CHAPTER VIII

RATIONALISM AND ITS EFFECTS

(a) Anti-Christian Philosophy of the Eighteenth Century.

Lecky, /History of the Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe/, 1913. Windleband-Tufts, /A History of Philosophy/, 1898. Uberweg-Morris, /History of Philosophy/, 2nd edition, 1876. Turner, /History of Philosophy/, 1906. Binder, /Geschichte der philosophie ... mit Rucksicht auf den Kirchlichen Zustande/, 1844- 45. Lanfrey, /L'Eglise et les philosophes au XVIIIe siecle/, 1879. Faguet, /Etude sur le XVIIIe siecle/, 1890. Lange, /History of Materialism/, 1877 (Tr. from German). Stephen, /History of English Thought in the XVIIIth Century/, 1881. Taine, /Les origines de la France contemporaine/ (vol. ii.), 1907.

In the Middle Ages the theory that human reason was to be placed abovefaith found able exponents, and more than once men arose whoquestioned some of the fundamental principles of Christianity, or whowent farther still by rejecting entirely the Christian revelation. Butsuch views were expounded in an age when the outlook of society wasmarkedly religious, and they exercised no perceptible influence oncontemporary thought. Between the fourteenth century and theeighteenth, however, a great change had taken place in the world.Dogmatic theology had lost its hold upon many educated men. TheRenaissance movement ushering in the first beginnings of literary andhistorical criticism, the wonderful progress made in the naturalsciences, revolutionising as it did beliefs that had been regardedhitherto as unquestionable, and the influence of the printing pressand of the universities, would in themselves have created a dangerouscrisis in the history of religious thought, and would havenecessitated a more careful study on the part of the theologians todetermine precisely the limits where dogma ended and opinion began.

But the most important factor in arousing active opposition to orstudied contempt of revealed religion was undoubtedly the religiousrevolution of the sixteenth century, and more especially the dangerousprinciples formulated by Luther and his companions to justify them intheir resistance to doctrines and practices that had been accepted forcenturies by the whole Christian world. They were driven to reject theteaching authority of the visible Church, to maintain that Christ hadgiven to men a body of doctrines that might be interpreted by Hisfollowers in future ages as they pleased, and to assert thatChristians should follow the dictates of individual judgment insteadof yielding a ready obedience to the decrees of Popes and Councils.These were dangerous principles, the full consequence of which theearly Reformers did not perceive. If it was true, as they asserted,that Christ had set up no visible authority to safeguard and toexpound His revelation, that for centuries Christianity had beencorrupted by additions that were only the inventions of men, it mightwell be asked what guarantee could Luther or Calvin give that theirinterpretation of Christ's doctrine was correct or binding upon theirfollowers, and what authority could they produce to warrant them inplacing any dogmatic restrictions upon the freedom of human thought?The very principles put forward by the Reformers of the sixteenthcentury to justify their rejection of certain doctrines were used bylater generations to prepare the way for still greater inroads uponthe contents of Christianity, and finally to justify an attitude ofdoubt concerning the very foundations on which Christianity was based.Empiricism, Sensualism, Materialism, and Scepticism in philosophy,undermined dogmatic Christianity, and prepared the way for theirreligious and indifferentist opinions, that found such generalfavour among the educated and higher classes during the eighteenthcentury.

The movement, that owed so much of its widespread popularity on theContinent to the influence of the French rationalistic school, had itsorigin in England, where the frequent changes of religion during thereigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, the quarrelsbetween the Puritans and the High Church party, and the spread ofrevolutionary principles during the reign of Charles I., hadcontributed not a little to unsettle the religious convictions of alarge section of the community. Many individuals, influenced bypantheistic teaching, did not believe in the existence of a personalGod distinct from the world; others, while holding fast to the beliefin a personal supreme Being, rejected the Trinity and the Incarnation,and a still larger section insisted on the subjection of Christianrevelation to the judgment of reason, and as a consequence on therejection of everything in Christianity that flavoured of thesupernatural. The works of these men were imported from theNetherlands into France in spite of all restrictions that could beimposed by the police authorities, and their views were popularised bya brilliant band of /litterateurs/, until in a short time Deism andNaturalism became quite fashionable in the higher circles of Frenchsociety.

The principal writers of the English school were Lord Herbert ofCherbury (1581-1648), whose works tended to call in question theexistence of a supernatural religion; John Hobbs (1588-1679) theapostle of absolute rule, who saw in religion only a means of keepingthe people in subjection; John Locke (1632-1704), nominally aChristian himself, whose philosophy of Empiricism and Sensualismbarred the way effectively against belief in a supernatural religion;Charles Blount (1630-93), who like Flavius Philostratus sought todiscredit Christianity by setting up Apollonius of Tyana as a rival ofChrist; Collins, the patron of free-thinkers (1676-1729); John Toland(1670-1722), who although originally a believer in Christianrevelation tended more and more towards Pantheism; and Tyndal (1656-1733), who changed from Protestantism to Catholicism and finally fromChristianity to Rationalism. In England Deism and Naturalism secured astrong foot-hold amongst the better classes, but the deeply religioustemperament of the English people and their strong conservatism savedthe nation from falling under the influence of such ideas.

In France the religious wars between the Catholics and Calvinists, thecontroversies that were waged by the Jansenists and Gallicans, theextravagances of the /Convulsionnaires/, the flagrant immorality ofthe court during the rule of the Duke of Orleans and of Louis XV., andthe enslavement of the Church, leading as it did to a decline of zealand learning amongst the higher clergy, tended inevitably to fosterreligious indifference amongst the masses. In the higher circles ofsociety Rationalism was looked upon as a sign of good breeding, whilethose who held fast by their dogmatic beliefs were regarded as vulgarand unprogressive. Leading society ladies such as Ninon de Lenclos(1615-1706) gathered around them groups of learned admirers, who underthe guise of zeal for the triumph of literary and artistic idealssought to popularise everything that was obscene and irreligious.Amongst some of the principal writers who contributed largely to thesuccess of the anti-Christian campaign in France might be mentionedPeter Bayle (1647-1706), whose /Dictionnaire historique et critique/became the leading source of information for those who were in searchof arguments against Christianity; John Baptist Rousseau (1671-1741),whose life was in complete harmony with the filthiness to which hegave expression in his works; Bernard le Boivier de Fontenelle (1657-1757), who though never an open enemy of the Catholic Churchcontributed not a little by his works to prepare the way for the menof the Enclyclopaedia; Montesquieu (1689-1755), whose satirical bookson both Church and State were read with pleasure not only in Francebut in nearly every country of Europe; D'Alembert (1717-83) andDiderot (1713-84), the two men mainly responsible for the/Encyclopedie/; Helvetius (1715-1771), and the Baron d'Holbach, whosought to popularise the irreligious views then current among thenobility by spreading the rationalist literature throughout the massof the poorer classes in Paris.

But the two writers whose works did most to undermine revealedreligion in France were Francois Marie Arouet, better known asVoltaire (1694-1778), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Theformer of these was born at Paris, received his early education fromthe Jesuits, and was introduced while still a youth to the salon ofNinon de Lenclos, frequented at this time by the principal literaryopponents of religion and morality. His earliest excursions intoliterature marked him out immediately as a dangerous adversary of theChristian religion. He journeyed in England where he was in closetouch with the Deist school of thought, in Germany where he was awelcome guest at the court of Frederick II. of Prussia, and settledfinally at Ferney in Switzerland close to the French frontiers.Towards the end of his life (1778) he returned to Paris where hereceived a popular ovation. Poets, philosophers, actresses, andacademicians vied with one another in doing honour to a man who hadvowed to crush /L'Infame/, as he termed Christianity, and whosewritings had done so much to accomplish that result in the land of hisbirth. The reception given to Voltaire in Paris affords the moststriking proof of the religious and moral corruption of all classes inFrance at this period. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born at Geneva andreared as a Calvinist. Later on he embraced the Catholic religion,from which he relapsed once more into Calvinism, if indeed in hislater years he was troubled by any dogmatic beliefs. His private lifewas in perfect harmony with the moral tone of most of his works. Hehad neither the wit nor the literary genius of Voltaire, but in manyrespects his works, especially /Le Contrat Social/, exercised agreater influence on the France of his own time and on Europegenerally since that time than any other writings of the eighteenthcentury. His greatest works were /La Nouvelle Heloise/ (1759), a noveldepicting the most dangerous of human passions; /Emile/, aphilosophical romance dealing with educational ideas and tendingdirectly towards Deism, and /Le Contrat Social/, in which hemaintained that all power comes from the people, and may be recalledif those to whom it has been entrusted abuse it. The /Confessions/which tell the story of his shameless life were not published untilafter his death.

To further their propaganda without at the same time attracting thenotice of the civil authorities the rationalist party had recourse tovarious devices. Pamphlets and books were published, professedlydescriptive of manners and customs in foreign countries, but directedin reality against civil and religious institutions in France. Typicalexamples of this class of literature were the /Persian Letters/ ofMontesquieu, /A Description of the Island of Borneo/ by Fontanelle,/The Life of Mohammed/ by Henri de Bouillon Villiers, and a /Letter onthe English/ from the pen of Voltaire. The greatest and mostsuccessful work undertaken by them for popularising their ideas wasundoubtedly the /Encyclopedie/. The professed object of the work wasto give in a concise and handy form the latest and best results ofscholarship in every department of human knowledge, but the real aimof the founders was to spread their poisonous views amongst the peopleof France, and to win them from their allegiance to the CatholicChurch. In order to escape persecution from the government and toconceal their real purposes many of the articles were written byclerics and laymen whose orthodoxy was above suspicion, and many ofthe articles referring to religion from the pen of the rationalisticcollaborateurs were respectful in tone, though a careful reader couldsee that they did not represent the real views of the author.Sometimes references were given to other articles of a very differentkind, where probably opposite views were established by apparentlysound arguments. The originator of the project was D'Alembert, who wasassisted by Diderot, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Condillac, Buffon, andD'Holbach. The work was begun in 1750, and in spite of interruptionsand temporary suppressions it was brought to a successful conclusionin 1772. The reviewers and the learned world hailed it with delight asa veritable treasure-house of information. New and cheap editions ofit were brought out for the general public, and in a remarkably shorttime the influence of the Encyclopaedists had reached the lowest strataof French society. Many of those in authority in France favoured thedesigns of the Encyclopaedists, and threw all kinds of obstacles in theway of those who sought to uphold the teaching of the Church, but soonthey had reason to regret their approval of a campaign that leddirectly to revolution.

(b) The Aufklarung Movement in Germany.

See bibliography (viii. a). Tholuck, /Abriss einer geschichte der Umwalzung seit 1750 auf dem Gebiete der Theologie in Deutschland/, 1839. Staudlin, /Geschichte des Rationalismus und Supranaturalismus/, 1826. Bruck, /Die rationalistischen Bestrebungen im Kath. Deutschland/, 1867. Weiner, /Geschichte der Kath. Theologie in Deutschland/, 1889. Wolfram, /Die Illuminantem in Bayern und ihre Verfolgung/, 1898-1900.

In Germany the religious formularies, composed with the object ofsecuring even an appearance of unity or at least of preventingreligious chaos, were not powerful enough to resist the anti-ChristianEnlightenment that swept over Europe in the eighteenth century. Atbest these formularies were only the works of men who rejected theauthority of the Church, and as works of men they could not beregarded as irreformable. With the progress of knowledge and thedevelopment of human society it was thought that they requiredrevision to bring them more into harmony with the results of scienceand with the necessities of the age. The influence of the writingsimported from England and France, backed as it was by the approval andexample of Frederick II. of Prussia, could not fail to weaken dogmaticChristianity among the Lutherans of Germany. The philosophic teachingof Leibniz (1646-1710), who was himself a strong upholder of dogmaticChristianity and zealous for a reunion of Christendom, had a greateffect on the whole religious thought of Germany during the eighteenthcentury. In his great work, /Theodicee/, written against Bayle toprove that there was no conflict between the kingdoms of nature andgrace, greater stress was laid upon the natural than on thesupernatural elements in Christianity. His disciples, advancing beyondthe limits laid down by the master, prepared the way for the rise oftheological rationalism.

One of the greatest of the disciples of Leibniz was Christian Wolf(1679-1754), who was not himself an opponent of supernatural religion.The whole trend of his arguments, however, went to show that humanreason was the sole judge of the truths of revelation, and thatwhatever was not in harmony with the verdict of reason must beeliminated. Many of his disciples like Remiarus, Mendelssohn, andGarve developed the principles laid down by Wolf until the verymention of dogma was scouted openly, and Theism itself was put forwardas only the most likely among many possible hypotheses. In therevulsion against dogmatic beliefs the party of the Pietists foundedby Spener towards the end of the seventeenth century found muchsupport, while the Conscientiarians, who maintained that man's ownconscience was the sole rule of faith, and that so long as man acts inaccordance with the dictates of conscience he is leading the life ofthe just, gained ground rapidly. Some of its principal leaders wereMatthew Knutzen and Christian Edlemann who rejected the authority ofthe Bible. The spread of Rationalism was strengthened very much by theappearance of the /Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek/, founded in 1764 byNicolai in Berlin, through the agency of which books hostile toChristianity were scattered broadcast amongst a large circle ofreaders.

These rationalistic principles, when applied to the Bible and theinterpretation of the Bible, helped to put an end to the very rigidviews regarding the inspiration of the sacred writings entertained bythe early Lutherans. Everything that was supernatural or miraculousmust be explained away. To do so without denying inspiration the"Accommodation" theory, namely that Christ and His apostlesaccommodated themselves to the mistaken views of their contemporaries,was formulated by Semler (1725-1791). But more extreme men, as forexample, Lessing (1729-1781), who published the /WolfenbuttlerFragments/ written by Reimarus in which a violent onslaught was madeupon the Biblical miracles more especially on the Resurrection ofChrist, attacked directly the miracles of Christianity, and wrotestrongly in favour of religious indifference.

The rationalistic dogmatism of Wolf when brought face to face with theobjections of Hume did not satisfy Immanuel Kant (1720-1804), who inhis /Critique of Pure Reason/ (1781) denied that it was possible forscience or philosophy to reach a knowledge of the substance or essenceof things as distinguished from the phenomena, and that consequentlythe arguments used generally to prove the existence of God wereworthless. In his own /Critique of Practical Reason/ (1788), however,he endeavoured to build up what he had pulled down, by showing thatthe moral law implanted in the heart of every human being necessarilyimplied the existence of a supreme law-giver. For Kant religion was tobe identified with duty and not with dogmatic definitions. Such a lineof defence, attempting as it did to remove religion from the arena ofintellectual discussion, thereby evading most of the objections putforward by the rationalistic school, was a dangerous one. It ledgradually to the rejection of external revelation, and to dogmaticindifference. Such a theory in the hands of Herder and above all ofSchleiermacher (1768-1834) meant an end to Christian revelation asgenerally understood. For Schleiermacher religion was nothing morethan the consciousness of dependence upon God. Given this sense ofdependence, variations in creeds were of no importance. Between thereligion of Luther and the religion of Schleiermacher there was animmense difference, but nevertheless it was Luther who laid down theprinciples that led to the disintegration of dogmatic Christianity,and in doing what he did Schleiermacher was but proving himself theworthy pupil of such a master.

The unrestrained liberty of thought, claimed by so many Protestantreformers and theologians and ending as it did in the substitution ofa natural for a supernatural religion, could not fail to have aninfluence in Catholic circles. Many Catholic scholars were closestudents of the philosophical systems of Wolf and Kant in Germany, andof the writings of the Encyclopaedists in France. They were convincedthat Scholasticism, however valuable it might have been in thethirteenth century, was antiquated and out of harmony with modernprogress, that it should be dropped entirely from the curriculum ofstudies, and with it should go many of the theological accretions towhich it had given rise. Catholicism, it was thought, if it were tohold the field as a world-wide religion, must be remodelled so as tobring it better into line with the conclusions of modern philosophy.Less attention should be paid to dogma and to polemical discussions,and more to the ethical and natural principles contained in theChristian revelation.

The spread of Gallicanism and Febronianism and the adoption of theseviews by leading rulers and politicians, thereby weakening theauthority of the Pope and of the bishops, helped to break down thedefences of Catholicity, and to make it more easy to propagaterationalistic views especially amongst those who frequented theuniversities. As a rule it was only the higher and middle classes thatwere affected by the /Aufklarung/. Everywhere throughout Europe, inFrance, in Spain, in Portugal, in Germany, and in Austria thisadvanced liberalism made itself felt in the last half of theeighteenth century, particularly after the suppression of the Jesuitshad removed the only body capable of resisting it successfully at thetime, and had secured for their opponents a much stronger hold in thecentres of education.

It was in Germany and Austria that the /Aufklarung/ movement attractedthe greatest attention. The Scholastic system of philosophy had beenabandoned in favour of the teaching of the Leibniz-Wolf school and ofKant. The entire course of study for ecclesiastical students underwenta complete reorganisation. Scholasticism, casuistry, and controversywere eliminated. Their places were taken by Patrology, Church History,Pastoral Theology, and Biblical Exegesis of the kind then in vogue inProtestant schools.

The plan of studies drawn up by Abbot Rautenstrauch, rector of theUniversity of Vienna (1774), for the theological students of thatinstitution meant nothing less than a complete break with the wholetraditional system of clerical education. In itself it had much torecommend it, but the principles that underlay its introduction, andthe class of men to whom its administration was entrusted, were enoughto render it suspicious. The director of studies in Austria, Baron vonSwieten, himself in close contact with the Jansenists and theEncyclopaedists, favoured the introduction of the new plan into all theAustrian universities and colleges, and took good care, besides, thatonly men of liberal views were appointed to the chairs. In the handsof professors like Jahn and Fischer, Scriptural Exegesis began topartake more and more of the rationalism of the Protestant schools;Church History as expounded by Dannenmayr, Royko, and Gmeiner, becamein great part an apology for Gallicanism; the Moral Theology taught byDanzer and Reyberger was modelled largely on a purely rational systemof ethics, and the Canon Law current in the higher schools was incomplete harmony with the views of Febronius and Joseph II.

The Prince-bishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne spared no pains topropagate these liberal views amongst those who were to be the futurepriests in their territories. In the University of Mainz Isenbiehl'sviews on Scripture brought him into conflict with the Church; Blau,the professor of dogma, denied the infallibility of the Church and ofGeneral Councils; while Dorsch, the professor of philosophy, was anardent disciple of Kant. A similar state of affairs prevailed at theUniversity of Trier, at Bonn which was established for the expresspurpose of combatting the ultramontanism and conservatism of Cologne,and to a more or less degree at Freiburg, Wurzburg, Ingolstadt, andMunich. By means of the universities and by the publication of variousreviews these liberal theories were spread throughout Germany. Anattempt was made to reform the discipline and liturgy of the Church soas to bring them into harmony with the new theology. Many advocatedthe abolition of popular devotions, the substitution of German for theLatin language in the missal and in the ritual, and the abolition ofclerical celibacy.

In Bavaria matters reached a crisis when Weishaupt, a professor ofcanon law in Ingolstadt, founded a secret society known as the/Illuminati/ for the overthrow of the Church and the civil authority,to make way for a universal republic in which the only religion wouldbe the religion of humanity. His speculative views were borrowedlargely from the Encyclopaedists, and his plan of organisation from theFreemasons. At first the society was confined to students, but withthe accession of the Freiherr von Knigge it was determined to widenthe sphere of its operations. Every effort was made to securerecruits. The Freemasons gave it strong support, and Ferdinand ofBrunswick became one of its members. It had its statutes, ritual, anddecrees. Fortunately the members quarrelled, and were foolish enoughto carry their controversies into the public press. In this way theBavarian government became acquainted with the dangerous character ofthe sect of the /Illuminati/, and a determined effort was made tosecure its suppression (1784-1785).

(c) Freemasonry.

Gould, /History of Freemasonry/, 3 vols., 1883-87. Findel, /Geschichte der Freimaurer/, 3 auf., 1870 (Eng. Trans.). Claudio Jannet, /Les precurseurs de la Franc-maconnerie au XVIe et au XVIIe siecle/, 1887. Deschamps et Jannet, /Les societes secretes et la societe/, 1882. Kloss, /Geschichte der Freimaurer in England, Ireland und Schottland/, 1847. Hughan, /Origin of the English Rite of Freemasonry/, 1884.

Whatever about the value of the fantastic legends invented to explainthe origin of Freemasonry it is certain that the first grand lodge wasformed in London on the Feast of St. John the Baptist (1717). Thatbefore this date there were a few scattered lodges in England,Scotland, and Ireland, and that these lodges were the sole remainingrelics of a peculiar trade guild, composed of masons and of some ofthe higher classes as honorary members, there can be little doubt. Thesociety spread rapidly in England, Scotland, and amongst theProtestant colony in Ireland. From Great Britain its principles werediffused throughout the rest of Europe. Freemason lodges wereestablished in Paris (1725-1732), in Germany (1733), Portugal (1735),Holland (1735), Switzerland (1740), Denmark (1745), Italy (1763), andSweden (1773). The Freemasons were bound together into a secretsociety, the members of which were obliged by oath and by the threatof severe penalties to obey orders and to maintain silence regardingits affairs. The society had its ritual, its degrees of apprentice,fellow, and master, and its passports and signs. The particular lodgesin each country were united under a national grand lodge, and thoughthe various attempts that have been made to bring about aninternational organisation have failed, yet there can be little doubtthat Freemasons throughout the world maintain the closest relations,and at least in general policy act usually as one man. Freemasonry waspatronised by members of the royal family in England, by Frederick II.of Prussia, Francis I. of Austria, the Grand Duke Francis Stephen ofTuscany, and by Philip Duke of Orleans, who accepted the office ofgrand master in France. Its members were recruited principally fromthe higher and middle classes, as the entrance fees and expenses madeit impossible for anybody except the comparatively wealthy to becomemembers. At the time when the society was formed it was the nobilityand middle classes who formed public opinion in most countries, and itwas thought that if these classes could be won over to support theprinciples of Freemasonry, they in turn could influence the mass ofthe people.

Freemasonry was established at a time when Deism and Naturalism wererampant in England, and it secured a foothold in most of thecontinental countries in an age noted for its hostility tosupernatural religion. In the first article of the /Old Charges/(1723) it is laid down that, "A mason is obliged by his tenure to obeythe moral law, and if he really understands the art he will never be astupid atheist or an irreligious libertine." The precise meaning ofthis injunction has been the subject of many controversies, but it isclear from the continuation of the same article that the universalreligion on which all men are agreed, that is to say, a kind ofnatural Christianity, was to be the religion of Freemasonry. Thesociety professed to be non-sectarian in its objects, but the wholetendency of the rules and of the organisation in its practical workinghas been to promote contempt for dogmatic orthodoxy and for religiousauthority, and to foster a kind of modified Christianity from whichspecifically Catholic doctrines have been eliminated.

In France and in Austria Freemasons and Rationalists worked hand inhand for the overthrow of the established Church and for the spread ofatheistical views. The society professed also to forbid politicaldiscussions, but here too the articles of the constitution areintentionally vague, and it is fairly evident that in most of therevolutions that have disturbed the peace of Europe during the lasthundred years Freemasons have exercised a very powerful influence. Formany reasons the anti-religious and revolutionary tendencies ofFreemasonry have been more striking in the Latin countries, France,Spain, Portugal, and Italy, than in England or Germany. In 1877 theGrand Orient of France abolished the portions of the constitution thatseemed to admit the existence of God and the immortality of the soul,and remodelled the ritual so as to exclude all references to religiousdogma. This action led to a rupture between the Grand Orient and thelodges of England, Germany, and America. Yet many of the Freemasons inthese latter countries sympathised with the attitude of their Frenchbrethren, and insisted on interpreting after their own fashion thevery ambiguous formula by which the existence of a grand architect isrecognised. There can be no doubt that even in England a man may be aFreemason accepting loyally all its articles, and yet refuse tobelieve in the existence of a personal God distinct from the world.Freemasonry aims at establishing a spirit of comradeship andbrotherhood among its members. They are bound to aid one another inevery possible way and practically in all conceivable circumstances.However objectionable such a practice, and however dangerous to thepublic weal and to the interests of the state it may be, it isprecisely this feature of the society that won for it its greatestnumber of adherents.

Freemasonry was condemned by Clement XII. in 1738. In the constitution/In eminenti/, in which this condemnation was promulgated, heexplained the reasons that induced him to take this step. These werethe anti-religious tendencies of the society both in its theory andpractice, the oaths of secrecy and obedience to unknown superiors, andthe danger to Church and State involved in such secret combinations.This condemnation has been renewed by several of his successors, asfor example Benedict XIV. (1751), Pius VII. (1821), Gregory XVI.(1832), Pius IX. (1865), and Leo XIII. (1884). Since 1738 Catholicshave been forbidden under penalty of excommunication to become membersof the society or to promote its success. According to theconstitution /Apostolicae Sedis/ (1869), which is in force at thepresent time, excommunication is levelled against those who join theFreemasons or similar bodies that plot against the Church andestablished authority, as well as against those who favour suchorganisations and do not denounce their leaders.

(d) The Suppression of the Society of Jesus.

Cretineau-Joly, /Clement XIV. et les Jesuites/, 1847. De Ravignan, /Clement XIII. et Clement XIV./, 1856. Theiner, /Histoire du pontificat de Clement XIV. d'apres des documents inedits des arch. secr. du Vatican/, 2 vols., 1852. Weld, /The Suppression of the Society of Jesus in the Portuguese Dominions/, 1877. Rosseau, /Regne de Charles III. d'Espagne/, 1907. Riffel, /Die Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens/, 3 auf., 1855. Foley, /Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus/, 1877. Hogan, /Hibernia Ignatiana/, 1880. Taunton, /The Jesuits in England/, 1901.

From its foundation by St. Ignatius of Loyola and its approval by PaulIII. the Society of Jesus had remained true to the teaching and spiritof its holy founder and loyal to the Holy See. In the defence of theChurch, especially in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, and France,in the domain of education and of literature, in the work of spreadingChristianity amongst the races and peoples in India, China, Japan, andAmerica, the Jesuit Fathers took the foremost place. They labouredincessantly to stay the inroads of heresy, to instil Catholicprinciples into the minds of the rising generation, and to win newrecruits to take the place of those who had gone over to the enemy.

But their very success was sufficient to arouse the wrath of theiradversaries and the jealousy of their rivals. Lutherans andCalvinists, enraged by the success of the Counter-Reformation,denounced the Jesuits as enemies of progress and enlightenment, whosevery existence was a danger to the peace and the liberty of Europe.These charges were re-echoed by Jansenists and Gallicans, by infidelphilosophers and absolutist politicians, and, stranger still, by manywhose orthodoxy could not be questioned, but whose judgment was warpedby their annoyance at the wonderful success of a comparatively youngorganisation. The Jesuits were accused of favouring laxity of moralson account of the support given by some of them to Probabilism, ofsympathising with Pelagianism on account of the doctrine of Molina, ofsupporting tyrannicide on the strength of the work of Mariana, ofupholding absolutism on account of their close relations with therulers of France, and Spain, and of seeking to undermine governmentsand constitutions by their secret political schemes and theirexcessive wealth. Garbled extracts taken from the works of individualJesuits were published as representing the opinions of the body, andthe infamous /Monita Secreta/, purporting to contain the instructionof Aquaviva to his subjects, was forged (1612) to bring discredit uponthe Society.[1]

More than once the combined assaults of its enemies seemed on thepoint of being crowned with success. During Aquaviva's tenure ofoffice as general (1585-1615) the society was banished from France andfrom Venice, while the demands of the Spanish Jesuits for a Spanishsuperior, backed as it was by the influence of the court, threatenedto destroy the unity of the Society. Again in the time of Paul Oliva(1664-1681) and Charles Noyelle (1682-1686) controversies regardingJansenism, Probabilism, the /Regalia/, and the Gallican Declaration ofthe French clergy (1682), endangered the existence of the Society inFrance, and threatened to lead to misunderstandings with the Holy See,but under the Providence of God these dangers were averted, and theeighteenth century found the Jesuits still vigorous in Europe and notless vigorous in their labours among the heathen nations.

But their opponents though beaten time and again were notdisheartened. The infidel philosophers of the eighteenth centuryrecognised in the Jesuits the ablest defenders of the Catholic Church.If only they could succeed in removing them, as Voltaire declared, thework of destroying the Church seemed comparatively easy. Hence theyunited all their forces for one grand assault upon the Society as thebulwark of Christianity. They were assisted in their schemes by theJansenists, eager to avenge the defeat they had received at the handsof the Jesuits, and by the absolutist statesmen and rulers of Europe,who aimed at the enslavement of the Church, and who feared the Jesuitsas the ablest exponents of the rights of religion and of the Holy See.The Jesuits controlled to a great extent Catholic education both layand clerical, and it was hoped that by installing teachers devoted tostate supremacy and Enlightenment in their place the future ofabsolutism and of rationalism might be assured.

The attack on the Jesuits was begun in Portugal during the reign ofJoseph Emmanuel (1750-1777). He was a man of liberal views, anxious topromote the welfare of his country, as well as to strengthen the powerof the crown. In accomplishing these objects he was guided by theadvice of the prime minister, Joseph Sebastian Carvalho, better knownas the Marquis of Pombal.[2] The latter had travelled much, and wasthoroughly imbued with the liberal and rationalistic spirit of theage. He regarded the Catholic Church as an enemy of material progress,and the Jesuits as the worst teachers to whom the youth of any countrycould be entrusted. A treaty concluded with Spain, according to whichthe Spaniards were to surrender to Portugal seven of the Reductions ofParaguay in return for San Sacramento, afforded him the long desiredopportunity of attacking the Jesuits (1750). The Indians on theReductions, who had been converted by the Jesuits, were to be banishedfrom their lands to make way for mining operations in search of gold,and though the Jesuits tried hard to induce their people to submit tothis decree, the Indians, maddened by the injustice and cruelty of thetreatment of the Portuguese, rose in revolt. The Jesuits were blamedfor having fomented the rebellion. By orders of Pombal they werearrested and brought to Portugal, where the most extravagant chargeswere published against them in order to damage them in the eyes of thepeople.

The Portuguese government appealed to Benedict XIV. to take actionagainst the Society. The Pope appointed Saldanha an apostolic visitorto examine into the charges that had been made. Though theinstructions laid down for the guidance of the visitor were precise inevery detail, Saldanha, unmindful of the restrictions imposed by thePope and without hearing any evidence that might favour the accused,decided against the Jesuits and procured the withdrawal of theirfaculties in Lisbon (1758). In September of that year a plot directedagainst one of the royal officials, but supposed to have for itsobject the murder of the king, was discovered and attributed withoutany evidence to the Jesuits. They and many of their supposed alliesamong the nobility were arrested and thrown into prison; their schoolswere closed, and various fruitless attempts were made to induce theyounger members to disown the Society. Finally in September 1759 adecree of banishment was issued against the Jesuits. Most of them werearrested and despatched to the Papal States, while others of them,less fortunate, were confined as prisoners in the jails of Portugal.Father Malagrida, one of the ablest and most saintly men of theSociety, was put to death on a trumped-up charge of heresy (1761).Clement XIII. (1758-1769) made various attempts to save the Society,and to prevent a breach with Portugal, but Pombal determined to pushmatters to extremes. The Portuguese ambassador at Rome suddenly brokeoff negotiations with the Holy See and left the city, while the nuncioat Lisbon was escorted to the Spanish frontier (1760). For a period often years (1760-1770) friendly relations between Rome and Portugalwere interrupted.

In France the Jesuits had many powerful friends, but they had alsomany able and determined enemies. The Jansenists who controlled theParliament of Paris, the Rationalists, the Gallicans, and not a few ofthe doctors of the Sorbonne, though divided on nearly every otherissue, made common cause against the Society. They were assisted intheir campaign by Madame de Pompadour, the king's mistress, for whomthe Jesuit theology was not sufficiently lax, and by the Duc deChoiseul, the king's prime minister. The well-known Jesuit leanings ofLouis XV. and of the royal family generally, imposed a certain measureof restraint upon the enemies of the Society, until the famous LaValette law suit offered its opponents an opportunity of stirring uppublic feeling and of overcoming the scruples of the weak-minded king.The Jesuits had a very important mission in the island of Martinique.The natives were employed on their large mission lands, the fruits ofwhich were spent in promoting the spiritual and temporal welfare ofthe people. La Valette, the Jesuit superior on the island, had beenvery successful in his business transactions, and encouraged by hissuccess, he borrowed money in France to develop the resources of themission. This money he could have repaid without difficulty, had itnot been that during the war between France and England some vesselsbearing his merchandise were seized by the English (1755). La Valettewas in consequence of this unable to pay his creditors, some of whomsought to recover their debts by instituting a civil process againstthe procurator of the Paris province. For several reasons the Jesuits,though not unwilling to make a reasonable settlement, refused toacknowledge any responsibility. The creditors insisted on bringing thecase to trial, and the court at Marseilles decided in their favour.The Jesuit procurator then appealed to the Parliament of Paris, atthat time strongly Jansenist in its tendencies. The Parliament, notcontent with upholding the verdict, took advantage of the popularfeeling aroused against the Society to institute a criminal processagainst the entire body (1761).

A commission was appointed to examine the constitutions and privilegesof the Jesuits. It reported that the Society was dangerous to thestate, hostile to the /Gallican Liberties/, and unlawful. The writingsof Bellarmine and Busenbaum were ordered to be burned, and the famous/Extrait des Assertions/, a kind of blue-book containing a selectionof unpopular views defended by Jesuit writers, was published to showthe dangerous tendencies of the Society and to prejudice it in theeyes of the people. The Provincial of the Jesuits offered for himselfand his subjects to accept the Declaration of the French clergy and toobey the instructions of the bishops, but the offer, besides beingdispleasing to the Roman authorities, did not soften the wrath of theanti-Jesuit party, who sought nothing less than the total destructionof the Society.

Louis XV. endeavoured to bring about a compromise by procuring theappointment of a vicar for France. With this object he called ameeting of the French bishops (1761), the vast majority of whom hadnothing but praise for the work of the Jesuits, and wished for nochange in the constitution of the Society. Similar views wereexpressed by the assembly of the French clergy in 1762. Clement XIII.laboured energetically in defence of the Jesuits, but in opendisregard of his advice and his entreaties, the decree for thesuppression of the Society was passed by Parliament in 1762, thoughits execution was delayed by orders of the king. Meanwhile proposalswere made to the Pope and to the general, Ricci,[3] for a change inthe constitution, so as to secure the appointment of an independentsuperior for France, which proposal was rejected by both Pope andgeneral. In 1763 the Jesuit colleges were closed; members of theSociety were required to renounce their vows under threat ofbanishment, and, as hardly any members complied with this condition,the decree of banishment was promulgated in 1764. Clement XIII.published a Bull defending the constitution of the Society, andrejecting the charge against its members (1765), while the Frenchbishops addressed an earnest appeal to the king on its behalf (1765).

The example of Portugal and France was soon followed by Spain. CharlesIII. (1759-1788) was an able ruler, anxious to restore the formergreatness of his country by encouraging the establishment ofindustries and by favouring the introduction of foreign capital andforeign skill. He was by no means irreligious, but he was influencedlargely by the liberal tendencies of the age, as were also in a moremarked degree his two principal ministers Aranda and de Roda. Popularfeeling was aroused by the favour which the king showed towards Frenchcapitalists and artisans, and in some places ugly commotions tookplace. The ministers suggested to the king that the Jesuits werebehind this movement, and were the authors of certain dangerous andinflammatory pamphlets. Secret councils were held, as a result ofwhich sealed instructions were issued to the governors of all towns inwhich Jesuit houses were situated that on a fixed night the Jesuitsshould be arrested (1767). These orders were carried out to theletter. Close on six thousand Jesuits were taken and hurried to thecoast, where vessels were waiting to transport them to the PapalStates. When this had been accomplished a royal decree was issuedsuppressing the Society in Spain owing to certain weighty reasonswhich the king was unwilling to divulge. Clement XIII. remonstratedvigorously against such violent measures, but the only effect of hisremonstrances was that the bishops who defended the papal interferencewere banished, those who would seek to favour the return of theSociety were declared guilty of high treason, and the punishment ofdeath was levelled against any Jesuit who attempted to land in Spain.

In Naples, where Ferdinand, son of Charles III. of Spain then ruled,the suppression of the Jesuits was planned and carried out by theprime minister, Tanucci, a man hardly less unfriendly to the Societythan Pombal. The Jesuits were arrested without any trial, and weresent across the frontier into the Papal States (Nov. 1767). Much thesame fate awaited them in the territories of the Duke of Parma andPiacenza, where the minister du Tillot had pursued for years acampaign against the rights of the Catholic Church. In 1768 ClementXIII. issued a strong protest against the policy of the Parmesegovernment. This aroused the ire of the whole Bourbon family. France,Spain, and Naples demanded the withdrawal of this /Monitorium/ underthreat of violence. The Papal States of Avignon and Venaissin wereoccupied by French troops, while Naples seized Benevento andPontecorvo. Various attempts were made to secure the support of theEmpress Maria Theresa, and to stir up opposition in the smallerkingdoms of Italy. But Clement XIII., undaunted by the threats ofviolence of the Bourbons, refused to yield to their demands for thesuppression of a Society, against which nothing had been proved, andagainst which nothing could be proved except its ardent defence of theCatholic Church and its attachment to the Holy See. In January 1769 anultimatum was presented by the ambassadors of France, Spain, andNaples demanding the suppression of the Society. The Pope refused toagree to it, but before the threats it contained could be carried intoexecution Clement XIII. passed away (Feb. 1769).

In the conclave that followed the Bourbon rulers made every effort tosecure the election of a Pope favourable to their views. Theirrepresentatives were instructed to use the veto freely against allcardinals known to be favourable to the Jesuits. After a strugglelasting three months Cardinal Ganganelli was elected and took thetitle Clement XIV. (1769-1774). He restored friendly relations withParma, opened negotiations with Portugal, created the brother ofPombal a cardinal, appointed Pereira, one of the court theologians, toa Portuguese bishopric, despatched a nuncio to Lisbon, and broughtabout a formal reconciliation (1770).

It is not true that before his election Clement XIV. had bound himselfformally to suppress the Jesuits. Hardly, however, had he been crownedwhen demands were made upon him by the representatives of France andSpain similar to those presented to his predecessor. Clement XIV.promised to agree to the suppression (1769), but asked for time toconsider such a momentous step. In the hope of satisfying theopponents of the Jesuits the Pope adopted an unfriendly attitudetowards the Society, and appointed apostolic visitors to examine intothe affairs of the seminaries and colleges under its control, frommost of which, as a result of the investigation, the Jesuits weredismissed. He offered to bring about a complete change in theconstitution of the Society, but this offer, too, was rejected.Charles III. of Spain forwarded an ultimatum in which he insisted uponthe instant suppression of the Society under threat of recalling hisambassador from Rome. This ultimatum had the approval of all theBourbon rulers. Faced with such a terrible danger, the courage ofClement XIV. failed him, and he determined to accept the suppressionas the lesser of two evils (1772). In July 1773 the Brief /Dominus acRedemptor noster/, decreeing the suppression of the Society in theinterests of peace and religion, was signed by the Pope. The houses ofthe Jesuits in the Papal States were surrounded by soldiers, and thegeneral, Ricci, was confined as a prisoner in the castle of St.Angelo. The decree was forwarded to the bishops to be communicated bythem to the Jesuits resident in their dioceses. In most of thecountries of Europe the decree of suppression was carried out to theletter, the Jesuits as a body submitting loyally to the decision ofthe Pope.

Catharine II. of Russia, however, and Frederick II. of Prussia wereimpressed so favourably by the work of the Jesuits as educators thatthey forbade the bishops to publish the decree in their territories.In 1776 an agreement was arrived at between Pius VI. and FrederickII., according to which the Jesuits in Prussian territory were to bedisbanded formally and were to lay aside their dress, but they werepermitted to continue under a different name to direct the collegeswhich they possessed. The Empress Catherine II. of Russia continuedtill her death to protect the Society. In 1778 she insisted upon theerection of a novitiate, for which oral permission seems to have beengiven by Pius VI. In the other countries many of the Jesuits labouredas secular priests, others of them united in the congregation, knownas the Fathers of the Faith (1797), and others still in thecongregation of the Fathers of the Sacred Heart. In 1803 the EnglishJesuit community at Stonyhurst was allowed to affiliate with theRussian congregation; in 1804 the Society was re-established with thepermission of Pius VII. in Naples, and in 1814 the Pope issued theBull, /Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum/ formally re-establishing theSociety. Strange to say the very next year (1815) a persecution brokeout against the Jesuits in Saint Petersburg, and in 1820 they wereexpelled from Russian territory.

It was fear of the Bourbon rulers that forced Clement XIV. to agree tothe suppression of the Jesuits. By sacrificing a society that had beennoted for its loyal defence of and submission to the Pope, he hadhoped to restore peace to the Church, and to avert the many calamitiesthat threatened its very existence in France, Spain, Portugal, andNaples. But he lived long enough to realise that his weakness led onlyto new and more exorbitant demands, and that the professors, who hadtaken the chairs vacated by the Jesuits, were only too ready to placetheir voices and their pens at the disposal of the civil power andagainst the Holy See. The suppression of the Society was hailed as averitable triumph by the forces of irreligion and rationalism. Theschemes that this party had been concocting for years were at lastcrowned with success; the strongest of the outposts had been captured,and it only remained to make one last desperate assault on thefortress itself. The civil rulers, who had allowed themselves to beused as tools for promoting the designs of the rationalists and theFreemasons, had soon reason to regret the cruelty and violence withwhich they treated the Society of Jesus. In a few years the Revolutionwas in full swing; the thrones of France, Spain, Portugal and Napleswere overturned, and those members of the royal families, who escapedthe scaffold or the dungeon, were themselves driven to seek refuge inforeign lands, as the Jesuits had been driven in the days of ClementXIV. ----------

[1] On the /Monita Secreta/, cf. Bernard, /Les instructions secretes des Jesuites/, 1903. Duhr, /Jesuitenfabeln/, 1904. Gerard, /Jesuit Bogey/, etc. (/The Month/, Aug., 1901, p. 179).

[2] Du Breuil, /Un ministre philosophe, Carvalho, marquis de Pombal/ (/Revue historique/, 1895, pp. 1 sqq.).

[3] Carayon, /Le pere ricci et la suppression de la compagnie de Jesus en 1773/, 1869.

(e) Failure of Attempts at Reunion. Protestant Sects.

Bossuet, /Oeuvres completes/, 1846 (vii.). /Oeuvres de Leibniz/, etc., 1859. Kiefl, /Der Friedensplan des Leibniz fur Wiedervereinigung der getrennten Kirchen/, 1903. Lescoeur, /De Bossueti et Leibnitii epistolarum commercio circa pacem inter Christianos conciliandam/, 1852. Tabaraud, /Histoire critique des projets formes depuis trois cents ans pour la reunion des communions chretiennes/. Kahnis, /Der innere gang des deutschen Protestantismus/, 3 Auf., 1874. Franke, /Geschichte der protestantism Theologie/, 1865. Erbkam, /Geschichte der protestantischen Sekten im Zeitalter der Reformation/, 1848.

Whatever hopes there might have been of restoring unity to theChristian world during the early years of the Reformation movement,the prospects of a reunion became more and more remote according asthe practical results of the principle of private judgment madethemselves felt. It was no longer with Luther, or Calvin, or Zwinglithat Catholic theologians were called upon to negotiate, nor was itsufficient for them to concentrate their attention upon the refutationof the /Confessio Augustana/ or the /Confessio Tetrapolitana/. Theleading followers of the early Reformers found themselves justified inquestioning the teaching of their masters, for reasons exactly similarto those that had been alleged by their masters in defence of theirattack on the Catholic Church. The principle of religious authorityhaving been rejected, individuals felt free to frame their ownstandard of orthodoxy, and were it not for the civil rulers, whointerfered to preserve their states from the temporal dangers ofreligious anarchy, and to supply by their own power some organisationto take the place of the Catholic hierarchy, Calvinism and Lutheranismwould have assumed almost as many forms as there were individuals whoprofessed to accept these religious systems. As it was, despite thereligious formularies, drawn up for the most part at the instigationand on the advice of the civil rulers, it proved impossible for man toreplace the old bulwarks established by Christ to safeguard thedeposit of faith. As a consequence new sects made their appearance inevery country that accepted the reformed doctrine.

In France some attempts were made by Cardinal Richelieu to bring abouta reunion between the Catholics and the Calvinists. In taking thesesteps he was influenced more by considerations of state than by zealfor the welfare of the Church, but the gulf separating the two partieswas too wide to be bridged over even by French patriotism. In Poland,where unity was particularly required and where the disastrousconsequences of religious strife were only too apparent, Ladislaus V.determined to summon a conference at Thorn in 1645 to discuss thereligious differences, but though it was attended by representativesfrom several states of Germany it produced no good results.

In Germany the work, that had proved too great for the theologians,was undertaken by the princes in 1644, with no better results. Lateron, at the instigation of the Emperor, Christopher Royas de Spinola,an Austrian bishop, spent the last twenty years of his life (1675-1695) in a vain effort to put an end to the religious dispute.Heedless of repeated rebuffs, he passed from court to court in Germanytill at last at Hanover he saw some prospect of success. Duke ErnestAugust assembled a conference of Lutheran theologians (1679), theprincipal of whom was Molanus, a Protestant abbot of Loccum. TheLutheran theologians were willing to agree that all Christians shouldreturn immediately to their obedience to the Pope, on condition,however, that the decrees of the Council of Trent should be suspended,and that a new General Council composed of representatives of allparties should be assembled to discuss the principal points indispute. On his side Royas was inclined to yield a good deal in regardto clerical celibacy and the authority of secular princes inecclesiastical affairs. Innocent XI., while not approving of what hadbeen done, praised the bishop for the efforts he had made to bringabout a reunion.

Leibniz, the librarian and archivist of the Duke of Brunswick, havingtaken already some part in the work of bringing about areconciliation, entered into a correspondence with Bossuet, the Bishopof Meaux. He favoured a compromise on the basis of acceptance of thebeliefs of the first five centuries, and published his /SystemaTheologicum/ as a means of bringing the Catholic standpoint before theminds of his co-religionists. Bossuet and the French historianPellisson reciprocated his efforts, but the schemes of Louis XIV. andthe hopes of the English succession entertained by the House ofBrunswick out an end to all chances of success.

From the beginning, though Luther and Zwingli were at one in theiropposition to Rome, they were unable to agree upon a common religiousplatform. The Sacramentarian controversy, confined at first to Lutherand Carlstadt, grew more embittered after Zwingli had espoused openlythe side of the latter. Several German princes having embraced theviews of Zwingli, it was felt necessary to preserve some kind of unityamongst the Reformers, especially in view of the threatening attitudeassumed by Charles V. A conference was called at Marburg (1529), atwhich Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, and Agricola agreed to meetZwingli, Oecolampadius, Butzer, and the other Swiss leaders. Theconference failed to arrive at a satisfactory agreement, but in 1536the Concord of Wittenberg was concluded, whereby it was hoped thatpeace might be restored by the adoption of a very ambiguous formula.Luther, however, refused to allow himself to be bound by theagreement, and the controversy went on as violently as before.

In the meantime Calvin had undertaken to preach doctrines on theEucharist entirely different from those put forward by either Zwinglior Luther, with the result that Zurich found itself in conflict withGeneva as it had found itself previously in conflict with Wittenberg.To restore some semblance of unity among the Swiss ReformersBullinger, the recognised head of the Zurich party, entered intocommunication with Calvin, and a doctrinal agreement was arrived atknown as the /Consensus Tigurinus/ (The Zurich Concord) in 1549. Lateron this was confirmed by the /Confessio Helvetica/ (1564).

After the death of Luther in 1545 Melanchthon became the acknowledgedhead of the Lutheran party. On many questions he was inclined todisagree with the doctrine of his master. His teaching in regard tothe Eucharist began to approximate more closely to the views ofCalvin, so that the Impanation and Companation theories of Luther lostfavour in Germany. The Philippists or Crypto-Calvinists gained groundrapidly in the country, with the result that the German Protestantswere split up into hostile sections. A conference was held at Naumburgin 1561, but it broke up without having done anything to restorereligious unity. At last in 1576 the Elector August of Saxony summonedan assembly of theologians to meet at Torgau, for the discussion ofthe differences that had arisen between the orthodox followers ofLuther and the Crypto-Calvinists or followers of Melanchthon. JacobAndrea, chancellor of the University of Tubingen, was the life andsoul of the reunion movement. Taking the plan of agreement that hadbeen formulated by him as a basis for discussion the conference drewup the /Book of Torgau/, copies of which were despatched to theLutheran princes and theologians for an expression of their opinion.When this had been received the /Book of Torgau/ was revised (1577)and a Formula of Concord (/Formula Concordiae/) was compiled,embodying the Confession of Augsburg, Melanchthon's Apology for thisConfession, the Articles of Schmalkald and the two Catechisms issuedby Luther (1577). But as there was no authority to enforce thisFormula several of the states refused to accept it.

In Saxony under Christian I. (1586-91) the Philippists in favour atcourt triumphed over their adversaries, but on the death of Christianthe orthodox Lutherans secured the upper hand, and Nicholas Crell, theprime minister and chancellor of Saxony during the previous reign, wasthrown into prison, and later on he was put to death (1601). Calvinismcontinued to make steady progress in Germany. It was introduced intothe Palatinate during the reign of Frederick III. (1583), and thoughsuppressed by his son and successor, it gained the upper hand.Similarly in Hesse-Cassel, in Lippe, Brandenburg, and Anhalt, itgained many new adherents. All attempts at peace amongst the warringsects having failed, Calvinism was recognised formally at the Peace ofWestphalia (1648).

Violent controversies broke out among the Lutheran party in Germany onmany other matters besides the Eucharist. One of the early followersof Luther named Agricola,[1] afterwards a professor of Wittenberg(1539), in his efforts to emphasise the teaching of his master on goodworks proclaimed that the spirit of fear so characteristic of the OldTestament had given way to the mildness and love of the New, and that,therefore, Christians who had received justification were no longerunder the obligations of the law. This is what was known as/Antinomism/, a form of error not unknown amongst the early Gnosticsand amongst some of the heretical sects of the Middle Ages. Agricolawas assailed violently by Luther (1538-40), fled to Berlin (1540), andreturned at a later period to make his submission, but Luther refusedall his attempts at reconciliation. Melanchthon, however, adopted amore friendly attitude. The controversy continued for years, and/Antinomism/ of a much more exaggerated form spread into othercountries, particularly into England, where Parliament was obliged tolegislate against its supporters during the reign of Charles I.

Closely associated with the Antinomist controversy was another knownas the /Osiandrist/,[2] from the name of one of its principalparticipants, Andrew Osiander. The latter, a professor of Hebrew atNurnberg, perceiving the dangerous results of Luther's teaching ongood works sought to introduce some modifications that would obviatethe danger involved in the latter's apparent contempt for good works.For this reason he condemned the general absolution that had beenintroduced to replace auricular confession, and insisted upon theelevation of the Host as a profession of belief in the doctrine of theReal Presence. Having become involved in a sharp dispute with hiscolleagues at Nurnberg he left the university, and accepted aprofessorship at Konigsberg in Prussia (1549), where he was supportedby the ruler Duke Albert. In regard to Justification he taught thatforgiveness of sin and satisfaction should not be confounded withJustification, that the latter is effected by the indwelling of God inthe person of the justified, that though the human nature of Christ isa necessary condition for redemption it is by the divine nature thatthe indwelling of God in man is effected, and that on account of thisindwelling the holiness of God is imputed to the creature. Thisteaching aroused considerable opposition. Osiander was denounced byMorlin and others as Anti-Christ. Duke Albert sought the views ofleading theologians only to find that as they were divided themselvesthey could lay down no certain rules for his guidance. Osiander diedin 1552, but the quarrel continued and for a time it seemed as if itwould lead to rebellion. Finally the adversaries of Osiandertriumphed, when they secured the insertion of their views in thePrussian /Corpus Doctrinae/ (1567) and the execution of Funk theleading supporter of Osiandrism (1601). Another professor ofKonigsberg at this period, Stancarus, maintained that Redemption is tobe attributed to the human nature rather than to the divine nature ofChrist, but he was expelled from the university, and denounced on allsides as a Nestorian.

On this question of good works a violent controversy broke out afterthe Leipzig /Interim/ (1548). Luther had depreciated entirely thevalue of good works as a means to salvation. On this point, however,Melanchthon was willing to make considerable concessions to theCatholics, as indeed he did in 1535 and 1548, when he admitted thatgood works were necessary for acquiring eternal happiness. This viewwas supported warmly by Major, a professor at Wittenberg, who wasdenounced by Amsdorf as an opponent of Luther's doctrine ofJustification (1551). Amsdorf, Flacius, and others maintained thatgood works were a hindrance rather than an aid to salvation, whileMajor clung tenaciously to the position that good works weremeritorious. /Majorism/, as the new heresy was called, was denouncedin the most violent terms because it involved a return to the doctrineof the Papists. Major was suspended from his office as preacher (1556)and was obliged to make a recantation (1558).

The /Adiaphorist/ controversy broke out in connexion with the Leipzig/Interim/ (1548). In this attempt at reconciliation Melanchthon wasnot unwilling to yield in many points to the Catholic representatives,and to agree that several of the doctrines and practices of the Churchthat had been assailed by Luther were at least indifferent and mightbe admitted. For this he was attacked by Matthias Flacius, surnamedIllyricus[3] on account of the place of his birth, a professor ofHebrew at Wittenberg since 1544. The latter protested against theconcessions made by Melanchthon, denounced as impious the union ofChrist with Belial, and returned to Magdeburg, where he was joined byAmsdorf and others who supported his contention. He was driven fromthe city and at last died at Frankfurt in 1575.

The question of man's co-operation in his conversion gave rise to whatwas known as the /Synergist/ controversy. Luther had laid it down as afirst principle that man contributed nothing to the work of his ownconversion, but though Melanchthon agreed with this view in thebeginning, he was disposed at a later period to attribute someactivity to the human will, at least in the sense that it muststruggle against its own weakness. This view was strengthened anddeveloped by John Pfeffinger, a professor at Leipzig, who taughtpublicly the necessity of man's co-operation (1550), and published atreatise in defence of this position (1555). Pfeffinger's doctrinearoused the opposition of Amsdorf, Flacius, and the other leaders ofthe orthodox Lutheran party. Leipzig and Wittenberg joined hands tosupport the doctrine of co-operation, while the majority of theprofessors at Jena took the opposite side. One of the latter however,Strigel, supported Pfeffinger, and a public disputation was held atGotha under the presidency of Duke John Frederick. The Lutheran partydemanded the punishment of Strigel and his supporters so vigorouslythat the Duke was obliged to arrest them, but, annoyed by the attemptof the Lutherans to set up a religious dictatorship to the detrimentof the supremacy of the civil ruler, he established a consistorycomposed of lawyers and officials whose duty it was to superintend thereligious teaching in his territory. The anti-Synergists, havingprotested against this measure as an infringement of the rights of thespiritual authority, were expelled, and Jena entered into line withWittenberg and Leipzig for the defence of Synergism. With the changeof rulers came once more a change of doctrine. The princes, alarmed bythe violence of the controversy, assembled a conference at Alternburgin 1568 which lasted four months without arriving at any agreement. Onthe accession of the Elector August the leading opponents of theSynergists, including a large number of the superintendents andpreachers, were deprived of their offices.

By his lectures and teaching at the University of Hemstadt GeorgeCalixt[4] gave rise to a new and prolonged discussion known as the/Syncretist/ controversy. The Duke of Brunswick having refused toaccept the /Formula of Concord/, the professors at the universitywhich he had founded felt themselves much more free in their teachingthan those in other centres of Lutheranism. Calixt denied the ubiquityof Christ's body and the attribution of divine qualities to Christ'shuman nature. Though a strong opponent of several distinctly Catholicor Calvinist beliefs he saw much that was good in both, and he longedfor a reunion of Christendom on the basis of an acceptance of thebeliefs and practices of the first six centuries. He was charged withaiming at a confusion of all religions, and in proof of this charge itwas alleged that he rejected the Lutheran teaching on Original Sin andon man's natural powers of doing good even before justification, thathe defended the meritorious character of good works, the supremacy ofthe Pope, at least /de jure ecclesiastico/, and the sacrifice of theMass (1639). In 1643 a disputation was held, in which Hornejus, acolleague of Calixt, supported his doctrine especially on themeritoriousness of good works. The appearance of Calixt at theconference summoned by the King of Poland in Thorn (1645) to promote areunion with Rome, and the friendly attitude which he had adoptedtowards the Catholics and the Calvinists helped to increase thesuspicions of his adversaries. Calixt died in 1656, but for yearsafter his death the spirit of toleration, that he had done so much tofoster, was one of the distinguishing features of the University ofHelmstadt. It was during this controversy that the Branch Theory,namely, that Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism formed threedivisions of the one true Church, was formulated clearly for the firsttime.

Amongst the Calvinists the extremely crude doctrine on Predestinationtaught by Calvin soon proved too much for the faith of many of hisfollowers. Several of them, holding fast by Calvin's teaching,contended that regardless of Original Sin God had created some forglory and others for damnation, that Christ had died only to save theelect, and that to these alone is given the grace necessary forsalvation (Supralapsarians). Others, horrified by the cruelty of sucha doctrine, maintained that the decree predestining some to hellfollowed the prevision of Original Sin (Infralapsarians). This viewhad been put forward by Theodore Koonhort, and had found considerablesupport, but it was attacked by the majority of the Calvinistministers, and a bitter controversy ensued. The orthodox partysummoned to their assistance Arminius[5] (Hermanzoon), a distinguishedyoung Calvinist preacher, who had attended the lectures of Beza inGeneva, but whose strict views were modified considerably by a sojournin Italy. Instead of supporting the Supralapsarians, his sympathieswere entirely on the side of the milder doctrine, and after hisappointment to a professorship at Leyden (1603) he became therecognised head of the Infralapsarians. His chief opponent was Gomar,also a professor at Leyden, who accused Arminius of Semi-Pelagianism.Arminius, while repudiating such a charge as groundless, rejoined bypointing out that according to his adversaries God was the author ofsin. Both appeared before an Assembly of the States in 1608 to defendtheir views, and though the majority were inclined to favour Arminius,silence was imposed upon the two principals and upon their followers.In the next year Arminius himself died (1609), but his doctrines wereupheld by Episcopius supported by the learned jurist, Oldenbarneveld,and the Humanist, Grotius. In replying to the charge of heresy broughtagainst them the followers of Arminius presented to the States aRemonstrance embodying their doctrines (1610) and on this account theywere styled Remonstrants. The States adopted a neutral attitude atfirst, but, as the Gomarists or anti-Remonstrants violated theinjunction of silence by founding separate communities, theauthorities were inclined not merely to tolerate but to support theRemonstrants.

Maurice, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, anxious tostrengthen his position by allying himself with the orthodoxCalvinists, began a bitter campaign against the Arminians.Oldenbarneveld and Grotius were arrested and brought before the synodof Dordrecht (1617), at which the former was condemned to death, whileGrotius was imprisoned for life though he succeeded in escaping aftertwo years. Another Synod was held at Dordrecht (Nov. 1618-April 1619)to which representatives came from all parts of Holland, thePalatinate, England, and Scotland. From the beginning the followers ofArminius were admitted only as accused persons, and were called uponto defend themselves against the charge of heresy. Against them theauthority of Calvin was urged as if it were infallible. As theArminians were suspected of republican principles William of Orangeand his supporters were decidedly hostile. The Remonstrants,despairing of getting an impartial hearing, left the Synod. The fiveArticles contained in the Remonstrance were discussed, and decreeswere issued regarding those portions of Calvin's doctrine that hadbeen called in question. It was agreed that faith is the pure gift ofGod to be given by God to those whom He has predestined by His ownmercy and without any reference to their merits for election; thatChrist died only for the elect; that man's will does not co-operate inthe work of his conversion; and that the elect are exempted from thedominion of sin, so that although they may be guilty of serious crimesthey can never become enemies of God or forfeit the glory to whichthey were predestined. The decrees of the Synod of Dordrecht werereceived generally in Holland, Switzerland, France, in the territoryof the Elector of Brandenburg, and in Hesse, but in the other portionsof Calvinist Germany and in the greater part of England they met withserious opposition.

/Anabaptists/.[6]--The belief that baptism could not be conferredvalidly on infants who have not arrived at the use of reason was heldby many of the Middle Age sectaries, and was revived at the time ofthe Reformation. Its supporters, claiming for themselves the libertyof interpreting the Scriptures according to their own judgment,maintained that they had divine sanction for their teaching. Theleaders of the sect in Saxony and Thuringia were Thomas Munzer andNicholas Storch. They represented the extreme left of the Lutheranparty maintaining the equality of men and the community of property.In Zwickau, where the movement originated, violent disturbances brokeout, and the leaders retired to Wittenberg where they were joined byCarlstadt. It required the presence of Luther himself to prevent thecity from falling completely into their hands. Owing to the dangerouscharacter of the radical principles defended by the Anabaptistsseveral princes of Germany joined hands for their suppression. Theywere defeated at the battle of Frankenberg (1525) and Munzer wasarrested and put to death. Before his execution he returned to theCatholic Church.

Despite this defeat the party made considerable progress in WestGermany and in the Netherlands, where the people were so disgustedwith their political and social conditions that they were ready tolisten to semi-religious, semi-social reformers like the Anabaptists.They took possession of the city of Munster in Westphalia. The twoprincipal leaders were John of Leyden (a tailor) and John Matthyas orMatthieson (a baker), the former of whom was appointed king. The citywas besieged and captured in 1535, and the principal Anabaptists wereput to death. In Switzerland the movement made considerable progress.From Switzerland it spread into southern Germany, but the triumph ofthe princes during the Peasants' War destroyed the hopes of theextreme Anabaptists, and forced the sect to discard most of itsfanatical tendencies. The leader of the more modern Anabaptist sectwas Menno Simonis, a priest who joined the Society in 1535, and afterwhom the Anabaptists are called frequently Mennonites.[7] The latterrejected infant baptism and Luther's doctrine of Justification byfaith alone. They protested against oaths even in courts of law andcapital punishment.

/Schwenkfeldians/.[8]--This sect owes its origin to Caspar vonSchwenkfeld (1489-1561), a native of Silesia, who, though attached tomany of the doctrines of Luther, believed that Luther was inclined tolay too much stress on faith and external organisation to theexclusion of real religion. He thought that more attention should bepaid to the mystical and devotional element, in other words to thepersonal union of the individual soul with God. According to him, thisshould be the beginning and end of all religion, and if it could beaccomplished organisation and dogma were to be treated as of secondaryimportance. He rejected infant baptism, regarded the sacraments asmere symbols, denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, andmaintained that in the Incarnation the human nature of Christ was in asense deified. Schwenkfeld held several interviews with Luther in thehope of winning him over to his opinions but without success. Owing tohis quarrel with the master, Schwenkfeld was banished from Strassburgin 1533, and condemned by a Lutheran assembly at Schmalkald in 1540.His doctrines found considerable support in Silesia and in the statesof several German princes, though it was only after Schwenkfeld'sdeath that his followers began to organise themselves into separatecommunities. Owing to persecution many of them fled to America wherethey settled in Pennsylvania (1634). In 1742 the sect was tolerated inPrussia.

/Socinianism/.[9]--The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity found manyopponents in Latin countries about the time of the Reformation.Michael Servetus, Gentilis, Campanus, and Blandrata, attacked theTrinity from different points of view, but by far the most dangerousadversaries of the doctrine were Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and hisnephew Faustus Socinus (1539-1604). The former of these became amember of a secret society founded at Vicenza (1546) for thediscussion and propagation of anti-Trinitarian views (1546). Theprincipal members of this body were Gentilis, Blandrata, Alciatus, andLaelius Socinus, a priest of Siena and a man who stood in closerelationship with some of the leading Lutherans and Calvinists. Whenthe society at Vicenza was suppressed several of the prominent membersfled to Poland for asylum. Laelius Socinus, though he remained atZurich, was looked up to as the guiding spirit of the party till hisdeath in 1562. His nephew Faustus Socinus then stepped into the placevacated by his uncle. The anti-Trinitarians in Poland, who had begunto style themselves Unitarians since 1563, had established themselvesat Racow. In 1579 Faustus Socinus arrived in Poland, at a time whenthe anti-Trinitarians were divided into opposing factions, but in ashort while he succeeded in winning most of them over to his ownviews. The doctrines of Socinus and of his principal disciples wereexplained in the /Catechism of Racow/ (first published in 1605) and inthe numerous theological works of Socinus. In 1638 the Socinians werebanished from Poland, and violent measures were taken against them bymost of the Catholic and Protestant princes of Europe.

Though Socinus professed the greatest respect for the SacredScriptures as the one and only source of all religion, he claimed theright of free interpretation even to the extent of rejecting anythingin them that surpassed the powers of human understanding. In thisrespect he was as much a rationalist as any of the extremerationalists who fought against Christianity in the eighteenthcentury. God, he maintained, was absolutely simple and therefore therecould be no Trinity; He was infinite, and therefore could not uniteHimself with human nature, as was assumed in the doctrine of theIncarnation; the Holy Ghost was not a person distinct from the Father,but only the energy and power of the Father as manifested in thesanctification of souls. Christ was not God; He was merely the Logosborn miraculously and deputed by God to be a mediator for men. Heascended into Heaven, where He was in some sense deified and endowedwith supreme dominion over the universe. Hence in opposition to theUnitarians Socinus maintained that Christ should be worshipped as God.He died on the cross according to the command of the Father, but itwas by His example of obedience and by His preaching rather than bythe vicarious sacrifice of His life that man's redemption waseffected. The work of redemption which Christ began on earth iscontinued in Heaven through His intercession with the Father. Fromthis notion of the redemption it followed as a logical consequencethat the sacraments could not be regarded as channels of grace or asanything more than external signs of union with the Christian body.The Socinian doctrine was condemned by Paul IV.[10] (1555) and byClement VIII. (1603).

/Pietism/.[11]--This movement among the Lutherans resembled closelysome of the developments of Mysticism in the Catholic Church duringthe fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Its object was to directattention to the spiritual and ethical side of religion regardless ofdogma and external organisation. One of its greatest leaders wasSpener,[12] a student at Geneva, and later on a preacher at Frankfurt.In his endeavours to bring religion to bear on the daily lives of thepeople and to awaken in them a sense of their personal relations toGod he founded the /Collegia Pietatis/, private assemblies for thestudy of the Scriptures, for the discussion of the means ofredemption, and for a general revival of religious zeal. With the sameobject in view he wrote the /Pia Desideria/ (1567), which was muchprized as a spiritual reading book by the devout Lutherans of Germany.He emphasised the idea of a universal priesthood, which he thought hadbeen somewhat neglected by the leaders of the Lutherans, advocated forthose who were destined for the ministry a training in spiritual liferather than in theological lore, encouraged good works as the bestmeans of securing eternal bliss, objected to polemical discussions,and welcomed the establishments of private societies for the promotionof Christian perfection. About the same time Franke and Antonundertook a similar work in Leipzig by founding the /CollegiumPhilobiblicum/ principally for students and members of the university.This society was suppressed at the instigation of the Lutheran facultyof theology, and the two founders of it were dismissed. In a shorttime Spener was appointed to an office in Berlin and was received withgreat favour at the court. By his influence three of his leadingdisciples, Franke, Anton, and Breithaupt were appointed professors inthe University of Halle, which from that time became the leadingcentre of Pietism in Germany. Students flocked to Halle from all partsof Germany, from Denmark, and from Switzerland. An attempt was made toexplain away Luther's teaching on good works, and to insist on thepractical as distinct from the intellectual aspect of Christianity.This relegation of dogma to a secondary place, and the establishmentof private assemblies to supplant the ecclesiastical organisation andthe established liturgy, led to the development of separatisttendencies and ultimately to the promotion of dogmatic indifference.It is a noteworthy fact that Semler was one of the students mostsincerely attached to Pietism at Halle.

/Herrnhuters/.[13]--This sect was only a development of the MoravianBrothers founded in 1457 by one of the Hussite leaders. It owes itsdevelopment in the eighteenth century to Count Zinzendorf (1700-1760),a wealthy nobleman and a Pietist of the school of Spener. A number ofthe Moravian or Bohemian Brethren having appealed to him for asuitable place to establish a settlement, he offered them portion ofhis estate at Hutberg (1722). As they were inclined to quarrel amongstthemselves he undertook in person the work of organisation. Heappointed a college of elders to control the spiritual and temporalaffairs of the community, together with a college of deacons tosuperintend specially the temporal wants of the brethren. Like thePietists generally he paid little attention to dogmatic differences,allowing the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Moravians to have their ownseparate elders. As he was anxious to undertake missionary work hereceived Holy Orders, and wished to preach in Bohemia, but theAustrian government refused to allow him to continue his work in thatprovince, and even secured his banishment from Saxony. He went throughEurope visiting Holland and England and established some of hiscommunities in both these countries, after which he returned toHerrnhut in 1755. During his lifetime Zinzendorf was looked upon asthe head of the whole community, but after his death it was much moredifficult to preserve unity. The Herrnhuters made some progress inGermany, but their greatest strength at the present day is to be foundin England and the United States.

/Swedenborgians/.[14]--The founder of this sect was Emanuel Swedenborg(1688-1772), who was born at Stockholm, and educated at the Universityof Upsala. He was a very distinguished student especially in thedepartment of mathematics and physical science, and after an extendedtour through Germany, France, Holland, and England he returned andsettled down in Sweden, where he was offered and refused a chair atUpsala. From 1734 he began to turn to the study of philosophy andreligion. After 1743, when he declared that Our Lord had appeared tohim in a vision, had taught him the real spiritual sense of Scripture,and had commanded him to instruct others, he abandoned hismathematical pursuits and turned entirely to religion. As Judaism hadbeen supplanted by Christianity, so too, he maintained, the revelationgiven by Christ was to be perfected by that granted to himself. Herejected the Justification theory of Luther, the Predestinationteaching of Calvin, the doctrines of the Trinity, of Original Sin, andof the Resurrection of the body. The one God, according to him, tookto Himself human flesh, and the name, Son of God, was applied properlyto the humanity assumed by God the Father, while the Holy Ghost wasbut the energy and operation of the God Man. The new Jerusalem, thatwas to take the place of the Christian Church, was to be initiated onthe day he completed his great work /Vera Christiana Religio/ (1770).He claimed that the last Judgment took place in his presence in 1757.During his own life he did little to organise his followers except byestablishing small societies for the study of the Bible, but after hisdeath the organisation of the new Jerusalem was pushed on rapidly.From Sweden the sect spread into England, where the first communitywas established in Lancashire in 1787, and into America and Germany.For a long time the Swedenborgians were persecuted as heretics inSweden. ----------

[1] Kawerau, /J. Agricola/, 1881. Elwert, /De antinomia Agricolae/, 1837.

[2] Moller, /Dr. Andreas Osiander/, 1870.

[3] Preger, /M. Flacius Illyrikus und seine Zeit/, 2 Bde., 1859-61.

[4] Dowling, /The Life and Correspondence of Christ/, 1863.

[5] Maronier, /Jacobus Arminius/, 1905. De Bray, /Histoire de l'eglise Arminienne/, 1835.

[6] Keller, /Geschichte der Wiedertaufer und ihres Reichs/, 1880.

[7] Schyn, /Historia Christianorum qui Mennonitae appellantur/, 1723.

[8] Hofmann, /Caspar Schwenkfelds Leben und Lehren/, 1897.

[9] Bock, /Historia Antitrinitariorum maxime Socinianismi/, 1774-84. Lecler, /F. Socin/, 1884.

[10] Denzinger, op. cit., no. 993.

[11] Ritchl, /Geschichte des Pietismus/, 1880-6.

[12] Hossbach, /Ph. J. Spener und seine Zeit/, 1853.

[13] Camerarius, /Historica narratio de Fratrum Orthodoxorum ecclesiis/, etc., 1625. Hamilton, /A History of the Moravian Church or the Unitas Fratrum/, 1900.

[14] Tafel, /Documents concerning the Life and Character of E. Swedenborg/, 1875-77. Gorres, /Emanuel Swedenborg, seine visionen und sein verhaltniss zur Kirche/, 1827.