 |
|
| 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 |
The subject will be treated under the following heads, viz.:
The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled atSpeyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to adecreepromulgated at the Diet of Worms (1521), communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid theMass, or hinderCatholics from assisting thereat.
Against thisdecree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel — the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave ofHesse, theMargrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince ofAnhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities — entered a solemn protest asunjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend totolerateCatholicism within their borders. On that account they were calledProtestants.
In course of time the original connotation of "no toleration forCatholics" was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of thoseWestern Churches andsects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by theReformers in direct opposition to theCatholicChurch. The same man may call himself Protestant or Reformed: the termProtestant lays more stress on antagonism toRome; the termReformed emphasizes adherence to any of theReformers. Wherereligious indifference is prevalent, many will say they are Protestants, merely to signify that they are notCatholics. In some such vague, negative sense, the word stands in the new formula of theDeclaration of Faith to be made by the King ofEngland at hiscoronation; viz.: "I declare that I am a faithful Protestant". During the debates in Parliament it was observed that the proposed formula effectively debarredCatholics from the throne, whilst it committed the king to no particularcreed, as no man knows what thecreed of a faithful Protestant is or should be.
However vague and indefinite thecreed of individual Protestants may be, it always rests on a few standard rules, or principles, bearing on the Sources offaith, the means ofjustification, and the constitution of theChurch. An acknowledged Protestant authority, Philip Schaff (in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", s.v. Reformation), sums up the principles of Protestantism in the following words:
The Protestant goes directly to theWord of God for instruction, and to the throne ofgrace in hisdevotions; whilst the piousRoman Catholic consults theteaching of hischurch, and prefers to offer hisprayers through the medium of theVirgin Mary and thesaints.
From this general principle of Evangelical freedom, and direct individual relationship of the believer toChrist, proceed the three fundamental doctrines of Protestantism — the absolute supremacy of (1) theWord, and of (2) thegrace ofChrist, and (3) the generalpriesthood of believers. . . .
The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims thecanonical Scriptures, especially theNew Testament, to be the onlyinfallible source andrule of faith and practice, and asserts theright of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from theRoman Catholic view, which declares theBible andtradition to be co-ordinate sources andrule of faith, and makestradition, especially thedecrees ofpopes and councils, the only legitimate andinfallible interpreter of theBible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of theReformation in the well-known formula, "TheBible, the wholeBible, and nothing but theBible, is the religion of Protestants." Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, theBible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of theBible through the expanding and deepeningconsciousness ofChristendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancientcreeds and a large amount ofdisciplinary andritualtradition, and rejected only thosedoctrines andceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in theBible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. TheCalvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the receivedtraditions than theLutheran and theAnglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of thepope [Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but onlyjure humano, or a limiteddisciplinary superintendency of theChurch], themeritoriousness of good works,indulgences, theworship of the Virgin,saints, andrelics, thesacraments (other thanbaptism and theEucharist), thedogma oftransubstantiation and theSacrifice of the Mass,purgatory, andprayers for the dead,auricular confession,celibacy of the clergy, themonastic system, and the use of theLatin tongue inpublic worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.
The subjective principle of theReformation isjustification byfaith alone, or, rather, by freegrace throughfaith operative in good works. It has reference to the personal appropriation of theChristiansalvation, and aims to give allglory toChrist, by declaring that the sinner isjustified beforeGod (i.e. is acquitted of guilt, and declared righteous) solely on the ground of the all-sufficientmerits ofChrist as apprehended by a livingfaith, in opposition to the theory — then prevalent, and substantially sanctioned by theCouncil of Trent — which makesfaith and good works co-ordinate sources ofjustification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions ofjustification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits offaith, and evidence ofjustification.
The universalpriesthood of believers implies theright andduty of theChristian laity not only to read theBible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of theChurch. It is opposed to thehierarchical system, which puts theessence and authority of theChurch in an exclusivepriesthood, and makesordainedpriests the necessary mediators betweenGod and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).
Thebelief in theBible as the sole source offaith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to thevirtue offaith, and destructive of unity.
It is unhistorical. No one denies the fact thatChrist and theApostles founded theChurch by preaching and exactingfaith in theirdoctrines. No book told as yet of the Divinity ofChrist, the redeeming value of HisPassion, or of His coming to judge the world; these and all similarrevelations had to bebelieved on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers fromGod. And those who received their word did so solely on authority. As immediate, implicit submission of themind was in the lifetime of the Apostles the only necessary token offaith, there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. This is quite clear from the words ofScripture: "Therefore, we also give thanks toGod without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing ofGod, you received it not as the word ofmen, but (as it is indeed) the word ofGod" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The word of hearing is received through ahuman teacher and is believed on the authority ofGod, who is its first author (cf.Romans 10:17). But, if in the time of the Apostles,faith consisted in submitting to authorized teaching, it does so now; for the essence of things never changes and the foundation of theChurch and of oursalvation is immovable.
Again, it is illogical to basefaith upon the private interpretation of a book. Forfaith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. Infaith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text ofScripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is notfaith. Private judgment is fatal to the theologicalvirtue offaith.John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that thisvirtue, which was exercised by the firstChristians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations", Faith and Private Judgment). And inproof he advances the instability of Protestant so-calledfaith: "They are as children tossed to and fro and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they hadfaith they would not change. They look upon the simplefaith ofCatholics as if unworthy the dignity ofhumannature, as slavish and foolish". Yet upon that simple, unquestioningfaith theChurch was built up and is held together to this day.
Where absolute reliance onGod's word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not thevirtue offaith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands toreason, and Protestant history confirms it. The "unhappy divisions", not only betweensect andsect but within the samesect, have become a byword. They are due to thepride of privateintellect, and they can only be healed byhumble submission to a Divine authority.
See the separate articleJ.
The "universalpriesthood of believers" is a fond fancy which goes well with the other fundamental tenets of Protestantism. For, if every man is his own supreme teacher and is able tojustify himself by an easyact offaith, there is no further need ofordained teachers andministers of sacrifice andsacraments. Thesacraments themselves, in fact, become superfluous. The abolition ofpriests,sacrifices, andsacraments is thelogical consequence offalse premises, i.e. theright of private judgment andjustification byfaith alone; it is, therefore, as illusory as these. It is moreover contrary toScripture, totradition, toreason. The Protestant position is that theclergy had originally been representatives of the people, deriving all their power from them, and only doing, for the sake of order and convenience, whatlaymen might do also. ButScripture speaks ofbishops,priests,deacons as invested with spiritual powers not possessed by the community at large, and transmitted by an external sign, theimposition of hands, thus creating a separate order, ahierarchy.Scripture shows theChurch starting with anordainedpriesthood as its central element.History likewise shows thispriesthood living on in unbroken succession to the present day in East andWest, even in Churches separated fromRome. Andreason requires such an institution; a society confessedly established to continue the saving work ofChrist must possess and perpetuate His saving power; it must have a teaching and ministering order commissioned byChrist, asChrist was commissioned byGod; "As the Father has sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21).Sects which are at best shadows ofChurches wax and wane with thepriestly powers they subconsciously or instinctively attribute to their pastors, elders,ministers, preachers, and other leaders.
At first sight it seems that private judgment as arule of faith would at once dissolve allcreeds and confessions into individual opinions, thus making impossible anychurch life based upon a commonfaith. Forquot capita tot sensus: no twomen think exactly alike on any subject. Yet we are faced by the fact that Protestant churches have lived through several centuries and have moulded the character not only of individuals but of whole nations; that millions ofsouls have found and are finding in them the spiritual food which satisfies their spiritual cravings; that their missionary andcharitable activity is covering wide fields at home and abroad. The apparent incongruity does not exist in reality, for private judgment is never and nowhere allowed full play in the framing ofreligions. The openBible and the openmind on its interpretation are rather a lure to entice the masses, by flattering theirpride and deceiving theirignorance, than a workable principle offaith.
The first limitation imposed on the application of private judgment is the incapacity of mostmen to judge for themselves on matters above their physical needs. How manyChristians are made by the tons of Testaments distributed by missionaries to theheathen? What religion could even a well-schooled man extract from theBible if he had nought but his brain and his book to guide him? The second limitation arises from environment and prejudices. The assumedright of private judgment is not exercised until themind is already stocked withideas and notions supplied byfamily and community, foremost among these being the current conceptions ofreligious dogmas andduties. People are said to beCatholics, Protestants,Mahommedans,Pagans "by birth", because the environment in which they are born invariably endows them with the local religion long before they are able to judge and choose for themselves. And the firm hold which this initial training gets on themind is well illustrated by the fewness of changes in later life. Conversions from onebelief to another are of comparatively rare occurrence. The number ofconverts in any denomination compared to the number of stauncher adherents is a negligible quantity. Even where private judgment has led to the conviction that some other form of religion is preferable to the one professed,conversion is not always achieved. Theconvert, beside and beyond hisknowledge, must have sufficient strength of will to break with old associations, old friendships, old habits, and to face the uncertainties of life in new surroundings. His sense ofduty, in many eases, must be of heroical temper.
A third limitation put on the exercise of private judgment is the authority ofChurch and State. TheReformers took full advantage of their emancipation from papal authority, but they showed no inclination to allow their followers the same freedom.Luther,Zwingli,Calvin, andKnox were as intolerant of private judgment when it went against their own conceits as anypope inRome was ever intolerant ofheresy. Confessions offaith, symbols, andcatechism were set up everywhere, and were invariably backed by thesecular power. In fact, thesecular power in the several parts ofGermany,England,Scotland, and elsewhere has had more to do with the moulding ofreligious denominations than private judgment andjustification byfaith alone. Rulers were guided by political and material considerations in their adherence to particular forms offaith, and they usurped theright of imposing their own choice on their subjects, regardless of private opinions:cujus regio hujus religio.
The above considerations show that the first Protestant principle, free judgment, never influenced the Protestant masses at large. Its influence is limited to a few leaders of the movement, to the men who by dint of strong character were capable of creating separatesects. They indeed spurned the authority of theOld Church, but soon transferred it to their own persons and institutions, if not to secular princes. How mercilessly the new authority was exercised is matter ofhistory. Moreover, in the course oftime, private judgment has ripened into unbridledfreethought,Rationalism,Modernism, now rampant in mostuniversities, cultured society, and the Press. Planted byLuther and other reformers the seed took no root, or soon withered, among the half-educated masses who still clung to authority or were coerced by thesecular arm; but it flourished and produced its full fruit chiefly in theschools and among the ranks of society which draw theirintellectual life from that source. The modern Press is atinfinite pains to spread free judgment and its latest results to the reading public.
It should be remarked that the first Protestants, without exception, pretended to be thetrueChurch founded byChrist, and all retained theApostles' Creed with the article "Ibelieve in theCatholicChurch". The fact of theirCatholic origin and surroundings accounts both for their good intention and for the confessions offaith to which they bound themselves. Yet such confessions, if there be anytruth in the assertion that private judgment and the openBible are the only sources of Protestantfaith, are directly antagonistic to the Protestant spirit. This is recognized, among others, by J. H. Blunt, who writes: "The mere existence of such confessions offaith as binding on all or any of the members of theChristian community is inconsistent with the great principles on which the Protestant bodies justified their separation from theChurch, theright of private judgment. Has not any member as just aright to criticise and to reject them as his forefathers had aright to reject theCatholiccreeds or the canons ofgeneral councils? They appear to violate another prominent doctrine of theReformers, the sufficiency ofHoly Scripture tosalvation. If theBible alone is enough, what need is there for adding articles? If it is rejoined that they are not additions to, but merely explanations of, theWord of God, the further question arises, amid the many explanations, more or less at variance with each other given by the differentsects of Protestantism, who is to decide which is thetrue one? Their professed object being to secure uniformity, the experience of three hundred years hasproved to us what may not have been foreseen by their originators, that they have had a diametrically opposite result, and have been productive not of union but of variance" (Dict. of Sects, Heresies, etc.", London, 1886, s.v. Protestant Confessions of Faith).
By pinning private judgment to theBible theReformers started a book religion, i.e. a religion of which, theoretically,law offaith and conduct is contained in a written document without method, without authority, without an authorized interpreter. The collection of books called"the Bible" is not a methodical code offaith andmorals; if it be separated from the stream oftradition which asserts itsDivine inspiration, it has no special authority, and, in the hands of private interpreters, its meaning is easily twisted to suit every privatemind. Our modernlaws, elaborated by modernminds for modern requirements, are daily obscured and diverted from their object by interested pleaders: judges are an absolutenecessity for their right interpretation and application, and unless we say that religion is but a personal concern, that coherent religious bodies or churches are superfluous, we must admit that judges offaith andmorals are asnecessary to them as judges ofcivil law are to States. And that is another reason why private judgment, though upheld in theory, has not been carried out in practice. As a matter of fact, all Protestantdenominations are under constituted authorities, be they calledpriest orpresbyters, elders orministers,pastors or presidents. Notwithstanding the contradiction between the freedom they proclaim and the obedience they exact, their rule has often been tyrannical to a degree, especially inCalvinistic communities. Thus in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was no more priest-ridden country in the world thanPresbyterianScotland. A book-religion has, moreover, another drawback. Its devotees can draw devotion from it only asfetish worshippers draw it from their idol, viz. by firmly believing in its hidden spirit. Removebelief inDivine inspiration from thesacred books, and what remains may be regarded as simply ahuman document of religious illusion or even offraud. Now, in the course of centuries, private judgment has partly succeeded in taking the spirit out of theBible, leaving little else than the letter, for critics, high and low, to discuss without any spiritual advantage.
This principle bears upon conduct, unlike free judgment, which bears onfaith. It is not subject to the same limitations, for its practical application requires lessmental capacity; its working cannot be tested by anyone; it is strictly personal and internal, thus escaping suchviolent conflicts with community or state as would lead to repression. On the other hand, as it evades coercion, lends itself to practical application at every step inman's life, and favoursman's inclination toevil by rendering a so-called"conversion" ludicrously easy, its baneful influence onmorals is manifest. Add tojustification byfaith alone the doctrines ofpredestination toheaven orhell regardless ofman's actions, and the slavery of thehuman will, and it seems inconceivable that any good action at all could result from suchbeliefs. As a matter ofhistory, publicmorality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention the robberies ofChurch goods, brutal treatment meted out to theclergy,secular andregular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so manywars of religion, we haveLuther's own testimony as to theevil results of his teaching (seeJanssen, "History of the German People", Eng. tr., vol. V, London and St. Louis, 1908, 27-83, where each quotation is documented by a reference toLuther's works as published by de Wette).
A similar picture of religious andmoral degradation may easily be drawn from contemporary Protestant writers for all countries after the first introduction of Protestantism. It could not be otherwise. The immense fermentation caused by the introduction of subversive principles into the life of a people naturally brings to the surface and shows in its utmost ugliness all that is brutal inhumannature. But only for a time. The ferment exhausts itself, the fermentation subsides, and order reappears, possibly under new forms. The new form of social and religious order, which is the residue of the great Protestant upheaval inEurope, is territorial or State Religion — an order based on the religious supremacy of the temporal ruler, in contradistinction to the old order in which the temporal ruler took anoath of obedience to theChurch. For the right understanding of Protestantism it is necessary to describe the genesis of this far-reaching change.
Luther's first reformatory attempts were radically democratic. He sought to benefit the people at large by curtailing the powers of bothChurch and State. The German princes, to him, were "usually the biggest fools or the worst scoundrels on earth". In 1523 he wrote: "The people will not, cannot, shall not endure your tyranny and oppression any longer. The world is not now what it was formerly, when you could chase and drive the people like game". This manifesto, addressed to the poorer masses, was taken up by Franz von Sickingen, a Knight of the Empire, who entered the field in execution of its threats. His object was two-fold: to strengthen the political power of theknights — the inferior nobility — against the princes, and to open the road to the new Gospel by overthrowing thebishops. His enterprise had, however, the opposite result. Theknights were beaten; they lost what influence they had possessed, and the princes were proportionately strengthened. The rising of the peasants likewise turned to the advantage of the princes: the fearful slaughter of Frankenhausen (1525) left the princes without an enemy and the new Gospel without its natural defenders. The victorious princes used their augmented power entirely for their own advantage in opposition to theauthority of the emperor and the freedom of the nation; the new Gospel was also to be made subservient to this end, and this by the help ofLuther himself.
After the failure of the revolution,Luther andMelanchthon began to proclaim the doctrine of the rulers' unlimited power over their subjects. Their dissolving principles had, within less than ten years, destroyed the existing order, but were unable to knit together its debris into a new system. So thesecular powers were called on for help; theChurch was placed at the service of the State, its authority, itswealth, its institutions all passed into the hands of kings, princes, and town magistrates. The one discardedPope of Rome was replaced by scores ofpopes at home. These, "to strengthen themselves by alliances for thepromulgation of the Gospel", banded together within the limits of theGerman Empire and made common cause against the emperor. From this time forward the progress of Protestantism is on political rather than on religious lines; the people are not clamouring for innovations, but the rulers find their advantage in being supremebishops, and by force, or cunning, or both impose the yoke of the new Gospel on their subjects.Denmark,Sweden,Norway,England, and all the small principalities and imperial towns inGermany are examples in point. The supreme heads and governors were well aware that the principles which had brought down the authority ofRome would equally bring down their own; hence thepenal laws everywhere enacted against dissenters from the state religion decreed by the temporal ruler.England underHenry VIII, Elizabeth, and thePuritans elaborated the most ferocious of all penal codes againstCatholics and others unwilling to conform to theestablished religion.
To sum up: the much-vaunted Protestant principles only wrought disaster and confusion where they were allowed free play; order was only restored by reverting to something like the old system: symbols offaith imposed by an outside authority and enforced by thesecular arm. No bond of union exists between the many national Churches, except their common hatred for "Rome", which is the birthmark of all, and the trade-mark of many, even unto our day.
Before we pass on to the study of contemporary Protestantism, we will answer a question and solve a difficulty. How is the rapid spread of Protestantism accounted for? Is it not aproof thatGod was on the side of theReformers, inspiring, fostering, and crowning their endeavours? Surely, as we consider the growth of earlyChristianity and its rapid conquest of the Roman Empire, asproofs of its Divine origin, so we should draw the same conclusion in favour of Protestantism from its rapid spread inGermany and the northern parts ofEurope. In fact theReformation spread much faster than theApostolicChurch. When the last of the Apostles died, no kingdoms, no vast tracts of lands, were entirelyChristian;Christianity was still hiding in thecatacombs and in out-of-the-way suburbs ofheathen towns. Whereas, in a period of similar duration, say seventy years, Protestantism had taken hold of the better part ofGermany, Scandinavia,Switzerland,England, andScotland. A moment's consideration supplies the solution of this difficulty. Success is not invariably due to intrinsicgoodness, nor is failure a certainproof of intrinsic badness. Both largely depend on circumstances: on the means employed, the obstacles in the way, the receptivity of the public. The success of Protestantism, therefore, must itself be tested before it can be used as a test of intrinsicgoodness.
The reformatory movement of the sixteenth century found the ground well prepared for its reception. The cry for a thorough reformation of theChurch in head and members had been ringing throughEurope for a full century; it was justified by the worldly lives of many of theclergy, high and low, by abuses inchurch administration, by money extortions, by the neglect of religiousduties reaching far and wide through the body of thefaithful. Had Protestantism offered a reform in the sense of amendment, probably all the corrupt elements in theChurch would have turned against it, asJews andpagans turned againstChrist and theApostles. But what theReformers aimed at was, at least in the first instance, the radical overthrow of the existingChurch, and this overthrow was effected by pandering to all the worstinstincts ofman. A bait was tendered to the seven-headedconcupiscence which dwells in everyhuman heart;pride,covetousness,lust,anger,gluttony,envy,sloth, and all their offspring were covered and healed by easy trust inGod. No good works were required: the immense fortune of theChurch was the prize of apostasy: political and religous independence allured the kings and princes: the abolition oftithes, confession,fasting, and other irksomeobligations attracted the masses. Manypersons were deceived into the new religion by outward appearances ofCatholicism which the innovators carefully maintained, e.g. inEngland and the Scandinavian kingdoms. Evidently we need not look for Divine intervention to account for the rapid spread of Protestantism. It would be more plausible to see the finger ofGod in the stopping of its progress.
After nearly four centuries of existence, Protestantism inEurope is still the religion of millions, but it is no more the original Protestantism. It has been, and is, in a perpetual flux: the principle of untrammelled free judgment, or, as it is now called, Subjectivism, has been swaying its adherents to and fro fromorthodoxy toPietism, fromRationalism toIndifferentism. The movement has been most pronounced in intellectual centres, inuniversities and amongtheologians generally, yet it has spread down to the lowest classes. The modernRitschl-Harnack school, also calledModernism, has disciples everywhere and not only among Protestants. For an accurate and exhaustive survey of its main lines of thought we refer the reader to theEncyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" (8 Sept., 1907), the professed aim of which is to defend theCatholicChurch against Protestant infiltrations. In one point, indeed, theModernist condemned byPius X differs from hisintellectual brothers: he remains, and wishes to remain, inside theCatholicChurch, in order to leaven it with hisideas; the other stands frankly outside, an enemy or a supercilious student of religious evolution. It should also be noted that not every item of theModernist programme need be traced to theProtestant Reformation; for the modern spirit is the distilled residue of manyphilosophies and manyreligions: the point is that Protestantism proclaims itself its standard-bearer, and claims credit for its achievements.
Moreover,Modernistic views inphilosophy,theology,history, criticism,apologetics,church reform etc., are advocated in nine-tenths of the Protestanttheological literature inGermany,France, and America,England only slightly lagging behind. Now,Modernism is at the antipodes of sixteenth-century Protestantism. To useRitschl's terminology, it gives new "values" to the oldbeliefs.Scripture is still spoken of asinspired, but itsinspiration is only the impassioned expression ofhuman religious experiences;Christ is theSon of God, but His Son-ship is like that of any other goodman; the veryideas ofGod, religion,Church,sacraments, have lost their old values: they stand for nothing real outside the subject in whosereligious life they form a kind of fool's paradise. The fundamental fact ofChrist's Resurrection is an historical fact no longer; it is but another freak of thebelievingmind. Harnack puts the essence ofChristianity, that is the whole teaching ofChrist, into the Fatherhood ofGod and the Brotherhood ofman:Christ Himself is no part of the Gospel! Such was not the teaching of theReformers. Present-day Protestantism, therefore, may be compared withGnosticism,Manichæism, theRenaissance, eighteenth-century Philosophism, in so far as these were virulent attacks onChristianity, aiming at nothing less than its destruction. It has achieved important victories in a kind of civilwar betweenorthodoxy and unbelief within the Protestant pale; it is no mean enemy at the gate of theCatholicChurch.
InGermany, especially in the greater towns, Protestantism, as a positive guide infaith andmorals, is rapidly dying out. It has lost all hold of the working classes. Itsministers, when not themselves infidels, fold their hands in helpless despair. The oldfaith is but little preached and with little profit. The ministerial energies are turned towardsworks of charity, foreign missions, polemics againstCatholics. Among the English-speaking nations things seem just a little better. Here the grip of Protestantism on the masses was much tighter than inGermany, the Wesleyan revival and the High Church party amongAnglicans did much to keep somefaith alive, and the deleterious teaching ofEnglishDeists andRationalists did not penetrate into the heart of the people.Presbyterianism inScotland and elsewhere has also shown more vitality than less well-organizedsects. "England", says J.R. Green, "became the people of a book", and that book was theBible. It was as yet the one English book which was familiar to every Englishman; it was read in the churches and read at home, and everywhere its words, as they fell on ears which custom had not deadened, kindled a startling enthusiasm. . . . So far as the nation at large was concerned, no history, no romance, hardly any poetry, save the little-known verse ofChaucer, existed in the English tongue when theBible was ordered to be set up in churches. . . . The power of the book over the mass of Englishmen showed itself in a thousand superficial ways, and in none more conspicuously than in the influence exerted on ordinary speech. . . . But far greater than its effect onliterature or social phrase was the effect of theBible on the character of the people at large . . . (Hist. of the English People, chap. viii, 1).
Thehumanmind is so constituted that it colours with its own previous conceptions any new notion that presents itself for acceptance. Thoughtruth be objective and of itsnature one and unchangeable, personal conditions are largely relative, dependent on preconceptions, and changeable. The arguments, for example, which three hundred years ago convinced our fathers of the existence ofwitches and sent millions of them to the torture and the stake, make no impression on our more enlightenedminds. The same may be said of the wholetheological controversy of the sixteenth century. To the modernman it is a dark body, of whose existence he is aware, but whose contact he avoids. With the controversies have gone the coarse, unscrupulous methods of attack. The adversaries are now facing each other like parliamentarians of opposite parties, with a common desire of polite fairness, no longer like armed troopers only intent on killing, by fair means or foul. Exceptions there are still, but only at low depths in the literary strata. Whence this change of behaviour, notwithstanding the identity of positions? Because we are more reasonable, more civilized; because we have evolved frommedieval darkness to modern comparative light. And whence this progress? Here Protestantism puts in its claim, that, by freeing themind fromRoman thraldom, it opened the way for religious and political liberty; for untrammelled evolution on the basis of self-reliance; for a higher standard ofmorality; for the advancement ofscience — in short for everygood thing that has come into the world since theReformation. With the majority of non-Catholics, this notion has hardened into a prejudice which no reasoning can break up: the following discussion, therefore, shall not be a battle royal for final victory, but rather a peaceful review of facts and principles.
TheCatholicChurch of the twentieth century is vastly in advance of that of the sixteenth. She has made up her loss in political power and worldlywealth by increased spiritual influences and efficiency; her adherents are more widespread, more numerous, morefervent than at any time in herhistory, and they are bound to the central Government atRome by a more filial affection and a clearer sense ofduty.Religiouseducation is abundantly provided forclergy andlaity; religious practice,morality, andworks of charity are flourishing; theCatholic mission-field is world-wide and rich in harvest. Thehierarchy was never so united, never so devoted to thepope. TheRoman unity is successfully resisting the inroads ofsects, ofphilosophies, of politics. Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by thesecular power? We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling intoreligious indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred ofChristianity is better than blank worldliness. But we do draw this conclusion: that after four centuries theCatholic principle of authority is still working out thesalvation of theChurch, whereas among Protestants the principle of Subjectivism is destroying what remains of their formerfaith and driving multitudes intoreligious indifference and estrangement from thesupernatural.
The political and social organization ofEurope has undergone greater changes than theChurches. Royal prerogatives, like that exercised, for instance, by the Tudor dynasty inEngland, are gone for ever. "The prerogative was absolute, both in theory and in practice. Government was identified with the will of the sovereign, his word was law for theconscience as well as the conduct of his subjects" (Brewer, "Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic etc.", II, pt. I, 1, p. ccxxiv). Nowhere now ispersecution forconscience' sake inscribed on the national statute-books, or left to the caprice of the rulers. Where still carried on it is the work of anti-religious passion temporarily in power, rather than the expression of the national will; at any rate it has lost much of its former barbarity.Education is placed within reach of the poorest and lowest. The punishment of crime is no longer an occasion for the spectacular display of human cruelty tohuman beings.Poverty is largely prevented and largely relieved. Wars diminish in number and are waged with humanity; atrocities like those of theThirty Years War inGermany, theHuguenotwars inFrance, the Spanishwars in theNetherlands, and Cromwell's invasion ofIreland are gone beyond the possibility of return. The witch-finder, the witchburner, theinquisitor, the disbanded mercenary soldier have ceased to plague the people.Science has been able to check the outbursts of pestilence, cholera, smallpox, and other epidemics;humanlife has been lengthened and its amenities increased a hundredfold. Steam and electricity in the service of industry, trade, and international communication, are even now drawinghumanity together into one vastfamily, with many common interests and a tendency to uniform civilization. From the sixteenth to the twentieth century there has indeed been progress. Who have been its chief promoters?Catholics, or Protestants, or neither?
The civilwars and revolutions of the seventeenth century which put an end to the royal prerogatives inEngland, and set up a real government of the people by the people, were religious throughout and Protestant to the core. "Liberty ofconscience" was the cry of thePuritans, which, however, meant liberty for themselves against established Episcopacy. Tyrannical abuse of their victory in oppressing theEpiscopalians brought about their downfall, and they in turn were the victims of intolerance. James II, himself aCatholic, was the first to strive by all the means at his command, to secure for his subjects of all thedenominations "liberty ofconscience for all future time" (Declaration of Indulgence, 1688). His prematureLiberalism was acquiesced in by many of theclergy andlaity of the Established Church, which alone had nothing to gain by it, but excited the mostviolent opposition among the ProtestantNonconformists who, with the exception of theQuakers, preferred a continuance of bondage to emancipation if shared with thehated and dreaded "Papists". So strong was this feeling that it overcame all those principles of patriotism and respect forlaw of which the English people are wont to boast, leading them to welcome a foreign usurper and foreign troops for no other reason than to obtain their assistance against theirCatholic fellow-subjects, in part to do precisely what the latter werefalsely accused of doing in the time of Elizabeth.
The Stuart dynasty lost the throne, and their successors were reduced to mere figure-heads. Political freedom had been achieved, but the times were not yet ripe for the wider freedom ofconscience. Thepenal laws againstCatholics and Dissenters were aggravated instead of abolished. That theFrench Revolution of 1789 was largely influenced by the English events of the preceding century is beyonddoubt; it is, however, equally certain that its moving spirit was notEnglishPuritanism, for themen who set up a declaration of theRights ofMan against theRights ofGod, and who enthroned the Goddess of Reason in the Cathedral Church ofParis, drew their ideals fromPaganRome rather than from ProtestantEngland.
As regards Protestant influence on the general progress of civilization since the origin of Protestantism we must mark off at least two periods: the first from the beginning in 1517 to the end of theThirty Years War (1648), the second from 1648 to the present day; the period of youthful expansion, and the period of maturity and decay. But before apportioning its influence on civilization the previous questions should be examined: in how far doesChristianity contribute to the amelioration ofman —intellectual, moral, material — in this world: for its salutary effects onman'ssoul after death cannot be tested, and consequently cannot be used as arguments in a purely scientific disquisition. There were highly-civilized nations in antiquity,Assyria,Egypt,Greece, Rome: and there are nowChina andJapan, whose culture owes nothing toChristianity. WhenChrist came to enlighten the world, the light of Roman and Greek culture was shining its brightest, and for at least three centuries longer the new religion added nothing to its lustre. The spirit ofChristian charity, however, gradually leavened theheathen mass, softening the hearts of rulers and improving the condition of the ruled, especially of thepoor, theslave, theprisoner. The close union ofChurch and State, begun with Constantine and continued under his successors, the Roman emperors of East and West, led to much good, but probably to moreevil. Thelay episcopacy which the princes assumed well-nigh reduced themedievalChurch to a state of abject vassalage, thesecular clergy toignorance and worldliness, the peasant to bondage and often to misery.
Had it not been for themonasteries theChurch of theMiddle Ages would not have saved, as it did, the remnant of Roman and Greek culture which so powerfully helped to civilize WesternEurope after the barbarian invasions. Dotted all over the West, themonks formed modelsocieties, well-organized, justly ruled, and prospering by the work of their hands,true ideals of a superior civilization. It was still the ancient Roman civilization, permeated withChristianity, but shackled by the jarring interests ofChurch and State. WasChristianEurope, from a worldly point of view, better off at the beginning of the fifteenth century thanpaganEurope at the beginning of the fourth? For the beginning of our distinctly modern progress we must go back to theRenaissance, theHumanistic or classical, i.e.pagan revival, following upon the conquest of Constantinople by theTurks (1453); upon the discovery of the new Indian trade route round the Cape of Good Hope by thePortuguese; upon the discovery of America by theSpaniards, and upon the development of allEuropean interests, fostered or initiated at the end of the fifteenth century, just before the birth of Protestantism. The opening of theNew World was forEurope a new creation.Minds expanded with the vast spaces submitted to them for investigation; the study ofastronomy, at first in the service of navigation, soon reaped its own reward by discoveries in its proper domain, the starry heavens; descriptive geography, botany, anthropology, and kindredsciences demanded study of those who would reap a share in the great harvest East and West. The new impulse and new direction given to commerce changed the political aspect of oldEurope.Men and nations were brought into that close contact of common interests, which is the root of all civilization;wealth and the printing-press supplied the means for satisfying the awakened craving forart,science,literature, and more refined living. Amid this outburst of new life Protestantism appears on the scene, itself a child of the times. Did it help or hinder the forward movement?
The youth of Protestantism was, naturally enough, a period of turmoil, of disturbing confusion in all the spheres of life. No one nowadays can read without a sense of shame and sadness thehistory of those years of religious and political strife; of religion everywhere made the handmaid of politics; of wanton destruction of churches and shrines and treasures ofsacred art; ofwars between citizens of the same land conducted with incredible ferocity; of territories laid waste, towns pillaged and levelled to the ground, poor people sent adrift to die of starvation in their barren fields; of commercial prosperity cut down at a stroke; of seats of learning reduced to ranting and loose living; of charity banished from social intercourse to give place toslander and abuse, of coarseness in speech and manners, of barbarous cruelty on the part of princes, nobles, and judges in their dealings with the "subject" and theprisoner, in short of the almost sudden drop of whole countries into worse than primitive savagery. "Greed,robbery, oppression, rebellion, repression,wars, devastation, degradation" would be a fitting inscription on the tombstone of early Protestantism.
Butviolenta non durant. Protestantism has now grown into a sedate something, difficult to define. In some form or other it is the official religion in many lands of Teutonic race, it also counts among its adherents an enormous number of independent religious bodies. These Protestant Teutons and semi-Teutons claim to be leaders in modern civilization: to possess the greatestwealth, the besteducation, the purestmorals; in every respect they feel themselves superior to the Latin races who still profess theCatholic religion, and they ascribe their superiority to their Protestantism.
Man knows himself but imperfectly: the exact state of his health, thetruth of hisknowledge, the real motives of his actions, are all veiled in semi-obscurity; of his neighbour he knows even less than of himself, and his generalizations of national character, typified by nicknames, are worthless caricatures. Antipathies rooted in ancient quarrels — political or religious — enter largely into the judgments on nations andChurches. Opprobrious, and so far as sense goes obsolete epithets applied in the heat and passion of battle still cling to the ancient foe and create prejudice against him. Conceptions formed three hundred years ago amid a state of things which has long ceased to be, still survive and distort our judgments. How slowly the terms Protestant, Papist, Romanist,Nonconformist, and others are losing their old unsavoury connotation. Again: Is there any of the greater nations that is purely Protestant? The richest provinces of theGerman Empire areCatholic, and contain fully one-third of its entire population. In theUnited States of America, according to the latest census,Catholics form the majority of the church-going population in many of the largest cities:San Francisco (81.1 per cent);New Orleans (79.7 per cent);New York (76.9 per cent); St. Louis (69 per cent);Boston (68.7 per cent);Chicago (68.2 per cent);Philadelphia (51.8 per cent).
Great Britain and its colonies have aCatholic population of over twelve millions.Holland andSwitzerland have powerfulCatholic provinces and cantons; only the small Scandinavian kingdoms have succeeded in keeping down the old religion. A further question suggests itself: granting that some states are more prosperous than others, is their greater prosperity due to the particular form ofChristianity they profess? Theidea is absurd. For allChristiandenominations have the samemoral code — theDecalogue — andbelieve in the same rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked. We hear it asserted that Protestantism produces self-reliance, whereasCatholicism extinguishes it. Against this may be set the statement thatCatholicism produces disciplined order — an equally good commercial asset. Thetruth of the matter is that self-reliance is best fostered by free political institutions and a decentralized government. These existed inEngland before theReformation and have survived it; they likewise existed inGermany, but were crushed out by Protestant Cæsaropapism, never to revive with their primitive vigour.MedievalItaly, theItaly of theRenaissance, enjoyed free municipal government in its many towns and principalities: though the country wasCatholic, it brought forth a crop of undisciplined self-reliantmen, great in many walks of life,good andevil. And looking athistory, we seeCatholicFrance andSpain attaining the zenith of their national grandeur, whilstGermany was undermining and disintegrating that Holy Roman Empire vested in the German nation — an empire which was its glory, its strength, the source and mainstay of its culture and prosperity.
England's grandeur during the same epoch is due to the same cause as that ofSpain: the impulse given to all national forces by the discovery of theNew World. BothSpain andEngland began by securing religious unity. InSpain theInquisition at a small cost ofhumanlife preserved the oldfaith; inEngland theinfinitely more cruelpenal laws stamped out all opposition to the innovations imported fromGermany.Germany itself did not recover the prominent position it held inEurope under theEmperor Charles V until the constitution of the new empire during the Franco-German War (1871) Since then its advance in every direction, except that of religion, has been such as seriously to threaten the commercial and maritime supremacy ofEngland. Thetruth of the whole matter is this:religious toleration has been placed on the statute books of modern nations; thecivil power has severed itself from theecclesiastical; the governing classes have grown alarminglyindifferent to things spiritual; theeducated classes are largelyRationalistic; theworking classes are widely infected with anti-religioussocialism; a prolific press daily and periodically preaches the gospel ofNaturalism overtly or covertly to countless eager readers; in many landsChristian teaching is banished from the publicschools; andrevealedreligion is fast losing that power of fashioning politics, culture, home life, and personal character which it used to exercise for the benefit ofChristian states. Amid this almost general flight fromGod to the creature,Catholicism alone makes a stand: itsteaching is intact, itsdiscipline stronger than ever, its confidence in final victory is unshaken.
A better standard for comparison than the glamour of worldly progress, at best an accidental result of a religious system, is the power of self-preservation and propagation, i.e. vital energy. What are the facts? "The anti-Protestant movement in theRoman Church" says a Protestant writer, "which is generally called theCounter-Reformation, is really at least as remarkable as theReformation itself. Probably it would be no exaggeration to call it the most remarkable single episode that has ever occurred in thehistory of theChristian Church. Its immediate success was greater than that of the Protestant movement, and its permanent results are fully as large at the present day. It called forth a burst of missionary enthusiasm such as has not been seen since the first day of Pentecost. So far as organization is concerned, there can be no question that the mantle of themen who made the Roman Empire has fallen upon theRoman Church; and it has never given more strikingproof of its vitality and power than it did at this time, immediately after a large portion ofEurope had been torn from its grasp. Printing-presses poured forth literature not only to meet the controversial needs of the moment but also admirable editions of the early Fathers to whom the Reformed Churches appealed — sometimes with more confidence thanknowledge. Armies of devoted missionaries were scientifically marshalled. Regions ofEurope which had seemed to be lost for ever [for example, the southern portion ofGermany and parts ofAustria-Hungary] were recovered to the Papacy, and the claims of theVicar of Christ were carried far and wide through countries where they had never been heard before" (R.H. Malden, classical lecturer, Selwyn College, Cambridge, in "Foreign Missions", London, 1910, 119-20).
Dr. G. Warneck, a protagonist of the Evangelical Alliance inGermany, thus describes the result of theKulturkampf: "TheKulturkampf (i.e. struggle for superiority of Protestantism againstCatholicism inPrussia), which was inspired by political, national, and liberal-religious motives, ended with a complete victory forRome. When it began, a fewmen, whoknewRome and the weapons used against her, foretold withcertainty that a contest with Romanism on such lines would of necessity end in defeat for the State and in an increase of power for Romanism. . . . The enemy whom we met in battle has brilliantly conquered us, though we had all the armscivil power can supply.True, the victory is partly owing to the ability of the leaders of theCentre party, but it is truer still that the weapons used on our side were blunted tools, unfit for doing serious harm. TheRoman Church is indeed, like the State, a political power, worldly to the core, but after all she is aChurch, and therefore disposes of religious powers which she invariably brings into action when contending withcivil powers for Supremacy. The State has no equivalent power to oppose. You cannot hit a spirit, not even theRoman spirit . . ." (Der evangelische Bund und seine Gegner", 13-14). The anti-religious Government ofFrance is actually renewing theKulturkampf; but no more than its German models does it succeed in "hitting theRoman spirit". Endowments,churches,schools,convents have been confiscated, yet the spirit lives.
The other mark ofCatholic vitality — the power of propagation — is evident in missionary work. Long before the birth of Protestantism,Catholic missionaries hadconvertedEurope and carried the Faith as far asChina. After theReformation they reconquered for theChurch the Rhinelands,Bavaria,Austria, part ofHungary, andPoland; they established flourishingChristian communities all over North and South America and in thePortuguese colonies, wherever, in short,Catholic powers allowed them free play. For nearly three hundred years Protestants were too intent on self-preservation to think of foreign missionary work. At the present day, however, they develop great activity in allheathen countries, and not without a fair success. Malden, in the work quoted above, comparesCatholic with Protestant methods and results: although his sympathy is naturally with his own, hisapprobation is all for the other side.
Catholicism numbers some 270 millions of adherents, all professing the same Faith, using the samesacraments, living under the samediscipline; Protestantism claims roundly 100 millions ofChristians, products of the Gospel and the fancies of a hundred reformers, people constantly bewailing their "unhappy divisions" and vainly crying for a union which is only possible under that verycentral authority, protestation against which is their only common denominator.
For controversial matter see any Catholic or Protestant textbooks. The Catholic standard work is BELLARMINE,Disputations de Controversiis Christianoe fidei etc. (4 vols., Rome, 1832-8); on the Protestant side: GERHARD,Loci Theologici, etc. (9 vols., Berlin, 1863-75). For the historical, political, and social history of Protestantism the best works are: DÖLLINGER,Die Reformation (3 VOLS., Ratisbon, 1843-51);The Church and the Churches, tr. MACCABE (1862); JANSSEN,Hist. of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages, tr. CHRISTIE (London, 1896-1910); PASTOR,Hist. of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages, tr. ANTROBUS (London, 1891-1910); BALMES,Protestantism and Catholicity in their effects on the civilization of Europe, tr. HANFORD AND KERSHAW (1849); BAUDRILLART,The Catholic Church, the Renaissance and Protestantism, tr. GIBBS (London, 1908), these are illuminating lectures given at the Institut Catholique of Paris by its rector. On the Protestant side may be recommended the voluminous writings of CREIGHTON and GARDINER, both fair-minded.
APA citation.Wilhelm, J.(1911).Protestantism. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
MLA citation.Wilhelm, Joseph."Protestantism."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 12.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.