67 SIXTH SECTION. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND THE § 187. THE CHURCH. As early as the preceding period, theologians had confounded the idea of the Church with its external manifestation, and thus prepared the way for all the abuses of the Romish hierarchy, and the development of the papacy. The relation in which the ecclesiastical power stands to the secular, was often illustrated by the comparison of the two swords, which some supposed to be separated, while others thought them united in the hand of Peter.1 It belongs, properly speaking, to the province of the Canon law, to develope and define those relations; but inasmuch as adherence to the decisions of ecclesiastical authorities on such matters was supposed to form a part of orthodoxy, and every species of dissent appeared not only heretical, but as the most dangerous of all heresies, it is obvious that they are not to be passed over with silence in the history of doctrines. That which exerted the greatest influence upon the doctrinal tendency of the present age, was the doctrine of the papal power and infallibility, in opposition to the doctrine that the councils were superior to the Pope.2 The mystical idea of the Church, and the notion of a universal priesthood, which was intimately connected with it, was propounded by Hugo of St Victor, as well as by the forerunners of the Reformation, Wycliffe, Huss, Wessel, and Savonarola.3 The antihierarchical element referred to, and together with it the antiecclesiastical, manifested itself nowhere so strongly as in the fanatical sects of the middle ages, whose principles led them sometimes to oppose not only Christianity, but also the existing political governOn the other hand, the Waldenses and Bohemian brethren endeavoured, in a simpler way, and without fanaticism, to return to the foundation laid by the apostles: it must, however, be admitted that in doing so they overlooked the historical development of the Church.5 ments.4 1 This is more fully shown in the work entitled: Vridankes Bescheidenheit, edit. by Grimm, Gött. 1834, p. lvii. Bernard of Clairval was one of the first who took the words of Luke xxii. 36-38, in a figurative sense, Epist. ad Eugen. 256, (written A. D. 1146); in accordance with him John of Salisbury (Polic. iv. 3) asserted, that both the swords are in the hands of the Popes, but the Pope ought to wield the secular sword by the arm of the Emperor. On the other hand, the Emperor Frederic I. referred the one of the two swords to the power of the Pope, the other to that of the Emperor (see the letters written A. D. 1157, 1160, 1167, in the work of Grimm.) The Emperor Otto maintained the same in opposition to Pope Innocent III. Since it was Peter (according to John xviii. 10) who drew the sword, the advocates of the papal system inferred, that both the swords ought to be in one hand, and that the Pope had only to lend it to the Emperor. Such was the reasoning, e. g., of the Franciscan monk Berthold. On the contrary, others, such as Friedank, Reinmar of Zweter, and the author of the work entitled: der Sachsenspiegel, insisted that the power was to be divided; in a note to the "Sachsenspiegel," it is assumed that Christ gave only one of the two swords to the Apostle Peter, but the other, the secular one, to the Apostle John. The opposite view was defended in the work called "der Schwabenspiegel." Further particulars are given by Grimm, 1. c. [Compare also Gieseler ii. § 55. note n.] 2 Compare e. g. the bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII. A. D. 1302 (in Extravag. commun. Lib. i. Tit. viii. cap. 1.), and the decision of the Synod of Basle Sess. i. de 19. Jul. 1431, in which the opposite doctrine was set forth. (Mansi T. xxix. Cod. 21. Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, p. 316–318.) 3 According to Hugo of St Victor (de Sacram. Lib. ii. P. iii. quoted by Liebner, p. 445, ss.) Christ is the invisible head of the Church, and the multitudo fidelium is his body. The Church, as a whole, is divided into two halves (walls), the laity and the clergy (the left side and the right side). As much as the spirit is above the body, so much is the ecclesiastical power above the secular. On that account the former has the right not only to institute the latter, but also to judge it when it is corrupt. But since the ecclesiastical power itself is instituted by God, it can be judged only by God when it turns from the right path (1 Cor. vi.) Hugo also acknowledged the Pope as the vicarius Petri. He conceded to him the privilege of being served by all ecclesiastics, and the unlimited power of binding and loosing all things upon earth. Wycliffe made a much more precise distinction between the idea of the Church, and the external ecclesiastical power, than Hugo (see the extracts from the Trialogus given by Schröckh xxxiv. p. 510, ss., and his other writings of an antihierarchical tendency, ibid. p. 547.) Comp. Huss, de ecclesia (Histor. et Monum. T. i. p. 243.) Hase, Kirchengeschichte, p. 387, makes the following remark:-" Huss ascended from the idea of the Roman Church to the idea of the true Church, which was in his opinion the community of all who have from eternity been predestinated to blessedness, and whose head can be none but Christ himself, but not the Pope. As Huss, however, retained all the assertions concerning the Church made by the Roman Catholics, and applied them to the said community of the elect, who alone can administer the sacraments in an efficient way, his church must necessarily have assumed the character of an association of separatists." On the contrary, John Wessel extended the idea of the Church, so as to render it a truly Catholic institution. In his opinion, the Church consists in the community of saints to . which all truly pious Christians belong, viz., those who are united to Christ by one faith, one hope, and one love (he did not exclude the Greek Christians.) The external unity of the Church under the Pope is merely accidental; nor is the unity spoken of established by the decrees of councils. (Hyperboreans, Indians, and Scythians, who know nothing of the councils of Constance or Basle!) But he considered love to be still more excellent than the unity of faith. In close adherence to the principle of Augustine (Evangelio non crederem, etc.), which he regarded as a subjective confession, he believed with the Church, and according to the Church, but not in the Church. Respecting the priesthood he retained the distinction between laity and clergy, but at the same time admitted the doctrine of a universal priesthood, together with the particular priesthood of the clergy. Nor does the Church exist for the sake of the clergy, but, on the contrary, the clergy exist on account of the Church. Comp. Ullmann, p. 296, ss. (according to the various essays de dignitate et potestate ecclesiastica, de sacramento pœnitentiæ, de communione Sanctorum et thesauro ecclesiæ, collected in the ferrago verum theologicarum.) According to Savonarola, the Church is composed of all those who are united in the bonds of love and of Christian truth, by the grace of the Holy Spirit; neither is there the Church, where this grace does not exist, see the passages collected from his sermons in the works of Rudelbach, p. 354, ss., and Meier, p. 282, ss. Respecting the mystical interpretation of the ark of the covenant as having regard to the Church, see ibid. 4 Compare Mosheim, p. 257: Dicunt, se credere, ecclesiam catholicam sive christianitatem fatuam esse vel fatuitatem. Item, quod homo perfectus sit liber in totum, quod tenetur ad servandum præcepta data ecclesiæ a Deo, sicut est præceptum de honoratione parentum in necessitate. Item, quod ratione hujus libertatis homo non tenetur ad servandum præcepta Prælatorum et statutorum ecclesiæ, et hominem fortem, etsi non religiosum, non obligari ad labores manuales pro necessitatibus suis, sed eum libere posse recipere eleemosynam pauperum. Item dicunt, se credere omnia esse communia, unde dicunt, furtum eis licitum esse. 5 Comp. Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte ii. 2. § 86. $188. THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS. The hierarchial system of the Papacy, which was reared like a lofty pyramid upon earth, corresponded to a supposed hierarchy in heaven, at the head of which was Mary, the mother of God.1 The objection of the polytheistical tendency of this doctrine, which would naturally suggest itself to reflecting minds, was met by the scholastics of the Greek Church by making a distinction between λατρεία and προσκύνησις by those of the Latin Church, by distinguishing between Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia.2 But such distinctions were by no means safeguards against practical abuses, in consequence of which the forerunners of the Reformation were induced, energetically, to oppose the worship of saints.3 1 The adoration of the Virgin (mariolatry) was countenanced by John Damascenus among the Greeks, and by Peter Damiani, Bernard of Clairval, Bonaventura, and other theologians of the Western Church; see Gieseler, 1. c. ii. 2. § 78. (where passages from the songs of the Minnesingers are quoted), Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 180-182, and de gratiis et virtutibus beatæ Mariæ Virg. in Pez, Thes. Anecdd. T. i. p. 509 ss. To these we may add a passage from Tauler, Predigt. auf unserer lieben Frauen Verkündigung (Predigten, vol. iii. p. 57.) Tauler calls Mary "the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, the bride of the Holy Spirit, the queen of heaven, the lady of the world and of all creatures, the mother and intercessor of all those who implore her help, a temple of God, in which God has reposed, like a bridegroom in his chamber, with great pleasure and delight which he has there, as in a garden full of every kind of odoriferous herbs, of divers virtues and gifts. By means of these virtues |