134, 3.
Reformation in Albertine Saxony, § 134, 4.
Joachim II. reforms Brandenburg, § 134, 5.
Diet at Odense, § 139, 2.
1540. The Society of Jesus, § 149, 8.
Double Marriage of the Landgrave, § 135, 1.
Religious Conferences at Spires, Hagenau, and Worms, § 135, 2.
1541. Carlstadt dies, § 124, 3.
Interim of Regensburg, § 135, 3.
Naumburg Episcopate, § 135, 5.
Calvin returns to Geneva, § 138, 3, 4.
1542. Reformation in Brunswick, § 135, 6.
National Assembly at Bonn, § 135, 7.
Francis Xavier in the East Indies, § 150, 1.
Roman Inquisition, § 139, 23.
1544. Diet at Spires, Peace of Crespy, Wittenberg Reformation, § 135, 9.
Diet at Westeräs, § 139, 1.
1545. Synod at Erdöd, § 139, 20.
1545-1547. Nineteenth Œcumenical Council at Trent, § 136, 4; 149, 2.
1546. Regensburg Conference: Murder of John Diaz, § 135, 10.
Luther dies, February 18th, § 135, 11.
Reformation in the Palatinate, § 135, 6.
1546-1547. Schmalcald War, § 136.
1547-1553. Edward VI. of England, § 139, 5.
1547. Hermann of Cologne resigns, § 136, 2.
1548-1572. Sigismund Augustus, of Poland, § 139, 18.
1548. Interim of Augsburg, § 136, 5.
Adiaphorist Controversy, § 141, 5.
Priests of the Oratory, § 149, 7.
1549. _Consensus Tigurinus_, § 138, 7.
Andrew Osiander at Königsburg, § 141, 2.
Jesuit Mission in Brazil, § 150, 3.
The first Jesuits in Germany (Ingolstadt), § 151, 2.
1550-1555. Pope Julius III., § 136, 8.
1550. Brothers of Mercy, § 149, 7.
1551. Resumption of Tridentine Council, § 136, 8; 149, 2.
1552. Compact of Passau, § 137, 3.
Outbreak of Crypto-Calvinist Controversy, § 141, 9.
Francis Xavier dies, § 150, 1.
1553-1558. Mary the Catholic of England, § 139, 5.
1553. Elector Maurice dies, § 137, 4.
Servetus burnt, § 148, 2.
1554. _Consensus Pastorum Genevensium_, § 138, 7.
John Frederick the Magnanimous dies, § 137, 3.
1555. Religious Peace of Augsburg, § 137, 5.
Outbreak of Synergist Controversies, § 141, 7.
1555-1598. Philip II. of Spain, § 139, 21.
1556-1564. Ferdinand I, Emperor, § 137, 8.
1556. Loyola dies, § 149, 8.
1557. National Assembly at Clausenburg and _Confessio Hungarica_, § 139,
20.
1558. Frankfort Recess, § 141, 11.
1558-1603. Elizabeth of England, § 139, 6.
1559. Gustavus Vasa’s Mission to the Lapps, § 142, 7.
_Confessio Gallicana_, § 139, 14.
The English Act of Uniformity, § 139, 6.
1560-1565. Pope Pius IV., § 149, 2.
1560. _Confessio Scotica_, § 139, 9.
John a Lasco dies, § 139, 18.
Calvinizing of the Palatinate, § 144, 1.
Melanchthon dies, § 141, 10.
1561. Gotthard Kettler, Duke of Courland, § 139, 3.
Religious Conference at Poissy, § 139, 14.
Mary Stuart in Scotland, § 139, 10.
Princes’ Diet at Naumburg, § 141, 11.
1562-1563. Resumption and Close of Tridentine Council, § 149, 2.
1562. _Confessio Belgica_, § 139, 12.
The XXXIX. Articles of the English Church, § 139, 6.
Calvinizing of Bremen, § 144, 2.
Heidelberg Catechism, § 144, 1.
Lælius Socinus dies, § 148, 4.
1564. Calvin dies, § 138, 4.
_Professio fidei Tridentinæ_, § 149, 14.
Cassander’s Union Proposals, § 137, 8.
Maulbronn Convention, § 144, 1.
1564-1576. Emperor Maximilian II., § 137, 8.
1566. _Catechasimo Romanus_, § 149, 10.
_Confessio Helvetica posterior_, § 138, 7.
The League of “the Beggars,” § 139, 12.
1567. The writings of Michael Baius condemned, § 149, 13.
1570. General Synod at Sendomir, § 139, 13.
Peace of St. Germains, § 139, 15.
1572-1585. Pope Gregory XIII., § 149, 3.
1572. John Knox dies, § 139, 11.
Bloody Marriage of Paris, August 24th, § 139, 16.
1573. _Pax dissidentium_ in Poland, § 139, 18.
1574. Maulbronn Convention, § 141, 12.
Restoration of Catholicism in Eichsfelde, § 151, 1.
1575. _Confessio Bohemica_, § 139, 19.
1576. Book of Torgau, § 141, 12.
Pacification of Ghent, § 139, 12.
1576-1612. Rudolph II., Emperor, § 137, 8.
1577. The Formula of Concord, § 141, 12.
Restoration of Catholicism in Fulda, § 151, 1.
1578. The Jesuit Possevin in Sweden, § 151, 3.
1579. The Union of Utrecht, § 139, 12.
1580. Book of Concord, § 141, 12.
1582. Second Attempt at Reformation in Cologne, § 137, 6.
Matthew Ricci in China, § 150, 1.
Reform of Calendar, § 149, 3.
1585-1590. Pope Sixtus V., § 149, 3.
1587. Mary Stuart on the Scaffold, § 139, 10.
1588. Louis Molina, § 149, 13.
1589-1610. Henry IV. of France, § 139, 17.
1589. Patriarchate at Moscow, § 73, 4.
1592. Saxon Articles of Visitation, § 141, 13.
1593. Assembly of Representatives at Upsala, § 139, 1.
1595. Synod at Thorn, § 139, 18.
1596. Synod at Brest, § 151, 3.
1597. Calvinizing the Principality of Anhalt, § 144, 3.
_Congregatio de auxiliis_, § 149, 13.
1598. Edict of Nantes, § 139, 17.
1600. Giordano Bruno at the Stake, § 146, 3.
_Seventeenth Century._
1604. Faustus Socinus dies, § 148, 4.
1605. Landgrave Maurice calvinizes Hesse Cassel, § 154, 1.
Gunpowder Plot, § 153, 6.
1606. The Treaty of Vienna, § 139, 10.
Interdict on the Republic of Venice, § 156, 2.
1608. Founding the Jesuit State of Paraguay, § 156, 10.
1609. The Royal Letter, § 193, 19.
1610-1643. Louis XIII. of France, § 153, 3.
1610. Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants, § 160, 2.
1611. Pères de l’Oratoire, § 156, 7.
1612-1619. Matthias, Emperor, § 153, 1.
1613. Elector John Sigismund of Brandenburg goes over to Reformed Church,
§ 154, 3.
George Calixtus in Helmstädt, § 159, 2.
1614. _Confessio Marchica_, § 154, 3.
1616. Leonard Hutter dies, § 159, 4.
1618. Monks of St. Maur in France, § 156, 7.
1618-1648. The Thirty Years’ War, § 153, 2.
1618-1619. Synod of Dort, § 161, 2.
1619-1637. Ferdinand II., Emperor, § 153, 2.
1620. The Valteline Massacre, § 153, 3.
The Pilgrim Fathers, § 143, 2.
1621. John Arndt dies, § 160, 1.
1622. Francis de Sales dies, § 157, 1.
_Congregatio de propaganda fide_, § 156, 9.
1624. End of Controversy over κένωσις and κρύψις, § 159, 1.
Jac. Böhme dies, § 160, 2.
1628. Adam Schall in China, § 156, 12.
1629. Edict of Restitution, § 153, 2.
1631. Religious Conference at Leipzig, § 155, 4.
1632. Gustavus Adolphus falls at Lützen, § 153, 2.
1637. John Gerhard dies, § 159, 4.
Rooting out of Christianity in Japan, § 156, 11.
1638. Overthrow of Racovian Seminary, § 148, 4.
Cyril Lucar strangled, § 152, 2.
Scottish Covenant, § 155, 1.
1641. Irish Massacre, § 153, 5.
1642. Condemnation of the “Augustinus” of Jansen, § 157, 5.
1643-1715. Louis XIV. of France, § 153, 2; 157, 2, 3, 5.
1643. Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogilas, § 152, 3.
Opening of Westminster Assembly, § 155, 1.
1645. Hugo Grotius dies, § 153, 7.
Religious Conference at Thorn, § 153, 7.
Peace of Linz, § 153, 3.
1645-1742. Accommodation Controversy, § 156, 12.
1647. George Fox appears as Leader of the Quakers, § 163, 4.
1648. Peace of Westphalia, § 153, 2.
Close of Westminster Assembly, § 155, 1.
1649. Execution of Charles I. of England, § 155, 1.
1650. Descartes dies, § 164, 1.
1652. Liturgical Reform of the Patriarch Nikon, § 163, 10.
1653. Innocent X. condemns the Five Propositions of Jansen, § 157, 5.
Barebones’ Parliament, § 155, 2.
1654. Christina of Sweden becomes a Catholic, § 153, 1.
John Val. Andreä dies, § 160, 1.
1655. The Bloody Easter in Piedmont, § 153, 5.
_Consensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranæ_, § 159, 2.
1656. George Calixtus dies, § 159, 2.
Pascal’s _Lettres Provinciales_, § 157, 5.
1658. Outbreak of Cocceian Controversies, § 161, 5.
1660. Vincent de Paul dies, § 156, 8.
Restoration of Royalty and Episcopacy in England, § 155, 3.
1661. Religious Conference at Cassel, § 154, 4.
1664. Founding of Order of Trappists, § 156, 8.
1669. Cocceius dies, § 161, 3.
1670. The Labadists in Herford, § 163, 7.
1673. The Test Act, § 153, 6.
1675. _Formula consensus Helvetici_, § 161, 2.
Spener’s _Pia Desideria_, § 159, 3.
1676. Paul Gerhardt dies, § 154, 4.
Voetius dies, § 161, 3.
1677. Spinoza dies, § 164, 1.
1682. _Quatuor propositiones Cleri Gallicani_, § 156, 1.
Founding of Pennsylvania, § 163, 4.
1685. Revocation of Edict of Nantes and Expulsion of Waldensians from
Piedmont, § 153, 4, 5.
1686. Spener at Dresden and _Collegia philobiblica_ in Leipzig, § 159, 3.
Abraham Calov dies, § 159, 4.
1687. Michael Molinos forced to Abjure, § 157, 2.
1689. English Act of Toleration, § 155, 3.
Return of banished Waldensians, § 153, 5.
1690. The Pietists Expelled from Leipzig, § 159, 3.
1691. Spener in Berlin, § 159, 3.
1694. Founding of University of Halle, § 159, 3.
1697. Frederick Augustus the Strong of Saxony becomes Catholic, § 153, 1.
1699. Propositions of Fénelon Condemned, § 157, 3.
_Eighteenth Century._
1701. Thomas of Tournon in the East Indies, § 156, 12.
1702. Löscher’s “_Unschuldige Nachrichten_,” § 167, 1.
Buttlar Fanatical Excesses, § 170, 4.
1703. _Collegium caritativum_ at Berlin, § 169, 1.
Peter Codde deposed, § 165, 8.
1704. Bossuet dies, § 153, 7; 157, 3.
1705. Spener dies, § 159, 3.
1706. Founding of Lutheran Mission at Tranquebar, § 167, 9.
1707. The Praying Children at Silesia, § 167, 8.
1709. Port Royal suppressed, § 157, 5.
1712. Richard Simon dies, § 158, 1.
Mechitarist Congregation, § 165, 2.
1713. The Constitution _Unigenitus_, § 165, 7.
1717-1774. Louis XV. of France, § 165, 5.
1715. Fénelon dies, § 157, 3.
1716. Leibnitz dies, § 164, 2.
1717. French Appellants, § 165, 7.
Madame Guyon dies, § 157, 3.
Gottfried Arnold dies, § 160, 2.
Inspired Communities in the Cevennes, § 170, 2.
1721. Holy Synod of St. Petersburg, § 166.
Hans Egede goes as Missionary to Greenland, § 167, 9.
1722. Founding of Herrnhut, § 168, 2.
1727. A. H. Francke dies, § 167, 8.
Thomas of Westen dies, § 160, 7.
Founding of the Society of United Brethren, § 168, 2.
1728. Callenberg’s Institute for Conversion of Jews, § 167, 9.
1729. Buddeus dies, § 168, 2.
Methodist Society formed, § 169, 4.
1731. Emigration of Evangelicals of Salzburg, § 165, 4.
1740-1786. Frederick II. of Prussia, § 171, 4.
1741. Moravian Special Covenant with the Lord Jesus, § 168, 4.
1750. Sebastian Bach dies, § 167, 7.
End of Jesuit State of Paraguay, § 165, 3.
1751. Semler, Professor in Halle, § 171, 6.
1752. Bengel dies, § 167, 4.
1754. Christ. v. Wolff dies, § 167, 3.
Winckelmann becomes a Roman Catholic, § 165, 6.
1755. Mosheim dies, § 167, 3.
1758-1769. Pope Clement XIII., § 165, 9.
1759. Banishment of Jesuits from Portugal, § 165, 9.
1760. Zinzendorf dies, § 168, 3.
1762. Judicial Murder of Jean Calas, § 165, 5.
1765. Universal German Library, § 171, 4.
1769-1774. Pope Clement XIV., § 165, 9.
1772. Swedenborg dies, § 170, 5.
1773. Suppression of Jesuit Order, § 165, 9.
1774. Wolfenbüttel Fragments, § 171, 6.
1775-1799. Pius VI., Pope, § 165, 9, 10.
1775. C. A. Crusius dies, § 167, 3.
1776. Founding of the Order of the Illuminati, § 165, 13.
1778. Voltaire and Rousseau die, § 165, 14.
1780-1790. Joseph II., sole ruler, § 165, 10.
1781. Joseph’s Edict of Toleration, § 165, 10.
1782. Pope Pius VI. in Vienna, § 165, 10.
1786. Congress at Ems and Synod at Pistoja, § 165, 10.
1787. Edict of Versailles, § 165, 4.
1788. The Religious Edict of Wöllner, § 171, 5.
1789. French Revolution, § 165, 15.
1791. Wesley dies, § 169, 5.
Semler dies, § 171, 6.
1793. Execution of Louis XVI. and his Queen. Abolition of Christian
reckoning of time and of the Christian religion in France.
_Temple de la Raison_, § 165, 15.
1794. _Le peuple français reconnait l’Etre suprème et l’immortalité de
l’âme_, § 165, 15.
1795. Founding of London Missionary Society, § 172, 5.
1799. Schleiermacher’s “_Reden über die Religion_,” § 182, 1.
1800. Stolberg becomes a Roman Catholic, § 165, 6.
_Nineteenth Century_
1800-1823. Pope Pius VII., § 185, 1.
1801. French Concordat, § 203, 1.
1803. Recess of Imperial Deputies, § 192, 1.
1804. Founding of British and Foreign Bible Society, § 183, 4.
Kant dies, § 171, 10.
1806. End of Catholic German Empire, § 192.
1809. Napoleon under Ban; the Pope Imprisoned, § 185, 1.
1810. Founding of American Missionary Society at Boston, § 184, 1.
Schleiermacher professor at Berlin, § 182, 1.
1811. French National Council, § 185, 1.
1814. Vienna Congress. Restoration of the Pope, § 185, 1.
Restoration of the Jesuits, § 186, 1.
1815. The Holy Alliance, § 173.
1816. Mission Seminary at Basel, § 184, 1.
1817. The Theses of Harms, § 176, 1.
Union Interpellation of Frederick William III., § 177, 1.
1822. Introduction of the Prussian Service Book, § 176, 1.
Lyons Association for Spreading the Faith, § 186, 7.
1823-1829. Pope Leo XII., § 185, 1.
1825. Book of Mormon, § 211, 12.
1827. Hengstenberg’s _Evangel. Kirchenzeitung_, § 176, 1.
1829. English Catholic Emancipation Bill, § 202, 9.
Founding of Barmen Missionary Institute, § 184, 1.
1829-1830. Pope Pius VIII., § 185, 1.
1830. July Revolution, § 203, 2.
Halle Controversy, § 176, 1.
Abbé Chatel in Paris, § 187, 6.
1831-1846. Gregory XVI., Pope, § 185, 1.
1831. Hegel dies, § 174, 1.
1833. Beginning of Puseyite Agitation, § 203, 2.
1834. Conflict at Hönigern, § 177, 2.
Schleiermacher dies, § 182, 1.
1835. Strauss’ first Life of Jesus, § 182, 6.
Condemnation of Hermesianism, § 193, 1.
Edward Irving dies, § 211, 10.
Persecution of Christians in Madagascar, § 184, 3.
1836. Founding of Dresden Missionary Institute, § 184, 1.
1837. Emigrants of Zillerthal, § 198, 1.
Beginning of Troubles at Cologne, § 193, 1.
1838. Archbishop Dunin of Posen, § 193, 1.
Rescript of Altenburg, § 194, 2.
J. A. Möhler dies, § 191, 4.
English Tithes’ Bill, § 202, 9.
1839. Call of Dr. Strauss to Zürich, § 199, 4.
Bavarian order to give Adoration, § 195, 2.
Synod at Polozk, § 206, 2.
1810-1861. Frederick William IV. of Prussia, § 193.
1841. Schelling at Berlin, § 174, 1.
Constitution of Lutherans separated from National Church of Prussia, §
177, 2.
Founding of Evangelical Bishopric of Jerusalem, § 184, 8.
Founding of Gustavus Adolphus Association, § 178, 1.
1843. Disruption and Founding of the Free Church of Scotland, § 202, 7.
1844. German-Catholic Church, § 187, 1.
Wislicenus’ “Ob Schrift, ob Geist?” § 176, 1.
1845. Founding Free Church of Vaud, § 199, 2.
1845-1846. Conversions in Livonia, § 206, 3.
1846-1878. Pope Pius IX., § 185, 2-4.
1846. Founding of Evangelical Alliance in London, § 178, 3.
Fruitless Prussian General Synod in Berlin, § 193, 3.
1847. Prussian Patent of Toleration, § 193, 3.
War of Swiss Sonderbund, § 199, 1.
1848. Revolution of February and March, § 192, 4.
Founding of _Evangel. Kirchentag_, § 178, 4.
Founding of Catholic “Pius Association,” § 186, 3.
Bishops’ Congress of Würzburg, § 192, 4.
1849. Roman Republic, § 185, 2.
First Congress for Home Missions, § 183.
1850. Institution of Berlin “Oberkirchenrat,” § 193, 4.
Return of Pope to Rome, § 185, 2.
English Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, § 202, 11.
1851. Memorial of Upper Rhine Bishops, § 196, 1.
Taeping Rebellion in China, § 211, 15.
1852. Conference at Eisenach, § 178, 2.
1852-1870. Napoleon III., Emperor of the French, § 203, 3, 5.
1853. The _Kirchentag_ at Berlin acknowledges the _Augustana_, § 178, 4.
Missionary Institute at Hermannsburg, § 185, 1.
New Organization of the Catholic Hierarchy in Holland, § 200, 4.
1855. Sardinian Law about Monasteries, § 204, 1.
Austrian Concordat, § 198, 2.
1857. The Evangelical Alliance in Berlin, § 178, 3.
1858. Disturbances in Baden about Service Book, § 196, 3.
The Mother of God at Lourdes, § 188, 7.
1859. Franco-Austrian War in Italy, 204, 2.
1860. Persecution of Syrian Christians, § 207, 2.
Abrogation of Baden Concordat, § 196, 2.
1861. The Austrian Patent, § 198, 3.
Introduction of a Constitutional Church Order into Baden, § 196, 3.
Radama II. in Madagascar, § 184, 3.
Schism among Separatist Lutherans in Prussia, § 177, 3.
1862. Hanoverian Catechism Scandal, § 194, 3.
Renan’s Life of Jesus, 182, 8.
Württemberg Ecclesiastical Law, § 196, 6.
1863. Congress of Catholic Scholars at Munich, § 190, 10.
1864. Encyclical and Syllabus, § 185, 2.
Strauss’ and Schenkel’s Life of Jesus, § 182, 8, 17.
1865. The first _Protestantentag_ at Eisenach, § 180. 1.
1866. Founding of the North German League.
1867. St. Peter’s Centenary Festival at Rome, § 185, 2.
1869. Irish Church Bill, § 202, 10.
Opening of Vatican Council, § 189, 2.
1870. Proclamation of Doctrine of Infallibility, July 18th, § 189, 3.
Revocation of the Austrian Concordat. § 198, 2.
Overthrow of the Church States, § 185, 3.
1871. Founding of the new German Empire, January 18th, § 197.
The first Old Catholic Congress at Munich, § 190, 1.
“The Kanzelparagraph,” § 197, 4.
First Lutheran National Synod in the kingdom of Saxony, § 194, 1.
1872. Dr. Falk, Prussian Minister of Worship, § 193, 5.
The Prussian School Inspection Law, § 199, 3.
The Roman Disputation, § 175, 3.
The German Jesuit Law, § 197, 4.
Epidemic of Manifestations of the Mother of God in Alsace-Lorraine, §
188, 6.
1873. The four Prussian Ecclesiastical Laws, § 197, 5.
Mermillod and Lachat Deposed from office, § 199, 2, 3.
Constitution of Old Catholic Church in German Empire, § 190, 1.
1874. The Austrian Ecclesiastical Laws, § 198, 6.
Union Conference at Bonn, § 175, 6.
1875. The Encyclical _Quod numquam_ and the Embargo Act, § 197, 8.
Berlin Extraordinary General Synod, § 193, 5.
Pearsall Smith, § 211, 1.
1876. Marpinger Mother-of-God trick, § 188, 7.
The Dutch University Law, § 202, 2.
1878. Leo XIII. ascends the Papal chair, § 185, 5.
Organization of a Catholic Hierarchy in Scotland, § 202, 11.
Congress of Berlin, § 207, 5.
Amnesty to the recalcitrant Clergy of the Jura, § 199, 3.
First appearance of the Salvation Army, § 205, 2.
1879. The Belgian Liberal Education Act, § 200, 6.
1880. Abolition of the “_Kulturexamen_” in Baden, § 197, 14.
French Decree of March, § 203, 6.
1881. Robertson Smith’s Heresy Case, § 202, 8.
1882. The Confessional Lutheran Conflict with the Ritschlian School, §
182, 21.
1883. The Luther Jubilee, § 175, 10.
1884. The Belgian Clerical Education Act, § 200, 6.
Conclusion of the “Kulturkampf” in Switzerland, § 199, 2, 3.
1887. Prussian and Hessian Governments conclude Peace with Papal Curia, §
197, 13, 15.
Founding of Evangelical _Bund_, § 178, 5.
INDEX.
Aachen, Council of, § 91, 1, 2.
Aargau, § 199, 1.
Abælard, § 102, 1, 2; 104, 10.
Abbacomites, § 85, 5.
Abbadie, § 161, 7.
Abbate, Abbé, § 111, 2.
Abbo of Fleury, § 100, 2.
Abbot, § 44, 3.
Abbuna, § 52, 7.
Abdas of Susa, § 64, 2.
Abdelmoumen, § 95, 2.
Abderrhamann, § 81; 95, 2.
Abdias, § 32, 5.
Abel, von, § 195, 2.
Abelites, § 44, 7.
Abgar Bar Maanu, § 21.
" of Edessa, § 13, 2.
About, E., § 185, 3.
Abraham a St. Clara, § 158, 2.
Abrahamites, § 165, 16.
Abrasax, § 27, 3.
Abrenunciatio diaboli, § 35; 58, 1.
Absolution, Formula of, § 89, 5.
Abstinence, Days of, § 56, 2.
Abulfarajus, § 72, 2.
Abyssinian Church, § 64, 1; 72, 2; 150, 4; 152, 1; 160, 7; 166, 3; 187,
19.
Acacius of Amida, § 64, 2.
" of Constantinople, § 52, 5.
Acceptants, § 165, 7.
Accommodation Controversy, § 155, 12.
d’Achery, § 158, 2.
Achterfeld, § 191, 1.
Acindynos, § 69, 2.
Acoimetæ, § 44, 3; 52, 5, 6.
Acolytes, § 34, 3.
Acominatus, § 68, 5.
Acosta, Uriel, § 155, 14.
_Acta facientes_, § 22, 5.
Acta Pilati, § 22, 7; 32, 4.
Acta Sanctorum, § 158, 2.
Acton, Lord, § 189, 2.
Acts of Apostles, Apocryphal, § 32, 5, 6.
Acts of Martyrs, § 32, 8.
Adalbert of Bremen, § 96, 6; 97, 2.
" the Heretic, § 78, 6.
" of Prague, § 93, 13.
" of Tuscany, § 96, 1.
Adam, Book of, § 32, 3.
Adam, St. Victor, § 104, 10.
Adamantius (Origen), § 31, 5.
Adamites, § 27, 8.
" Bohemian, § 116, 5; 210, 2.
Adamnan, § 77, 8.
Addai, § 32, 6.
Adeodatus, § 47, 18.
Adiaphorist Controversy, § 141, 5.
Adoptionists, § 91, 1; 102, 6.
Adrianus, § 48, 1.
Adrumetum, § 53, 5.
Advent, § 56, 5.
Adventists, § 211, 11.
Advocatus diaboli, § 104, 8.
" ecclesiæ, § 86.
Aedesius, § 64, 1.
Aelfric, § 100, 1.
Aeneas of Gaza, § 47, 7.
" of Sylvius, _see_ Pius II.
Aeons, § 26, 2.
Aepinus, § 141, 3.
Aërius, § 62, 2.
_Aeternus ille_, § 149, 4.
Aetius, § 50, 3.
Africa, § 76, 3.
Africanus, § 31, 8.
Agape, § 17, 7; 36, 1.
Agapetæ, § 39, 3.
Agapetus, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
Agathangelos, § 64, 3.
Agatho, § 46, 11; 52, 8.
Agenda Controversy in Prussia, § 177, 1.
Agenum, Synod of, § 50, 3.
Agilulf, § 76, 8.
Agnostics, § 174, 2.
Agobard, § 90, 4, 9; 91, 1; 92, 2.
Agreda, § 156, 5.
Agricola, John, § 141, 1.
" Rudolph, § 120, 3.
Agrippa of Nettesheim, § 146, 2.
Aguas, § 209, 1.
Aguilar, § 209, 1.
Aguirre, § 158, 2.
Ahle, Rud., § 160, 5.
Aidan, § 77, 5.
d’Ailly, § 110, 7; 118, 4; 119, 5.
Aistulf, § 82, 1.
Aizanas, § 64, 1.
Ἀκέφαλοι, § 52, 5.
Ἀκρόασις, § 39, 2.
Ἀκροώμενοι, § 35, 1.
Alacoque, § 156, 6.
Alanus ab Insulis, § 102, 5.
Alaric, § 76, 2.
Alaviv, § 76, 1.
Alba, § 59, 7.
Alba, Duke of, § 136, 3; 139, 12.
_Albati_, § 116, 3.
Alberich, § 96, 1.
Albert the Great, § 103, 5.
" of Apeldern, § 93, 12.
" the Bear, § 93, 9.
" of Buxhöwden, § 93, 12.
" of Franconia-Brandenburg, § 137, 2, 4.
Albert of Mainz, § 122, 2; 123, 8; 134, 5.
Albert of Prussia, § 126, 4; 127, 3; 141, 2.
Albert of Suerbeer, § 73, 6; 92, 12.
Alberti, § 160, 3.
Albigensians, § 109, 1.
Albinus, § 160, 4.
Alboin, § 76, 8.
Albrechtsleute, § 208, 4; 211, 1.
Alcantara, Peter of, § 149, 16.
Alcantarmes, § 98, 8; 149, 6.
Alcibiades, § 40, 1.
Alcuin, § 90, 3; 91, 1, 2; 92, 1.
Aldgild, § 78, 3.
Aleander, § 123, 6, 7.
d’Aleman, Cardinal, § 110, 8; 118, 4.
Alemanni, § 78, 1.
d’Alembert, § 165, 14.
Alexander II., § 96, 6.
" III., § 96, 15, 16.
" IV., § 96, 20.
" V., § 110, 6; 119, 4.
" VI., § 110, 12.
" VII., § 156, 1, 2, 4, 5; 157, 5.
Alexander VIII., § 156, 1, 3.
Alexander I., Czars I., II., III., § 203, 1; 207, 3.
Alexander of Alexandria, § 50, 1.
" " Antioch, § 50, 8.
" " Hales, § 103, 4.
" " Newsky, § 73, 6.
" " Parma, § 139, 12.
Alexander Severus, § 22, 3.
Alexandrian School, § 31, 4; 47, 2, 3.
Alexis, § 73, 5.
Alexius Comnenus, § 71, 1, 4.
Alfarabi, § 103, 1.
Alfred the Great, § 90, 10.
Algazel, § 103, 1, 2.
Alger of Liege, § 102, 7.
Alkindi, § 103, 1.
Allatius, Leo, § 158, 2.
Allegri, § 158, 3.
Allen, W., § 139, 6.
Allendorf, § 167, 6.
Alliance, The Holy, § 173.
" The Evangelical, § 178, 2.
All Saints’ Day, § 57, 1; 88, 5.
All Souls’ Day, § 104, 7.
Almansor, § 95, 2.
Almohaden, § 95, 2.
Almoravides, § 95, 2.
Alms, Dispensers of, § 17, 2.
Alogians, § 33, 2.
Alpers, § 208, 10.
Alphonso the Catholic, § 81, 1.
" the Chaste, § 81, 1.
" of Aragon, Castile, and Portugal, § 95, 2.
Alphonso XII., § 205, 3.
Alsace-Lorraine, § 196, 7.
Altar, § 38; 60, 5; 88, 5.
Altenburg, § 194, 2.
Alting, § 160, 7.
Alumbrados, § 149, 16.
Alvarus, § 81, 1; 90, 6.
" Pelagius, § 118, 2.
Alzog, § 5, 6.
Amadeus of Savoy, § 110, 8.
Amalarius, § 90, 4; 91, 5.
Amalrich of Bena, § 108, 4.
Amandus, § 78, 3.
Ambo, § 60, 5.
Ambrose, § 47, 15; 50, 4; 57, 2, 3; 59, 5.
Ambrosian Chant, § 59, 5.
Ambrosiaster, § 47, 15.
Amen Sect, § 211, 8.
America, § 150, 3; 208; 209.
Amesius, § 161, 7; 162, 4.
Amling, § 144, 3.
Ammon, § 182, 2.
Ammonius, § 44, 3.
" Saccas, § 24, 2.
Amort, § 164, 15.
Amsdorf, § 127, 4; 135, 5; 141, 4, 6, 7.
Amulets, § 188, 13.
Amyrald, § 161, 3, 7.
Anabaptists, § 124, 1; 130, 5; 133, 6; 147; 148, 1; 163, 1, 2.
Anacletus I., § 17, 1.
" II., § 96, 13.
Ἀνάδοχαι, § 35, 3.
Ἀναγνώσται, § 34, 3.
Anastasius Biblioth., § 90, 6.
" I., § 46, 4; 51, 2.
" II., § 46, 8.
" IV., § 96, 10.
" Sinaita, § 47, 12; 60, 6.
Anathema, § 52, 3.
Anatolius, § 46, 7.
Anchorets, § 44.
Ancyra, Council of, § 50, 3.
Anderledy, § 182, 1.
Anderson, § 139, 1.
Andreä, Jac., § 141, 12.
" Val., § 160, 1.
Andrew II. of Hungary, § 94, 4.
" of Crain, § 110, 11.
" " Crete, § 70, 2.
Andronicus Paläologus, § 67, 5.
Angela of Brescia, § 149, 7.
Angelicals, § 149, 7.
Angels, Worship of, § 57, 3.
Angelo, Michael, § 115, 13; 149, 15.
Angelus Silesius, § 157, 4; 160, 3.
Angilram, § 87, 1.
Anglican Church, § 139, 6; 155; 202.
Anglo-Saxon Church, § 77, 4, 5, 6.
Anhalt, Reformation in, § 133, 4; 144, 3.
Anicetus, § 37, 2.
Anjou, § 96, 21, 22.
Ann, Veneration of St., § 57, 2; 115, 1.
Anna of Russia, § 73, 4.
" " Prussia, § 154, 3.
Annats, § 110, 15.
Anno of Cologne, § 96, 6; 97, 2.
Annunciation, Order of the, § 112, 8.
Anomæans, § 50, 3.
Ansbert of Milan, § 83, 3.
Ansegis, § 87, 1.
Anselm of Canterbury, § 67, 4; 96, 12; 101, 1, 3.
Anselm of Havelberg, § 67, 4.
" Laon, § 101, 1.
" Lucca, § 96, 6.
Ansgar, § 80, 1.
Anthimus of Constantinople, § 52, 6.
Anthimus, Exarch, § 207, 3.
Anthony, St., § 44, 1.
" of Padua, § 98, 4.
" Order of St., § 98, 2.
Anthusa, § 47, 1.
Antidicomarianites, § 62, 2.
Ἀντίδωρα, § 58, 4.
Antilegomena, § 36, 8.
Ἀντιμήνσιον, § 60, 5.
Antinomianism, § 27, 8.
Antinomian Controversy, § 141, 1.
Antioch, Council of, § 50, 2.
Antiochean School, § 31, 1; 47, 1; 52, 2.
Antiphonal Music, § 59, 5.
_Antiphonarium_, § 59, 5.
Antitrinitarians, § 148.
Anton of Bourbon, § 139, 14.
Anton Paul, § 159, 3.
Antonelli, § 185, 2, 4; 189, 1; 196, 7; 197.
Antonians, § 207, 2.
Antoninus Pius, § 22, 3.
" of Florence, § 113, 7.
Apelles, § 27, 12.
Aphraates, § 47, 13.
Apiarius, § 46, 5, 6.
Apocrisarians, § 46, 1.
Apocrypha, Non-Canonical, § 32.
" Deutero-Canonical, § 59, 1; 136, 4.
Apocryphal Controversy, § 161, 8; 183, 4.
Apollinaris, § 47, 5; 52, 1.
" Claudius, § 30, 8.
Apollonius of Tyana, § 24, 1.
Apollos, § 18, 3.
Apologists, Early Christian, § 30, 8.
Apology of Augsburg Confession, § 132, 7.
Apostles of the Lord, §§ 14-16.
Apostles, New Testament Office of, § 17, 5; 37, 1.
Apostles, Teaching of XII., § 30, 7.
Apostles, Doctrine of the, § 18, 2.
Apostles’ Creed, § 35, 2; 59, 2.
Apostolic Age, Beginning and Close of, § 14.
Apostolic Church, Constitution of, § 17.
Apostolic Epistles, § 32, 7.
" Fathers, § 30, 3-6.
" Constitutions and Canons, § 43, 4.
Apostolics, § 62, 1.
Appellants, § 165, 7.
_Appellatio ab abusu_, § 185, 4; 192, 4; 197, 9.
Appenfeller, § 170, 4.
Apse, § 60, 1.
Aquarii, § 27, 10.
Aquaviva, § 149, 8, 10, 12; 156, 13.
Arabia, § 21.
Arbues, § 117, 2.
Arcadius, Emperor, § 42, 4; 51, 3.
Archbishop, § 46, 1.
Archchaplain, § 84, 1.
Archdeacon, § 45, 3; 84, 2; 97, 3.
Archelaus of Cascar, § 29, 1.
Archimandrite, § 44, 3.
Architecture, § 60, 1; 88, 6; 104, 12; 115, 13; 149, 15; 158, 3; 174, 9.
Archpresbyter, § 45, 3.
Areopagite, Dionysius the, § 47, 11.
Arialdus, § 97, 5.
Arians, § 50; 76.
Aribert, § 76, 8.
Aristides, § 30, 8.
Aristobulus, § 10, 1.
Ariston of Pella, § 30, 8.
Aristotle, § 7, 4; 68, 2; 103, 1.
Arius, § 50, 1, 2.
Arles, Synod at, § 50, 2.
Armenian Church, § 64, 3; 72, 2; 82, 8; 207, 4.
Arminians, § 161, 2.
Arnaud, § 153, 4.
Arnauld, § 157, 5.
Arndt, E.M., § 174, 6; 181, 1.
" John, § 160, 1.
Arno of Salzburg, § 79, 1.
" " Reichersberg, § 102, 6, 7.
Arnobius, § 31, 12,
" the Younger, § 53, 5.
Arnold of Brescia, § 96, 13.
" " Citeaux, § 109, 1.
" the Dominican, § 108, 6.
" Gottfried, § 5, 3; 159, 4; 160, 2, 4.
Arnoldi, Bishop, § 187, 6.
Arnoldists, § 108, 7.
Arnulf of Carinthia, § 82, 8.
" " Rheims, § 96, 2.
Arran, Earl of, § 139, 8.
Ars Magna, § 103, 7.
" Moriendi, § 115, 5.
Arsacius, § 51.
Arsenius, § 70, 1.
Art, Early Christian and Mediæval, § 38, 3; 60.
Artemon, § 33, 3.
Articles of English Church, The XXXIX., § 139, 6.
Articles, Organic, § 203, 1.
Artotyrites, § 40, 4.
Ascension, Festival of, § 56, 4.
" of Mary, § 32, 4; 57, 2.
Asceticism, § 39, 3; 44, 6; 70, 3; 107.
Aschaffenberg Concord, § 110, 8.
Ash Wednesday, § 56, 4.
Asia Minor, Theological School of, § 31, 1.
Asinarii, § 23, 4.
Asseburg, § 170, 1.
Assemani, § 165, 12.
Assenath, § 32, 3.
Asses, Feast of, § 105, 2.
Asterius, § 50, 6.
" of Amasa, § 57, 4.
Astruc, § 165, 11.
Asylum, Right of, § 43, 1.
Athanaric, § 76.
Athanasian Creed, § 59, 2.
Athanasius, § 44; 47, 3; 50; 52, 2.
Athenagoras, § 30, 10.
Athos, Monks of Mount, § 70, 3; 69, 1.
_Atrium_, § 60, 1.
Attila, § 46, 7.
Atto of Vercelli, § 100, 2.
d’Aubigné, Merle, § 178, 2.
" Th. A., § 139, 17.
Audians, § 62, 1.
_Audientes_, § 35, 1.
_Audientia episc._, § 43, 1.
Augsburg Confession, § 132, 7.
Augsburg Religious Peace, § 137, 5.
Augustus of Saxony, § 141, 12.
Augusta, § 139, 19.
Augusti, § 182, 5.
Augustine, § 47, 18, 19; 53, 2-5; 54, 1; 61, 1, 4; 63, 1.
Augustine, Missionary to England, § 77, 4.
Augustinus Triumphus, § 118, 2.
Augustinian Order, § 98, 6; 112, 5.
August Conference, § 179, 1.
Aurelian, Emperor, § 22, 5; 33, 8.
" Bishop, § 63, 1.
Auricular Confession, § 61, 1; 104, 4.
Aurifaber, § 129, 1.
_Ausculta fili_, § 110, 1.
Australia, § 184, 7; 202, 12.
Austria, § 165, 9; 190, 3; 198.
Autbert, § 81, 1.
Auto al nasciemento, § 115, 12.
" de fé, § 117, 2.
" sacramentale, § 115, 12.
Autocephalic Bishops, § 46, 1.
Auxentius of Dorostorus, § 76, 1.
" of Milan, § 47, 14.
Avars, § 79, 1.
Avenarius, § 142, 6.
Aventin, § 120, 3.
Averrhoes, § 103, 1, 2.
Avicenna, § 103, 1, 2.
Avignon, § 110, 2-5.
Avitus, § 53, 6; 76, 5.
Azimites, § 67, 3.
Baader, Francis, § 175, 5; 187, 3; 191, 2.
Baanes, § 71, 1.
Babäus, § 52, 3.
Babeuf, § 212, 1.
Babylonian Exile of Popes, § 110, 2-5.
Bach, Sebastian, § 167, 7.
Bacon, Roger, § 103, 8.
Bacon, Lord Verulam, § 164, 1.
Baden, § 196, 2, 3; 197, 13.
Bahrdt, § 170, 4, 7.
Baius, Michael, § 149, 13.
Bajazet, § 110, 11.
Baläus, § 48, 7.
Balde, Jac., § 158, 3.
Baldwin of Jerusalem, § 94, 1; 98, 7.
Baldwin of Flanders, § 94, 4.
" the Heretic, § 108, 4.
Balsamon, § 68, 5.
Balthazar of Fulda, § 151, 2.
Baltic Provinces of Russia, § 139, 3; 206, 3.
Baltimore, Lord, § 208, 5.
Baltzer, § 191, 1, 3.
Baluzius, § 158, 2.
Bampfield, § 163, 3.
Ban, § 89, 6; 106, 1.
Bañez, § 149, 13.
Bangor, § 85, 4.
Baphomet, § 112, 7.
Baptism, § 35, 2-4; 58, 1, 5; 141, 13.
Baptismal Font, § 60, 4; 88, 5.
_Baptismus Clinicorum_, § 35, 3.
Baptists, § 163, 3; 170, 6; 208, 1; 211, 3.
Baptistries, § 60, 4.
Bär, David, § 170, 4.
Baradai, § 52, 7.
Barbatianus, § 62, 2.
Barbs, § 108, 10.
Barckhausen, § 169, 1.
Barclay, § 163, 5.
Bar-Cochba, § 25.
Bardesanes, § 27, 5.
Barefooted Friars, § 98, 3; 149, 6.
Bar Hanina, § 47, 15.
Bar Hebræus, § 72, 2.
Bari, Synod at, § 67, 4.
Barkers, § 170, 7.
Barlaam, § 67, 5; 69, 2.
Barlaam and Josaphat, § 68, 6.
Barletta, § 115, 2.
Barnabas, § 14; 30, 4.
Barnabites, § 149, 7.
Barnim, § 133, 4.
Baronius, § 5, 2; 149, 14.
Barriere, § 149, 6.
Barrow, § 143, 4.
Barsumas, § 52, 3.
Bartholomew, Massacre of St., § 139, 16.
Bartholomew of Pisa, § 98, 3.
Bartolemeo, Fra, § 115, 13.
Basedow, § 171, 4.
Basel, § 130, 3, 8; 196, 4.
" Council of, § 110, 8, 9; 119, 7.
Basil the Great, § 44; 47, 4; 59, 6.
" chief of Bogomili, § 71, 4.
" of Ancyra, § 50, 3.
" the Macedonian, § 67, 1; 68, 1; 71, 1; 73, 1.
Basilica, § 60, 1, 2.
Basilicus, § 139, 26.
Basilides, the Gnostic, § 27, 2.
" the Martyr, § 22, 4.
Basnage, § 5, 2; 161, 7.
Basrelief, § 60, 6.
Bassi, § 149, 6.
Bathori, Steph., § 139, 18.
Bauer, Bruno, § 174, 1; 182, 6.
" Lor., § 171, 7.
Baumgarten-Crusius, § 182, 4.
" M., § 180, 1; 194, 6.
" Sigism. Jac., § 167, 4.
Baumstark, § 175, 7.
Baur, Chr. F., § 182, 7; 5, 4.
" Gust., § 194, 1.
Bautain, § 91, 1.
Bavaria, § 78, 2; 151, 2; 165, 10; 195; 197, 14.
Bavo, § 78, 3.
Baxter, § 162, 3.
Bayle, § 164, 4.
Bayly, Lewis, § 162, 3.
Beatification, § 104, 8.
Beaton, § 139, 8.
Beaumont, § 165, 7.
Bebel, § 212, 5.
Bebenburg, § 118, 2.
Beccus, § 67, 4.
Beck, Tob., § 182, 12.
Becket, § 96, 16.
Bede, The Venerable, § 90, 2.
Beethoven, § 174, 10.
Begging Friars, § 98, 3-6; 103, 3-6; 112, 2-6.
Beghards and Beguins, § 98, 7; 116, 5.
Bekker, Balthaz., § 161, 5.
Belgium, § 200, 4-7.
Bellarmine, § 149, 4, 10, 14.
Beller, Card., § 188, 13.
Bellini, § 115, 13.
Bells, § 60, 5.
" Baptism of, § 88, 5.
Βῆμα, § 60, 1.
Bembo, § 120, 1.
Benard, Lor., § 156, 7.
Bender, § 176, 4.
Benedetto of Mantova, § 139, 23.
Benedict III., § 82, 5.
" V., § 96, 1.
" VI., VII., § 96, 2.
" VIII., IX., 96, 4.
" X., § 96, 6.
" XI., § 110, 1.
" XII., § 110, 4; 67, 5; 112, 1.
Benedict XIII., XIV., § 165, 1.
" of Aniane, § 85, 2.
" Levita, § 87, 1.
" of Nursia, § 85, 1.
Benedictines, § 85; 98, 1; 112, 1; 186, 2.
Benedict Medal, § 188, 13.
Benefice System, § 86, 2.
Bengel, § 167, 3.
Benno of Meissen, § 93, 9; 129, 1.
Berengar, § 101, 1, 2.
Berengar, I., II., § 96, 1.
Berg, John, § 153, 7.
" Book of, § 141, 12.
Berlage, § 188, 6.
Berleburger Bible, § 170, 1.
Bern, § 130, 4; 199, 3, 4.
Bernard of Clairvaux, § 102, 2, 3; 94, 2; 96, 13; 104, 10; 108, 2, 3, 7;
109.
Bernard the Missionary, § 93, 10.
" Sylvester, § 102, 10.
" de Saisset, § 110, 1.
" Tolomei, § 112, 1.
Bernardino of Siena, § 112, 3.
Bernardines, § 98, 1.
Berno of Clugny, § 98, 1.
Berruyer, § 165, 14.
Bertha, § 77, 4.
Bertheau, § 182, 11.
Berthold of Limoges, § 98, 6.
" of Loccum, § 93, 12.
" of Regensburg, § 104, 1.
" Leonard, § 171, 7.
Berti, § 165, 15.
Bertrada, § 96, 10.
Bertrand de Got, § 110, 2.
Berylle, Pet., § 156, 7.
Beryllus, § 33, 6.
Bespopowtschini, § 163, 10.
Bessarion, § 67, 6; 68, 2; 120, 1.
Besser, § 181, 4.
Bestmann, § 182, 21.
Bethel, § 183, 1.
Bethman-Hollweg, § 193, 4.
Beuggen, § 183, 1.
Beust, von, § 198, 2, 4.
Beyschlag, § 182, 10.
Beza, § 138, 8; 139, 14; 143, 2, 5.
Bianchi, § 116, 3.
Bible Societies, § 183, 4; 185, 1.
" Communists, § 211, 6.
" Revision, § 181, 4.
" Translations, § 37, 1; 59, 1; 115, 4.
Bible reading forbidden, § 105, 3; 185, 1.
_Biblia pauperum_, § 115, 3.
Bickell, § 194, 4.
Biedermann, § 182, 19.
Biel, Gebr, § 113, 3.
Bienemann, § 142, 4.
Bilderdijk, § 200, 2.
Billicanus, § 122, 2.
Bilocation, § 105, 4.
Bingham, § 169, 6.
Bischof, Conrad, § 175, 2.
Bishops, § 17, 5; 34, 2; 45; 84; 97.
" Election of, § 34, 3; 45; 84; 97, 3.
Bishops’ Bible, § 202, 1.
" Paragraph, § 197, 11, 12.
Bismarck, § 197; 212, 5.
Bittner, § 175, 2.
Blackburne, § 171, 1.
Blahoslaw, § 139, 19.
Blanc, Louis, § 212, 1.
Blandina, § 22, 3.
Blandrata, § 148, 3.
Bläsilla, § 44, 4.
Blastus, § 37, 2.
Blau, Dr., § 165, 13.
Blaurer, § 125, 1; 133, 3; 143, 2.
Blaurock, § 147, 3.
Blavatski, § 211, 18.
Bleek, § 182, 11.
Blondel, § 161, 7.
Blood vases, § 35, 2.
" baptism, § 35, 4.
" revenge, § 88, 5.
Bloody Marriage, § 139, 16.
Blot-Sweyn, § 93, 3.
Blount, § 168, 3.
Blue Ribbon Army, § 211, 2.
Blum, Bishop, § 197, 6, 11.
Blumhardt, § 196, 5.
Bluntschli, § 180, 1; 196, 3.
Boabdil, § 95.
Bobadilla, § 149, 8.
Bobbio, § 78, 1; 85, 4.
Boccaccio, § 115, 10.
Bochart, § 161, 6.
Bodelschwingh, § 183, 1.
Bodin, § 117, 4; 148, 3.
Boeckh, § 181, 3.
Boethius, § 47, 23.
Bogatzky, § 167, 6, 8.
Bogomili, § 71, 4.
Bogoris, § 72, 3.
Böhl v. Faber, § 174, 7.
Böhme, Jacob, § 160, 2.
" Mart., § 142, 4.
Bohemia, § 79, 3; 93, 6; 139, 19; 153, 2.
Bohemian Brethren, § 119, 8; 139, 19.
Böhmer, § 167, 5.
Böhringer, § 5, 4.
Bois, Professor, § 203, 8.
Bolanden, Cour. v., § 175, 2.
Boleslaw of Poland, § 93, 7.
" " Bohemia, 93, 6.
" Chrobry, 93, 7.
Boleyn, Anne, § 139, 4.
Bolingbroke, § 170, 1.
Bolivia, § 209, 2.
Bollandists, § 158, 2.
Bolsec, § 138, 3.
Bolsena, Mass of, § 104, 7.
Bomberg, § 120, 9.
Bomelius, § 125, 2.
Bona, § 158, 2.
Bonald, § 186, 9.
Bonaventura, § 103, 4; 104, 10.
Boniface, Apostle of Germany, § 78, 4-8.
Boniface I., § 46, 6.
" II., § 46, 8.
" III., IV., § 46, 10.
" VI., § 82, 8.
" VII., § 96, 2.
" VIII., § 110, 1; 99, 4; 117, 1.
" IX., § 110, 6; 117, 2.
_Boni homines_, § 108, 2.
Bonner, Bp., § 139, 4, 5.
Bonosus, § 62, 2.
Book of Discipline, § 139, 9.
Boos, Mart., § 187, 2.
Booth, General, § 211, 2.
Bordelum, Sectaries at, § 170, 4.
Borgia, § 110, 10, 12.
" Francis, § 149, 8.
Borromeo, § 149, 17; 151, 2.
" Society, § 186, 4.
Borsenius, § 170, 4.
Boruth, § 79, 1.
Borziwoi, § 79, 3.
Bosio, Ant., § 38, 1.
Boso, § 95, 3.
Bossuet, § 5, 2; 153, 7; 156, 3; 157, 3; 158, 2.
Bost, Pastor, § 156, 1.
Bothwell, § 139, 10.
Bourdaloue, § 159, 2.
Bourgos, Pragmatic Sanction of, § 110, 9.
Bourignon, § 157, 4.
Bouthillier de Rancé, § 156, 8.
Boyle, § 164, 3.
Bradacz, M. v., § 119, 8.
Bradwardine, § 113, 2.
Braga, Syn. of, § 76, 4.
Brakel, § 169, 2.
Bramante, § 115, 3; 149, 15.
Brandenburg, § 134, 5; 154, 3.
Brandt, § 181, 4.
Braniss, § 174, 2.
Brant, Seb., § 115, 11.
Braun, Hermesian, § 191, 1.
Brazil, § 150, 3; 209, 3.
Breckling, § 163, 9.
Breithaupt, § 159, 3.
Breitinger, § 162, 6.
Bremen, § 127, 4; 144, 2.
Brendel, § 151, 1.
Brentano, § 188, 3.
Brenz, § 131, 1; 133, 3; 141, 8; 142, 2, 6.
Brest, Synod of, § 72, 4; 151, 3.
Brethren, The four long, § 51, 3.
" of the Free Spirit, § 116, 5.
Brethren of the Common Life, § 112, 9.
Brethren, Bohemian and Moravian, § 119, 7.
Brethren, The United, § 168.
Bretschneider, § 174, 3; 182, 2.
Bretwalda, § 77, 4.
Breviary, § 56, 2; 149, 14.
Briçonnet, § 120, 8; 138, 1.
Bridaine, § 158, 1.
Bridge-Brothers, § 98, 9.
Bridget, St., § 110, 5; 112, 4, 8.
Bridgewater Treatises, § 174, 3.
Brief, Papal, § 110, 16.
Briesmann, § 139, 3.
Brinckerinck, § 112, 9.
Brinkmann, § 197, 6, 11.
Britons, Ancient, § 77.
Broad Churchmen, § 202, 1.
Broglie, Duc de, § 203, 5, 6.
" Bishop, § 200, 1.
Brothers of the Common Life, § 112, 9.
Brothers of Mercy, § 149, 7.
Brothers of the Free Spirit, § 116, 5.
Brown, Archbishop, of Dublin, § 139, 7.
Brown, Rob. (Brownist), § 143, 4.
" Thomas, § 164, 3.
Bruccioli, § 115, 4.
Brück, Dr., § 132, 7.
Brucker, Jac., § 167, 8.
Bruggeler, Sectaries, § 170, 4.
Brunehilde, § 77, 7; 46, 10.
Bruneleschi, § 115, 13.
Bruno of Cologne, § 97, 2.
" the Missionary, § 93, 13.
" of Rheims, § 98, 2.
" " Toul, § 96, 5.
" Giordano, § 146, 3.
Brunswick, § 127, 4; 135, 6; 194, 5.
Bucer, § 122, 2; 124, 3; 131, 1; 133, 8; 135, 1, 3, 7; 139, 5.
Buchel, Anna v., § 170, 4.
Buchführer, § 128, 1.
Büchner, § 174, 3.
Budæus, § 120, 8.
Buddeus, § 167, 1, 4.
Buffalo Synod, § 208, 4.
Bugenhagen, § 125, 1; 127, 4; 133, 4; 139, 2; 142, 2.
Bülau, § 139, 3.
Bulgaria, § 67, 1; 73, 3; 175, 4; 207, 3.
_Bulgari_, § 108, 1.
Bulls, Papal, § 110, 16.
Bull, The Golden, § 97, 2; 110, 4.
Bullinger, § 133, 8; 138, 7; 161, 4.
Bunsen, § 181, 1, 4; 182, 17; 198, 1.
Bunyan, § 162, 3.
Büren, § 144, 2.
Burgundians, § 76, 5.
Burmann, § 161, 7.
Burnet, Bishop, § 161, 3.
Bursfeld, Congregation of, § 112, 1.
Busch, John, § 112, 1.
Busembaum, § 158, 1; 149, 10.
Buttlar Sectaries, § 170, 4.
Butter week, § 56, 7.
Buxhöwden, § 93, 12.
Buxtorf, § 161, 3, 6.
Byron, § 174, 7.
Byse, § 200, 8.
Caballero, § 174, 7.
Cabasilas, § 68, 5; 70, 4.
Cabet, § 212, 3.
Cabrera, § 205, 4.
Cadan, Peace of, § 133, 3.
Cæcilius, § 63, 1.
Cædmon, § 89, 3.
Cæsarius of Arles, § 47, 20; 53, 5; 61, 4.
Cæsarius of Heisterbach, § 103, 9.
Cainites, § 27, 6.
Caius, § 31, 7; 33, 9.
Cajetan, Card., § 122, 3.
" of Thiene, § 149, 7.
Calas, § 164, 5.
Calatrava, Order of, § 98, 8.
Calderon, § 158, 3.
Calendar Reform, § 149, 3.
Calixt, Geo., § 153, 7; 158, 2, 8.
Calixtines, § 119, 7.
Calixtus II., § 96, 11.
" III., § 96, 15; 110, 10.
Callinice, § 71, 1.
Callistus, § 33, 5; 41, 1.
Calmet, § 165, 14.
Calov, § 153, 7; 159, 2, 4, 5; 160, 2.
Calvin, § 138; 143, 5.
Camaldulensian Order, § 98, 1.
_Camera Romana_, § 110, 16.
Camerarius, § 142, 6.
Camisards, § 153, 4.
Campanella, § 164, 1.
Campanus, § 148, 1.
Campbellites, § 170, 6.
Campe, § 171, 4.
Campegius, § 126, 2, 3; 132, 6.
Campello, § 190, 3.
Camp-Meeting, § 208, 1.
_Cancellaria Romana_, § 110, 16.
Canisius, § 149, 14; 151, 1.
" Society, § 186, 4.
Canon, Biblical, § 36, 8; 59, 1.
" of the Mass, § 59, 5.
" in Music, § 115, 8.
" Law, § 43, 2.
_Canones Apostt._, § 43, 4.
Canonesses, § 85, 3.
Canonical Age, § 45, 1.
" Life, § 84, 4; 97, 3.
_Canonici_, § 84, 4; 97, 3.
Canossa, § 96, 8.
Canova, § 174, 9.
Canstein, § 167, 8.
_Cantores_, § 34, 3.
_Cantus Ambros._, § 59, 5.
" figuratus, § 104, 11.
" firmus, § 59, 5.
Canute the Great, § 93, 2, 4.
Canus, § 149, 14.
Canz, § 167, 2.
Capistran, § 112, 3.
Capito, § 124, 3; 130, 3; 131, 1.
_Capitula Carisiaca_, § 91, 5.
" _Clausa_, § 111.
" _episcoporum_, § 87, 1.
Capitularies, § 87, 1.
Cappadocians, The Three, § 47, 5.
Cappadose, § 200, 2.
Cappel, Peace of, § 130, 9, 10.
Cappellus, § 161, 3, 6.
Capuchins, § 149, 6.
Caraccioli, § 139, 24.
Caraffa, § 149, 2, 7; 139, 22, 23.
Carantanians, § 79, 1.
Carbeas, § 71, 1.
Cardale, § 211, 10.
Cardinals, § 97, 1.
Carey, § 172, 5.
Carl, Dr., § 170, 1.
Carlomann, § 78, 5.
Carlstadt, § 122, 4; 124, 1, 3; 131, 1; 139, 2.
Carmelites, § 98, 6; 149, 6.
Carnesecchi, § 139, 22, 23.
Carnival, § 56, 4; 105, 2.
Carpentarius, § 128, 1.
Carpocrates, § 27, 8.
Carpov, § 167, 4.
Carpzov, J. B., § 117, 4, 158, 3; 167, 1.
Carpzov, J. G., § 167, 4.
Carranza, § 139, 21.
Carrasco, § 205, 4.
Carthusians, § 98, 2; 112.
las Casas, § 150, 3.
Casimir of Berleburg, § 170.
" " Brunswick, § 126, 4.
Cassander, § 137, 8.
Cassel, Religious Conference of, § 154, 4.
Cassianus, § 44, 4; 47, 21; 53, 5.
Cassiodorus, § 47, 23.
Castellio, § 138, 4; 143, 5.
Castellus, § 161, 6.
Castelnau, Pet. v., § 109, 1.
Casuists, § 113, 4.
Casula, § 59, 7.
Catacombs, § 38, 1-3.
Cataphrygians, § 40, 1.
Catechetical School, § 31, 1.
Catechism, Heidelberg, § 144, 1.
" Luther’s, § 127, 1.
Catechisms, § 115, 5.
Catechismus Genevensis, § 138, 2.
" Romanus, § 149, 14.
Catechoumens, § 35, 1.
_Catenæ_, § 48, 1.
Cathari, § 108, 1.
Catharine of Aragon, § 139, 4.
" Bora, § 129.
" de Medici, § 139, 13 ff.
" II. of Russia, § 165, 9.
" St., of Sweden, § 112, 8.
" of Siena, § 112, 4; 110, 5, 6.
Cathedral, § 84, 4.
" Schools, § 90, 8.
Catholicus, § 52, 7.
Catholicity, § 20, 2; 34, 7.
Cave, § 161, 7.
Celbes, § 28, 4.
Celibacy, § 39, 3; 45, 2; 84, 3; 96, 7; 111, 1; 187, 4.
Cellites, § 116, 3.
Celsus, § 23, 3.
Celtes, Conrad, § 120, 3.
Celtic Church, § 77.
Cemeteries, § 38; 60, 2.
Cencius, § 96, 7.
Centuries, The Magdeburg, § 5, 2.
Ceolfrid, § 77, 3, 8.
Cerdo, § 27, 11.
Cerinthus, § 17, 3; 27, 1.
Cesarini, § 110, 7.
Cesena, § 112, 2.
Cevennes, Prophets of the, § 153, 4; 170, 2, 7.
Chaila, du, § 153, 4.
Chalcedon, Council of, § 46, 1, 7; 52, 4.
Chaldean Christians, § 52, 3; 72, 1; 150, 4.
Chalmers, § 178, 2; 202, 7.
Chalybæus, § 174, 2.
_Chambre ardente_, § 139, 13.
Chamier, § 161, 7.
Chandler, § 171, 1.
Channing, § 208, 4.
Chantal, § 156, 7; 157, 1.
Chapels, § 84, 1, 2.
Chaplain, § 84, 1, 2.
Chapter of Cathedral, § 84, 4; 97, 2; 111.
Chapters, Controversy of the three, § 52, 6.
Charlemagne, § 78, 9; 79, 5; 81, 1; 82, 2, 3; 89, 2; 90, 1; 92, 1.
Charles of Anjou, § 96, 20-22.
" the Bald, § 82, 4, 5, 8; 90, 1.
" Martel, § 81; 82, 1.
" IV., Emperor, § 110, 4, 5; 117, 2.
" VII. of France, § 110, 9.
" V., Emperor, § 123, 5.
" I., II. of England, § 153, 6; 155, 1, 3.
" IX. of France, § 139, 14-16.
" IX. of Sweden, § 139, 1.
" XII. of Sweden, § 165, 4.
" Albert of Sardinia, § 204, 1.
Charles Felix of Sardinia, § 204, 1.
" Alexander of Württemberg, § 165, 5.
Charles Theodore of Bavaria, § 165, 10.
Charles of Lorraine, Cardinal, § 139, 13; 149, 2, 17.
Charisms, § 17, 1.
Chastel, § 5, 5.
Chateaubriand, § 174, 7.
Chatel, Abbé, § 187, 6.
Chatimar, § 79, 1.
Chazari, § 73, 2.
Chemnitz, § 141, 2, 12; 142, 2, 6.
Cherbury, § 164, 3.
Children, The Praying, § 167, 1.
" Baptism of, § 17, 7; 35, 4; 58, 1.
Children’s Communion, § 36, 3; 58, 4.
Children’s Crusade, § 94, 4.
Chili, § 209, 2.
Chiliasm, § 33, 9; 40, 4; 108, 5; 162, 1; 211, 7.
Chillingworth, § 161, 3.
China, § 93, 15; 150, 1; 156, 12; 165, 3; 184, 6; 186, 7.
Chinese Rites, § 156, 12.
Choir, § 60, 1.
Chorale, § 142, 5; 160, 5; 181, 2.
_Chorepiscopi_, § 34, 3; 45; 84; 97, 3.
Choristers, § 97, 3.
_Chorisantes_, § 116, 2.
Chosroes, § 11; 64, 2.
Chrism, § 35, 4.
Christ, Order of, § 112, 8.
Christian Association (German), § 172, 5.
Christian, Bishop, § 93, 13.
" II., III. of Denmark, § 139, 2.
Christian Baptists, § 170, 6; 208, 1.
Christina of Sweden, § 153, 1.
Christopher of Württemberg, § 133, 3.
_Christo sacrum_, § 172, 4.
Χριστὸς πάσχων, § 48, 5.
Chrodegang of Metz, § 48, 4.
_Chronicon paschale_, § 48, 2.
Chrysolaras, § 120, 1.
Chrysologus, § 47, 17.
Chrysostom, § 47, 8; 51, 3; 53, 1.
Chubb, § 171, 1.
Churches, § 38.
Church Army, § 211, 2.
" Discipline, § 39; 61; 89, 6; 106.
" History, Idea, Periods, Sources, etc., of, §§ 1-5.
" Law, Catholic, § 43, 3-5; 68, 5; 87; 99, 5.
" Law, Protestant, § 167, 5.
" Property, § 45, 4; 86, 1; 96, 15.
" States, § 82, 1; 185, 3.
" Year, § 56, 6.
Chytræus, § 141, 12; 142, 6.
_Ciborium_, § 60, 5.
Cilicium, § 106.
Cimabue, § 104, 14.
Circumcelliones, § 63, 1.
Cistercians, § 98, 1.
Ciudad, § 147, 7.
Clara of Assisi, § 98, 3.
" Nuns of St., § 98, 3.
Clarendon, Council at, § 96, 16.
Clarke, Sam., § 171, 1.
_Classes_, § 143, 1.
Classical Synods, § 143, 1.
Claude, § 161, 3, 7.
Claudius Apollinaris, § 30, 4.
" I., Emperor, § 22, 1.
" II., " § 22, 5.
" of Savoy, § 148, 3.
" " Turin, § 90, 4; 92, 3.
" Matthias, § 171, 11.
Clausen, § 201, 1.
Clemangis, § 110, 3; 118, 4.
Clemens, F. J., § 191, 3.
Clement of Alexandria, § 31, 4.
" of Rome, § 30, 3.
" II., § 96, 4, 5.
" III., § 96, 8, 16.
" IV., § 96, 20; 103, 8.
" V., § 110, 2; 112, 7.
" VI., § 110, 4, 5.
" VII., § 110, 6; 126, 2; 132, 2; 149, 1.
" VIII., § 110, 7; 149, 2, 13, 14.
" IX., X., § 156, 1.
" XI., § 165, 1, 7.
" XIII., XIV., § 165, 9.
" a Heretic of Britain, § 78, 6.
Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, § 28, 3, 4.
_Clementinæ_, § 99, 5.
Cleomenes, § 33, 5.
Clergy, § 34, 4.
_Clerici vagi_, § 84, 2.
_Clericis laicos_, § 110, 1.
Clericus, § 169, 6.
Clermont, Synod at, § 94; 96, 7.
Climacus, § 47, 12.
_Clinici_, § 34, 3; 45, 1.
Cloister Schools, § 90, 8.
Cloots, Anach., § 165, 12.
Clothilda, § 76, 5, 9.
Clovis, § 76, 9.
Clugny, § 98, 1; 165, 2.
Cluniacs, § 98, 1.
Cocceius, § 161, 4, 6; 162, 5.
Cochlæus, § 129, 1; 135, 10.
Cock, H. de, § 200, 2.
Codde, § 165, 8.
Codex Alexandrinus, § 152, 2.
" Sinaiticus, § 182, 11.
Cœlestine I., § 46, 1; 52, 3; 53, 4.
" II., § 96, 13.
" III., § 96, 16.
" IV., § 96, 19.
" V., § 96, 22.
Cœlestines, § 98, 2.
" Eremites, § 98, 4.
Cœlestius, § 53, 4.
Cœlicolæ, § 42, 6.
Cœnobites, § 44.
Coisi, § 77, 4.
Coke, § 169, 4.
Colani, § 203, 8.
Colenso, § 202, 4.
Coleridge, § 202, 1.
Colet, § 120, 6, 7.
_Colidei_, § 77, 8.
Coligny, § 139, 14, 16; 143, 6.
_Collatio cum Donatist._, § 63, 1.
_Collegia philobibl._, § 159, 3.
" _pietatis_, § 159, 3.
Collegial System, § 167, 5.
Collegiants, § 163, 1.
Collegiate Foundations, § 84, 4.
_Collegium caritativum_, § 169, 1.
" _Germanicum_, § 151, 1.
" _Helveticum_, § 151, 2.
Collenbusch, § 172, 3.
Collins, § 171, 1.
Collyridian Nuns, § 57, 2.
Colman, § 77, 6.
Cologne, Cathedral of, § 104, 13.
" Conflict of, § 190, 1.
" Reformation of, § 135, 7; 136, 2; 137, 7.
Colombière, § 156, 6.
Colonna, § 110, 1, 3.
" Vittoria, § 139, 22.
Columba, § 77, 2.
Columbanus, § 77, 7.
Columbus, § 116.
Comenius, § 163, 9; 168, 2.
_Comes Hieron._, § 59, 3.
Commendatory Abbots, § 85, 5; 111, 2.
Commodian, § 31, 12; 33, 9.
Commodus, § 22, 2.
Common Prayer, Book of, § 139, 5, 6.
_Communicatio idiomatum_, § 141, 9.
Communism, § 211, 6; 212, 1.
Compact, The Basel, § 119, 7.
Competentes, § 35, 1.
Compiegne, Diet of, § 82, 4.
Composition, § 89, 5, 6.
Compromise, Belgian, § 139, 12.
Comte, § 174, 2; 210, 1.
Concha, § 60, 1.
_Concilium Germanicum_, § 78, 5.
Conclave, § 96, 21.
Concomitantia, § 105, 1.
Concord of Wittenberg, § 133, 8.
" Formula of, § 141, 12.
Concordat of Austria, § 198, 2.
" " Baden, § 196, 2.
" " Bavaria, § 195, 1.
" " France, § 203, 1.
" " Holland, § 200, 1.
" " Portugal, § 205, 5.
" " Prussia, § 193, 1.
" " Spain, § 205, 1.
" " Upper Rhine, § 196, 1.
" " Vienna, § 110, 7.
" " Worms, § 96, 5.
" " Württemberg, § 96, 5.
Condé, § 139, 14, 16, 17.
" Louise de, § 186, 2.
Conference, Evangelical, § 178, 4.
_Confessio_, § 57, 1.
Confession, § 36, 3; 61, 1; 89, 6; 104, 4.
_Confessio Augustana_, § 132, 7.
" " _Variata_, § 141, 4, 7.
" _Belgica_, § 139, 12.
" _Bohemica_, § 139, 19.
" _Czengeriana_, § 139, 20.
" _Gallicana_, § 139, 14.
" _Hafnica_, § 139, 2.
" _Helvetica_ I., § 133, 8.
" " II., § 138, 7.
" _Hungarica_, § 139, 20.
" _Marchica_, § 154, 3.
" _Saxonica_, § 136, 8.
" _Scotica_, § 139, 9.
" _Sigismundi_, § 154, 3.
" _Tetrapolit._, § 132, 7.
Confession, Westminster, § 155, 1.
" Württemberg, § 136, 8.
_Confessores_, § 22, 5; 39, 2, 5.
Confirmation, § 35, 4; 139, 19; 167, 2.
_Confutatio Conf. August._, § 132, 7.
Congregatio de auxiliis, § 149, 13.
" _de propag. fides_, § 156, 9.
Congregationalists, § 143, 4; 162, 1; 202, 5.
Congregations, § 98, 1; 186, 2.
Conon, Pope, § 46, 11.
Cononites, § 57, 2.
Conrad I., Emperor, § 96, 1.
" II., § 96, 4.
" III., § 96, 13; 94, 2.
" IV., § 96, 20.
" of Hochsteden, § 104, 13.
" " Marburg, § 109, 3.
" " Massovia, § 93, 13.
" " Megenburg, § 118, 2.
Conradin, § 96, 20.
Consalvi, § 185, 1; 192, 3.
Conscientiarii, § 164, 4.
Consensus Dresdensis, § 141, 10.
" Genev., § 138, 7.
" Sendomir, § 139, 18.
" repetitus, § 159, 2.
" Tigurinus, § 138, 7.
Consilia evangelica, § 39.
Consistories, § 142, 1.
_Consolamentum_, § 108, 2.
Constance, Council of, § 110, 7; 119, 5, 7.
Constantia, § 50, 2.
Constantine the Great, § 28, 7; 42, 1, 2; 60, 1; 63, 1.
" I., Pope, § 46, 11.
" II., " § 82, 2.
" Chrysomalus, § 70, 4.
" Copronymus, § 66, 2.
" of Mananalis, § 71, 1.
" Monomachus, § 67, 3.
" Pogonnatus, § 52, 8.
" Porphyrogenneta, § 68, 1.
Constantinople, Second Œcum. Council at, § 46, 1; 50, 4, 5; 52, 2.
" Fifth Œcum. Council at, § 52, 6.
" Sixth Œcum. Council at, § 52, 8.
" Seventh Œcum. Council at, § 66, 2, 3.
" Eighth Œcum. Council at, § 67, 1.
Constantius, § 42, 2; 50, 2.
" Chlorus, § 22, 6.
_Constitutio Rom._, § 82, 4.
Constitution of Early Church, § 17.
Constitutiones apost., § 43, 4.
Contarini, § 135, 2; 139, 22.
_Continentes_, § 39, 3.
Contraremonstrants, § 161, 2.
_Convenensa_, § 108, 2.
Conventuals, § 112, 3.
_Conversi_, § 98.
Converts, Romish, § 153, 1; 165, 6; 175, 7.
Convocation, English, § 202, 3.
Copts, § 52, 7; 72, 2.
Coquerel, § 203, 4, 8.
Coracion, § 33, 9.
Coran, § 65.
Corbinian, § 78, 2.
Cordeliers, § 149, 6.
Cornelius, Bishop, § 42, 3.
Coronation, Papal, § 96, 23; 110, 15.
_Corporale_, § 60, 5.
Corporations Act, § 155, 3; 202, 5.
_Corpus Cathol. et Evangel._, § 153, 1.
" _Christi_ Festival, § 104, 7.
" _doctr. Misnicum_, § 141, 10.
" _juris canon._, § 99, 5.
" _Pruthen._, § 141, 2.
_Correctores Rom._, § 99, 5.
Correggio, § 115, 13.
Cosmas of Jerusalem, § 70, 2.
" Indicopleustes, § 48, 2.
" Patr., § 70, 4.
" Usurpator, § 66, 1.
Cossa, Cardinal, § 110, 7.
Costa, Is. da, § 200, 2.
Coster, § 149, 14.
Cotta, Urs., § 122, 1.
Councils, Œcumenical, § 43, 2.
Counter-Reformation, § 151; 153; 165, 4.
Cour, Did. de la, § 156, 4.
Courland, § 93, 12; 139, 3.
Court, Ant., § 165, 5.
Covenant, § 139, 8; 155, 1.
Cowper, § 172, 4.
Cranach, § 142, 2.
Cranmer, § 139, 4, 5.
Cranz, § 115, 8.
Crasselius, § 167, 6.
Crato of Crafftheim, § 141, 10; 137, 8.
Creationism, § 53, 1.
Crell, J., § 148, 4.
" Nich., § 141, 13.
" Paul, § 141, 10.
Crescens, § 30, 9.
Crescentius, § 96, 2, 4.
Creuzer, § 174, 4.
Cromwell, § 153, 5, 6; 155, 1-3.
Crookes, § 211, 17.
Cross, § 38, 2; 60, 6.
" Discovery of the, § 57, 5.
" Ordeal of the, § 88, 5.
" Sign of the, § 39, 1; 59, 8; 72, 5.
Crotus, Rubianus, § 120, 2, 5.
Crucifix, § 60, 6.
Cruciger, § 136, 7.
Cruco, § 93, 9.
Crüger, § 160, 5.
Crusaders, § 98, 8.
Crusades, § 94; 105, 3.
Crusius, Mart., § 139, 26.
" Chr. Aug., § 167, 4.
Crypto-Calvinists, § 141, 10, 13.
Crypts, § 38, 1; 60, 1.
Cubricus, § 29, 1.
Cudworth, § 164, 3.
Culdees, § 77, 8.
_Cum ex apostolatus officio_, § 149, 2.
Cummins, § 208, 1.
Cunæus, § 161, 6.
Cupola, § 60, 3.
_Curati_, § 84, 2.
Curæus, § 141, 10.
Curci, § 187, 5.
Curia, The Papal, § 110, 15.
Curio, § 139, 24.
Cursores, § 60, 5.
Cusa, Nich. of, § 113, 6.
Cynewulf, § 89, 3.
Cyprian, St., § 22, 5; 31, 11; 34, 1, 7, 8; 35, 3; 39, 2; 41, 2, 3.
" of Antioch, § 48, 8.
" Sal., § 167, 4; 169, 1.
Cyran, St., § 157, 2.
Cyriacus, § 104, 9.
Cyril of Alexandria, § 47, 6; 52, 2, 3.
" of Jerusalem, § 47, 10; 52, 2, 3.
" Lucar, § 152, 2.
" and Methodius, § 73, 2, 3; 79, 2, 3.
Cyrillonas, § 48, 7.
Cyrus of Alexandria, § 52, 8.
Czersky, § 186, 6.
Dach, Sim., § 160, 3.
Dächsel, § 186, 4.
Dagobert I., § 78, 1.
Daillé, § 161, 3, 7.
Dalberg, J. v., § 120, 2, 3.
" K. Th. v., § 187, 3; 192, 2.
Dale, § 202, 3.
_Dalmatica_, § 59, 7.
Damascus I., § 46, 4; 59, 1, 4.
" II., § 96, 5.
_Dames du Cœur sacré_, § 186, 1.
Damiani, Petrus, § 97, 4; 104, 10; 106, 4.
Damiens, § 158, 1.
Dandalo, § 94, 4.
Daniel of Winchester, § 78, 4.
Danites, § 211, 14.
Dankbrand, § 93, 5.
Dannecker, § 174, 9.
Dannhauer, § 159, 5.
Dante, § 115, 10.
Danzig, § 139, 18.
Darboy, § 189, 3; 203.
Darbyites, § 211, 11.
Darnley, § 139, 10.
Darwin, § 174, 3.
_Dataria Rom._, § 110, 16.
Daub, § 182, 6.
Daumer, § 175, 7.
David of Augsburg, § 103, 10.
" " Dinant, § 108, 4.
" Christian, § 167, 9.
Davidis, Fr., § 148, 3.
Davis, § 211, 17.
Deacon, § 17, 5; 34, 3.
Deaconess, § 34, 3.
Deaconess-institutes, § 183, 1.
Dean, § 84, 2.
Decius, Emperor, § 22, 5.
" Nich., § 142, 3.
Declaratio Thornuensis, § 153, 7.
Decretals, § 46, 3.
Decretists, § 99, 5.
Decretum Gelasianum, § 47, 22.
" Gratiani, § 99, 5.
_Defensores_, § 45, 5.
Deism, § 164, 3; 171, 1.
Delicieux, § 117, 2.
Delitzsch, § 182, 14.
Delrio, § 149, 11.
Demetrius of Alexandria, § 31, 5.
" Cydonius, § 68, 5.
" Mysos, § 139, 36.
Demiurge, § 26, 2.
Denek, § 148, 1.
Denecker, § 160, 1.
Denifle, § 191, 7.
Denison, § 202, 2.
Denmark, § 80; 93, 2; 139, 2; 201, 1.
Denzinger, § 191, 9.
Derezer, § 165, 11.
Dernbach, § 151, 1.
_De salute animarum_, § 193, 11.
Desanctis, § 204, 4.
Descant, § 104, 11.
Descartes, § 161, 3; 164, 1.
Deseret, § 211, 12.
Desiderius, § 82, 1.
Desprez, § 203, 3.
Dessau, Convention of, § 126, 5.
Dessler, § 167, 6.
Deutinger, § 191, 6.
“Deutsche Theologie,” § 114, 2.
De Valenti, § 174, 3.
Devay, § 139, 20.
Dhu Nowas, § 64, 4.
Diana of Poitiers, § 139, 13.
Diatessaron, § 30, 9; 36, 7.
Diaz, Juan, § 135, 10.
Didache, § 30, 7.
_Didascalia Apost._, § 43, 4.
Didenhofen, Synod of, § 82, 4.
Diderot, § 165, 12.
Didier de la Cour, § 156, 7.
Didymus of Alexandria, § 47, 5.
" Gabr, § 124, 1.
Dieckhoff, § 182, 21.
Diedrich, § 177, 3.
Diepenbrock, § 189, 1.
Dieringer, § 191, 6.
_Dies Stationum_, § 37; 56, 1.
Diestel, Past., § 176, 3.
Dietrich, Meister, § 103, 10.
" Veit, § 142, 2.
Dillmann, § 182, 11.
Dinant, David of, § 108, 4.
Dinder, Archbishop, § 197, 12.
Dinkel, Bishop, § 187, 3.
Dinter, § 173, 3; 180, 4.
Diocletian, Emperor, § 22, 6.
Diodorus of Tarsus, § 47, 8.
Diognetus, § 30, 6.
Dionysius of Alexandria, § 31, 6, 14; 33, 7, 9; 35, 3.
" the Areopagite, § 47, 11; 90, 8.
" _Exiguus_, § 47, 23.
" of Paris, § 25.
" " Rome, § 33, 7.
Dioscurus of Alexandria, § 52, 4.
" " Rome, § 46, 8.
Dippel, § 170, 3.
Diptychs, § 59, 6.
_Disciplina arcani_, § 36, 4.
Disputation at Baden, § 130, 6.
" " Basel, § 130, 3.
" " Bern, § 130, 7.
" " Leipzig, § 122, 4.
" " Rome, § 175, 3.
" " Zürich, § 130, 2.
Dissenters, § 143, 3, 4; 155, 1-3; 202, 5.
Dober, § 168, 3, 4, 11.
Docetism, § 26, 2.
_Doctor acutus_, § 113, 2.
" _angelicus_, § 103, 6.
" _audientium_, § 33, 1.
" _Christianiss._, § 113, 4.
" _ecstaticus_, § 114, 5.
" _invincibilis_, § 113, 3.
" _irrefragibilis_, § 103, 4.
" _melifluus_, § 102, 2.
" _mirabilis_, § 103, 8.
" _profundus_, § 103, 8; 116, 2.
" _resolutissimus_, § 113, 3.
" _seraphicus_, § 103, 4.
" _subtilis_, § 113, 1.
" _universalis_, § 103, 5.
_Doctores audientium_, § 34, 3.
" _ecclesiæ_, § 47, 22.
Döderlein, § 171, 8.
Dodwell, § 161, 7.
Dolcino, § 108, 8.
Döllinger, § 190, 5; 191, 5, 9; 175, 6; 5, 6.
Domenichino, § 149, 15.
Domenico da Pescia, § 119, 11.
Dominic, St., § 98, 4; 106, 3.
Dominicans, § 98, 5; 109, 2; 112, 4; 186, 2.
_Dominus ac redemt._, § 165, 9.
Domitian, Emperor, § 22, 1.
" Abbot, § 52, 6.
Domnus of Antioch, § 52, 4.
_Donatio Constantini_, § 87, 4.
Donatists, § 63, 1.
Donnet, Card., § 190, 3.
Doré, Gustav, § 174, 9.
Doring, Matt., § 113, 7.
_Dormitoria_, § 38, 2; 60, 4.
Dorner, § 182, 10.
Dorotheus, § 30, 6.
Dort, Synod of, § 161, 2.
Dositheus of Samaria, § 25, 2.
" " Jerusalem, § 152, 3.
Drabricius, § 163, 9.
Dragonnades, § 153, 3.
Drake, § 174, 9.
Drey, § 191, 6.
Druids, § 77, 2.
Drummond, § 211, 10.
Drusius, § 161, 6.
Druthmar, Christ., § 90, 4, 9; 91, 3.
Dualism, § 26, 2.
Dualistic Heretics, § 71.
Dubois, Pet. v., § 118, 1.
" Card., § 165, 7.
Ducange, § 158, 2.
Duchoborzians, § 166, 2; 210, 3.
Dufay, § 115, 8.
Dufresne, § 158, 2.
Dulignon, § 163, 8.
Dumont, Bishop, § 200, 7.
Dumoulin, § 161, 3, 7.
Dungal, § 92, 2.
Dunin, § 193, 1.
Duns Scotus, § 113, 1.
Dunstan, § 97, 4; 100, 1.
Dupanloup, § 189, 3; 203, 3-5.
Duplessis-Mornay, § 139, 17.
Duræus, § 154, 4.
Durandus of Osca, § 108, 10.
" William, § 113, 3.
Dürer, Albert, § 115, 13; 142, 2.
Durousseaux, § 200, 7.
Düsselthal, § 183, 1.
Dutoit, § 171, 9.
Duvergier, § 157, 5.
Eadbald, § 77, 4.
Eanfled, § 77, 6.
Eardley, § 178, 2.
Easter-Festival, § 37, 1; 56, 3, 4.
" Reckoning of, § 56, 3; 77, 3.
East Friesland, § 170, 3.
East Indies, § 64, 4; 150, 1; 155, 11; 165, 3; 167, 9; 168, 6; 184, 5.
Ebed Jesu, § 72, 1.
Ebel, § 176, 3.
Eber, Paul, § 141, 10; 142, 3.
Eberhard of Bamberg, § 102, 6.
" J. A., § 171, 4-7.
" Bishop of Treves, § 197, 6.
Eberlin, § 125, 1.
Ebionites, § 28, 1.
Ebner, § 114, 6.
Ebo of Rheims, § 80; 87, 3.
Ebrard, § 182, 16; 195, 5; 5, 5.
Ecbert of Schönau, § 107, 1.
Eccart, John, § 142, 5.
_Ecclesia Christi_ Bull, § 203, 1.
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, § 202, 11.
Ecetæ, § 70, 3.
Echter, Jul., § 151, 1.
Echternach Procession, 188, 11.
Eck, § 122, 1, 4; 123, 1; 130, 6; 135, 2, 3; 149, 14.
Eckhart, Meister, § 114, 1.
Ecthesis, § 52, 8.
Edelmann, § 171, 3.
Edessa, School of, § 31, 1; 47, 1.
Edward VI. of England, § 139, 5.
Edwin, § 77, 4.
Egbert, § 77, 8; 78, 3.
Egede, § 167, 9.
Egli, § 199, 3.
Eichhorn, J. G., § 176, 7.
" Minister, § 196, 2.
" Nich., § 174, 5.
Eichsfeld, § 151, 1.
Einhard, § 88, 6.
εἰρήνη, § 39, 2.
Eisenach, Conference at, § 172, 2.
" Attentat, § 194, 2.
Eisenmenger, § 161, 7.
Eisleben, Magister, § 141, 1.
Elagabalus, § 22, 4.
Eleesban, § 64, 4.
Eleutherus, § 40, 2.
Elias of Cortona, § 98.
Eligius, § 78, 3.
Elipandus, § 91, 1.
Elisæus, § 64, 3.
Elizabeth, St., § 105, 3.
" of Brandenburg, § 128, 1.
" " Calenberg, § 134, 5.
" " England, § 139, 6-8.
" " Herford, § 163, 7, 8.
" " Schönau, § 104, 9; 107, 1.
Elizabeth-Society, § 186, 4.
Elkesaites, § 28, 2.
Eller, § 170, 4.
Elliot, § 162, 7.
Eltz, Jac. v., § 151, 1.
Elvenich, § 191, 1.
Elvira, Syn. of, § 38, 3; 45, 2.
Elxai, § 27, 2.
Elzevir, § 161, 6.
Emanation, § 26, 2.
Emancipation Bill, § 202, 9.
Emmerau, § 78, 2.
Emmerich, § 188, 3.
Empaytaz, § 199, 5.
Emser, Jerome, § 123, 4; 149, 14.
Encratites, § 27, 10.
Encyclicon, § 52, 5.
Encyclopædists, § 165, 14.
Endemic Synods, § 43, 2.
Energumens, § 35, 3.
_Enfans sans souci_, § 115, 12.
Enfantin, § 212, 2.
England, § 139, 4; 143, 1; 154, 4; 155; 162, 1; 202.
Ennodius, § 46, 8; 59, 4.
Enoch, Book of, § 32, 2.
Enraght, § 202, 3.
Eoban, St., § 78, 7.
Epaon, Council of, § 76, 5.
Ephesus, Council of, § 52, 3; 53, 4.
Ephraem, § 47, 13; 48, 7; 59, 4.
Epigonus, § 33, 5.
Epiphanes, § 27, 8.
Epiphanius, § 47, 10; 51, 2, 3; 57, 4.
Episcopal System, § 167, 5.
_Episcopi in partibus_, § 97, 3.
Episcopius, § 161, 2.
_Epistolæ decretales_, § 46, 3.
" _formatæ_, § 34, 6.
" _obscur. vir._, § 120, 5.
" _paschales_, § 34, 6; 56, 3.
" _synodales_, § 34, 6.
_Epulæ Thyesteæ_, § 22.
Erasmus, § 120, 6; 123, 3; 125, 3.
Erastianism, § 202, 7.
Erastus, § 117, 4; 144, 1.
Erfurt, University of, § 120, 2.
Eric of Calenberg, § 136, 1.
" " Sweden, § 80, 1; 93, 2.
" St., § 93, 3, 11.
" the Red, § 93, 5.
Erigena, § 90, 7; 91, 5.
Erimbert, § 81, 1.
Erlembald, § 97, 5.
Ernest the Pious, § 160, 6.
" of Lüneburg, § 126, 4; 127, 3.
Ernesti, § 171, 6.
Ernestine Bible, § 160, 6.
Esch, John, § 128, 1.
Eschenmayer, § 176, 2.
Escobar, § 149, 16; 158, 1.
Essenes, § 8, 4; 28, 2.
Essenius, § 161, 5.
Established Church, § 139, 6; 202, 1.
Esthonia, § 93, 2; 205, 3.
Estius, § 150, 14.
Ethelberga, § 77, 4.
Ethelbert, § 77, 4.
Ethelwold, Bishop, § 100, 1.
Etherius of Osma, § 91, 1.
Ethiopia, § 64, 1.
Etshmiadzin, § 72, 2.
Εὐχαριστία, § 17, 7; 36, 3.
Εὐχέλαιον, § 61, 3.
Eucherius, § 47, 21.
Euchites, § 44, 7; 71, 3.
Eudocia, § 48, 5; 52, 3, 4, 5.
Eudoxia, § 51, 3.
Eudoxius, § 50, 8.
Eugenius II., § 82, 4.
" III., § 96, 13.
" IV., § 67, 6; 110, 8, 9.
Eulalius, § 46, 6.
Euler, § 150, 14.
Eulogies, § 58, 4.
Eulogius of Cæsarea, § 53, 4.
" " Cordova, § 81, 1; 90, 6.
Eunapius, § 42, 5.
Eunomius, § 50, 3.
Euphemites, § 42, 6.
Euphrates, § 28, 4.
Euric, § 76, 2.
Eusebians, § 50, 2.
Eusebius of Cæsarea, § 36, 8; 47, 2; 50, 1; 59, 1.
" " Doryläum, § 52, 3.
" " Emesa, § 47, 8.
" " Nicomedia, § 50, 1.
" " Vercelli, § 50, 2.
Eustasius of Luxeuil, § 78, 2.
Eustathians, § 44, 7.
Eustathius of Antioch, § 50, 8.
" " Sebaste, § 44, 3, 7; 62, 1.
" " Thessalonica, § 68, 5; 70, 4.
Euthalius, § 59, 1.
Euthymius Zigabenus, § 68, 5.
Eutyches, § 52, 4.
Euzoius, § 50, 8.
Evagrius, § 5, 1.
Evangelical-Party, § 202, 1, 4.
Evangelists, § 17, 5; 34, 1.
_Evangelium æternum_, § 108, 4.
Evolutionists, § 174, 2.
Ewald, The black and white, § 78, 9.
" H., § 182, 3.
Exarchate, § 46, 9; 76, 7; 82, 1.
Exarchs, Episcopal, § 46, 1.
_Execrabilis_, § 110, 10.
Exemption, § 98.
Exercises, Spiritual, § 149, 9; 188, 1.
Excommunication, § 35, 2; 88, 5; 106, 1.
Exodus-Churches, § 211, 6, 7.
ἐξομολόγησις, § 32, 2.
Exorcism, § 35, 4; 58, 1; 142, 2; 167, 2.
Exorcists, § 33, 3.
_Exsurge Domini_, § 123, 2.
_Extra_, § 99, 5.
_Extraneæ_, § 39, 3.
_Extravagantes_, § 99, 5.
Eyck, § 115, 13.
Eznik, § 64, 3.
Ezra, Fourth Book of, § 32, 2.
Faber, John, § 130, 2, 6.
" Stapulensis, § 120, 8.
Fabian, Bishop of Rome, § 22, 5.
Facundus of Hermiane, § 47, 19; 52, 6.
Fagius, § 139, 5.
Falk, Dr., § 174, 8; 193, 5, 6; 197, 2, 3, 5.
Familists, § 146, 5.
Farel, § 130, 3; 138, 1.
Fasts, Ascetic, § 44, 4; 107.
" Ecclesiastical, § 37, 3; 56, 4, 7; 115, 1, 12.
Fatak, § 29, 1.
Faustus of Mileve, § 54, 1.
" " Rhegium, § 47, 21; 53, 5.
Favre, Pet., § 149, 8.
Fawkes, Guy, § 153, 6.
Fazy, § 199, 1.
Febronius, § 165, 10.
Fecht, § 167, 1.
Federal Theology, § 161, 4.
Felicissimus, § 41, 2.
Felicitas, § 22, 4.
Felix, II., § 46, 4.
" III., § 46, 8; 52, 5.
" IV., § 46, 8.
" V., § 110, 8.
" of Aptunga, § 63, 1.
" the Manichæan, § 54, 1.
" Pratensis, § 120, 9.
" of Urgellis, § 91, 1.
Fell, Marg., § 163, 4.
Feneberg, § 187, 1.
Fénelon, § 157, 3; 158, 2.
Fenian-movement, § 202, 10.
Ferdinand I., § 137, 8; 126, 2, 3; 139, 19, 20.
" II., § 151, 1; 153, 2.
" VII. of Spain, § 205, 1.
" I. of Castile, § 95, 2.
" III. of Castile, § 95, 2.
" the Catholic, § 95, 2; 117, 2; 118, 7.
Ferguson, Fergus, § 202, 8.
Ferrara, Council of, § 67, 6; 110, 8.
Ferrer, Bonif., § 115, 4.
" Vincent, § 115, 2; 110, 6.
Ferry, Minister, § 203, 6.
_Ferula_, § 60, 1.
Fessler, Bishop, § 189, 3.
" Ign., § 165, 13.
Feudalism, § 86, 1.
Feuerbach, § 174, 1, 3; 182, 6.
Feuillants, § 149, 6.
Feyin, Synod of, § 64, 3.
Fichte, J. G., § 170, 13.
" J. H., § 174, 2; 211, 15.
Fiesole, § 115, 13.
Fifth Monarchy Men, § 162, 1.
_Filioque_, § 50, 7; 67, 1; 91, 2.
Finkenstein, § 176, 3.
Finland, § 93, 11; 139, 1; 206, 3.
Firmian, § 165, 4.
Firmcius Maternus, § 47, 14.
Firmilian, § 34, 3; 35, 3.
Fischart, § 142, 7.
Fisher, Bishop, § 139, 4.
Fisherman’s Ring, § 110, 16.
Fitzgerald, § 189, 3.
Five Mile Act, § 155, 3.
Flacius, § 141, 4-8; 142, 6; 5, 2.
Flagellants, § 106, 4; 116, 3; 149, 17.
Flagellation, § 106, 4; 116, 3; 149, 17.
Flavia Domitilla, § 22, 1.
Flavian of Antioch, § 50, 8.
" of Constantinople, § 52, 4.
Flechier, § 158, 2.
Flemming, § 160, 3.
Fletcher, § 169, 3.
Fleury, § 5, 2; 158, 2; 165, 7.
Fliedner, § 183, 1.
Flora, § 27, 5.
Florence, Council of, § 67, 6; 72; 110, 8.
Florentius Radewin, § 112, 9.
Florinus, § 31, 2.
Florus Magister, § 90, 5; 91, 5.
Folmar, § 102, 6.
Fontevraux, Order of, § 98, 2.
Fools, Festival of, § 105, 2.
Formosus, § 82, 8.
_Formula Concordiæ_, § 141, 9.
" Consensus Helvet., § 161, 3.
Förster, J., § 142, 6.
" prelate, § 118, 3; 197, 6.
Fortunatus, § 48, 6.
Fouque, de la M., § 174, 5.
Fourier, § 212, 1.
Fox, George, Quaker, § 163, 4, 5.
" American Spiritualist, § 211, 17.
France, § 139, 13-17; 153, 4; 165, 5; 203.
Francis, St., § 93, 16; 98, 3; 104, 10; 106, 5.
" de Paula, § 112, 8.
" " Sales, § 156, 6; 157, 1.
" I., of France, § 110, 9, 14; 120, 8; 126, 5, 6; 139, 13.
" II., of France, § 139, 14.
Francisca Romana, § 112, 1.
Franciscans, § 98, 3; 112, 2; 149, 6.
Francis Xavier Society, § 186, 4.
Franck, Seb. § 146, 3.
" John, § 160, 4.
" Michael, § 160, 4.
" Sal., § 167, 6.
Francke, A. H., § 159, 3; 167, 2, 8, 9; 160, 7.
Franco of Cologne, § 144, 11.
Frank, J. H., § 182, 15.
Frankists, § 165, 17.
Franks, The, § 76, 9.
Frankfort, Synod of, § 91, 1; 92, 1.
" Concordat of, § 110, 9, 14.
" Parliament of, § 189, 4.
" Recess of, § 141, 11.
" Troubles of, § 134, 3.
_Fratres de communi vita_, § 112, 9.
" _minores_, § 98, 3.
" _pontifices_, § 98, 9.
" _praedicatores_, § 98, 5.
_Fraticelli_, § 112, 2.
Fredigis, § 90, 4.
Frederick I., Barbarossa, § 96, 14, 15; 94, 3.
" II., Emperor, § 94, 5; 96, 20; 97, 2; 99, 3; 109, 2.
" III., Emperor, § 110, 9.
" III., of Austin, § 110, 3.
" I., of Prussia, § 169, 1.
" II., " § 165, 9; 171, 4.
" I., of Denmark, § 139, 2.
" IV., " § 167, 9.
" of Palatinate, § 153, 3.
" Aug. the Strong, § 153, 1.
" the Wise, § 122, 3; 123, 9.
" William, the Great Elector, § 154, 4.
" William II., § 171, 5.
" " III., § 171, 5; 172, 3; 177, 1; 193.
" " IV., § 177, 2; 193.
Freemasons, § 171, 2; 104, 13.
Free-will Baptists, § 162, 3; 208, 1.
Free-thinkers, § 164, 2; 171, 2.
Freiligrath, § 174, 5.
Fresenius, § 167, 8.
Freylinghausen, § 167, 6-8.
Fricke, § 182, 21.
Fridolin, § 77, 7; 78, 1.
Friedewalt, Convention of, § 126, 6.
Friedrich, John, § 190, 1; 191, 7.
Fries, § 174, 1.
Frisians, § 78, 3.
Frith, § 139, 4.
Frithigern, § 76, 1.
Fritzlar, § 78, 4.
Fritzsche, § 183, 3.
Frobenius, § 120, 6.
Frohschammer, § 191, 6.
Froment, § 138, 1.
Fronto, § 23.
Frumentius, § 64, 1.
Fry, Elizabeth, § 183, 1.
Fugue, Musical, § 115, 8.
Fulbert of Chartres, § 101, 1.
Fulco, Canonist, § 102, 1.
" of Neuilly, § 104, 1.
Fulda, § 78, 5; 151, 2.
Fulgentius, Ferr., § 47, 20.
" of Ruspe, § 47, 20.
Gabler, Andr., § 182, 6.
" Th. A., § 171, 5.
Gabriel, Didymus, § 124, 1.
Galen, § 23.
Galerius, § 22, 6.
Galileo, § 156, 4.
Gall, St., § 130, 4, 8.
Galle, Peter, § 139, 1.
Gallienus, § 22, 5.
Gallican Church, § 156, 3; 203.
Gallizin, Am. v., § 172, 2.
Gallus, St., § 178.
" Emperor, § 22, 5.
Ganganelli, § 165, 8.
Gangra, Synod of, § 44, 7; 45, 2.
Gardiner, Allen, § 184, 2.
" Bishop, § 139, 4, 5.
Garibaldi, 185, 3.
Garve, § 170, 4.
Gasparin, § 203, 4.
Gannilo, § 101, 3.
Gauzbert, § 81, 1.
Gavazzi, § 204, 4.
Gebhardt of Eichstedt, § 96, 5.
" " Cologne, § 137, 7.
" " Salzburg, § 97, 2.
Gedike, § 154, 3.
Gedimin, § 93, 14.
Geibel, § 174, 6.
Geier, § 159, 4.
Geiler of Kaisersb., § 115, 2, 11.
Geisa, § 93, 8.
Geismar, § 78, 4.
Geissel, § 194, 1.
Gelasius, I., § 46, 8; 47, 22; 59, 6.
" II., § 96, 11.
Gelimar, § 76, 3.
Gellert, § 176, 11; 172, 1.
Genesis, The little, § 32, 2.
Genesius, § 71, 1.
Geneva, § 138; 199, 1, 2, 5.
Genghis-Khan, § 72, 1.
Gennadius, § 47, 16; 48, 3.
" Patr., § 68, 5; 67, 7.
Genseric, § 76, 3.
Gentile Christians, § 18.
Gentilis, § 148, 3.
Gentilly, Synod of, § 91, 2; 92, 1.
_Genuflectentes_, § 35, 1.
George Acyndynos, § 69, 1.
" of Brandenburg, § 127, 3; 132, 6.
" of Saxony, § 122, 4; 126, 5; 128; 134, 2.
" Bishop of the Arabs, § 72, 2.
" of Trebizond, § 68, 2.
Gerbert, § 96, 2; 100, 3.
Gereuth, § 188, 6.
Gerhard Groot, § 112, 9.
" John, § 159, 4; 160, 1.
" Segarelli, § 108, 8.
" Zerbolt, § 112, 9.
Gerhardt, Paul, § 154, 4; 160, 4.
Gerike, P., § 139, 18.
Gerlach, L. v., § 175, 1; 176, 1.
" Otto v., § 181, 4.
" Stephen, § 139, 26.
St. Germains, Peace of, § 139, 15.
German Empire, § 192; 197.
" Catholics, § 187, 6.
Germany, Young, § 174, 5.
Germanus, Patr., § 66, 1.
Gerson, § 110, 6, 7; 112, 6; 113, 3; 118, 4; 119, 5.
Gertrude the Great, § 107, 1.
" of Hackeborn, § 107, 1.
Gesenius, W., § 182, 3.
" Just., § 160, 3.
Gewilib of Mainz, § 78, 4.
Geysa, § 93, 2.
Gfrörer, § 5, 4; 175, 7.
Ghazali, § 103, 1.
Ghent, Pacific. of, § 139, 12.
Ghetto, § 95, 3; 185, 1.
Ghiberti, § 115, 13.
Gichtel, § 163, 9.
Gieseler, § 5, 4.
Giessen, University of, § 154, 1; 196, 1, 5.
Gil, Juan, § 129, 21.
Gilbertines, § 98, 2.
Gilbertus Porretanus, § 102, 3.
Gildas, § 90, 8.
Giotto, § 115, 13.
Gisela, § 93, 8.
Gladstone, § 202, 10.
Glass, Painting on, § 104, 14; 174, 9.
Glassius, § 159, 4.
γλωσσαῖς λαλεῖν, § 17, 1.
Gnesen, Archbishopric of, § 93, 2.
Gnosimachians, § 62, 3.
Gnosticism, § 18, 3; 26-28.
Goar, St., § 78, 3.
Gobat, Bishop, § 184, 8, 9.
Gobel, § 165, 15.
Goch, John of, § 119, 10.
God, Friends of, § 116, 4.
Godfrey of Bouillon, § 94, 1.
" " Strassburg, § 105, 6.
Goethe, § 171, 11.
Goetze, § 171, 8.
Gomarus, § 161, 2.
Gonzago, Cardinal, § 149, 2.
Gonzalo of Berceo, § 105, 6.
Good Friday, § 56, 4.
Goodwin, § 161, 6.
Gordianus, § 22, 4.
Görg, Junker, § 123, 8.
Gorm the Old, § 93, 2.
Görres, Jos., § 174, 4; 181, 1; 5, 6.
Göschel, § 179, 1, 2; 182, 6, 15.
Gossler, § 193, 6; 197, 11.
Gossner, § 187, 2; 184, 1.
Gothic Architecture, § 104, 12.
Goths, § 76.
Gotter, § 167, 6.
Gottschalk, Prince of Wends, § 93, 9.
" Monk, § 91, 5, 6.
Goudimel, § 143, 2; 149, 15.
Grabau, § 208, 2.
Grabow, § 210, 10.
Graf, § 182, 18.
_Graffiti_, § 38, 1; 39, 5.
γράμματα τετυπωμένα, § 34, 6.
Grammont, Order of, § 98, 2.
Grant, § 184, 9.
Granvella, § 135, 1, 2, 3.
Gratian, Emperor, § 42, 4.
" Canonist, § 99, 5; 104, 4.
Gratius Ortuinus, § 120, 5.
Graumann, § 142, 3.
Grebel, § 130, 5.
Greece, § 207.
Greeks, United, § 151; 206, 2.
Green, § 202, 3.
Greenland, § 93, 1; 167, 9; 184, 2.
Gregentius, § 48, 3.
Gregoire, Bishop, § 165, 15.
Gregory I., § 46, 10; 47, 22; 57, 4; 58, 3; 59, 5, 6, 9; 61, 4; 76, 8; 77,
4.
" II., III., § 66, 1; 78, 4; 82, 1.
" IV., § 82, 4.
" V., § 96, 2.
" VI., § 96, 4.
" VII., § 96, 7-9; 94; 101, 2.
" VIII., § 96, 16; 94, 3.
" IX., § 96, 19; 99, 4; 109, 2.
" X., § 96, 21; 67, 4.
" XI., § 110, 5; 114, 4; 117, 2.
" XII., § 110, 6, 7.
" XIII., § 139, 17; 149, 3, 4, 17.
" XIV., § 149, 3.
" XV., § 156, 1, 4, 5.
" XVI., § 185, 1.
" Abulfarajus, § 72, 2.
" Acindynos, § 69, 2.
" of Constantinople, § 207, 1.
" of Heimburg, § 118, 5.
" Illuminator, § 64, 3.
" Palamas, § 69, 2.
" Scholaris, § 68, 5.
" Thaumaturgus, § 31, 6.
" Nazianzen, § 47, 4; 48, 5, 8; 59, 4.
" of Nyssa, § 47, 4.
" of Tours, § 90, 2.
" of Utrecht, § 78, 3.
Gregorian Chant, § 59, 3.
Gretna-Green, § 202, 6.
Grévy, § 203, 5.
Grey, Lady Jane, § 139, 5.
Griesbach, § 171, 7.
Groot, Gerh., § 112, 9.
Gropper, § 135, 3, 7.
Grosseteste, § 97, 4.
Grotius, § 153, 7; 161, 2, 6, 7.
Gruber, § 170, 1, 2.
Gruet, Jac., § 138, 4.
Grundtvig, § 201, 1.
Grunthler, § 139, 24.
Grynäus, § 133, 8.
Gualbertus, § 98, 1.
Guardian, § 98, 5.
Guatemala, § 209, 2.
Guelphs, § 96, 7.
Guericke, § 5, 5; 176, 1; 177, 2; 182, 13.
Guerin, § 98, 2.
Guevara, § 209, 2.
Guiana, § 184, 2.
Guibert, Archbishop, § 203, 5.
" of Nogent, § 101, 1.
Guido of Arezzo, § 104, 11.
" de Castello, § 102, 2; 108, 7.
" of Siena, § 104, 9, 14.
Guigo, § 98, 2.
Guise, Dukes of, § 139, 13-17.
Guizot, § 185, 3; 203, 2, 8.
Gundiberge, § 76, 8.
Gundioch, § 75, 5.
Gundobald, § 76, 5.
Gundulf, § 108, 2.
Gunpowder Plot, § 153, 6.
Gunthamund, § 76, 3.
Gunther of Cologne, § 82, 7.
Günther, Ant., § 191, 3.
" Cyriacus, § 160, 4.
Günzburg, Eberlin of, § 125, 1.
Gury, § 191, 9.
Gustavus Adolphus, § 153, 2; 160, 7.
" " Society, § 178, 1.
Gützlaf, § 184, 6.
Guyon, § 157, 3.
Gylas, § 93, 8.
Gyrovagi, § 44, 7.
Haag, Pastor, § 196, 3.
Haas, Jos., § 210, 2.
" Charles, § 175, 7.
Haco the Good, § 93, 4.
Hadrian, Emperor, § 28, 3; 25; 39, 6.
Hadrian I., § 66, 3; 82, 2; 91, 1.
" II., § 67, 1; 79, 2; 82, 7; 83, 2.
" III., § 82, 8.
" IV., § 96, 14.
" V., § 96, 22.
" VI., § 149, 1; 126, 1.
Hagenau, § 135, 2.
Hagenbach, § 182, 9; 5, 5.
Hahn, Aug., § 176, 1.
" Michael, § 172, 3.
" Missionary, § 184, 3.
Hahn-Hahn, Ida, § 175, 7.
Hakem, § 95, 2.
Haldane, § 199, 5.
Haldanites, § 170, 6.
Halle, University of, § 167, 1.
Haller, Alb., § 171, 8.
" Berth., § 130, 4.
" L. v., § 175, 7.
Hamann, § 171, 11.
Hamburg, Bishopric, § 80, 1.
Hamilton, Patrick, § 139, 8.
Hammerschmidt, § 160, 5.
Handel, § 167, 7.
Haneberg, § 189, 4; 197, 6.
Hanne, Dr., § 180, 3.
Hannington, Bishop, § 184, 4.
Hanover, § 193, 8; 194, 3.
Hans, Brother, § 115, 11.
Harald the Apostate, § 80.
" Blaatand, § 93, 2.
Hardenberg, § 144, 2.
Hard-Shell Baptists, § 170, 6.
Hardouin, § 165, 11.
Hare, § 211, 17.
Harless, § 182, 13; 195, 4.
Harmonites, § 211, 6.
Harmonius, § 27, 5.
Harms, Claus, § 176, 1.
" Louis, § 184, 1.
Harnack, Th., § 182, 13.
Hartmann, E. v., § 174, 2.
Hase, § 5, 4; 176, 1; 182, 5.
Hasse, § 5, 5.
Hassun, § 207, 4.
Hattemists, § 170, 8.
Hatto of Reichenau, § 90, 3.
" I. of Mainz, § 83, 3.
Hatty-Humayun, § 207.
Hätzer, § 130, 5; 148, 1.
Haug, § 170, 1.
Hauge, § 201, 3.
Hauser, § 188, 5.
Hausmann, Nich., § 133, 4.
Hausrath, § 182, 17.
Haydn, § 174, 10.
Haymo of Halberstadt, § 90, 5.
Hebel, § 171, 11.
Heber, Bishop, § 184, 5.
Hebræans, Sect of, § 170, 8.
Hebrews, Gospel of the, § 31, 16.
Heddo of Strassburg, § 84, 2.
Hedinger, § 170, 1.
Hedio, § 130, 3.
Hedwig of Poland, § 93, 14.
" St. of Silesia, § 105, 3.
Heermann, § 160, 3.
Hefele, § 189, 3, 4; 191, 7.
Hefter, § 184, 8.
Hegel, § 174, 1.
Hegesippus, § 31, 7.
Hegius, § 120, 3.
Heidanus, § 161, 5, 7.
Heidegger, § 161, 3.
Heidelberg Catechism, § 144, 1.
" University, § 120, 3.
Heine, § 174, 5.
Heinrichs, § 171, 5.
Hejira, § 65.
Held, H., § 159, 3.
" Imperial Orator, § 134, 2.
Helding, § 136, 5.
Helena, Empress, § 57, 5, 6.
" of Russia, § 73, 4.
Heliand, § 89, 3.
Hell, § 106, 3.
Hellenists, § 10, 1.
Helmstedt, § 159, 2.
Heloise, § 102, 1.
Helvetius, § 165, 12.
Helvidius, § 62, 2.
Hemero-baptists, § 25, 1.
Hemmerlin, § 118, 5.
Hemming of Upsala, § 93, 11.
" Professor, § 141, 10.
Hengstenberg, § 176, 1; 182, 4.
Henke, § 5, 3; 171, 7.
Henoticon, § 52, 2.
Henricians, § 108, 7.
Henry I., Emperor, § 93, 2; 96, 1.
" II., § 96, 4.
" III., § 96, 4; 97, 1.
" IV., § 96, 6.
" V., § 96, 11 ff.
" VI., § 96, 16.
" VII., § 110, 2.
" I. of England, § 96, 12.
" II. " § 96, 16; 94, 3.
" VIII. " § 125, 3; 139, 4, 7, 8.
" II. of France, § 139, 13.
" III. " § 139, 17, 18.
" IV. " § 139, 17.
" of Brunswick, § 126, 5; 135, 6, 10.
" of Saxony, § 134, 4.
" _de Hessia_, § 118, 5.
" of Langenstein, § 118, 5.
" of Lausanne, § 108, 7.
" of Nördlingen, § 114, 6.
" of Upsala, § 93, 11.
" the Lion, § 93, 9.
" Wendish Prince, § 93, 9.
" of Zütphen, § 128, 1.
Hensel, Louise, § 174, 6.
Heppe, § 170, 3; 182, 16.
Heracleon, § 27, 5.
Heraclius, § 52, 8; 57, 5; 64, 2.
Herbart, § 174, 2.
Herder, § 171, 11.
Heretic’s Baptism, § 35, 5.
Hergenröther, § 5, 6; 191, 7.
Heriger, § 80, 1.
Hermann von Fritzlar, § 114.
" Premonstrat., § 95, 3.
" of Cologne, § 133, 5.
" von Wied, § 133, 5; 135, 7; 136, 2.
Hermannsburg, § 184, 1; 193, 8.
Hermas, § 30, 4.
Hermes, § 191, 1.
Hermias, § 30, 10.
Hermogenes, § 27, 13.
Herrero de Mora, § 205, 5.
Herrmann, § 182, 20.
Herrnhut, § 168; 169, 3.
Hervæus, § 102, 8.
Herzog, Old Catholic Bishop, § 190, 3; 199, 3.
" Prelate, § 197, 10, 11.
" J. J., § 5, 5.
Hess, J. Jac., § 171, 6.
Hesse, § 127, 2.
" Darmstadt, § 196, 4; 197, 15.
" Cassel, § 154, 1; 193, 9; 194, 4.
Hesshus, § 144, 1, 2.
Hesychasts, § 69, 2.
_Hetæræ_, § 22, 2.
Hettinger, § 191, 6.
Heubner, § 184, 5.
Heumann, § 167, 4.
Hexapla, § 31, 5.
Hibbert Trust, § 202, 4.
Hicks, § 211, 3.
Hieracas, § 39, 3.
Hierocles, § 23, 3.
Hieronomites, § 112, 8.
High-Churchmen, § 202, 1.
Hilarion, § 44, 3.
Hilary of Arles, § 46, 7.
" " Poitiers, § 47, 14.
Hildebert of Tours, § 101, 1; 104, 4, 10.
Hildebrand, § 96, 4 ff.; 101, 2.
Hildegard, § 97; 107, 1; 109.
Hilderic, § 76, 9.
Hilduin, § 90, 8.
Hilgenfeld, § 182, 7.
Hilgers, § 191, 6.
Hiller, § 167, 6.
Hinemar of Laon, § 83, 2.
" " Rheims, § 82, 7; 83, 2; 87, 3; 90, 5; 91, 5.
Hippolytus, § 31, 3; 33, 5; 40, 2; 41, 1.
Hirschberger Bible, § 167, 8.
Hirscher, § 187, 3; 191, 6.
Hitzig, § 182, 3.
Hobbes, § 164, 3.
Hoe v. Hoenegg, § 154, 4; 159, 1.
Hofacker, § 211, 4.
Hoffmann, Christ., § 211, 8.
" Fr., § 191, 2.
" G. W., § 196, 5.
" Melch., § 147, 1.
" Chr. K. v., § 182, 14.
" Dan., § 141, 15.
Hofmeister, Seb., § 130, 4.
Hofstede de Groot, § 200, 2.
Hohenlohe, § 188, 2.
" Card., § 189, 1; 197, 7.
Holbach, § 165, 12.
Holbein, § 115, 6, 13; 113, 5; 142, 2.
Holland, § 165, 7; 200, 2, 3.
Hollaz, § 167, 4, 8.
Holtzmann, § 182, 17.
Homberg, Synod of, § 127, 2.
Homoians, § 50, 3.
Homoiousians, § 50, 3.
Homologoumena, § 36, 8.
Homoousians, § 33, 1; 50, 1.
Hönigern, § 177, 2.
Honorius, Emperor, § 42, 4; 53, 4.
" I., § 46, 11; 52, 8, 9.
" II., § 96, 13.
" III., § 96, 19.
" IV., § 96, 22.
Honter, Jac., § 139, 20.
Hontheim, § 165, 10.
Hoogstraten, § 120, 4; 122, 3.
Hooper, § 139, 5.
Hormisdas of Rome, § 46, 8; 52, 5, 6.
Horsley, § 171, 1.
Hosius, Bishop, § 50, 1, 2, 3.
" Cardinal, § 139, 18.
Hospinian, § 161, 7.
Hospital Brothers, § 98, 8.
Hossbach, § 180, 4.
Host, § 104, 2.
Höting, § 197, 10.
Hottinger, § 5, 2; 161, 6.
Howard, Catherine, § 139, 4.
Huber, J., § 189, 1; 190, 1; 191, 7.
" Sam., § 141, 14.
Hubmeier, § 130, 5; 147, 3.
Huebald, § 104, 11.
Huetius, § 158, 1.
Hug, § 191, 8.
Hugh Capet, § 96, 2.
Huguenots, § 139, 14 ff.; 153, 4; 166, 5.
Hugo a St. Caro, § 103, 9.
" of St. Victor, § 102, 4; 104, 2, 4.
_Hugo de Payens_, § 98, 8.
Hülsemann, § 153, 7; 159, 2.
Humanists, § 120.
Humbert, § 67, 3; 101, 2.
Humboldt, Alex. v., § 174, 3.
Hume, § 171, 1.
Humiliates, § 98, 7; 101, 2.
Hundeshagen, § 196, 3.
Hungary, § 93, 8; 139, 20; 153, 3; 198, 6.
Hunneric, § 76, 3; 54, 1.
Hunnius, Ægid., § 141, 13.
" Nich., § 159, 5.
Huntingdon, Lady, § 169, 3.
Hupfeld, § 182, 3; 194, 4.
Hurter, § 175, 1.
Husig, § 64, 3.
Huss, § 113, 7; 119, 3-6.
Hutten, Ulr. v., § 120, 2, 3; 122, 4.
Hy, § 77, 2.
Hyacinth, § 93, 13.
Hylists, Anc. Materialists, § 26, 2.
Hymn Music, § 142, 3; 171, 1; 180, 1.
Hymnology, § 17, 7; 36, 10; 59, 4; 89, 2; 104, 10; 115, 7.
Hymns, Catholic, § 149, 15.
" Protestant, § 142, 3; 143, 2; 160, 3; 162, 6; 167, 6; 175, 10.
Hypatia, § 42, 4.
Hyperius, § 143, 5; 154, 1.
Hypophonic singing, § 59, 5.
Hypostasianism, § 33, 1.
Hypsistarians, § 42, 6.
Hystaspes, § 32, 1.
Iamblichus, § 24, 2.
Ibas, § 47, 13; 52, 3.
Iberians, § 64, 4.
Icarians, § 212, 3.
Iceland, § 93, 5; 139, 2.
Idacius, § 54, 2.
Iglesia Española, § 205, 4.
Ignatius of Antioch, § 22, 2; 30, 5; 34, 1, 7.
" Patr. of Constant., § 67, 1.
Ignatius Loyola, § 149, 8.
_Ignorantins_, § 165, 2.
Ijejasu, § 150, 2; 156, 11.
Ildefonsus, § 90, 2, 9.
Illuminati, § 165, 11.
Illyria, § 46, 5, 9.
Images, § 38, 4.
" Controversy about, § 66; 92, 1.
Image-worship, § 57, 4; 89, 4.
Immaculate Conception, § 104, 7; 112, 4; 113, 2; 149, 13; 156, 6; 185, 2.
Immanuel Synod, § 177, 3.
Immunity, § 84, 1.
_Impostores tres_, § 148, 4.
Incense, § 59, 8.
_Inclusi_, § 85, 6.
_In Cœna Domini_, § 117, 3.
_In commendam_, § 86, 5; 110, 15.
Independents, § 143, 4; 155, 1; 162, 1.
_Index prohibitorius_, § 149, 14.
Indulgences, § 106, 2; 117, 1.
_Ineffabilis_, § 185, 2.
_In eminenti_, § 157, 5.
Infallibility, § 96, 23; 110, 14; 149, 4; 165, 8; 189, 3.
Infant Baptism, § 35, 3; 58, 1.
Infralapsarianism, § 161, 1.
_Infula_, § 84, 1.
Inge, § 93, 3.
Ingolstadt, § 120, 3.
_Innocentum festum_, § 57, 1; 105, 2.
Innocent I., § 46, 5; 51, 3; 53, 4; 61, 2, 3.
" II., § 96, 13.
" III., § 96, 17, 18; 94, 4; 102, 9; 108, 10; 109, 1.
" IV., § 96, 20; 72, 6.
" V., § 96, 22.
" VI., § 110, 4, 5.
" VII., § 110, 6.
" VIII., § 110, 11; 115, 4.
" IX., § 149, 3.
" X., § 156, 1; 153, 2; 157, 5.
" XI., § 156, 1, 3; 157, 2.
" XII., § 156, 1, 3; 157, 3.
" XIII., § 165, 1.
_In partibus infidelium_, § 97, 3.
Inquisition, § 109, 2; 117, 2; 139, 22; 149, 2; 151; 156, 3.
Inspiration, Doctrine of, § 36, 9.
_Insula sanctorum_, § 77, 1.
Intentionalism, § 149, 10.
Interdict, § 106, 1.
Interim, The Augsburg, § 136, 5, 6.
" " Leipzig, § 136, 7.
" " Regensburg, § 135, 3.
International, § 212, 4.
Interpreters, § 34, 3.
Investiture, § 45, 1; 84; 96, 7, 11, 12.
Iona, § 77, 2.
Ireland, § 77, 1; 139, 7; 153, 6; 202, 9.
Irenæus, § 31, 2; 33, 9; 34, 8; 40, 2.
Irene, § 66, 9.
Irish Massacre, § 153, 6.
Irvingites, § 211, 10.
Isaac, the Great, § 64, 3.
" of Antioch, § 48, 7.
Isabella of Castile, § 95, 2; 117, 2; 118, 7.
" II. of Spain, § 205, 2.
Isenberg, § 184, 9.
Isidore the Gnostic, § 28, 2.
" of Pelusium, § 47, 6; 44, 3.
" the Presbyter, § 51, 2, 3.
" Russ. Metropol., § 73.
" of Seville, § 90, 2.
Islam, § 65; 81; 95.
Issy, Conference of, § 157, 3.
_Itala_, § 36, 8.
Italy, § 139, 22; 189, 7; 204.
Ithacius, § 54, 2.
Ivo of Chartres, § 99, 5.
Jablonsky, § 168, 3.
Jacob el Baradai, § 52, 7.
" Basilicus, § 139, 26.
" a Benedictis, § 104, 10.
" of Brescia, § 112, 3.
" ben Chajim, § 120, 8.
" the Conqueror, § 95.
" of Edessa, § 47, 13.
" " Harkh, § 71, 2.
" " Jüterbegk, § 118, 5.
" " Maerlant, § 105, 5.
" " Marchia, § 112, 4.
" " Misa, § 119, 7.
" " Nisibis, § 47, 13.
" " Sarug, § 48, 7.
Jacobi, § 171, 10.
Jacobini, § 197, 9, 12.
Jacobites, § 52, 7; 72, 2.
Jacopone da Todi, § 104, 10.
Jaldabaoth, § 27, 7.
James the Just, § 16, 3.
" V. of Scotland, § 139, 8.
" I. of England, § 117, 4; 139, 11; 153, 6; 155, 1.
" II. of England, § 153, 6; 155, 3.
" III. of Baden, § 153, 1.
" Molay, § 112, 7.
" a Voragine, § 104, 8.
Jansen, Cornel., § 157, 5.
Jansenists, § 157, 15; 165, 6.
Januarius, St., § 188, 10.
Janus, § 189, 1.
Japan, § 150, 2; 156, 11; 184, 6; 186, 7.
Jaroslaw I., § 72, 4.
" II., § 73, 6.
Jason and Papiscus, § 30, 8.
Java, § 184, 5.
Jay, le, § 158, 1.
Jazelich, § 52, 3.
Jena, Univ. of, § 141, 1, 6.
Jeremias II., § 73, 4; 139, 26.
Jerome, § 17, 6; 33, 9; 47, 16; 48, 1; 51, 2; 53, 4; 59, 3.
" of Prague, § 119, 4, 5.
Jerusalem, Bishopric, § 184, 8.
" Church of the New, § 170, 4.
Jesuates, § 112, 8.
Jesuits, § 149, 8-12; 150; 151; 156, 2-9; 157, 2, 5; 165, 7-9; 186, 1;
197, 4; 199, 1.
Jewish Christians, § 18; 28; 211, 9.
" Missions, § 167, 9; 184, 8.
Jews in Middle Ages, § 90, 9; 95, 3.
Joachim of Floris, § 108, 5.
" " Brandenburg, § 128, 1; 134, 5.
" II. of Brandenburg, § 134, 5; 136, 5.
Joan of Arc, § 116, 2.
Joanna, Popess, § 82, 6.
" of Valois, § 112, 8.
John I., Pope, § 46, 8.
" VIII. and IX., § 82, 8; 79, 2; 67, 1.
" X., XII., XIII., § 96, 1.
" XIV., XV., XVI., § 96, 2.
" XVII., XVIII., § 96, 4.
" XIX., § 96, 4; 57, 1.
" XXI., § 96, 22; 82, 6.
" XXII., § 110, 3; 112, 2; 113, 1; 114, 1.
" XXIII., § 110, 7; 119, 4.
" the Constant, § 124, 5.
" Frederick, the Magnanimous, § 133, 2; 136, 3; 137, 3.
" Lackland, § 96, 18.
" VII. of Portugal, § 205, 4.
" Sigismund, § 154, 3.
" the Apostle, § 16, 2.
" of Antioch, § 52, 3.
" Beccos, § 67, 3.
" of Capistrano, § 112, 3.
" " Climacus, § 47, 12.
" " the Cross, § 49, 6, 16.
" " Damascus, § 66, 1; 68, 2-5.
" " Ephesus, § 5, 1.
" " God, § 149, 7.
" " Hagen, § 112, 1.
" " Jandun, § 118, 1.
" Jejunator, § 46, 10; 61, 1.
" of Leyden, § 133, 6.
" de Monte Corvino, § 93, 15.
" Moschus, § 47, 12.
" of Nepomuc, § 116, 1.
" Ozniensis, § 72, 2.
" V., Paläologus, § 67, 5.
" VII., " § 67, 6.
" of Paris, § 118, 1.
" " Parma, § 108, 5.
" Philoponus, § 47, 11.
" the Presbyter, § 16, 3; 30, 6.
" Prester, § 72, 4.
" of Ravenna, § 83, 3.
" " Salisbury, § 102, 9.
" Scholasticus, § 43, 3.
" Scotus Erigena, § 90, 7; 91, 5.
" Talaja, § 52, 5.
" of Trani, § 67, 3.
" " Turrecremata, § 110, 15.
" Tzimiskes, § 71, 1.
" of Wesel, § 119, 10.
John, St., Festival of, § 57, 1.
" Disciples of, § 25, 1.
" Knights of, § 98, 8.
Jonas of Bobbio, § 77, 3.
" " Orleans, § 90, 4; 92, 2.
" Justus, § 123, 7; 134, 5; 142, 2.
Jones, § 182, 3.
Jordanes, § 90, 8.
Joris, David, § 148, 1.
Joseph, Patr., § 67, 4; 70, 1.
" I., Emperor, § 165, 1.
" II., § 165, 10; 186, 2.
Josephus, § 10, 2; 13, 2.
Jovi, § 80, 1.
Jovinian, § 62, 2.
Juarez, § 209, 1.
Jubilee Year, § 117, 1.
Jubilees, Book of, § 32, 2.
_Jubili_, § 85, 2.
Judä, Leo, § 130, 2; 143, 5.
Judson, § 184, 5.
Julia Mammæa, § 22, 4; 31, 5.
Juliana, § 104, 7.
Julianists, § 52, 7.
Julian, Emperor, § 42, 3, 5; 63, 1.
" of Eclanum, § 47, 21; 53, 4.
" " Toledo, § 90, 2, 9.
" St., § 188, 8.
July Law, Pruss., § 197, 10, 11.
Julius I., § 46, 3; 50, 2.
" II., § 110, 13.
" III., § 149, 2.
" Africanus, § 31, 8.
Jumpers, § 170, 7.
Jung-Stillung, § 171, 11.
Junilius, § 48, 1.
Junius, Fr., § 143, 5.
Jurieu, § 161, 7.
_Jus circa sacra_, § 43, 1; 167, 3.
" _primarum prec._, § 165, 1.
" _regaliæ_, § 156, 1.
" _spoliorum_, § 110, 15.
Justin I., § 52, 5.
" Martyr, § 30, 9; 33, 9; 36, 3, 7.
" the Gnostic, § 27, 6.
Justina, St., § 48, 8.
" Empress, § 50, 4.
Justinian I., § 42, 4; 45, 2; 46, 9; 52, 6.
" II., § 46, 11.
Juvenal of Jerusalem, § 53, 3.
Juvencus, § 48, 6.
Kähler, § 176, 3.
Kahnis, § 182, 15.
Kaiser, § 128, 1.
Kaiserwerth, § 183, 1.
Kamehameha, § 184, 7.
Kamel, Sultan, § 94, 4, 5.
Kanitz, § 176, 3.
Kant, § 171, 10.
Karaites, § 72, 1.
Kardec, § 211, 17.
Karg, Controversy of, § 141, 3.
Katerkamp, § 5, 6.
Kaulen, § 191, 8.
Keil, § 182, 13.
Keim, § 182, 17.
Keller, Bishop, § 196, 6.
Kellner, § 177, 2.
Kempen, Stephen, § 125, 1.
Kempis, Thomas a, § 112, 9; 114, 7.
Kenrick, § 189, 3.
Kerner, Just., § 176, 2.
Kessler, § 124, 1; 130, 4.
Ketteler, § 175, 2; 187, 3; 189, 3; 196, 1-4; 197, 1, 4, 15.
Kettler, § 139, 3.
Kierkegaard, § 201, 1.
Kiev, § 73, 4.
Kilian, § 78, 2.
Kings, § 160, 4.
" the Three Holy, § 56, 5.
Klebitz, § 144, 1.
Klee, § 191, 6.
Kleuker, § 171, 8.
Kleutzen, § 191, 9.
Kliefoth, § 181, 3; 182, 14; 194, 6.
Klopstock, § 171, 11.
Knapp, A., § 181, 1.
" G. Ch., § 171, 8.
Knights, Teutonic, § 98, 8; 93, 13.
" of St. John, § 98, 8.
Knox, § 139, 9, 11.
Knutzen, § 164, 4.
Kohlbrügge, § 179, 3.
Kohler, § 170, 4.
Köllner, § 5, 5.
Königsberg, Relig. Process., § 176, 3.
Köppen, § 171, 8.
Körner, § 141, 12.
Kornthal, § 196, 5.
Krafft, § 195, 2.
Kraus, Xav., § 5, 6.
Krüdener, § 176, 2; 199, 5.
Krummacher, G. D., § 179, 3.
" F. W., § 178, 2.
Kübel, § 196, 2.
Kublai-Khan, § 93, 15.
Kuenen, § 182, 20.
Kuhn, § 191, 6.
“Kulturkampf,” German, § 197.
" Belgian, § 200, 5.
" French, § 203, 6.
Kuyper, § 200, 2.
Labadie, § 163, 7, 8.
Labarum, § 22, 7.
Labrador, § 184, 2.
Labyrinth, The Little, § 31, 3.
Lachat, § 199, 3.
Lacordaire, § 187, 4; 188, 1.
Lactantius, § 31, 12; 33, 9.
Ladislaus, St., § 93, 2.
" of Naples, § 110, 7.
Laforce, § 183, 1.
Lainez, § 149, 8.
Laity, § 34, 4.
Lamartine, § 174, 7.
Lambert le Begue, § 98, 7.
" of Avignon, § 127, 2; 130, 2.
Lambeth Articles, § 144, 5.
Lamennais, § 187, 4; 188, 1.
Lämmer, § 175, 2.
Lammists, § 163, 1.
Lampe, § 169, 2, 6.
Lancelot, § 159, 5.
Landulf, § 97, 5.
Lanfranc, § 96, 8; 101, 1, 2.
Lang, H., § 199, 4.
Lange, Joach., § 167, 1, 4.
" J. Pet., § 182, 9.
Langen, Rud. v., § 120, 3.
Laplace, § 161, 2.
Lapland, § 93, 11; 163, 4; 184, 2.
Lapsi, § 22, 5.
Lardner, § 171, 1.
Lasalle, § 165, 2; 212, 5.
Lasaulx, Am. v., § 188, 4.
Las Casas, § 150, 3.
Lasco, J. a, § 139, 18.
Lateran, § 110, 15.
" Synods I., § 52, 8; 96, 11.
" " II., § 96, 13.
" " III., § 96, 15.
" " IV., § 96, 18; 101, 2; 104, 3-5; 106, 1; 109, 2.
Latimer, § 139, 5.
Latitudinarians, § 161, 3.
Latter-day Saints, § 211, 10, 12-14.
Laud, § 155, 1.
Laurence, Martyr, § 22, 5.
" Bishop, § 46, 8.
" Archbishop, § 77, 4.
Laurentius Valla, § 120, 1.
Lausanne, § 196, 5.
Lauterbach, § 129, 1.
Lavater, § 171, 11.
Lay Abbots, § 85, 5.
" Brethren, § 98.
Lazarists, § 156, 8.
Leade, Jane, § 163, 9.
Leander of Seville, § 76, 2; 90, 2.
Lectionaries, § 33; 59, 3.
Ledochowski, § 197, 3, 6, 7, 12.
Lee, Anna, § 170, 7.
" Bishop, § 211, 74.
Lefebvre, § 188, 4.
Legates, § 96, 23.
_Legenda aurea_, § 104, 8.
Legends, § 57, 1.
_Legio fulminatrix_, § 22, 3.
" _Thebaica_, § 22, 6.
Lehnin, Prophecy of, § 153, 8.
Leibnitz, § 153, 7; 160, 7; 164, 2.
Leidecker, § 161, 5.
Leidrad of Lyons, § 90, 3; 91, 1.
Leipzig Disputation, § 123, 4.
" Relig. Conference, § 154, 4.
Leland, § 169, 6; 171, 1.
Lenau, Nich. v., § 174, 6.
Lentulus, § 13, 2.
Leo I., the Great, § 45, 2; 46, 7; 47, 22; 52, 4; 54, 1, 2; 61, 1.
" II., § 46, 11.
" III., § 82, 3; 91, 2.
" IV., § 82, 5.
" VIII., § 96, 1.
" IX. § 67, 6; 96, 5.
" X., § 110, 14; 121, 1; 122, 2, 3; 194, 4.
" XI., § 149, 3.
" XII., § 185, 1.
" XIII., § 175, 2; 185, 5; 188, 8, 9; 191, 12; 197, 9; 200, 5; 203, 6.
" of Achrida, § 67, 3.
" the Armenian, § 66, 4.
" Chazarus, § 66, 3.
" the Isaurian, § 66, 1; 71, 1.
" the Philosopher, § 67, 2; 68, 1.
" the Thracian, § 52, 5.
" Henry, § 175, 1.
Leonardo da Vinci, § 115, 13.
Leonidas, § 22, 4.
_Leonistæ_, § 108, 10.
Leontius of Byzant., § 47. 12.
Leopardi, § 174, 7.
Leopold I., Emperor, § 153, 3, 7.
" of Tuscany, § 165, 9.
Leovigild, § 76, 2.
Leporius, § 52, 2.
Lessing, § 171, 6, 8, 11.
Lestines, Synod of, § 78, 5; 86, 2.
Lestrange, § 186, 2.
Leucius, § 32, 4, 5.
Levellers, § 162, 2.
Leyser, § 155, 4.
Libanius, § 42, 4.
_Libellatici_, § 22, 5.
_Libelli pacis_, § 39, 2.
_Liber confirmitat._, § 98, 3.
" _diurnus_, § 46, 11; 52, 9.
" _paschalis_, § 56, 3.
" _pontificalis_, § 90, 6.
Liberal Arts, § 90, 8.
Liberation Society, § 202.
Liberatus of Carthage, § 52, 6.
Liberius of Rome, § 46, 4; 50, 2, 3.
Libertins, § 146, 4.
_Libri Carolini_, § 92, 1.
_Licet ab initio_, § 139, 23.
Licinius, § 22, 7.
Lightfoot, § 161, 6.
Light, Friends of, § 176, 1.
Liguorians, § 165, 2; 186, 1.
Limborch, § 161, 7.
Limbus infantium, § 106, 3.
" patrum, § 106, 3.
_Limina apostt._, § 57, 6.
Linus, § 17, 1.
Linz, Peace of, § 153, 3.
Lippe, Princes’ Diet of, § 154, 2; 194, 5.
Lipsius, § 182, 19.
Liptinä, Synod of, § 75, 5; 86, 2.
Lisco, § 181, 4.
Litany, § 59, 9.
Lithuanians, § 93, 14.
_Litteræ formatæ_, § 34, 6.
Liturgical dress, etc., § 59, 7; 60, 3.
Liturgy, § 36, 1; 59, 6; 89, 1; 104, 1.
Liudger, § 78, 3.
Liutprand, § 82, 1.
Livingstone, § 184, 4.
Livinus, § 78, 3.
Livonia, § 93, 12; 139, 3; 153, 3; 168, 5; 206, 3.
Locke, § 164, 2.
Lodges, Free Masons’, § 104, 3.
Löhe, § 175, 1; 183, 1; 208, 2.
Lola Montez, § 195, 2.
Lollards, § 116, 3; 119, 1.
Lombardus, § 102, 7.
Longobards, § 76, 8.
Lope de Vega, § 158, 3.
Loretto, § 115, 9.
Löscher, § 167, 1, 2, 4.
Louis the Bavarian, § 110, 3, 4.
" " German, § 82, 5, 7.
" " Pious, § 82, 4; 90, 1.
" II., Emperor, § 82, 5.
" VII. of France, § 94, 2.
" IX., the Saint, § 93, 15; 94, 6; 96, 21.
Louis XI., § 110, 13.
" XII., § 110, 13, 14.
" XIII., § 153, 4.
" XIV., § 153, 4; 156, 3; 157, 2, 3, 5.
Louis I. of Bavaria, § 195, 2.
" II. " § 195, 3.
" V. of Hesse, § 154, 1.
" VI. of Palatinate, § 143, 6.
Lourdes, § 188, 14; 203, 5.
Lothair I., Emperor, § 82, 5.
" II., of Lothringia, § 82, 5, 7.
" III., the Saxon, § 96, 13.
Lotze, § 174, 2.
Low Churchmen, § 202, 1.
Loyola, § 149, 8.
Loyson, § 189, 8.
Lübeck, § 127, 4.
Lübker, § 174, 4.
Lucar, Cyr., § 152, 2.
Lucerne, § 199, 1.
Lucian, Martyr, § 31, 9.
" of Samosata, § 23, 1.
Lucidus, § 53, 5.
Lucifer of Calaris, § 47, 14; 50, 2, 8.
Luciferians, § 50, 8.
Lucilla, § 63, 1.
Lucius II., Pope, § 96, 13.
" III., § 96, 16.
Lucrezia Borzia, § 110, 10.
Ludmilla, § 79, 3; 93, 6.
Luis de Leon, § 149, 14, 15.
Luke of Prague, § 115, 7; 119, 8; 139, 19.
Lullus of Mainz, § 78, 7.
Lullus Raimund, § 93, 16; 103, 7.
Lüneburg, § 127, 3.
Luthardt, § 182, 14, 21; 194, 1.
Luther, § 122-135.
Lutherans, Separatists, Pruss., § 177, 2, 3.
Luther-Memorial, § 178, 1.
" Jubilee, § 175, 10.
Lütkemann Controversy, § 159, 1.
Lutz, Minister, § 195, 3; 197, 4.
Luxeuil, § 78, 1.
Lyons, Council of, § 67, 4; 96, 20, 21.
Lyra, Nich. v., § 113, 7.
Mabillon, § 158, 2.
Macarius the Elder, § 47, 7.
" Magnes, § 47, 6.
Maccabees, Fest. of, § 57, 1.
Macedonius, § 50, 5.
Macchiavelli, § 120, 1.
Maccovius, § 161, 7.
MacConochie, § 202, 3.
Macmahon, § 203, 5, 6.
Macrae, § 202, 8.
Macrianus, § 22, 5.
Macrina, § 47, 5.
Madagascar, § 184, 3.
Madiai, § 204, 3.
Maerlant, § 105, 5.
Magdeburg, § 127, 4; 137, 1.
_Magister historiarum_, § 105, 3.
" _sententiarum_, § 102, 4.
_Magna Charta_, § 96, 18.
Magnoald, § 78, 1.
Magnus the Good, § 93, 4.
" of Mecklenburg, § 134, 5.
" " Upsala, § 139, 1.
Mai, Cardinal, § 191, 7.
Maid of Orleans, § 116, 2.
Maimbourg, § 158, 2.
Maimonides, § 103, 1.
Mainau Law, § 197, 11.
Maintenon, § 157, 3.
Mainz Cath. Union, § 186, 4; 197, 1.
Majorist Controversy, § 141, 6, 10.
Maistre, § 187, 9.
Malachi, Proph. of, § 149, 5.
Malakanians, § 166, 2.
Malan, § 199, 5.
Malchion, § 33, 8.
Maldonatus, § 149, 14.
Maltese, § 98, 8.
Mamertus, § 59, 9.
Mandæans, § 25, 1; 28, 2.
Mandeville, § 171, 1.
Manfred, § 96, 20.
Manichæans, § 29; 54, 1.
Manning, § 189, 3; 202, 2, 11.
Mansi, § 165, 15.
Mantua, Council of, § 96, 6.
" Congress of, § 110, 10.
Manuel Comnenus, § 69, 1.
Manzoni, § 174, 7.
Maphrian, § 52, 7.
Mara, § 13, 2.
Marburg Bible, § 170, 1.
" Church Order, § 127, 2.
" Colloquy, § 132, 4.
Marcellus of Ancyra, § 50, 2.
" II., § 149, 2.
Marcia, § 22, 3; 41, 1.
Marcian, § 52, 4.
Marcion, § 27, 11.
Marcionites, § 27, 12; 54, 1; 64, 5.
Marco Polo, § 93, 15.
Marcosians, § 27, 5.
Marcus Aurelius, § 22, 3.
" Eremita, § 47, 7.
" Eugenicus, § 67, 6; 68, 5.
Maresius, § 161, 3, 7.
Margaret of Navarre, § 120, 6; 146, 4.
Marheincke, § 182, 6.
Maria Theresa, § 165, 9.
Mariana, § 149, 10, 14.
Marinus, § 63, 1.
Mariolatry, § 57, 2; 104, 8.
Marius Mercator, § 47, 20.
" Victorinus, § 47, 14.
Marloratus, § 143, 3.
Marnix, Ph. v., § 139, 12.
Maronites, § 52, 8; 72, 3.
Marot, § 143, 2.
Marozia, § 96, 1.
Marriage, Christian, § 39, 1; 61, 2; 70, 2; 88, 3; 89, 4; 104, 6.
Marsden, § 184, 7.
Marsilius of Inghem, § 113, 3.
" " Padua, § 118, 1.
Martensen, § 182, 10.
Martin I., § 46, 11; 52, 8.
" IV., § 96, 22.
" V., § 110, 6.
" of Braga, § 76, 4; 90, 2.
" " Mainz, § 114, 4.
" " Paderborn, § 175, 2; 189, 3; 197, 6.
" " Tours, § 47, 14; 54, 2.
" St., § 165, 14.
Martyrs, § 22, 5.
" Acts of, § 32, 9.
" Veneration of, § 39, 5.
Martyrologies, § 57, 1; 90, 9.
Marx, § 212, 4.
Mary of England, § 139, 5.
" " Guise, § 139, 8.
" " Jesus, § 156, 5.
" " Scotland, § 139, 6, 8, 10.
Maryland, § 208, 5.
Mass, Canon of, § 59, 6.
" Sacrifice of, § 36, 6; 58, 3; 88, 3.
Massacre, Irish, § 153, 6.
" of St. Bartholomew, § 139, 16.
" " Stockholm, § 139, 1.
" " Thorn, § 165, 4.
Massilians, § 53, 5.
Massillon, § 158, 2.
Mastricht, § 161, 7.
Matamoros, § 205, 4.
Maternus, Jul. Firm., § 47, 14.
" Pistorius, § 120, 2.
Mathesius, § 142, 2, 3.
Matilda, Margravine, § 96, 8, 10.
Matthias, Emperor, § 153, 2.
Matthys, Jan., § 147, 8, 9.
Maulbronn, Formula, § 141, 12.
" Conference, § 144, 1.
Maur, Monks of St., § 156, 7.
" St., § 85.
Maurice of Hesse, § 154, 1.
" " Orange, § 139, 12; 161, 2.
" " Saxony, § 136; 137.
Mauritius, St., § 22, 6.
" Emperor, § 46, 10.
Maxentius, § 22, 7.
Maximianus Herculius, § 22, 6.
Maximilian I., § 110, 13.
" II, § 137, 8; 139, 9.
" I., Duke of Bavaria, § 151, 1.
" III., Elector of Bavaria, § 165, 10.
" I., King of Bavaria, § 195, 1.
" II., King of Bavaria,
" Francis of Cologne, § 165, 13.
" Emperor of Mexico, § 209, 1.
Maximilla, § 40, 1.
Maximinus Daza, § 22, 6, 7.
" Thrax, § 22, 4.
Maximus, Emperor, § 54, 2.
" Confessor, § 47, 12; 52, 8.
Mayer, Seb., § 130, 4.
May Laws, Prussian, § 197, 5, 6.
" " Austrian, § 198, 6.
Maynooth Bill, § 202, 9.
Mayhew, § 162, 7.
Mechitarists, § 165, 2.
Mechthild, § 107, 2.
Mecklenburg, § 134, 5; 194, 6.
Medici, § 110, 11.
Meinhart, § 93, 12.
Meinrad, § 85, 6.
Mel, Conrad, § 169, 1.
Melanchthon, § 122, 5; 139, 13; 141, 7, 9.
Melchers, § 188, 12; 189, 3; 197, 6, 12.
Melchiades, § 46, 3; 63, 1.
Melchionites, § 147, 1.
Melchisedecians, § 33, 3.
Melchites, § 52, 7.
Meletius of Antioch, § 50, 8.
" " Lycopolis, § 41, 4.
Melissander, § 142, 3.
Melito, § 30, 8; 36, 8; 40, 1.
Memnon of Ephesus, § 52, 5.
Menander, § 25, 2.
Mendelssohn, § 171, 3.
" Bartholdy, § 174, 10.
Mendez, § 152, 1.
Mendicant Friars, § 98, 3.
Menius, § 141, 6.
Menken, § 172, 3.
Mennas, § 52, 6.
Mennonites, § 147, 2; 163, 1.
Menologies, § 57, 1.
Menot, § 115, 2.
Mensurius, § 63, 1.
Mercedarians, § 98, 9.
Mercerus, § 143, 5.
Merlan, § 170, 1.
Merle d’Aubigné, § 178, 2.
Mermillod, § 189, 3; 199, 2.
Mersen, Treaty of, § 82, 5.
Merswin, § 114, 2, 4.
Mesmer, § 174, 2.
Mesrop, § 64, 3.
Messalians, Christian, § 44, 7.
" Pagan, § 42, 6.
Meth, § 163, 9.
Methodists, § 169, 4, 5; 208, 1; 211, 1.
Methodius, § 73, 3; 79, 2.
" of Olympus, § 31, 9; 33, 9.
Metraphanes, § 67, 6.
" Critop., § 152, 2.
Metropolitans, § 34, 3; 83, 3.
Mettrie, la, § 165, 12.
Mexico, § 209, 1; 190, 3.
Meyer, H. A. W., § 182, 11.
Meyffart, § 160, 3.
Michael, Archangel, § 88, 4.
" Acominatus, § 68, 5.
" Balbus, § 66, 4.
" of Bradacz, § 119, 8.
" Cærularius, § 119, 8.
" of Cesnea, § 112, 2.
" the Drunkard, § 67, 1.
" Palæologus, § 67, 6.
Michael Angelo, § 149, 15.
Michaelis, Chr. Ben., § 167, 3.
" J. D., § 171, 6.
" J. H., § 167, 3.
Michaelmas, § 57, 3.
Michaud, § 190, 3.
Michelians, § 171, 3.
Michelis, § 190, 1; 191, 6.
Micislas, § 93, 7.
Milicz, § 119, 2.
_Militia Christi_, § 37.
Mill, Walter, § 139, 8.
Millennium, § 33, 9.
Milman, § 182, 4.
Miltiades of Athens, § 30, 8; 37, 3.
" " Rome, § 46, 3.
Miltiz, § 122, 3.
Milton, § 172, 3.
Minimi, § 112, 8.
Minnesingers, § 105, 6.
Minorites, § 98, 3.
Minster, § 84, 4.
Minucius Felix, § 31, 12.
" Fundanus, § 22, 2.
_Missa Catechum. et fidelium_, § 36, 2, 3; 58, 4.
_Missa Solitaria_, § 58, 3.
_ " Sponsorum_, § 61, 2; 88, 3; 104, 6.
Missa Marcelli, § 149, 15.
_Missale Rom._, § 149, 14.
Missionary Societies, § 172, 5; 5; 184, 1; 186, 6.
Missions, Foreign, § 75-78; 93.
" " Catholic, § 150; 156, 10, 12; 165, 3; 186, 7.
Missions, Foreign, Protest., § 142, 8; 143, 7; 160, 7; 162, 7; 167, 9;
168, 11: 184.
Missions, Home, Catholic, § 149, 7; 156, 4; 186, 4, 5.
Missions, Home, Protest., § 183.
Missions, Priests of the, § 156, 8.
Missouri Synod, § 208, 2, 3.
Mistewoi, § 93, 9.
Mitre, § 84, 1.
Mizetius, § 91, 1.
Modalists, § 33.
Moderates, § 202, 7.
Mogilas, § 152, 3.
Mogtasilah, § 28, 2.
Mohammed, § 65.
" II., § 67, 7; 110, 10.
Mohammedans, § 184, 9.
Möhler, § 191, 4, 5, 6.
Molanus, § 153, 7.
Molay, § 112, 7.
Moleschott, § 174, 3.
Molina, § 149, 13.
Molinæus, § 161, 3.
Molinos, § 157, 2.
Momiers, § 199, 5.
Mommers, § 169, 2.
Mömpelgard, Relig. Confer., § 138, 8.
_Monarcha theologor._, § 103, 3.
Monarchians, § 33.
_Monasterium Clericor._, § 45, 1.
Monasticism, § 44; 70; 85; 98; 112; 149; 156; 165; 186.
Mongols, § 93, 15.
Monica, § 47, 13.
_Monita Secreta_, § 149, 9.
Monod, § 203, 4.
Monogram, § 38, 4.
Monophysites, § 52, 5, 7; 72, 2.
Monothelites, § 52, 8.
Montalembert, § 189, 9; 190, 1.
Montalte, § 157, 5.
Montalto, § 149, 3.
Montanists, § 40.
Montanus, Arias, § 149, 14.
Monte, del, § 149, 2.
Monte Cassino, § 85.
" Corvino, § 93, 15.
Montesquieu, § 165, 14.
Montfaucon, § 165, 11.
Montfort, Sim. de, § 109, 1.
Montmorency, § 139, 13, 14.
Moody, § 211, 1.
Moors, § 81; 95.
Moralities, § 105, 5.
Morata, § 139, 24.
Moravia, § 79, 2.
Moravian Brethren, § 119, 5.
Moray, The Regent, § 139, 11.
More, Sir Thomas, § 120, 7; 139, 4.
Morel, § 139, 25.
Moreno, § 209, 2.
Morgan, § 171, 1.
Morinus, § 158, 1.
Moriscoes, § 95, 2.
Morland, § 153, 5.
Mormons, § 211, 12-14.
Morone, § 135, 2; 137, 5; 139, 22.
Morison, § 184, 6.
Mortara, § 175, 8.
Morton, § 139, 11.
Morus, § 171, 8.
Mosaics, § 60, 6; 104, 14.
Moser, J. F. v., § 167, 6, 8.
" K. F. v., § 171, 10; 172, 2.
Moses of Chorene, § 64, 3.
Mosheim, § 5, 3; 167, 4; 169, 1.
Moslems, § 65.
Moulin, du, § 161, 3.
Mouls, § 190, 4.
Movers, § 191, 8.
Mozarabians, § 81, 1.
Mozarabic Liturgy, § 88, 1; 104, 1.
Mozart, § 174, 10.
Mtesa, § 184, 4.
“_Mucker_,” § 176, 3.
Mühlenberg, § 208, 2.
Mühler, v., § 193, 4; 197, 2.
Müller, Ad., § 175, 7.
" Bem., § 211, 6.
" G., § 183, 1.
" H., § 160, 1.
" J. v., § 171, 11.
" J. G., § 171, 8.
" Jul., § 182, 10.
Münster, City, § 133, 6.
" Seb., § 143, 5.
Münzer, Thos., § 124, 4, 5.
Muratori, § 165, 12.
Muratorian Canon, § 36, 8.
Murillo, § 158, 3.
Murner, Thos., § 125, 4; 130, 6.
Murrone, § 112, 4.
Musæus, § 141, 7; 144, 2.
Musculus, Andr., § 141, 12.
" Wolfg., § 141, 14.
Music, § 59, 3; 104, 11; 115, 8; 149, 15; 158, 3; 172, 1; 174, 10.
Muspilli, § 89, 3.
Mutianus, § 120, 2, 3.
Mwanga, § 184, 4.
Myconius, § 125, 1.
" Oswald, § 133, 8.
Mysos, § 139, 26.
Mysteries, § 105, 5; 115, 12.
Mystics, Eastern, § 92; 102; 103; 107; 114.
Mystics, Grecian, § 47, 7, 11; 68, 3.
Mystics, Catholic, § 149, 16; 156, 1-4.
Mystics, Protest., § 146; 160, 2; 169, 3.
Naassenes, § 27, 6.
Nägelsbach, § 173, 4.
Namszanowski, § 197, 2.
Nantes, Edict of, § 139, 17; 153, 4.
Napoleon I., § 165, 5; 185, 1; 203, 1.
Napoleon III., § 185, 3; 203, 3, 4; 209, 1.
Narthex, § 60, 1.
Nassau, § 193, 6; 196, 4.
_Natales episc._, § 45, 1.
" Martyrum, § 39, 5.
Natalis, Alexander, § 5, 2; 157, 2.
Natalius, § 33, 3.
National Assembly, French, § 165, 15.
National Convention, § 165, 15.
Natorp, § 181, 2.
Naumburg, Bishopric of, § 135, 5.
" Princes’ Diet, § 141, 11.
Nauplia, Syn., § 207, 1.
Nauvoo, § 211, 10.
Naylor, § 163, 4.
Nazareans, § 28, 1.
Neander, § 5, 5; 182, 4.
" Joach., § 162, 6.
Nectarius, § 61, 6.
Nemesius, § 47, 6.
Nennius, § 90, 8.
Neophytes, § 34, 3.
Neo-Platonists, § 24, 2; 42.
Nepomuk, § 116, 1.
Nepos of Arsinoë, § 33, 9.
Nepotism, § 110.
Neri, Philip, § 149, 7; 158, 3.
Nero, § 22, 1.
Nerses I., § 64, 3.
" IV., Clajensis, § 72, 2.
" of Lampron, § 72, 2.
Nerva, § 22, 1.
Nestor, § 73, 4.
Nestorians, § 52, 3; 64, 2; 72, 1; 150, 4; 184, 9.
Nestorius, § 52, 3.
Netherlands, § 139, 12; 162, 4; 169, 2; 184, 5; 200.
Neuendettelsau, § 183, 1.
Neumann, § 160, 4.
Neumark, § 160, 4.
Newman, § 202, 2.
New Year, § 56, 5.
Nicæa, Council of, § 40, 1; 41, 4; 46, 3; 50, 1; 56, 3.
Nicephorus Gregoras, § 69, 2.
" Callisti, § 5, 1.
Nicetas Acominatus, § 68, 5.
" of Nicomedia, § 67, 4.
" Pectoratus, § 67, 3.
Nicholas I., § 67, 1; 73, 3; 82, 7; 83, 3; 91, 5.
Nicholas II., § 96, 6.
" III., IV., § 96, 22.
" V., § 110, 9, 10.
" of Basel, § 114, 4.
" Cabasilas, § 68, 5; 70, 4.
" of Clemanges, § 118, 4.
" " Cusa, § 113, 6.
" v. d. Flüe, § 116, 1.
" of Lyra, § 113, 7.
" " Methone, § 68, 5.
" Mysticus, § 67, 2.
" of Pisa, § 110, 12.
" I., Czar, § 206, 1, 2; 210, 2.
Nicolai, Publisher. § 171, 4.
" Henry, § 146, 5.
" Philip, § 142, 4.
Nicolaitanism, § 96, 5.
Nicolaitans, § 18, 3; 27, 8.
Nicole, § 158, 1.
Niebuhr, § 193, 1.
Niedner, § 5, 4.
Niemeyer, § 171, 7.
Nightingale, § 183, 1.
Nihilism, § 102, 8.
Nihilists, § 212, 6.
Nikon, § 163, 10.
Nilus Sinaiticus, § 44, 3; 47, 10.
" the Younger, § 100.
Nimbus, § 60, 6.
Ninian, § 77, 2.
Niphon, Monk, § 70, 4.
" Patriarch, § 70, 1.
Nismes, Edict of, § 154, 4.
Nitschmann, § 168, 3, 11.
Nitzsch, § 182, 10; 193, 3, 4.
Noailles, § 165, 7.
Nobili, § 156, 11.
Nobla leiczon, § 108, 14 (vol. ii., p. 471).
Nobreja, § 150, 3.
Nobunaja, § 150, 2.
Noetus, § 33, 5.
Nogaret, § 110, 1.
Nolasque, § 98, 9.
Nominalists, § 99, 2; 113, 3.
Nomo-Canon, § 43, 3.
_Nonæ_, § 86, 2.
Non-Intrusionists, § 202, 7.
Nonconformists, § 143, 2, 3; 155, 1, 2.
Nonna, § 47, 4.
Nonnus of Panopolis, § 48, 5.
Norbert, § 98, 2; 96, 13.
Normans, § 93, 1; 95, 1.
North African School, § 31, 1.
North America, § 208.
Norwegians, § 93, 4; 139, 2; 201, 13.
Nösselt, § 171, 8.
Noting of Verona, § 91, 5.
Notker Balbulus, § 88, 2.
" Labeo, § 100, 1.
Novalis, § 174, 5.
Novatian, § 31, 12; 41, 3.
Novatus, § 38, 2, 3.
Noviciate, § 44, 2; 86, 1.
Noyes, § 208, 6.
Nuñez de Arca, § 175, 2.
Nunia, § 64, 4.
Nuns, § 44, 5.
Nuntio, § 151, 1.
Nuremberg, Relig. Peace of, § 133, 2.
" Diet of, § 126, 1, 2.
Oak, Synod of the, § 51, 3.
Oates, Titus, § 153, 6.
_Oberammergau_, § 174, 10.
Oberlin, § 172.
_Oblati_, § 85, 1.
Oblations, § 36; 39, 5; 61, 4.
Obotrites, § 93, 9.
Observants, § 112, 2; 149, 6.
Occam, § 112, 2; 113, 3; 118, 2.
Occultists, § 211, 18.
Ochino, § 139, 24; 147, 6; 149, 6.
O’Connell, § 199, 9.
Octaves, § 56, 4.
October Assembly, § 178, 3.
Odensee, Diet of, § 139, 2.
Odilo of Bavaria, § 78, 5.
Odo of Clugny, § 98, 1; 100, 2; 104, 10, 11.
Odoacer, § 46, 8.
Œcolampadius, § 130, 3, 6; 131, 1.
Œcumenius, § 68, 4,
Oersted, § 174, 3.
Oetingen, § 182, 15.
Oetinger, § 170, 5; 171, 9.
Oehler, § 182, 14.
_Œuvres_, § 186, 4.
_Officium S. Mariæ_:, § 104, 8.
Οἰκόνομοι, § 45, 5.
Oischinger, § 191, 6.
Oktai-Khan, § 93, 15.
Olaf, § 80, 1.
" Haraldson, § 93, 4, 5.
" Schosskönig, § 93, 3.
" Trygvason, § 93, 4, 5.
" St., § 93, 4.
Olcott, § 211, 18.
Oldcastle, § 119, 1.
Oldenbarneveldt, § 161, 2.
Oldenburg, § 194, 5.
Olevian, § 144, 1; 161, 4.
Olga, § 73, 4.
Olgerd, § 93, 14.
Oliva, § 108, 6.
Olivet, Monks of Mount, § 112, 1.
Olivetan, § 138, 1; 143, 5.
Olshausen, § 176, 3.
Ommaiades, § 81; 95, 2.
Oncken, § 211, 3.
Oneida-sect, § 211, 6.
_Onochoetes Deus_, § 23, 2.
Oosterzee, § 200, 2.
Ophites, § 27, 6, 7.
Opitz, § 160, 3.
Optatus of Mileve, § 63, 1.
Opzoomer, § 200, 3.
Orange, Synod of, § 53, 6.
Oratories, § 84, 2.
Oratory of Divine Love, § 139, 22.
" Fathers of the, § 155, 7.
" Priests of the, § 149, 7.
Ordeals, § 89, 5.
Ordericus Vitalis, § 5, 1.
Ordination, § 45, 1.
_Ordines majores et minores_, § 34, 3.
_Ordo Romanus_, § 59, 6.
Organs, § 88, 2; 104, 11; 115, 8; 154, 3.
Origen, § 31, 5; 33, 6-9; 36, 9; 61, 4.
Origenist Controversy, § 51.
Original Sin, Controversy about, § 141, 8.
Orosius, § 47, 19.
Ortlibarians, § 103, 4.
Ortuinus Gratus, § 120, 5.
_Osculum pacis_, § 35.
Osiander, Andr., § 126, 4; 135, 6; 141, 2.
Osiander, Luc., § 159, 1.
Osiandrian Controversy, § 141, 2.
_Ostiarii_, § 34, 3.
Ostrogoths, § 76, 7.
Oswald, § 77, 5.
Oswy, § 77, 5, 6.
Ota, § 78, 2.
Otfried, § 89, 3.
Otgar of Mainz, § 87, 3.
Otternbein, § 208, 4.
Ottheinrich, § 135, 6.
Otto I., § 93, 2, 8; 96, 1.
" II., III., § 96, 2, 3.
" IV., § 96, 17.
" of Bamberg, § 93, 10.
" " Passau, § 114, 6.
Overbeek, Painter, § 174, 9.
" Dr., § 175, 5.
Overberg, § 172, 2.
Owen, Rob., § 212, 3.
Oxford, § 202, 2.
" Movement, § 211, 1.
Pabst, § 191, 3.
_Pabulatores_, § 44, 7.
Paccanari, § 186, 1.
Pachomius, § 44, 1, 3, 5.
Pacianus, § 47, 15.
Pacifico, Fra, § 104, 10.
Pack, O. v., § 132, 1.
Paderborn, § 133, 5.
Paez, § 152, 1.
_Pagani_, § 42, 4.
Pagi, § 158, 2; 5, 2.
Pagninus, § 149, 14.
Pajon, § 161, 3.
Palamas, § 69, 2.
Palatinate, § 135, 6; 144, 1; 153, 1, 3; 196, 4.
Paleario, § 139, 22, 23.
Palestrina, § 149, 15.
Paley, § 171, 8.
Palladius, § 47, 10.
Pallium, § 46, 1; 59, 7; 97, 3.
Palm Sunday, § 56, 4.
Pamphilus, § 31, 6.
Pan-Anglicanism, § 202, 1.
Pandulf, § 96, 18.
Pan-Presbyterianism, § 179, 3.
Pantänus, § 31, 4.
Pantheon, § 46, 10.
_Papa_, § 46, 1.
Papacy, § 34, 8; 46, 2; 82; 96; 110; 149; 156; 165; 185.
Papal Elections, § 46, 8, 11; 82, 4; 96, 6, 15, 21.
Papebroch, § 155, 2.
Paphnutius, § 45, 2.
Papias, § 30, 6; 33, 9.
_Parabolani_, § 45, 3.
Paracelsus, § 146, 2.
Paraguay, § 156, 10; 165, 3.
Pareus, § 159, 5.
Parker, Matt., § 139, 6.
" Theodore, § 211, 4.
Parnell, § 202, 10.
_Parochia_, § 84, 2.
_Parochus_, § 84, 2.
Parsimonius, § 141, 8.
Pasagians, § 108, 3.
Pascal, § 157, 5; 158, 1.
Pascale, § 139, 25.
Πάσχασταυρώσιμον and ἀναστάσιμον, § 56, 4.
Paschal Controversy, § 37, 2.
Paschalis I., § 82, 4.
" II., § 96, 11.
" III., § 96, 15.
Paschasius, § 99, 5; 91, 3.
Paschkow, § 206, 1.
Pasquino, § 149, 1.
Passaglia, § 187, 5.
Passau, Treaty of, § 137, 3.
Passion Play, § 105, 5; 115, 12; 174, 10.
Pastor, § 84, 2.
_Pastor æternus_, § 189, 3.
_Patareni_, § 108, 1.
Pataria, § 97, 5.
Patent, Austrian, § 198, 3.
" Hungarian, § 198, 6.
_Pater Orthodoxiæ_, § 47, 4.
Patriarchs, § 46.
Patriciate, Roman, § 82, 1.
Patrick, St., § 77, 1.
_Patrimonium pauperum_, § 45, 4.
" Petri, § 46, 10; 82, 1.
Patripassians, § 33, 4.
Patronage, § 84.
Patronus, § 57, 1.
Paul, the Apostle, § 15.
" Burgensis, § 113, 7.
" Diaconus, § 90, 3.
" Orosius, § 47, 20.
" the Persian, § 48, 1.
" of Samosata, § 33, 8; 39, 3.
" Silentiarius, § 48, 5.
" of Thebes, § 39, 4.
" Warnefried, § 90, 3.
" I., § 82, 1.
" II., § 110, 11, 15; 119, 4.
" III., § 149, 2; 134, 1; 139, 23.
" IV, § 149, 2.
" V., § 155, 1, 2, 5; 149, 13.
" I. of Russia, § 186, 2.
Paula, St., § 44, 5.
" Francis de, § 112, 8.
" Vinc. de, § 156, 8.
Pauli, Greg., § 148, 3.
Paulicians, § 71, 1.
Paulinus of Antioch, § 50, 8.
" " Aquileia, § 90, 3.
" " Milan, § 47, 20; 53, 4.
" Missionary, § 77, 4.
" of Nola, § 48, 6; 60, 5.
Paulus, Dr., § 182, 2.
_Pauperes de Lugduno_, § 108, 10.
" _Catholici_, § 108, 10.
Payens, § 98, 7.
_Pax dissid._, § 139, 18.
Pearson, § 161, 6, 7.
Peasants’ War, § 124, 5.
Pectorale, § 59, 7.
Pelagius, § 47, 21; 53, 3, 4.
" I., Pope, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
" II., " § 46, 9.
Pelayo, § 81, 1.
Pellicanus, § 120, 4, note.
Pellico-Silvio, § 173, 7.
Penance, § 104, 4.
Penda, § 77, 4.
Penitential Books, § 61, 1; 89, 6; 103, 6.
Penn, § 163, 5.
Pentecost, § 37, 1; 56, 4.
Pepin, § 78, 5; 82, 1.
Pepucians, § 40, 1.
Peraldus, § 103, 9.
Perates, § 27, 6.
Peregrinus Proteus, § 23, 1.
_Pères de la foi_, § 186, 1.
Perfectionists, § 211, 6.
Perfectus, § 21, 1.
Pericopes, § 59, 2; 167, 2.
Peristerium, § 60, 5.
Perkins, § 143, 5.
Peroz, § 64, 2.
Perpetua, § 22, 5.
Perrone, § 175, 2; 191, 9.
Persecution of Christians, § 23; 64.
Persia, § 64, 2; 93, 15.
Perthes, § 183, 1.
Peschito, § 36, 8.
Pestalozzi, § 171, 12.
Petavius, § 158, 1.
Peter the Apostle, § 16, 1.
" d’Ailly, § 118, 4.
" of Alcantara, § 149, 5, 16.
" " Alexandria, § 41, 4.
" " Amiens, § 94, 1.
" " Aragon, § 96, 18.
" " Bruys, § 108, 7.
" Cantor, § 103, 3.
" of Castelnau, § 109, 1.
" " Chelczic, § 119, 7.
" " Clugny, § 96, 13.
" Chrysolanus, § 67, 4.
" Chrysologus, § 47, 16.
" Comestor, § 105, 5.
" Damiani, § 97, 4; 104, 10; 106, 4.
" Dresdensis, § 115, 7.
" of Dubois, § 118, 1.
" Fullo, § 52, 5.
" Hispanus, § 96, 22.
" the Lombard, § 102, 5; 104, 2, 4.
" Mongus, § 52, 5.
" of Murrone, § 98, 2.
" " Pisa, § 90.
" " Poitiers, § 102, 5.
" Siculus, § 71, 1.
" the Venerable, § 98, 1; 102, 2; 109.
" I. of Russia, § 166.
" and Paul, Festival of, § 57, 1.
" Fest. of Chair of St., § 57, 1.
" Church of St., § 115, 13.
Peter’s Pence, § 82.
Petersen, § 170, 1.
Peterson, § 139, 1.
Petilian, § 63, 1.
Petrarch, § 115, 10.
Petrejus, § 120, 2.
Petrikan, Synod, § 139, 18; 148, 3.
Petrobrusians, § 108, 7.
Petrow, § 163, 10.
Petrucci, § 157, 2.
Peucer, § 141, 10; 144, 3.
Peyrerius, § 161, 7.
Peysellians, § 170, 6.
Pfaff, § 167, 4, 5, 8.
Pfefferkorn, § 120, 4.
Pfeffinger, § 141, 7.
Pfeiffer, Aug., § 159, 4.
Pfenninger, § 171, 8.
Pfleiderer, § 182, 19.
Pflugk, § 135, 3, 5; 136, 5; 137, 6.
_Pharensis Syn._, § 77, 6.
Pharisees, § 8, 4.
Philadelphia, § 60, 4.
Philadelphian Churches, § 170, 1.
" Period, § 168, 4.
" Sect, § 163, 8.
Philaster, § 47, 14.
Philip, § 14; 17, 2.
" the Arabian, § 22, 4.
" I. of France, § 96, 8, 10.
" II., Aug., § 94, 3; 96, 18.
" the Fair, § 110, 1, 2; 112, 7.
" II. of Spain, § 139, 12, 21.
" of Swabia, § 96, 17.
" the Magnanimous, § 126, 4, 5; 135, 1, 3; 137, 3.
Philippi, § 182, 13.
Philippists, § 141, 4 ff.
Philippones, § 163, 10.
Philippopolis, Synod of, § 50, 2.
Philipps, § 175, 7; 191, 7.
Phillpotts, § 202, 2.
Philo, § 10, 1.
Philopatris, § 42, 5.
Philoponus, § 47, 11.
Philosophical Sin, § 149, 10.
Philosophoumena, § 31, 3.
Philostorgius, § 4, 1.
Philoxenus, § 59, 1.
Philumena, § 27, 12.
Phocas, § 46, 10.
Phœbe, § 18, 4.
Photinus, § 50, 2.
Photius, § 67, 1; 68, 5.
Phyletism, § 207, 3.
Φωτιζόμενοι, § 35, 1.
Φθαρτολάτραι, § 52, 7.
Piacenza, Council, § 94.
Piarists, § 156, 7.
Picards, § 116, 5; 119, 8.
Pichler, § 191, 7.
Pick, § 211, 8.
Picts, § 77, 2.
Picus of Mirandola, § 120, 1.
Pideritz, § 133, 5.
Piedmont, § 204, 3.
Pietism, Lutheran, § 159, 3; 167, 1
" Reformed, § 162, 3, 4.
" in 19th Century, § 176, 2.
Pilate, Acts of, § 14, 2; 31, 2.
Pilgrim of Passau, § 93, 8.
" Fathers, § 143, 4; 208, 1.
Pilgrimages, § 57, 6; 89, 4; 104, 8; 115, 9; 188, 5, 6.
Pin, du, § 158, 2.
Pionius, § 30, 5.
Pirkheimer, § 120, 3.
Pirminius, § 78, 1, 5.
Pirstinger, § 125, 5; 149, 14.
Pisa, Council of, § 110, 6.
Piscator, § 143, 5.
Pistis, Sophia, § 27, 7.
Pistoja, Synod of, § 165, 10.
Pistorius, § 135, 3.
" Maternus, § 120, 2.
Pius II., § 110, 10; 118, 6; 119, 4.
" III., § 110, 13.
" IV., § 149, 2.
" V., § 149, 3; 139, 23.
" VI., § 165, 9, 10, 15.
" VII., § 185, 1; 203, 1.
" VIII., § 184, 1; 193, 1.
" IX., § 185, 2 ff.; 175, 2; 188, 8; 189, 3; 197, 7; 202, 11.
Placæus, § 161, 3.
Planck, § 171, 8.
_Planeta_, § 59, 7.
Plastic Arts, § 60, 6; 89, 6; 104, 14; 115, 13.
Plato, § 7, 4; 47, 5; 68, 3; 99, 2.
Platon, § 166, 1.
Platter, § 130, 4.
_Plebani_, _Plebs_, § 84, 2.
Plenaries, § 115, 4.
Pleroma, § 26, 2.
Pletho, § 68, 2; 120, 1.
Pliny the Younger, § 22, 2.
Plotinus, § 24, 2.
Plotizin, § 210, 4.
Plutschau, § 167, 9.
Plymouth Brethren, § 211, 11.
Pneumatomachians, § 50, 5.
Pobedonoszew, § 206, 1.
Poblenz, § 184, 5.
Pocquet, § 146, 4.
Pococke, § 161, 6.
Podiebrad, § 119, 7, 8.
Poetry, Christian, § 48, 5, 6; 105, 4; 173, 6.
Poggio, § 120, 1; 119, 5.
Poiret, § 163, 9.
Poissy, Relig. Confer., § 139, 14.
Poland, § 93, 7; 139, 18; 165, 4; 206, 2, 3.
Pole, § 139, 5, 22.
Polemon, § 47, 6.
Polenz of Samland, § 125, 1.
Poliander, § 142, 3.
Polo, Marco, § 93, 15.
Polozk, Synod of, § 206, 2.
Polycarp, § 22, 3; 30, 6; 37, 2.
Polychronius, § 47, 9.
Polycrates, § 37, 2.
Polyglott, Antwerp, § 149, 14.
" Complutensian, § 120, 8.
" London, § 161, 6.
" Paris, § 158, 1.
Pomare, § 184, 7.
Pombal, § 165, 9.
Pommerania, § 93, 10; 134, 4.
Pomponazzo, § 120, 1.
Ponce de la Fuente, § 139, 21.
_Pœnitentiaria Rom._, § 110, 16.
Pontianus, § 38, 1.
Ponticus, § 22, 3.
Pontius, § 98, 1.
Popiel, § 206, 1.
Popular Philosophy, § 171, 4.
Pordage, § 163, 9.
Porphyry, § 23, 3; 24, 2.
Portig, § 180, 3.
Portiuncula, § 98, 3.
Port Royal, § 157, 5.
Portugal, § 165, 9; 205, 5.
Positivism, § 174, 2; 210, 1.
Possessor of Carthage, § 53, 5.
Possevin, § 139, 1; 151, 2, 3.
Possidius, § 47, 18.
Post-Apostolic Age, § 20, 1.
_Postilla_, § 103, 9; 116, 6.
Potamiæna, § 22, 4.
Pothinus, § 22, 3.
_Præceptor Germaniæ_, § 122, 5.
_Præpositi_, § 84, 2.
Prætorius, § 160, 1.
Praxeas, § 33, 4.
Prayer, § 37; 39, 1.
Preaching, § 36, 2; 59, 3; 89, 1; 104, 1; 115, 2; 142, 2.
Preaching Orders, § 98, 5; 112, 4.
Pre-Adamites, § 161, 4.
Prebends, § 84, 4.
Precaria, § 86, 1.
Precists, § 96, 23.
Predestination, § 53; 91, 4; 125, 3; 141, 12; 161, 2, 3; 168, 1; 208, 3.
Prepon, § 27, 12.
Presburg, Peace of, § 192.
Presbyter, § 17, 2, 5; 34, 3; 45.
Presbyterians, § 143, 3; 162, 1; 202, 4; 208, 1.
Prierias, § 122, 3.
Priestley, § 211, 4.
Primacy, Papal, § 34, 8; 46, 2, 3.
Primasius, § 48, 1.
Primian, § 63, 1.
Prisca, § 40, 1.
Priscillianists, § 54, 2.
Probabilism, § 149, 10; 113, 4.
Procession of Holy Spirit, § 50, 6; 67, 1; 91, 2.
Processions, § 59, 9.
Prochorus, § 31, 18.
Procidians, § 27, 8.
Proclus, Montanist, § 31, 7; 40, 2.
" Neoplaton., § 24, 2; 42, 5.
Procopius of Gaza, § 48, 1.
" the Great, § 119, 7.
Procopowicz, § 166.
_Professio fid. Trid._, § 149, 14.
Proles, § 112, 5.
Proli, § 211, 16.
Propaganda, § 156, 9; 204, 2.
Prophecy, § 143, 3, 5.
_Propositt. Cleri Gallicani_, § 156, 3; 203, 1.
Proselytes of Gate and Righteousness, § 10, 2.
Πρόσκλαυσις, § 39, 2.
Προσφοραί, § 36.
Prosper Aquit., § 47, 20; 48, 6;
53, 8.
Proterius, § 52, 5.
Protestants, § 132, 3.
“_Protestantenverein_,” § 180.
Proudhon, § 212, 1.
_Provida sollersque_, § 196, 1.
Prudentius, Poet, § 48, 6.
" of Troyes, § 91, 5.
Psellus, § 68, 5; 71, 3.
Pseudepigraphs, § 32.
Pseudo-Basilideans, § 27, 3.
" Clement, § 28, 3; 43, 4.
" Cyril, § 96, 23.
" Dionysius, § 47, 11.
" Ignatius, § 43, 5.
" Isidore, § 87, 2.
" Tertullian, § 31, 3.
Psychians, § 26, 2; 40, 5.
_Publicani_, § 108, 1.
Pufendorf, § 167, 5.
Pulcheria, § 52, 4.
Pullus, Rob., § 102, 5.
Punctation of Ems, § 165, 10.
Purcell, § 186, 5.
Purgatory, § 61, 4; 67, 6; 104, 4; 106, 2, 3.
Purists, § 159, 4.
Puritans; § 143, 3, 4; 155.
Puseyites, § 202, 2.
Puttkamer, v., § 174, 8; 193, 6; 197, 10.
Quadragesima, § 37, 1; 56, 4, 5, 7.
Quadratus, § 30, 8.
_Quadrivium_, § 90, 8.
Quakers, § 163, 4, 5, 6; 211, 3.
_Quanta cura_, § 185, 2.
Quartodecimans, § 37, 2; 56, 3.
Quenstedt, § 159, 5.
_Quercum_, _Synod ad_, § 51, 3.
Quesnel, § 165, 7.
_Quicunque_, § 50, 7.
Quietists, § 157.
_Quinisextum_, § 63, 2.
_Quinquagesima_, § 37, 1; 56, 4.
Quintin, § 146, 4.
_Quod numquam_, § 197, 7.
Rabanus, § 90, 4; 91, 3, 5.
Rabaut, § 165, 5.
Rabinowitz, § 211, 9.
Rabulas, § 52, 3; 48, 7.
Racovian Catechism, § 148, 4.
Radama I., II., § 184, 3.
Radbertus, § 90, 5; 91, 3, 4.
Radbod, § 78, 3.
Radewins, Flor., § 112, 9.
Radstock, § 206, 1.
Raimund Lullus, § 93, 16; 103, 7
" Martini, § 103, 9.
" of Pennaforte, § 93, 16; 99, 5; 113, 4.
Raimund du Puy, § 93, 8.
" of Sabunde, § 113, 5.
" " Toulouse, § 109, 4.
Rakoczy, § 153, 3.
Rambach, § 167, 6, 8.
Ramus, § 143, 6.
Ranavalona, § 184, 3.
Rancé, de, § 156, 8.
Raphael, § 115, 13.
" Union, § 186, 4.
Rapp, § 211, 6.
Raskolniks, § 163, 10; 210, 3.
Rasoherina, § 184, 3.
Raspe, § 105, 3.
Räss, Bishop, § 196, 7.
Rastislaw, § 79, 2.
Ratherius, § 100, 2.
Rationalism, § 171; 176, 1; 182, 2, 3.
Ratramnus, § 67, 1; 90, 5; 91, 3, 4, 5.
“_Rauhes Haus_,” § 183, 1.
Rauscher, Card., § 189, 3; 198, 2.
Ravaillac, § 139, 17.
Raynaldi, Oderic, § 5, 2.
Realism and Nominalism, § 99, 2; 113, 2.
Recafrid, § 81, 1.
Reccared, § 76, 2.
Rechiar, § 76, 4.
_Reclusi_, § 85, 6.
_Recognit. Clem._, § 27, 4.
_Reconciliatio_, § 39, 2.
_Recursus ab abusu_, § 185, 4; 192, 4; 194, 9; 197, 9.
Redemptions, § 88, 5.
Redemptorists, § 165, 2; 186, 1.
Reformation in head and members, § 118, 3.
Refugees, French Huguenot, § 153, 4.
Regensburg Colloquy, § 130, 3, 10.
" Convention, § 126, 3.
" Declaration, § 135, 4.
" Diet, § 133, 2; 135, 3.
" Reformation, § 135, 6.
" Synod, § 91, 1.
Regino of Prüm, § 90, 5.
Reginus, § 104, 11.
Regionary Bishops, § 84.
_Regula fidei_, § 35, 2.
Reichenau, § 78, 1.
Reimarus, § 171, 6.
Reinerius Sachoni, § 108, 1.
Reinhard, Mart., § 139, 2.
Reinhard, Fr. Volk., § 171, 8.
Reinkens, § 190, 1.
Reiser, Fred., § 119, 9; 118, 5.
Reland, § 169, 6.
Relics, Worship of, § 39, 5; 57, 5; 88, 4; 104, 8; 115, 9.
_Religiosi_, § 44.
Remigius of Auxerre, § 90, 5.
" " Lyons, § 91, 5.
" " Rheims, § 76, 9.
Remismund, § 76, 4.
Remoboth, § 44, 7.
Remonstrants, § 161, 2.
Renaissance, § 115, 13; 149, 15.
Renan, § 182, 8.
Renata of Ferrara, § 138, 2; 139, 22.
Renaudot, § 165, 11.
Reni, Guido, § 149, 15.
Reparatus of Carthage, § 52, 6.
Repeal Association, § 202, 9.
_Reservatio mentalis_, § 149, 10.
Reservations, § 110, 15.
_Reservatum ecclest._, § 137, 5.
Restitution Edict, § 153, 2.
Reuchlin, § 120, 3, 4.
Reuss, § 182, 18.
Revenues of the Church, § 45, 6; 86, 1.
_Reversurus_, § 207, 4.
Revivals, § 208, 1.
Revolution, French, § 165, 14.
" English, § 155.
_Rex Christianiss._, § 110, 13.
Rhaw, § 142, 5.
Rhegius Urbanus, § 120, 3; 127, 3; 125, 1.
Rheinwald, § 83, 2.
Rhenius, § 184, 5.
Rhense, Elector. Union of, § 110, 4.
Rhetorians, § 62, 3.
Rhine League, § 192.
Rhodoald, § 67, 1; 82, 7.
Rhodon, § 27, 12.
Rhyming Bible, § 105, 5.
" Legends, § 105, 5.
Riccabona, § 175, 2.
Ricci, Laur., § 165, 9.
" Matt., § 150, 1.
" Scipio, § 165, 10.
Richard Cœur de Leon, § 94, 3.
" of Cornwallis, § 94, 5.
" " St. Victor, § 102, 4; 104, 4.
Richelieu, § 153, 4.
Richter, C. F., § 167, 6.
" Emil, § 182, 22.
" Greg., § 160, 2.
" Jean Paul, § 171, 11.
" Louis, § 174, 9.
Ridley, § 139, 5.
Rieger, § 167, 8.
Rienzi, § 110, 5.
Rietschel, § 174, 9.
Riga, § 93, 12; 139, 3.
Rigdon, Sidney, § 211, 12, 13.
Riley, § 209, 1.
Rimbert, § 80, 2.
Rimini, Syn., § 50, 3.
Rinck, Melch., § 147, 1.
Ring and Staff, § 96, 6, 7.
Ringold, § 93, 14.
Rinkart, § 160, 3.
Rist, § 160, 3.
_Risus Paschales_, § 105, 2.
Ritschl, § 182, 7, 20.
Ritter, Erasm., § 130, 4, 8.
" J. J., § 5, 6.
" Carl, § 174, 4.
Ritualists, § 199, 2.
Rizzio, § 139, 10.
Robber Synod, § 52, 4.
Robert of Arbrissel, § 98, 2.
" " Citeaux, § 98, 1.
" Grosseteste, § 103, 1.
" Guiscard, § 95, 1; 98, 6, 8.
" Pullus, § 102, 5.
" of the Sorbonne, § 103, 9.
Robert of France, § 104, 10.
Robespierre, § 165, 15.
Robinson, § 143, 4.
Rodigast, § 160, 4.
Rodriguez, § 149, 8; 150, 4.
Roëll, § 161, 5.
Roger of Sicily, § 95, 1; 96, 13.
Röhr, § 176, 1; 182, 2.
Rokycana, § 119, 7.
Rollo, § 93, 1.
Romanz, § 174, 2.
Roman Architecture, § 104, 12.
Romanus, Pope, § 96, 1.
Romuald, § 98, 1.
Ronge, § 187, 6.
Roos, § 171, 8.
Rosary, § 104, 8; 115, 1.
Roscelinus, § 101, 3.
Rose, The Consecrat. Golden, § 96, 23.
Rosenkranz, § 182, 6.
Rosicrucians, § 160, 1.
Rossi de, § 191, 7; 38, 1.
Röstar, § 211, 5.
Roswitha, § 100, 1.
_Rota Romana_, § 110, 16.
Rothad of Soissons, § 83, 2.
Rothe, A., § 167, 6; 168, 2.
" Rich., § 5, 4; 180, 1; 182, 10.
Rothmann, § 147, 9.
Röublin, § 130, 5; 147, 3.
Roundheads, § 155, 1.
Rousseau, § 165, 14.
Rubianus Crotus, § 120, 2, 5.
Rückert, § 174, 6.
Rudelbach, § 182, 13; 194, 1.
Rudolph of Hapsburg, § 96, 21, 22.
Rudolph II., § 129, 19; 137, 8.
" of Swabia, § 96, 8.
Ruet, § 205, 4.
Rufinus, § 5, 1; 47, 17; 48, 2; 51, 2.
Ruge, § 174, 1.
Rügen, § 93, 10.
Rugians, § 76, 6.
Ruinart, § 158, 2.
Rulman Merswin, § 114, 2, 4.
Rupert, § 78, 2.
" of Deutz, § 102, 8.
Rupp, § 176, 1; 178, 1.
Russel, Lord, § 202, 1, 5.
Russia, § 73, 5-6; 151, 3; 163, 8; 166; 206; 219, 3, 4; 212, 6.
Rust, § 195, 5.
Ruysbroek, John of, § 114, 7.
" William of, § 93, 15.
_Sabatati_, § 108, 10.
Sabbath, § 56, 1.
Sabbatarians, § 163, 3; 211, 5.
Sabeans, § 22, 1.
Sabellius, § 33, 5, 7.
Sabinianus, § 60, 5.
_Sacco di Roma_, § 132, 2.
Sachs, Hans, § 142, 3, 7.
Sack, K. H., § 182, 9.
Sacramentalia, § 58; 104, 2.
Sacraments, § 58; 70, 2; 104, 2-5.
_Sacramentarium_, § 59, 6.
_Sacrificati_, § 22, 5.
_Sacrum rescript._, § 53, 3.
Sacy, de, § 158, 1.
Sadducees, § 8, 4.
Sadolet, § 138, 3; 139, 22.
Sagittarius, § 159, 4.
Sailer, § 165, 12; 187, 1.
Saints, Worship of, § 57, 1; 88, 4; 104, 8.
Saladin, § 94, 3.
Sales, Francis de, § 156, 7; 157, 1.
" Nuns of, § 156, 7.
Salisbury, John of, § 102, 9.
Salmeron, § 149, 8.
Salt Lake, § 211, 10.
Salvation Army, § 211, 2.
Salvianus, § 47, 21.
Salzburg, § 78, 2; 79.
" Emigrants of, § 164, 4.
Samaritans, § 10; 22.
Sampseans, § 28, 2.
Sanbenito, § 117, 2.
Sanchez, § 149, 10.
Sanction, Pragmatic, § 96, 21; 110, 9, 14.
_Sanctissimum_, § 104, 3.
Sandwich Islands, § 182, 7.
Sankey, § 211, 1.
Sapor I., § 29, 1.
Sapores, § 64, 2.
Sarabaites, § 44, 7.
Saracens, § 81; 95.
Sardica, Council of, § 46, 3; 50, 2.
Sardinia, § 204, 1, 3.
Sarmatio, § 62, 2.
Sarpi, § 156, 2; 158, 2.
Sartorius, § 182, 13.
Saturnalia, § 56, 5.
Saturninus, § 27, 9.
Saunier, § 138, 1; 139, 25.
Saurin, § 169, 6.
Savonarola, § 119, 11.
Savonières, Syn. of, § 91, 5.
Sbynko, § 119, 3, 4.
_Scala santa_, § 115, 9.
Schaffhausen, § 130, 8.
Schelling, § 171, 10; 174, 1.
Schenkel, § 182, 17; 196, 3, 4; 180, 1.
Schiller, § 171, 11.
Schirmer, § 160, 4.
Schism, Papal, § 110, 6.
" between East and West, § 67.
Schisms in the Ancient Church, § 41; 50, 8; 52, 5; 63.
Schlegel, Fr., § 174, 5; 175, 7.
" J. Ad., § 172, 1.
Schleiermacher, § 5, 4; 182, 1; 174, 3.
Schleswig-Holstein, § 127, 3; 156, 2; 201, 1; 193, 7.
Schlichting, § 148, 4.
Schmalcald Articles, § 134, 1.
" League, § 133, 1, 7.
" War, § 136.
Schmerling, § 198, 3, 4.
Schmid, Leop., § 187, 3; 191, 2; 196, 4.
Schmidt, Erasm., § 159, 4.
" Lor., § 171, 3.
" Seb., § 159, 4.
Schmolck, § 167, 6, 8.
Schnepf, § 122, 2; 131, 1; 133, 3.
Schnorr, § 174, 9.
Schöberlein, § 181, 3.
_Schola palatina_, § 90, 1.
" _Saxonica_, § 82.
Scholastica, St., § 85, 3.
Scholasticism, Greek, § 47, 6; 68, 3.
" Latin, § 99 ff.; 113.
Scholasticus, John, § 43, 3.
Scholten, § 200, 2.
Schools.
Schopenhauer, § 174, 2.
Schortinghuis, § 169, 3.
Schroeckh, § 5, 3; 171, 8.
Schubert, § 174, 3, 8.
Schultens, § 169, 6.
Schultz, Herm., § 182, 20.
Schulz, Dav., § 183, 3.
Schwartz, § 167, 9.
Schwarzenberg, § 189, 3.
Schweizer, § 182, 9.
Schwenkfeld, § 146, 1.
Scotists, § 113, 2.
Scotland, § 77, 2; 139, 8; 202, 7, 8, 11.
Scots, 77, 2.
Scottish Cloister, § 98, 1; 112.
Scotus, John Duns, § 113.
" Erigena, § 90, 7; 91, 5.
Scriver, § 160, 1.
Scythianus, § 29, 1.
_Seculum obscurum_, § 100.
Secundus, § 50, 1.
_Sedes Apostolicæ_, § 34.
Sedulius, § 48, 6.
Segarelli, § 108, 8.
Segneri, § 157, 2.
Seiler, § 171, 8.
Selden, § 161, 6.
Selnecker, § 141, 12; 142, 4.
Sembat, § 71, 2.
Semi-arians, § 50, 3.
Semi-jejunia, § 37, 2.
Semi-pelagians, § 53, 5.
Semler, § 171, 6; 5, 3.
Sendomir Compact, § 139, 18.
Seneca’s Correspondence, § 32, 7.
Sententiarists, § 102, 5.
Sepp, § 191, 8; 174, 4.
Septimius Severus, § 22, 4.
Septuagint, § 10, 2; 36, 8; 48, 1.
Sequences, § 88, 2.
Serapeion, § 42, 4.
Seraphic Order, § 98, 3.
Serenius Granian., § 22, 2.
Serenus of Marsilia, § 57, 4.
Sergius of Constantinople, § 52, 8.
" " Ravenna, § 83, 2.
" I. of Rome, § 46, 11; 63, 3.
" II., § 82, 5.
" III., § 96, 1.
" IV., § 96, 4.
Serrarius, § 149, 14.
Servatus Lupus, § 90, 5; 91, 5.
Servetus, § 148, 2.
Servites, § 98, 6.
_Servus servorum Dei_, § 46, 10.
Sethians, § 27, 6.
Seventh-Day Adventists, § 211, 1.
" " Baptists, § 163, 3.
Severa, § 23, 4; 26.
Severians, § 52, 7.
Severina, § 28, 4.
Severinus, Missionary, § 76, 6.
" Pope, § 46, 11.
Severus, Emperor, § 22, 6.
" Wolfg., § 137, 8.
Shaftesbury, § 171, 1.
Shakers, § 170, 7.
Sherlock, § 171, 1.
Shiites, § 65, 1.
Ship of the Church, § 60, 1.
Sibylline Books, § 32, 1.
Sicily, § 81; 95.
Sickingen, § 120, 4; 122, 4; 123, 7; 124, 2.
Siena, Syn., § 110, 7.
Sieveking, § 183, 1.
Sigfrid, § 93, 1.
Sigillaria, § 56, 5.
Sigismund of Burgundy, § 76, 5.
" Emperor, § 110, 7, 8; 119, 5.
Sigismund I. of Poland, § 139, 18.
" Aug. " § 139, 18.
" III. " § 139, 18.
Sigurd, § 93, 3.
Silesia, § 127, 3; 153, 2; 165, 4.
Silesius, Angelus, § 157, 4; 160, 4.
Silverius, § 46, 9.
Simeon of Jerusalem, § 22, 2.
" Stylites, § 44, 6.
" called Titus, § 71, 1.
" Czar, § 73, 3.
" Metaphrastes, § 68, 4.
" of Thessalonica, § 68, 5.
" " Tournay, § 103, 2.
" VI., VII.; Counts of Lippe, § 154, 2.
Simeoni, § 205, 4.
Simon Magus, § 25, 2.
" Rich., § 158, 2.
" St., § 212, 2.
Simonians, § 27, 8.
Simons, Menno, § 147, 2.
Simony, § 96, 5.
Simplicius, § 42, 5.
Siricius, § 45, 2; 46, 4.
Sirmium, Syn., § 50, 2, 3.
Sirmond, § 158, 2.
Sisters of Mercy, § 156, 8; 186, 2.
Sixtus II., § 22, 5.
" III., § 46, 6.
" IV., § 110, 11; 112, 3; 115, 1.
Sixtus V., § 149, 3, 4, 14.
" of Siena, § 149, 14.
Skeleton Army, § 211, 2.
Smith, Jos., § 211, 10.
" Pearsall, § 211, 1.
" Robertson, § 202, 8.
Socialism, § 212.
Socinians, § 148, 4; 202, 5.
Soissons, Syn., § 78, 4; 102, 8.
_Sollicitudo omnium_, § 185, 1.
Somerset, § 139, 5.
Sophia, Church of, § 60, 3.
Sophronius, § 52, 8.
Sorbonne, § 103, 9.
Soter, § 36, 8.
Southcote, Joanna, § 211, 5.
Spain, § 76, 2, 3; 95, 2; 139, 21; 205.
Spalatin, § 122, 6.
Spalding, Bishop, § 189, 3.
Spangenberg, John, § 142, 6.
" Bishop, § 168, 7.
Spanheim, § 5, 2; 161, 3, 7.
Speaker’s Bible, § 202, 1.
Spencer, John, § 161, 6.
" Herbert, § 174, 2.
Spener, § 158, 3; 167, 5.
Spiera, Fr., § 139, 2, 4.
Spinoza, § 164, 1.
Spires, Diet, § 126, 6; 132, 3; 135, 9; 147, 4.
Spirit, Sect of the New, § 108, 2.
_Spiritales_, § 40, 5.
Spirituals, § 164, 1.
_Spirituels_, § 146, 4.
Sponsors, § 35, 5; 58, 1.
Sufis, § 61, 1.
Stackhouse, § 168, 6.
Stahl, § 182, 15; 193, 6.
Stancarns, § 141, 2.
Stanislaus, St., § 93, 2.
" Znaim, § 119, 4.
Stanley, § 184, 4.
Stapfer, § 169, 6.
Stapulensis, § 120, 7, 8.
Starck, § 175, 7.
Starowerzi, § 163, 10; 210, 3.
Staudenmaier, § 191, 6.
Stäudlin, § 171, 8.
Staupitz, § 112, 6; 122, 1.
Stedingers, § 109, 3.
Steffens, § 174, 3; 177, 2.
Stein, Baron v., § 176, 1.
Steinbart, § 171, 4, 6.
Steinmetz, § 167, 8.
Stephan I., § 35, 3.
" II., § 66, 2; 78, 7; 82, 1.
" III., § 60, 2; 82, 1.
" IV., § 82, 4.
" V., VI., § 82, 8.
" IX., § 96, 6.
" St., § 93, 8; 96, 3.
" of Palecz, § 119, 4, 5.
" " Sunik, § 72, 2.
" " Tigerno, § 98, 2.
" Mart., § 194, 1.
Stephanas, § 18, 4.
Stephen Langton, § 96, 18.
Stier, § 181, 1; 183, 4.
Stigmatization, § 105, 4; 188, 3.
Stirner, Max., § 212, 1.
Stolberg, § 5, 6; 165, 6.
Storch, Nich., § 124, 1.
Storr, § 171, 8.
Strassburg, § 125, 1.
" Minster, § 104, 13.
Strauss, Dav. Fr., § 174, 1; 182, 6, 8; 199, 4.
Streoneshalch, Syn., § 77, 6.
Strossmayer, § 189, 3, 4.
Stuart, Mary, § 139, 5.
Studites, § 44, 4.
Sturm of Fulda, § 78, 4, 5.
Stylites, § 44, 6; 78, 3; 85, 6.
Suarez, § 149, 14.
_Subintroductæ_, § 39, 3.
Subordinationists, § 33, 1.
Suevi, § 76, 4.
Suffragan Bishops, § 84.
Sully, § 139, 17.
Sulpicius Severus, § 47, 17.
_Summa_ of Holy Scripture, § 125, 2.
Summaries, Württemb., § 160, 6.
_Summis desiderantes_, § 117, 4.
Summists, § 102, 4.
_Summus Episcopus_, § 167, 3.
Sun, Children of, § 71, 2.
Sunday, Fest. of, § 17, 7; 37; 56, 1.
Sunnites, § 65, 1.
_Supplicationes_, § 59, 9.
Supralapsarians, § 161, 1.
Supernaturalists, § 171, 8; 182, 4, 5.
Suso, H., § 114, 5.
Sutri, Syn., § 96, 4.
Swabian Articles, § 132, 5.
" Halle, Sect in, § 108, 6.
Sweden, § 80; 93, 3; 139, 1; 201, 2.
Swedenborgians, § 170, 5; 211, 4.
Sweyn, § 93, 2.
Switzerland, § 78, 1; 130; 138; 162, 6; 189, 7; 190, 3; 199.
Sydow, § 180, 4.
Syllabus, § 185, 2.
Sylvester I., § 42, 1; 46, 3; 59, 5; 82, 2.
Sylvester II., § 94; 96, 3.
" III., § 96, 4.
" Bern., § 102, 10.
_Symbolum Apost._, § 35, 2; 59, 2.
_ " Athan._, § 59, 2.
_ " Nic. Constant._, § 59, 2.
_ " Nicænum_, § 50, 1.
Symmachus, Pope, § 46, 8.
" Prefect, § 42, 4.
Sympherosa, § 32, 9.
Synagogues, § 8, 3.
Syncretist Controv., § 159, 3.
Synergists, § 53, 1.
Synesius, § 47, 7; 59, 4.
_Syngramma Suevic._, § 131, 1.
Synod, Holy Russian, § 166.
" The Holy Athens, § 207, 1.
Synods, § 34, 5; 43, 2.
_Synodus palmaris_, § 46, 8.
Syrians, § 184, 9; 207, 2.
Syzigies, § 27, 3; 28, 3.
Tabernaculum, § 104, 3.
Taborites, § 119, 7.
Taepings, § 211, 15.
Tafel, Imm., § 211, 4.
Tahiti, § 184, 6.
Talmud, § 25.
Tamerlane, § 72, 1; 93, 15.
Tamuls, § 184, 5.
Tanchelm, § 108, 9.
Tartars, § 73, 1.
Tasso, § 149, 15.
Tatian, § 27, 10; 30, 10.
Tauler, § 114, 2.
Teellinck, § 161, 4.
Teetotallers, § 202, 9.
Telesphorus, § 22, 2.
Teller, § 171, 4, 7.
Templars, § 98, 8; 112, 7.
Terminants, § 98, 3.
Terminism, § 167, 2.
Territorial System, § 167, 5.
Tersteegen, § 169, 1.
Tertiaries, § 93, 3, 5.
Tertullian, § 31, 10; 33, 4, 9; 34, 8; 40, 3.
Tertullianists, § 40, 3.
_Tessareskaidecatites_, § 37, 2.
Test Act, § 153, 6; 155, 3; 202, 5.
Testam. of XII. Patri., § 32, 3.
Tetzel, § 122, 2.
Teutonic Knights, § 98, 8; 93, 13.
Theatines, § 149, 7.
Thecla, § 32, 6.
Theiner, § 186, 1; 187, 4; 191, 7.
Theodelinde, § 76, 8.
Theodemir, § 92, 2.
Theodo I., II., § 78, 2.
Theodora, § 46, 9; 52, 6; 71, 1.
Theodore of Abyssinia, § 182, 9.
Theodoret, § 47, 9; 52, 3, 4.
Theodoric, § 46, 8; 76, 7.
" of Freiburg, § 103, 10.
" of Niem, § 118, 5.
Theodorus, Pope, § 52, 1.
" Ascidas, § 52, 8.
" Balsamon, § 43, 3.
" Lector, § 5, 1.
" of Mopsuestia, § 47, 9; 48, 1; 52, 3; 53, 4.
Theodorus Studita, § 66, 4.
" of Tarsus, § 90, 8.
Theodosius the Great, § 42, 4; 47, 15; 50, 4.
Theodosius II., § 42, 4.
Theodotians, § 33, 3.
Theodulf of Orleans, § 89, 2; 90, 2.
Theognis of Nicæa, § 50, 1.
Theonas, § 50, 1.
Theopaschites, § 52, 6.
Theophanies, § 96, 2.
Theophilus, Emperor, § 66, 4.
" of Alexandria, § 42, 4; 51, 2, 3.
Theophilus of Antioch, § 30, 10.
" " Din, § 64, 4.
" " Moscow, § 166, 1.
Theophylact, § 68, 5.
Θεοτόκος, § 52, 2, 3.
Therapeutæ, § 10, 1.
Theresa, St., § 149, 6, 15, 16.
_Thesaurus supererogat._, § 106, 2.
Thiers, § 203, 5.
Thiersch, § 211, 10.
Thietberga, § 82, 7.
Thietgaut of Treves, § 82, 7.
Thilo, § 160, 3.
Tholuck, § 182, 4.
Thomas Aquinas, § 103, 6; 96, 23; 104, 4, 10.
Thomas Becket, § 96, 16.
" Bradwardine, § 113, 2.
" of Celano, § 104, 10.
" a Kempis, § 112, 9; 114, 7.
Thomas Christians, § 52, 3.
Thomasius, Chr., § 117, 4; 159, 3; 167, 4, 5.
Thomasius, Gottfr., § 182, 13.
Thomassinus, § 158, 1.
Thomists, § 113, 3.
Thontracians, § 71, 2.
Thorn, Declarat., § 153, 7.
" Massacre, § 165, 4.
" Relig. Confer., § 153, 7; 154, 4.
Thorwaldsen, § 173, 9.
Thrasimund, § 76, 3.
_Thuribulum_, § 60, 5.
_Thurificati_, § 22, 5.
Tiara, Papal, § 96, 23.
Tiberius, § 22, 1.
Tieck, § 174, 5.
Tieftrunk, § 171, 7.
Tillemont, § 158, 2; 5, 2.
Tillotson, § 161, 3.
Timotheus Älurus, § 52, 5.
Tindal, Matt., § 171, 1.
" William, § 139, 4.
Tiridates III., § 64, 3.
Tischendorf, § 182, 11.
Titian, § 115, 13; 149, 11.
_Tituli_, § 84, 2.
Titus of Bostra, § 54, 1.
Toland, § 171, 1.
Toledo, Syn., § 76, 2.
Toleration Acts, English, § 155, 3; 202, 5.
" Edict, Austr., § 165, 10.
" Patent, Pruss., § 193, 3.
Tolomeo of Lucca, § 5, 1.
Tolstoi, § 206, 1.
Tonsure, § 45, 1; 77, 3.
Tooth, Arth., § 202, 3.
Torgau, Articles of, § 132, 7.
" Book of, § 141, 12.
" League of, § 126, 5.
Torquemada, John, § 110, 15; 112, 4.
" Thomas, § 117, 2.
Toulouse, Syn., § 105, 5; 108, 2; 109, 2.
Tours, Syn., § 101, 2; 110, 13.
Tractarianism, § 202, 2.
Tradition, § 33, 4.
Traditors, § 22, 6.
Traducianism, § 53, 1.
Trajan, § 22, 2.
Tranquebar, § 167, 9.
Translations, § 57, 1.
Transept, § 60, 1.
Transubstantiation, § 58, 2; 104, 3.
Transylvania, § 139, 20.
Trappists, § 156, 8.
Tremellius, § 143, 5.
Trent, Council of, § 149, 2; 136, 4.
_Treuga Dei_, § 105, 1.
Tribur, Princes’ Diet, § 96, 7.
" Syn., § 83, 3.
Trinitarian Controversy, § 32; 50.
" Order, § 98, 2.
Trinity, Festival of the, § 104, 7.
" Order of the Holy, § 149, 4.
Trishagion, § 52, 5, 6.
Trithemius, § 113, 7.
_Trivium_, § 90, 8.
Troparies, § 59, 4.
Troubadours, § 105, 6.
_Trullanum, I. Conc._, § 52, 8.
_ " II. "_ § 63, 2; 45, 2.
Tübingen, § 120, 3.
Turkey, § 207.
Turrecremata, John, § 110, 15; 112, 14.
Turrecremata, Thos., § 117, 2.
Turretin, J. A., § 164, 1, 6.
Turribius, § 54, 2.
Tutilo, § 88, 6.
Twesten, § 182, 10.
Tychonius, § 48, 1.
Typus, § 52, 8.
Tyrol, § 193, 4.
Tyre, Syn., § 50, 2.
Ubertino de Casale, § 108, 6.
_Ubiquitas Corp. Chr._, § 141, 9.
Udo, § 62, 1.
Ugolino, § 165, 12.
Uhlhorn, § 193, 8.
Uhlich, § 176, 1.
Ulenberg, § 149, 15.
Ulfilas, § 76, 1.
Ullmann, § 182, 10; 196, 3.
Ulrich of Augsb., § 84, 3.
" " Württemb., § 133, 3.
Ulrici, § 174, 2; 211, 17.
Ultramontanism, § 188; 197.
Umbreit, § 182, 11.
_Unam Sanctam_, § 110, 1.
_Unctio extrema_, § 61, 3; 70, 2; 104, 5.
Uniformity, Act of, § 139, 6; 155, 3.
Unigenitus, § 165, 7.
Union Attempts in the Eastern Church, § 67, 4, 5; 152, 2; 175, 4-6.
Union, Catholic Protestant, § 137, 8; 153, 7.
Union, Lutheran Reformed, § 155, 4; 167, 4; 169, 1, 2.
Union, Prussian, § 177, 1.
Unitarians, § 148; 163, 1; 211, 4.
United Brethren, § 119, 8.
" Greeks, § 72, 4; 151, 3; 206, 2.
Universities, § 99, 3.
" Bill, § 199, 5.
Urban II., § 96, 10; 94.
" III., § 96, 16.
" IV., § 96, 20.
" V., § 110, 5; 117, 2.
" VI., § 110, 6.
" VII., § 149, 3.
" VIII., § 156, 1, 4, 9; 157, 5.
Urbanus Rhegius, § 127, 3.
Ursacius, § 50, 3.
Ursinus of Rome, § 46, 4.
" Zach., § 144, 1; 169, 1.
Ursula, St., § 104, 9.
Ursuline Nuns, § 149, 7.
Ussher, § 161, 6, 7.
Utah, § 211, 10.
Utraquists, § 119, 6.
Utrecht, Church of, § 165, 7.
" Union of, § 139, 12.
Vadian, § 130, 4.
Valdez, § 108, 10.
Valence, Syn., § 91, 5.
Valens, Emperor, § 50, 4; 42, 4.
Valentinian I., § 42, 4.
" II., § 42, 4.
" III., § 46, 3; 46, 7.
Valentinus, § 27, 4.
Valerian, § 22, 5.
Valla, § 120, 1.
Vallombrosians, § 98, 1.
Valsainte, § 186, 2.
Valteline Massacre, § 153, 3.
Vandals, § 76, 3.
Vanne, Congreg. of, § 156, 7.
Varanes I., § 29, 1.
" III., § 64, 2.
_Variata_, § 141, 4.
Vasa, Gustavus, § 139, 1; 142, 8.
Vasquez, § 149, 10.
Vatican, § 110, 15.
" Council, § 189.
Vatke, § 182, 18.
Vaud, Canton, § 199, 5.
Vega, Lope de, § 158, 3.
Velasquez, § 98, 8.
Venantius Fortunatus, § 48, 6.
Venema, § 169, 6.
Venezuela, § 209, 2.
Vercelli, Syn., § 101, 2.
Verdun, Treaty of, § 82, 5.
Vergerius, § 134, 1; 139, 24.
Vermilius, Pet. Mart., § 139, 5, 24.
Veronica, § 18, 2.
Versailles, Edict of, § 165, 5.
Vespers, Sicilian, § 96, 22.
_Vestibulum_, § 60, 1.
Vestments, Ecclest., § 59, 7.
Veuillot, § 188, 1; 203, 3.
_Viaticum_, § 104, 5.
Vicelinus, § 93, 9.
Victor I., § 33, 3, 4; 37, 2; 40, 2; 41, 1.
Victor II., § 96, 5.
" III., § 96, 10.
" IV., § 96, 15.
" of Vita, § 48, 2.
" Emmanuel I., § 204, 1.
" " II., § 185, 3; 204, 1, 2.
Victor, St., Monastery of, § 102, 4, 8.
Victorinus, Marius, § 47, 14.
" of Pettau, § 31, 12; 33, 9.
Victorius, § 56, 3.
Vienna, Congress of, § 192, 3.
" Peace of, § 139, 40.
Vienne, Council of, § 110, 2; 112, 1, 2, 7.
Vigilantius, § 62, 2.
Vigilius, § 46, 9; 52, 6.
Vigils, § 35; 56, 4.
Vikings, § 93, 1.
Villegagnon, § 143, 7.
Vilmar, § 182, 14; 194, 4.
Vincent of Beauvais, § 99, 6.
Vincent Ferrari, § 115, 2; 110, 6.
" of Lerins, § 47, 21; 53, 5.
" de Paula, § 156, 8.
Vinci, Leon. da, § 115, 13.
Vinet, § 129, 5.
Viret, § 138, 1.
Virgilius of Salzburg, § 78, 6.
Virgins, The 11,000, § 104, 9.
Visigoths, § 76, 2.
Visitation, Articles of, § 141, 13.
_Vita quadragesimalis_, § 112, 8.
Vitalis Ordenicus, § 5, 1.
Vitus, § 46, 3.
Vitringa, § 161, 6.
Vladimir, § 73, 4.
Vladislaw, § 119, 7.
" IV., § 153, 7.
Voetius, § 161, 4, 5, 7; 162, 4; 163, 7.
Volkmann, § 169, 1.
Voltaire, § 105, 5, 14, 15.
Vorstius, § 161, 2.
Vossius, § 171, 11.
Vulgate, § 59, 1; 136, 4; 149, 14.
Waddington, § 203, 5, 8.
Wafers, § 104, 3.
Wagner, Rich., § 174, 10.
Wala, § 82, 5.
Walafrid Strabo, § 90, 4; 91, 3.
Walch, J. G., § 167, 4.
" Fr., § 171, 8.
Waldemar I., § 93, 10.
" II., § 93, 12.
Waldensians, § 108, 10-12; 119, 9, 10; 139, 25; 153, 5; 204, 4.
Waldrade, § 82, 8.
Wallace, § 211, 17.
Walter of Habenichts, § 94, 1.
" " St. Victor, § 102, 9.
" v. d. Vogelweide, § 105, 6.
Walther, Hans, § 142, 5.
" Mich., § 159, 4.
" Dr., § 208, 2, 3.
Walton, Brian, § 161, 6.
Warburton, § 171, 1.
Ward, § 156, 8.
Warnefried, § 90, 3.
Wartburg, § 123, 8.
Watts, Isaac, § 169, 6.
Wazo of Liege, § 109.
Wearmouth, § 85, 4.
Weber, F. W., § 174, 6.
Wecelinus, § 95, 3.
Wechabites, § 65, 4.
Wegelin, § 160, 3.
Wegscheider, § 182, 2.
Weigel, Val., § 146, 2.
Weingarten, § 5, 5.
Weiss, Bern., § 182, 11.
Weissel, § 160, 3.
Wellhausen, § 182, 18.
Wends, § 93, 9.
Wendelin, § 161, 7.
Wenilo, § 91, 5.
Wenzel, § 119, 3.
Wenzeslaw, § 93, 6.
Wertheimer Bible, § 171, 2.
Wesel, John of, § 119, 10.
Wesley, § 169, 3, 4.
Wessel, § 119, 10.
Westeräs, Diet of, § 139, 1.
Westminster Assembly, § 155, 1.
Westphal, § 141, 10.
Westphalia, Peace of, § 153, 2.
" Reform, § 133, 5.
Wette, de, § 182, 3.
Wetterau, § 170.
Wettstein, § 169, 6.
Whitaker, § 143, 5.
Whitefield, § 169, 3, 4.
Whitgift, § 143, 5.
Wibert, § 96, 6, 8.
Wichern, § 183, 1.
Wiclif, § 119, 1.
Wido of Milan, § 97, 5.
Wied, H. v., § 133, 5; 135, 7.
Wieland, § 171, 11.
Wigand, § 141, 10.
Wilberforce, § 184.
Wilfrid, § 77, 6; 78, 3; 83, 3.
Wilgard, § 100.
Wilibrord, § 78, 3.
Willehad, § 78, 3.
William of St. Amour, § 103, 3.
" " Aquitaine, § 98, 1.
" " Champeaux, § 101, 1.
" " Conches, § 102, 10.
" the Conqueror, § 96, 8, 12.
" Durandus, § 113, 3.
" of Modena, § 93, 13.
" " Nogaret, § 110, 1.
" " Occam, § 112, 2; 113, 3; 118, 2.
William Rufus, § 96, 12.
" Ruysbroek, § 93, 15.
" of Thierry, § 102, 2, 10.
" " Tyre, § 94, 3.
" " Bavaria, § 135, 8; 136, 2, 6; 151, 1.
William IV., V., of Hesse, § 154, 1.
" I. of Orange, § 129, 12.
" III. of Orange, § 153, 6; 155, 3.
William I., German Emperor, § 193; 197.
Williams, John, § 184, 7.
" Roger, § 162, 2; 163, 3.
Willigis, § 96, 2; 97, 2.
Wilsnack, Mirac, host of, § 119, 3.
Wilson, § 172, 5.
Winckelmann, § 165, 6; 174, 9.
Windesheim, § 112, 9.
Windthorst, § 197, 1, 6; 188, 3.
Winer, § 182, 4.
Winfrid, § 78, 4-8.
Wion, § 149, 3.
Wiseman, § 202, 11.
Wishart, § 139, 8.
Wislicenus, § 176, 1.
Witch Hammer, § 117, 4.
" Process, § 117, 4.
Witsius, § 161, 7; 169, 4.
Wittenberg, § 120, 3.
" Catech., § 141, 10.
" Concord., § 133, 8.
" Sketch of Reform, § 135, 13.
Witzel, § 137, 8; 149, 15.
Wolf, J. Chr., § 167, 4.
Wolfenbüttel Fragments, § 171, 6.
Wolff, Chr. v., § 167, 4; 171, 10.
Wolfgang, William, of Palatine Neuburg, § 153,1.
Wolfram of Eschenb., § 105, 6.
Wöllner, § 171, 5.
Wolmar, Melch., § 138, 2, 8.
Wolsey, § 120, 7.
Woltersdorf, § 167, 6, 8.
Woolston, § 171, 1.
Worms Edict, § 123, 7.
" Concordat, § 96, 11.
" Consultation, § 137, 6.
" Relig. Confer., § 135, 2.
Wratislaw, § 79, 3.
Wulflaich, § 78, 3.
Wulfram, § 78, 3.
Württemberg, § 133, 3; 193, 5, 6; 197, 14.
Würzburg, Bish. Congress, § 192, 4.
Wyttenbach, Dan., § 169, 6.
" Thomas, § 130, 1.
Xavier, § 119, 8; 150, 1.
Xenaias, § 59, 1.
Ximenes, § 117, 2; 118, 7; 120, 8, 9.
Young, Brigham, § 211, 12.
Yvon, § 163, 8.
Zacharias, Pope, § 78, 5, 6; 82, 1.
" of Anagni, § 67, 1.
Zapolya, § 139, 20.
_Zelatores_, § 98, 4.
Zell, Matt., § 125, 1.
Zeller, Ed., § 182, 9; 199, 4.
_Zelus domus Dei_, § 153, 2.
Zeno, Philos., § 8, 4.
" Emp., § 52, 5.
" of Verona, § 47, 14.
Zenobia, § 32, 8.
Zephyrinus, § 33, 3, 5; 41, 1.
Zeschwitz, § 182, 14.
Ziegenbalg, § 167, 9.
Zillerthal, § 198.
Zimmermann, § 178, 1; 182, 2.
Zinzendorf, § 168; 170, 2, 3; 171, 3.
Zionites, § 170, 4.
Ziska, § 119, 7.
Zollikofer, § 171, 7.
Zosimus, § 46, 5; 53, 4.
Zschokke, § 176, 1.
Zulu Kaffres, § 184, 3.
Zürich, § 130, 2; 199, 4.
Zwick, § 143, 2.
Zwickau, Prophets of, § 121, 1.
Zwingli, § 130; 131, 1; 132, 4.
FOOTNOTES
1 Merimée, “The Russian Impostors: the False Demetrius,” London, 1852.
2 Neale, “History of the Holy Eastern Church,” vol. ii., p. 356 ff.
Cyrillus Lucaris, “_Confessio Christianæ Fidei_.” Geneva, 1633.
Smith, “_Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucario_.” London, 1707.
3 Stevens, “Life and Times of Gustavus Adolphus.” New York, 1884.
Trench, “Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, and other Lectures on the
Thirty Years’ War.” London. Gardiner, “The Thirty Years’ War” in
“Epochs of Modern History.” London, 1881.
4 Bray, “Revolt of the Protestants of the Cevennes.” London, 1870.
Poole, “History of the Huguenots of the Dispersion.” London, 1880.
Agnew, “Protestant Exiles from France in the Reign of Louis XIV.” 3
vols. London, 1871. Weiss, “History of French Protestant Refugees.”
London, 1854.
5 Macaulay, “History of England from the Accession of James II.”
London, 1846. Hassencamp, “History of Ireland from the Reformation
to the Union.” London, 1888. Adair, “Rise and Progress of the
Presbyterian Church of Ireland from 1623 to 1670.” Belfast, 1866.
Hamilton, “History of Presbyterian Church in Ireland.” Edin., 1887.
6 Butler, “Life of Hugo Grotius.” London, 1826. Motley, “John of
Barneveld,” vol. ii. New York, 1874.
7 “An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of
Controversy.” London, 1685. “Variations of Protestantism.” 2 vols.
Dublin, 1836. Butler, “Some Account of the Life and Writings of
Bishop Bossuet.” London, 1812.
8 “The Work of John Durie in behalf of Christian Union in the
Seventeenth Century,” by Dr. Briggs in _Presbyterian Review_, vol.
viii., 1887, pp. 297-300. To which is attached an account by Durie
himself, never before published, of his own union efforts from July,
1631, till September, 1633. See pp. 301-309.
9 Clarendon, “History of the Rebellion in England, 1649-1666.” 3 vols.
Oxford, 1667. Burnet, “History of his Own Time, 1660-1713.” 2 vols.
London, 1724. Guizot, “History of English Revolution of 1640.”
London, 1856. Gardiner, “History of England, 1603-1642.” 10 vols.
London, 1885. Marsden, “History of Early and Later Puritans, down to
the Ejection of the Nonconformists in 1662.” 2 vols. London, 1853.
Masson, “Life of Milton.” 4 vols. London, 1859 ff.
10 Mitchell, “The Westminster Assembly.” London, 1882. Mitchell and
Struthers, “Minutes of Westminster Assembly.” Edinburgh, 1874.
Macpherson, “Handbook to Westminster Confession.” 2nd ed. Edinburgh,
1882. Hetherington, “History of Westminster Assembly.” 4th ed.
Edinburgh, 1878.
11 Carlyle, “Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches.” 2 vols. London, 1845.
Guizot, “Life of Cromwell.” London, 1877. Paxton Hood, “Oliver
Cromwell.” London, 1882. Picton, “Oliver Cromwell.” London, 1878.
Harrison, “Oliver Cromwell.” London, 1888. Barclay, “The Inner Life
of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth.” London, 1877.
12 Guizot, “Richard Cromwell and the Restoration of Charles II.” 2
vols. London, 1856. Macpherson, “History of Great Britain from the
Restoration.” London, 1875.
13 Bargraves, “Alexander VII. and His Cardinals.” Ed. by Robertson.
London, 1866.
14 Cunningham, “Discussions on Church Principles.” Edin., 1863. Chap.
v.: “The Liberties of the Gallican Church,” pp. 133-163.
15 Von Gebler, “Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia,” transl. by
Sturge. London, 1879. Madden, “Galileo and the Inquisition.” London,
1863. Brewster, “Martyrs of Science.” Edin., 1841. Von Gebler denies
that any condemnation _ex cathedrâ_ was given.
16 Wilson, “Life of Vincent de Paul.” London, 1874.
17 Marsolier, “Life of Francis de Sales,” translated by Coombes,
London, 1812.
18 “Golden Thoughts from the ‘Spiritual Guide’ of Molinos.” With
preface by J. H. Shorthouse. London, 1883.
19 Upham, “Life, Religious Opinions, and Experience of Madame de la
Mothe Guyon, with an account of Fénelon.” London, 1854. Brooke,
“Exemplary Life of the Pious Lady Guion.” Bristol, 1806. Butler,
“Life of Fénelon.” London, 1810.
20 Beard, “Port Royal.” 2 vols. London, 1861. St. Amour, “Journal in
France and Rome, containing Account of Five Points of Controversy
between Jansenists and Molinists.” London, 1664. Schimmelpenninck,
“Select Memoirs of Port Royal.” Fourth edition. 2 vols. London,
1835.
21 Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology,” vol. ii., pp. 98-251.
22 Bruce, “Humiliation of Christ,” p. 131. Edin., 1876.
23 Dowding, “German Theology during the Thirty Years’ War: Life and
Correspondence of G. Calixt.” 2 vols. Oxford, 1863.
24 Wildenhahn, “Life of Spener,” translated by Wenzel. Philadelphia,
1881. Guericke, “Life of A. H. Francke.” London, 1847.
25 Jennings, “The Rosicrucians: their Rites and Mysteries.” London,
1887.
26 Martensen, “Life and Works of Jacob Boehme.” London, 1886.
27 All the translations of hymns referred to in this and the preceding
section are from Miss Winkworth’s “_Lyra Germanica_.” London, 1885.
28 The “Works of Arminius,” transl. by Nicholls, to which are added
Brandt’s “Life of Arminius,” etc. 3 vols. London, 1825. Scott,
“Translation of Articles of Synod of Dort.” London, 1818. Hales,
“Letters from the Synod of Dort.” Glasgow, 1765. Calder, “Life of
Simon Episcopius.” New York, 1837. Cunningham, “Reformation and
Theology of Reformation”: Essay VIII., “Calvinism and Arminianism,”
pp. 412-470. Motley, “John of Barneveldt.” 2 vols. London, 1874.
29 Barclay, “The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the
Commonwealth.” Second ed. London, 1877. Dr. Stoughton’s “History of
Religion in England from Opening of Long Parliament to End of
Eighteenth Century.” London.
30 See Macpherson, “Presbyterianism” (Edin., 1883), pp. 8-10, where
charges of intolerance such as those made against Presbyterianism in
the text are repudiated.
31 Masson, “Life of John Milton.” 4 vols. London, 1859. Pattison,
“Milton” in “English Men of Letters” series. London, 1880.
32 “_Relquiæ Baxterianæ_: Baxter’s Narrative of most Memorable Passages
in his own Life.” London, 1696. Orme, “Life and Times of Richard
Baxter, with Critical Examination of his Writings.” London, 1830.
Stalker, “Baxter” in “Evangelical Succession Lectures.” Second
series. Edinburgh, 1883.
33 Froude disputes this, and says, p. 12, that probably he was on the
side of the Royalists. Brown has shown it to be almost certain that
in 1644, not 1642, Bunyan, then in his sixteenth year, joined the
Parliamentary forces. See Brown’s “Life,” pp. 42-52.
34 Brown, “Life of Bunyan.” London, 1885. Autobiography in “Grace
Abounding,” 1622. Southey, “Life of John Bunyan.” London, 1830.
Macaulay, “Essay on Bunyan,” in _Edinburgh Review_, 1830. Froude,
“Bunyan,” in “English Men of Letters.” London, 1880. Nicoll,
“Bunyan,” in “Evangelical Succession Lectures.” Third series.
Edinburgh, 1883.
35 “Life of John Eliot, Apostle of the Indians.” By John Wilson,
afterwards of Bombay. Edin., 1828.
36 Crosby, “History of the English Baptists.” 4 vols. London, 1728.
Ivimey, “History of the English Baptists from 1688-1760.” 2 vols.
London, 1830. Cramp, “History of the Baptists to end of 18th
Century.” 3 vols. London, 1872.
37 Backus, “History of the English-American Baptists.” 2 vols. Boston,
1777. Cox and Hoby, “The Baptists in America.” New York, 1836.
Hague, “The Baptists Transplanted,” etc. New York, 1846.
38 Of special importance for the early history of the Quakers are,
“Letters of Early Friends,” edited by Robert Barclay, a descendant
of the Quaker apostle. London, 1841. “Fox’s Journal; or, Historical
Accounts of his Life, Travels, and Sufferings.” London, 1694. Penn,
“Summary of History, Doctrines, and Discipline of Friends.” London,
1692. Tallack, “George Fox; the Quakers and the Early Baptists.”
London, 1868. Bickley, “George Fox and the Early Quakers.” London,
1884. Stoughton, “W. Penn, Founder of Pennsylvania.” London, 1883.
39 Sewel, “History of the Quakers.” 2 vols. London, 1834. Cunningham,
“The Quakers, from their Origin in 1624 to the Present Time.”
London, 1868. Barclay, “Apology for the True Christian Divinity: a
Vindication of Quakerism.” 4th ed. London, 1701. Clarkson, “A
Portraiture of Quakerism.” 3 vols. London, 1806. Rowntree,
“Quakerism, Past and Present.” London, 1839.
40 Heard, “The Russian Church and Russian Dissent.” London, 1887.
Mackenzie Wallace, “Russia,” chaps, xiv., xx. 2 vols. London, 1877.
Palmer, “The Patriarch and the Tsar.” 6 vols. London, 1871-1876.
41 Ueberweg, “History of Philosophy,” vol. ii., pp. 31-135. Pünjer,
“History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion from the
Reformation to Kant.” Edin., 1887. Pfleiderer, “Philosophy of
Religion,” vol. i. London, 1887. Erdmann’s “History of Philosophy.”
3 vols. London, 1889.
42 “Bacon’s Works,” ed. by Spedding, Ellis, and Heath. 14 vols. London,
1870. Spedding, “Letters and Life of Lord Bacon.” 2 vols. London,
1862. Macaulay on Bacon in _Edinburgh Review_ for 1837. Church,
“Bacon” in vol. v. of “Collected Works.” London, 1888. Nichol,
“Bacon: Life and Philosophy.” 2 vols. Edin., 1888.
43 “Descartes’ Method, Meditations, and Principles of Philosophy.”
Transl. by Prof. Veitch. Edin., 1850 ff. Fischer, “Descartes and his
School.” London, 1887.
44 Willis, “Spinoza: his Ethics, Life, and Influence on Modern
Thought.” London, 1870. Pollock, “Spinoza: his Life and Philosophy.”
London, 1880. Martineau, “Spinoza.” London, 1882. “Spinoza, Four
Essays by Land, Von Floten, Fischer, and Renan.” Edited by Prof.
Knight. London, 1884.
45 “Locke’s Complete Works.” 9 vols. London, 1853. Cousin, “Elements of
Psychology: a Critical Examination of Locke’s Essay.” Edin., 1856.
Webb, “Intellectualism of Locke.” London, 1858.
46 Guhrauer, “Leibnitz: a Biography.” Transl. by Mackie. Boston, 1845.
47 Leland, “View of Principal Deistical Writers in England.” 2nd ed. 2
vols. London, 1755. Halyburton, “Natural Religion Insufficient; or,
A Rational Inquiry into the Principles of the Modern Deists.” Edin.,
1714. Tulloch, “Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in
England in the 17th Century.” 2 vols. Edin., 1872. Cairns, “Unbelief
in the 18th Century,” chap, ii., “Unbelief in the 17th Century.”
Edin., 1881.
48 Lecky, “History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of
Rationalism in Europe.” 2 vols. London, 1873. Hagenbach, “German
Rationalism.” Edin., 1865. Hagenbach, “History of Church in 18th and
19th Centuries.” 2 vols. London, 1870. Leslie Stephen, “History of
English Thought in the 18th Century.” 2 vols. London, 1876. Cairns,
“Unbelief in the 18th Century.” Edin., 1881.
49 Wilson, “The Christian Brothers, their Origin and Work. With a
Sketch of the Life of their Founder, the Venerable Jean Baptiste de
la Salle.” London, 1883.
50 Neale, “History of the so called Jansenist Church of Holland.”
Oxford, 1858.
51 Cairns, “Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century,” chap, iv., “Unbelief
in France.” Edinburgh, 1881. Morley, “Diderot and the
Encyclopedists.” 2 vols. London, 1878. Morley, “Voltaire.” London,
1872. Lange, “History of Materialism.” 3 vols. London, 1877.
52 This saying is usually attributed to Voltaire. He used the
expression in attacking Pierre Bayle.—Erdmann’s “Hist. of Phil.,”
vol. ii., p. 158. Ueberweg, “Hist. of Phil.,” vol. ii., p. 125.
53 Pressensé, “The Church and the Revolution.” London, 1869. Jervis,
“The Gallican Church and the Revolution.” London, 1882.
54 Hagenbach, “History of Church in the 18th and 19th Centuries,” vol.
i., pp. 109, 116. 2 vols. New York, 1869. Dorner, “History of
Protestant Theology,” vol. ii., p. 208.
55 Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology,” vol. ii., pp. 208-227.
56 Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology,” vol. ii., pp. 266-279.
Hagenbach, “History of Church in 18th and 19th Centuries,” vol. i.,
pp. 117-127.
57 Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology,” vol. ii., pp. 259-261.
Geffcken, “Church and State,” 2 vols. Lon., 1887, vol. i., pp.
456-503.
58 Burney, “Life of Handel.” London, 1784.
59 Kelly, “Life and Work of Von Bogatsky: a Chapter from the Religious
Life of the Eighteenth Century.” London, 1889.
60 Hough, “The History of Christianity in India.” 5 vols. London, 1839.
Sherring, “History of Missions in India,” edited by Storrow. London,
1888. Pearson, “Memoirs, Life, and Correspondence of Chr. Fr.
Schwartz,” etc. 2 vols. London, 1834.
61 Hagenbach, “History of the Christian Church in the 18th and 19th
Centuries,” New York, 1869; Lectures XVIII. and XIX., pp. 398-445.
62 Spangenberg, “Life of Count Zinzendorf.” London, 1838.
63 Spangenberg, “Account of Manner in which the _Unitas Fratrum_
Propagate the Gospel, and Carry on their Missions among the
Heathen.” London, 1788. Holmes, “Historical Sketch of the Missions
of the United Brethren for the Propagation of the Gospel among the
Heathen from their Commencement down to 1817.” London, 1827.
64 “Tersteegen: Life and Character, with Extracts from His Letters and
Writings.” London, 1832. Winkworth, “Christian Singers of Germany.”
London, 1869.
65 For a slightly different account see Tyerman, vol. i., p. 66.
66 Wesley himself continued to preach in the open air till nearly the
end of the year 1790.
67 Further details as to the organization of the societies are given in
Tyerman, 1st ed., vol. i., pp. 444, 445.
68 Southey, “Life of John Wesley.” London, 1820. Isaac Taylor, “Wesley
and Wesleyanism.” London, 1851. Tyerman, “Wesley’s Life and Times.”
2 vols. 4th ed. London, 1877. Urlin, “Churchman’s Life of Wesley.”
London, 1880. Abbey and Overton, “English Church in 18th Century.” 2
vols. London, 1879. Lecky, “History of England in the 18th Century.”
2 vols. London, 1878. Stoughton, “History of Religion in England to
End of 18th Century.” 6 vols. London, 1882.—Jackson, “Life of
Charles Wesley.” 2 vols. London, 1841.—Tyerman, “Life of
Whitefield.” 2 vols. London, 1877.—Macdonald, “Fletcher of Madeley.”
London.—Smith, “History of Methodism.” 3 vols. London, 1857.
Stevens, “History of Methodism.” 3 vols. New York, 1858. Stevens,
“History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.” 4
vols. New York, 1864. Bangs, “History of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.” 4 vols. New York, 1839.
69 Hagenbach, “History of Church in 18th and 19th Centuries,” vol. i.,
pp. 159-164.
70 Hagenbach, “History of the Church in the 18th and 19th Centuries,”
vol. i., pp. 168-175.
71 Tafel, “Documents concerning the Life and Character of Swedenborg.”
3 vols. London, 1875. White, “Emanuel Swedenborg, his Life and
Writings.” 2 vols. London. 1867.
72 Evans, “Shakers: Compendium of Origin, History, Principles, and
Doctrines of the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second
Coming.” New York, 1859. Dixon, “New America.” 2 vols. 8th ed.
London, 1869. Nordhoff, “The Communistic Societies of the United
States.” London, 1874.
73 Pusey, “Historical Inquiry into the Causes of the Prevalence of
Rationalism in Germany.” London, 1828. Rose, “The State of
Protestantism in Germany.” Oxford, 1829. Saintes, “A Critical
History of Rationalism in Germany, from its Origin till the Present
Time.” London, 1849. Lecky, “History of the Rise and Influence of
the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe.” 2 vols. London, 1873. Farrar,
“Critical History of Free Thought in Reference to the Christian
Religion.” London, 1863. Hagenbach, “German Rationalism.” Edinburgh,
1865. Hurst, “History of Rationalism.” New York, 1865. Gestwick,
“German Culture and Christianity, their Controversy, 1770-1880.” New
York, 1882.
74 Stephen, “History of English Thought in the 18th Century.” 2 vols.
London, 1876. Cairns, “Unbelief in the 18th Century.” Edinburgh,
1881. Pünjer, “History of Christian Philosophy of Religion from
Reformation to Kant,” § 5, “The English Deists.” Edinburgh, 1887.
75 Halliwell, “The Early History of English Freemasonry.” London, 1840.
76 Ritschl, “History of Christian Doctr. of Justification and
Reconciliation,” pp. 347-426. Dorner, “History of Protestant
Theology,” vol. ii., pp. 277-292. Hagenbach, “History of The Church
in The 18th and 19th Centuries,” vol. i., pp. 251-321.
77 Chalybæus, “Historical Development of Speculative Philosophy, from
Kant to Hegel.” Edin., 1854. Räbiger, “Theological Encyclopædia,”
vol. i., pp. 73-76.
78 Stahr, “Lessing: his Life and Works,” translated by G. Evans. 2
vols. Boston, 1866. Sime, “Lessing, his Life and Writings.” 2 vols.
London, 1877. Zimmern, “G. E. Lessing: his Life and Works.” London,
1878. Smith, “Lessing as a Theologian,” in the _Theological Review_,
July, 1868.
79 Russell, “A Short Account of the Life and History of Pestalozzi,”
based on De Guemp’s “_L’Histoire de Pestalozzi_.” London, 1888. To
be followed by a complete English translation of De Guemp’s work.
80 Marshman, “Life and Times of Marshman, Carey, and Ward.” 2 vols.
London, 1859. Smith, “Life of William Carey.” London, 1886. Wilson,
“Missionary Voyage of the Ship _Duff_.” London, 1799. Morison,
“Fathers and Founders of the London Missionary Society,” London,
1844.
81 Baur, “Religious Life in Germany.” London, 1872, pp. 177-196.
82 Kahnis, “Internal History of German Protestantism since the Middle
of Last Century.” Edin., 1856.
83 Hagenbach, “History of Church in Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries,” vol. ii., pp. 413-416.
84 Mombert, “Faith Victorious, being an Account of the Life, Labour,
and Times of Dr. J. W. Ebel, 1714-1861, compiled from authentic
sources.” London, 1882. Dixon, “Spiritual Wives.” London, 1868.
85 Strack, “The Work of Bible Revision in Germany,” in _Expositor_,
third series, vol. ii., pp. 178-187.
86 See papers by Driver, Cheyne, Davidson, Kirkpatrick, in _Expositor_
for 1886-1888, on various books in Revised Old Testament. Westcott,
“Some Lessons of Revised Version of New Testament,” in _Expositor_,
third series, vol. v., pp. 81, 241, 453. Jennings and Lowe, “Revised
Version of Old Testament: a Critical Estimate,” in _Expositor_,
third Series, vol. ii., pp. 57, etc.
87 “Schleiermacher’s Life in Letters,” translated by Rowan. London,
1860. Baur, “Religious Life in Germany,” London, 1872, pp. 197 ff.
Dorner, “History of Protestant Theology,” vol. ii., pp. 374-395.
88 Cheyne, “Life and Works of Heinrich Ewald,” in _Expositor_, third
series, vol. iv., pp. 241 ff., 361 ff.
89 There are English translations of his “Life of Christ,” “First
Planting of Christianity,” “Antignostikus,” “History of Christian
Dogmas,” “Christian Life in the Early and Middle Ages,” all
published by Bohn.
90 Zeller, “David Frederick Strauss, in his Life and Writings.” London,
1874. Translations: “Life of Jesus Critically Treated,” 1846; “Life
of Jesus for the German People,” 1865; “The Old Faith and the New,”
1874; “Ulrich von Hutten,” 1874.
91 Simon, “Isaac August Dorner,” in _Presbyterian Review_ for October,
1887, pp. 569-616.
92 Rothe, “Still Hours,” translated by Miss Stoddard, with Introductory
Essay on Rothe by Rev. J. Macpherson. London, 1886.
93 Galloway, “The Theology of Ritschl,” in _Presbyterian Review_ for
April, 1889, pp. 192-209.
94 Series of papers in _Good Words_ for 1860, pp. 377 ff.
95 Fleming Stevenson, “The Blue Flag of Kaiserswerth,” in _Good Words_
for 1861, pp. 121 ff., 143 ff.
96 Owen, “History of the First Ten Years of the Bible Society.” 3 vols.
London, 1816.
97 Wiseman, “Recollections of the Last Four Popes.” 3 vols. London,
1853. Mendham, “Index of Prohibited Books by order of Gregory XVI.”
London, 1840.
98 Legge, “Pius IX. to the Restoration of 1850.” 2 vols. London, 1872.
Trollope, “Life of Pius IX.” 2 vols. London, 1877. Shea, “Life and
Pontificate of Pius IX.” New York, 1877.
99 Geffcken, “Church and State,” vol. ii., pp. 269-293: “The Italian
Question and the Papal States.”
100 Geffcken, “Church and State,” vol. ii., pp. 236-238.
101 Bridges, “Life of Martin Boos.” London, 1836.
102 Hamberger, “Sketch of the Character of the Theosophy of Baader,”
translated in _American Presbyterian and Theological Review_, 1869.
103 Laing, “Notes on the Rise, Progress, etc., of the German Catholic
Church of Ronge and Czerski.” London, 1845.
104 Manning, “The True History of the Vatican Council.” London, 1877.
Pomponio Leto, “The Vatican Council, being the impressions of a
contemporary (Card. Vitelleschi), translated from the Italian with
the original documents.” London, 1876. Quirinus, “Letters from Rome
on the Council.” London, 1870. Janus, “The Pope and the Council.”
London, 1869. Bungener, “Rome and the Council in the Nineteenth
Century.” Edinburgh, 1870. Arthur, “The Pope, the Kings, and the
People, a History of the Movement to make the Pope Governor of the
World, 1864-1871.” 2 vols. London, 1877. Acton, “History of the
Vatican Council.” London, 1871. Friedrich, “_Documenta ad illum.
Conc. Vat._” Nördling, 1871. Martin (Bishop of Paderborn), “_Omnium
Conc. Vat. quæ ad doctr. et discipl. pertin. docum. Collectio_.”
1873.
105 Geffcken, “Church and State,” vol. ii. pp. 501-531. Smith, “The Falk
Legislation from the Political Point of View,” in the _Theological
Review_ for October, 1875.
106 Geffcken, “Church and State.” 2 vols. London, 1877. Vol. ii., pp.
488-531.
107 The Austrian May Laws were in some respects more sweeping than the
Prussian (§ 197, 5); but the former were framed with reference to
the police, the latter with reference to the law. In Prussia the
decision, judgment, and sentence in all cases of contravention and
collision were assigned to the court of law; in Austria they were
assigned to the court of administration, in the last instance to the
minister. The Austrian laws could thus be urged and ignored at
pleasure.
108 Geffeken, “Church and State,” vol. ii., pp. 469-488.
109 R. J. Sandeman, “Alexander Vinet” in “Evangelical Succession
Lectures,” Third Series, Edinburgh, 1884. Dorner, “History of
Protestant Theology,” ii., 470, 478.
110 Cairns, “The Present Struggle in the National Church of Holland,” in
_Presbyterian Review_ for January, 1888, pp. 87-108. Wicksteed, “The
Ecclesiastical Institutions of Holland.” London.
111 Lumsden, “Sweden, its Religious State and Prospects.” London, 1855.
112 Stoughton, “Religion in England during the First Half of the Present
Century, with a Postscript on Subsequent Events.” 2 vols., London
1876. Molesworth, “History of England from 1830 to 1874.” 3 vols.,
London.
113 Littledale, “Church Parties,” art. in the _Contemporary Review_ for
July, 1874, pp. 287-320. Mozley, “Reminiscences of Oriel College.”
London, 1882.
114 Newman, “_Apologia pro Vita Sua_.” London, 1864. Weaver “Puseyism, a
Refutation and Exposure,” London, 1843.
115 The very confused, wholly inadequate, and in some points positively
incorrect statements in the above paragraph may be supplemented and
amended by reference to the following literature: Buchanan, “Ten
Years’ Conflict.” 2 vols. Edin., 1852. Moncrieff, “Vindication of
the Claim of Right.” Edin., 1877. Moncrieff, “The Free Church
Principle: its Character and History.” Edin., 1883. Mackerrow,
“History of the Secession Church.” Glasgow, 1841.
116 Smith’s appointment was to the Lord Almoner’s Professorship, with a
merely nominal salary; but he was afterwards elected to the more
remunerative office of University librarian, and more recently has
succeeded Prof. Wright in the Chair of Arabic in the University.
117 Jarvis, “The Gallican Church and the Revolution,” pp. 324-395.
London, 1882.
118 Borrow, “The Bible in Spain.” 2 vols. London, 1843.
119 Lendrum, “_Ecclesia Pressa_: or, the Lutheran Church in the Baltic
Provinces,” in _The Theological Review and Free Church College
Quarterly_, vol. ii. 310-330. C. H. H. Wright, “The Persecution of
the Lutheran Church in the Baltic Provinces of Russia,” in the
_British and Foreign Evangelical Review_, January, 1887.
120 Baird, “Religion in the United States.” Glasgow, 1844. “Progress and
Prospects of Christianity in the United States.” London, 1851.
Gorrie, “Churches and Sects in the United States.” New York, 1850.
121 Stevens, “History of the Episcopal Methodist Church in North
America.” Philadelphia, 1868. Gorrie, “History of the Episcopal
Methodist Church in the United States.” New York, 1881.
122 A full account of the recent development of Protestantism in Brazil
is given in an article in the _Presbyterian Review_ for January,
1889, pp. 101-106, “The Organization of the Synod of Brazil,” by Dr.
J. Aspinwall Hodge.—On 15th November, 1889, the emperor was expelled
and a republic proclaimed.
123 Hepworth Dixon, “Free Russia.” 2 vols. London, 1870. Heard, “The
Russian Church and Russian Dissent.” 2 vols. London, 1887.
124 Rowntree, “Quakerism Past and Present.” London, 1859.
125 Dixon, “New America.” 2 vols., 8th edition. London, 1869. Nordhoff,
“The Communistic Societies of the United States.” London, 1874.
126 Oliphant, “Life of Ed. Irving.” 3rd edition. London, 1865. Carlyle,
in “Miscellaneous Essays.” Brown, “Personal Reminiscences of Ed.
Irving,” in _Expositor_. 3 ser., vol. vi., pp. 216, 257. Miller,
“History and Doctrine of Irvingism,” 2 vols. London, 1878.
127 Darby, “Personal Recollections,” London, 1881.
128 Stenhouse, “An Englishwoman in Utah, the story of a Life’s
Experience in Mormonism.” 2nd ed. London, 1880. Gunnison, “The
Mormons.” New York, 1884. Burton, “The City of the Saints.” London,
1861.
129 Wilson, “The ‘Ever-Victorious Army’: a History of the Chinese
Campaign under Lieut.-Col. C. G. Gordon, and of the Suppression of
the Taeping Rebellion.” Edinburgh.
130 Edmonds, “American Spiritualism.” 2 vols. New York, 1858. Cox,
“Spiritualism answered by Science.” London, 1872. Crookes,
“Spiritualism and Science.” London, 1874. Wallace, “A Defence of
Spiritualism.” London, 1874. Owen, “The Debatable Land.” New York,
1872. Carpenter, “Mesmerism, Spiritualism, etc., Historically and
Scientifically Considered.” London, 1877. Mahan, “The Phenomena of
Spiritualism Scientifically Explained and Exposed.” London, 1875.
Horne, “Incidents in His Life.” London, 1863. “Lights and Shadows of
Spiritualism.” London, 1877.
131 Sinnett, “Esoteric Buddhism.” London, 1883.
132 Sargent, “Rob. Owen and his Social Philosophy.” London, 1860.
Nordhoff, “Communistic Societies in the United States.” London,
1875.
133 Onslow-Yorke, “The Secret History of the International Working-Men’s
Association.” London, 1872. Lissagaray, “History of the Commune of
1871.” Translated by Aveling. London, 1886.
134 From the fifteenth century the numbering of the General Councils is
so variable and uncertain that even Catholic historians are not
agreed upon this point. They are at one only about this, that the
anti-papal councils claiming to be œcumenical, of Pisa A.D. 1409,
Basel A.D. 1438, and Pisa A.D. 1511, should be designated
schismatical “_Conciliabula_.” Hefele, in his “History of the
Councils,” counts eighteen down to the Reformation. He makes the
Constance Council in its first and last sessions the sixteenth, but
does not count the middle session held without the pope. He makes
that of Basel the seventeenth down to A.D. 1438 with its papal
continuation at Ferrara and Florence. Finally, as eighteenth he
gives the fifth Lateran Council of A.D. 1512-1517. But others strike
Basel and Constance out of the list altogether; and many, especially
the Gallicans, reject also the fifth Lateran Council, because
occupied with matters of slight or merely local interest.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Church History, Vol. 3 of 3" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.