Part 35

§ 191.2. =Baader and his School.=--Catholic theology for a long time paid no regard to the development of German philosophy. Only after Schelling, whose philosophy had many points of contact with the Catholic doctrine, a general interest in such studies was awakened as forming a speculative basis for Catholicism. To the theosophy of Schelling based on that of the Görlitz shoemaker (§ 160, 2), =Francis von Baader=, professor of speculative dogmatics at Munich, though not a professional theologian, but a physician and a mineralogist, attached himself. In his later years he went over completely to ultramontanism. His scholar =Franz Hoffmann= of Würzburg has given an exposition of Baader’s speculative system. At Giessen this system was represented by Leop. Schmid (§ 187, 3). All the Catholic adherents of this school are distinguished by their friendly attitude toward Protestantism.

§ 191.3. =Günther and his School.=--A theology of at least equal speculative power and of more decidedly Catholic contents than that of Baader, was set forth by the secular priest =Anton Günther= of Vienna, a profound and original thinker of combative humour, sprightly wit, and a roughness of expression sometimes verging upon the burlesque. He recognised the necessity of going up in philosophical and theological speculation to Descartes, who held by the scholastic dualism of God and the creature, the Absolute and the finite, spirit and nature, while all philosophy, according to him, had been ever plunging deeper into pantheistic monism. Thence he sought to solve the two problems of Christian speculation, creation and incarnation, and undertook a war of extermination against “all monism and semimonism, idealistic and realistic pantheism, disguised and avowed semipantheism,” among Catholics and Protestants. His first great work, “_Vorschule zur Spekul. Theologie_,” published in 1828, treating of the theory of creation and the theory of incarnation, was followed by a long series of similar works. His most eminent scholars were =Pabst=, doctor of medicine in Vienna, who gave clear expositions of his master’s dark and aphoristic sayings, and =Veith=, who popularized his teachings in sermons and practical treatises. Some of the Hermesians, such as Baltzer of Breslau, entered the rank of his scholars. The historico-political papers, however, charged him with denying the mysteries of Christianity, rejecting the traditional theology, etc., and Clemens, a _privatdocent_ of philosophy in Bonn, became the mouthpiece of this party. Thus arose a passionate controversy, which called forth the attention of Rome. We might have expected Günther to meet the fate of Hermes twenty years before; but the matter was kept long under consideration, for strong influence from Vienna was brought to bear on his behalf. At last in January, 1857, the formal reprobation of the Güntherian philosophy was announced, and all his works put in the Index. Günther humbly submitted to the sentence of the church. So too did =Baltzer=. But being suspected at Rome, he was asked voluntarily to resign. This Baltzer refused to do. Then Prince-Bishop Förster called upon the government to deprive him; and when this failed, he withdrew from him the _missio canonica_ and a third of his canonical revenues, and in 1870, on his opposing the infallibility dogma, he withheld the other two-thirds. His salary from the State continued to be paid in full till his death in A.D. 1871.

§ 191.4. =John Adam Möhler.=--None of all the Catholic theologians of recent times attained the importance and influence of Möhler in his short life of forty-two years. Stimulated to seek higher scientific culture by the study mainly of Schleiermacher’s works and those of other Protestants, and putting all his rich endowments at the service of the church, he won for himself among Catholics a position like that of Schleiermacher among Protestants. His first treatise of 1825, on the unity of the church, was followed by his “Athanasius the Great,” and the work of his life, the “Symbolics” of 1832, in its ninth edition in 1884, which with the apparatus of Protestant science combats the Protestant church doctrine and presented the Catholic doctrine in such an ennobled and sublimated form, that Rome at first seriously thought of placing it in the Index. Hitherto Protestants had utterly ignored the productions of Catholic theology, but to overlook a scientific masterpiece like this would be a confession of their own weakness. And in fact, during the whole course of the controversy between the two churches, no writing from the Catholic camp ever caused such commotion among the Protestants as this. The ablest Protestant replies are those of Nitsch [Nitzsch] and Baur. In 1835 Möhler left Tübingen for Munich; but sickness hindered his scientific labours, and, in 1838, in the full bloom of manhood, the Catholic church and Catholic science had to mourn his death. He can scarcely be said to have formed a school; but by writings, addresses, and conversation he produced a scientific ferment in the Catholic theology of Germany, which continued to work until at last completely displaced by the scholasticism reintroduced into favour by the Jesuits.

§ 191.5. =John Jos. Ignat. von Döllinger.=--Of all Catholic theologians in Germany, alongside of and after Möhler, by far the most famous on either side of the Alps was the church historian Döllinger, professor at Munich since 1826. His first important work issued in that same year was on the “Doctrine of the Eucharist in the First Three Centuries.” His comprehensive work, “The History of the Christian Church,” of 1833 (4 vols., London, 1840), was not carried beyond the second volume; and his “Text-book of Church History” of 1836, was only carried down to the Reformation. The tone of his writings was strictly ecclesiastical, yet without condoning the moral faults of the popes and hierarchy. Great excitement was produced by his treatise on “The Reformation,” in which he gathered everything that could be found unfavourable to the Reformers and their work, and thus gained the summit of renown as a miracle of erudition and a master of Catholic orthodoxy. Meanwhile in 1838 he had taken part in controversies about mixed marriages (§ 193, 1), and in 1843 over the genuflection question (§ 195, 2), with severely hierarchical pamphlets. As delegate of the university since 1845 he defended with brilliant eloquence in the Bavarian chamber the measures of the ultramontane government and the hierarchy, became in 1847 Provost of St. Cajetan, but was also in the same year involved in the overthrow of the Abel ministry, and was deprived of his professorship. In the following year he was one of the most distinguished of the Catholic section in the Frankfort parliament, where he fought successfully in the hierarchical interest for the unconditional freedom and independence of the church. King Maximilian II. restored him to his professorship in 1849. From this time his views of confessional matters became milder and more moderate. He first caused great offence to his ultramontane admirers at Easter, 1861, when he in a series of public lectures delivered one on the Papal States then threatened, in which he declared that the temporal power of the pope, the abuses of which he had witnessed during a journey to Rome in 1857, was by no means necessary for the Catholic church, but was rather hurtful. The papal nuncio, who was present, ostentatiously left the meeting, and the ultramontanes were beside themselves with astonishment, horror, and wrath. Döllinger gave some modifying explanations at the autumn assembly of the Catholic Union at Munich in 1861. But soon thereafter appeared his work, “The Church and the Churches” (London, 1862), which gave the lecture slightly modified as an appendix. The “Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages” (London, 1871), was as little to the taste of the ultramontanes. Indeed in these writings, especially in the first named, the polemic against the Protestant Church had all its old bitterness; but he is at least more just toward Luther, whom he characterizes as “the most powerful man of the people, the most popular character, which Germany ever possessed.” And while he delivers a glowing panegyric on the person of the pope, he lashes unrelentingly the misgovernment of the Papal States. At the Congress of Scholars at Munich he contended for the freedom of science. Döllinger as president of the congress sent the pope a telegram which satisfied his holiness. But the Jesuits looked deeper, and immediately “_il povero Döllinger_” was loaded by the _Civiltà Cattolica_ with every conceivable reproach. In A.D. 1868 nominated to the life office of imperial councillor, he voted with the bishops against the liberal education scheme of the government. But his battle against the council and infallibility made the rent incurable, and his angry archbishop hurled against him the great excommunication. Then Vienna made him doctor of philosophy, Marburg, Oxford, and Edinburgh gave him LL.D., and the senate of his university unanimously elected him rector in 1871. But his tabooed lecture room became more and more deserted. He took no prominent part in the organizing of the Old Catholic church (§ 190, 1), but all the more eagerly did he seek to promote its union negotiations (§ 175, 6).

§ 191.6. =The Chief Representatives of Systematic Theology.=--=Klee=, A.D. 1800-1840, of Bonn and Munich, was a positivist of the old school, and during the Hermesian controversy a supporter of the theology of the curia. =Hirscher=, 1788-1865, of Freiburg, numbered by the liberals as one of their ornaments and by the fanatical ultramontanes as a heretic, did much to promote a conciliatory and moderate Catholicism, equally free from ultramontane and rationalistic tendencies, abandoning nothing essential in the Catholic doctrine. =Hilgers=, the Hermesian, afterwards joined the Old Catholics of Bonn. =Staudenmaier= and =Sengler= of Freiburg and =Berlage= of Münster held a distinguished rank as speculative theologians. In the same department, =Kuhn= and =Drey= of Tübingen, =Ehrlich= of Prague, =Deutinger= of Dillingen, a disciple of Schelling and Baader, and as such persecuted, though a pious believing Catholic, =Oischinger= of Munich, who in despair at the proclamation of the Vatican decree suddenly stopped his fruitful literary activity, =Dieringer= of Bonn, who for the same reason not only ceased to write but also in 1871 resigned his professorship and retired to a small country pastorate, and finally, =Hettinger= of Würzburg, best known by his “_Apologie d. Christenthums_.”--While the above-named, though suspected and opposed by the scholastic party, strove to preserve intact their ecclesiastical Catholic character, other representatives of this tendency by their struggles against scholasticism and then against the Vatican Council, were driven away from their orthodox position. Thus =Frohschammer= of Munich, when his treatise on “The Origin of the Soul,” in which he supported the theory of Generationism in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of creationism, and other works were placed in the Index, asked for a revision on the ground that he taught nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was stripped of all his clerical functions, and students were prohibited attending his lectures. He protested, and his rooms were more crowded than ever. Subsequently, however, repudiated even by the Old Catholics, he drifted more and more, not only from the church, but even from belief in revelation. Against Strauss’ last work he wrote a tract in which he sought to prove that “the old faith is indeed untenable,” but that also “the new science” cannot take its place, that a “new faith” must be introduced by going back to the Christianity of Christ. =Michelis=, a man of wide culture in the department of natural science and philology, as well as theology and philosophy, had in his earlier position as professor in Paderborn, Münster, and Braunsberg, supported by word and pen a strictly ecclesiastical tendency; but the Vatican Council made him one of the first and most zealous leaders of the Old Catholic movement. His most important work is his “Catholic Dogmatics,” of 1881, in which the Old Catholic conception of Christianity is represented as the purified higher unity of the Protestant and Vatican systems of doctrine.

§ 191.7. =The Chief Representatives of Historical Theology.=--The first place after Möhler and Döllinger belongs to Möhler’s scholar Hefele, from 1840 professor at Tübingen and from 1869 Bishop of Rottenburg, distinguished by the liberal spirit of his researches. His treatises on the Honorius controversy made him one of the most dangerous opponents of the infallibility dogma, to which, however, he at last submitted (§ 189, 4). His most important work is the “History of the Councils.” Hase criticised the second edition of the work, severely but not without sufficient grounds, by saying that in it “the bishop chokes the scholar.” =Werner= of Vienna is a prolific writer in the department of the history of theological literature; while =Bach= of Munich and the Dominican =Denifle= have written on the mediæval mystics, the latter also on the universities of the Middle Ages. =Hergenröther= of Würzburg, by his monograph on “Photius and the Greek Schism,” written in the interests of his party, and by his polemic against the anti-Vatican movement, and specially by his “Handbook of Church History,” rendered such service to the papacy and the papal church, that Leo XIII. in 1879 made him a cardinal and librarian of the Vatican, with the task of reorganizing the library.--Among the Old Catholics, =Friedrich= of Munich, besides his historical account of the Vatican Council, had written on Wessel, Huss, and the church history of Germany. =Huber= of Munich, whose “Philosophy of the Church Fathers” of 1859 was put in the Index, while his much more liberal work on Erigena of 1861 passed without censure, in later years wrote an exhaustive account of the Jesuit order and a critical reply to Strauss’ “Old and New Faith.” =Pichler= of Munich, by his conscientious research and criticism, drew down upon him the papal censure, and his book on the “History of the Division of the Eastern and Western Churches” had the honour of being placed in the Index. His later studies and writings estranged him more and more from Romanism, inspired him with the idea of a national German church, and fostered in him a love for the _Protestantenverein_ movement; but his unbridled bibliomania while assistant in the Royal Library of St. Petersburg in 1871, brought his public career to a sad and shameful end. The Old Catholic Professor =Langen= of Bonn, wrote a four-volume work against the Vatican dogma, discussed the “Trinitarian Doctrinal Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches,” in the interests of a union with the Greek church, and published an able monograph on “John of Damascus,” as well as a thorough and impartial “History of the Roman Church down to Nicholas I.,” two vols., 1881, 1885.--In Rome the Oratorian =Aug. Theiner= atoned for the literary errors of his youth (§ 187, 4) by his zealous vindication of papal privileges. His chief works were the continuation of the “_Annales Ecclesiastici_” of Baronius, and the editing of the historical documents of the various Christian nations. The Jesuits charged him with giving the anti-Vaticanists aid from the library and sought to influence the pope against him so as to deprive him of his office of prefect of the Vatican archives. He was suspended from his duties, and though he still retained his title and occupied his official residence in the Vatican, the doors from it into the library were built up. His edition of the “Acts of the Council of Trent,” which was commenced, was also prohibited. But he succeeded in making a transcript at Agram in Croatia, where in 1874 a portion of it, the official protocol of the secretary of the Council, Massarelli, was printed by the help of Bishop Strossmayer in an elegant style but abbreviated, and therefore unsatisfactory. Cardinal Angelo =Mai=, as principal Vatican librarian, distinguished himself by his palimpsest studies in old classical as well as patristic literature. And quite worthy of ranking with either in carefulness, diligence, and patience was =De Rossi=, who has laboured in the department of Christian archæology, and is well known by his great work, “_Roma sotteranea cristiana_,” published in 1864 ff.--=Xavier Kraus=, when his “Handbook” had been adversely criticised, hastened to Rome, submitted all his utterances to the judgment of the pope, and proclaimed on his return that in the next edition he would explain what had been misunderstood and withdraw what was objected to. The question now rises, whether the more recent work of =Xav. Funk= can escape a similar censure.

Among Catholic writers on canon lay the most notable are =Walters= of Bonn, =Phillips= of Vienna, =Von Schulte= of Prague and Bonn, who till the Vatican Council was one of the most zealous advocates of the strict Catholic tendency, since then openly on the side of the opposition, a keen supporter, and by word and pen a vigorous promoter, of the Old Catholic movement, and =Vering= of Prague, who occupies the ultramontane Vatican standpoint.

§ 191.8. =The Chief Representatives of Exegetical Theology.=--=Hug= of Freiburg, in his “Introduction,” occupies the biblical but ecclesiastically latitudinarian attitude of Jahn. Leaving dogma unattacked and so himself unattacked, =Mövers= of Breslau, best known by his work on the Phœnicians, a Richard Simon of his age, developed a subtlety of destructive criticism of the canon and history of the Old Testament which astonished even the father of Protestant criticism, De Wette. =Kaulen= of Bonn wrote an “Introduction to the Old and New Testament,” in a fairly scientific spirit from the Vatican standpoint; while =Maier= of Freiburg, wrote an introduction to the New Testament and commentaries on some New Testament books.--The Old Catholic =Reusch= of Bonn wrote “Introduction to the Old Testament,” and “Nature and the Bible” (2 vols., Edin., 1886). =Sepp= of Munich, silent since 1867, began his literary career with a “Life of Christ,” a “History of the Apostles,” etc., in the spirit of the romantic mystical school of Görres. His “Sketch of Church Reform, beginning with a Revision of the Bible Canon,” caused considerable excitement. With humble submission to the judgment of his church, he demanded a correction of the Tridentine decrees on Scripture in accordance with the results of modern science, but the only response was the inclusion of his book in the Index.

§ 191.9. =The Chief Representatives of the New Scholasticism.=--The official and most masterly representative of this school for the whole Catholic world was the Jesuit =Perrone=, 1794-1876, professor of dogmatics of the _Collegium Romanum_, the most widely read of the Catholic polemical writers, but not worthy to tie the shoes of Bellarmin [Bellarmine], Bossuet, and Möhler. In his “_Prælectiones Theologicæ_,” nine vols., which has run through thirty-six editions, without knowing a word of German, he displayed the grossest ignorance along with unparalleled arrogance in his treatment of Protestant doctrine, history, and personalities (§ 175, 2). The German Jesuit =Kleutgen= who, under Pius IX., was the oracle of the Vatican in reference to German affairs, introduced the new Roman scholasticism by his work “_Die Theologie der Vorzeit_,” into the German episcopal seminaries, whose teachers were mostly trained in the _Collegium Germanicum_ at Rome. Alongside of Perrone and Kleutgen, in the domain of morals, the Jesuit =Gury= holds the first place, reproducing in his works the whole abomination of probabilism, _reservatio mentalis_, and the old Jesuit casuistry (§ 149, 10), with the usual lasciviousness in questions affecting the sexes. Among theologians of this tendency in German universities we mention next =Denzinger= of Würzburg, who seeks in his works “to lead dogmatics back from the aberrations of modern philosophic speculations into the paths of the old schools.” His zealous opposition to Güntherism did much to secure its emphatic condemnation.

§ 191.10. =The Munich Congress of Catholic Scholars, 1863.=--In order if possible to heal the daily widening cleft between the scientific university theologians and the scholastic theologians of the seminaries, and bring about a mutual understanding and friendly co-operation between all the theological faculties, Döllinger and his colleague Haneberg summoned a congress at Munich, which was attended by about a hundred Catholic scholars, mostly theologians. After high mass, accompanied with the recitation of the Tridentine creed, the four days’ conference began with a brilliant presidential address by Döllinger “On the Past and Present of Catholic Theology.” The liberal views therein enunciated occasioned violent and animated debates, to which, however, it was readily admitted as a religious duty that all scientific discussions and investigations should yield to the dogmatic claims of the infallible authority of the church, as thereby the true freedom of science can in no way be prejudiced. A telegraphic report to the pope drawn up in this spirit by Döllinger was responded to in a similar manner on the same day with the apostolic blessing. But after the proceedings _in extenso_ had become known, a papal brief was issued which burdened the permission to hold further yearly assemblies with such conditions as must have made them utterly fruitless. They were indeed acquiesced in with a bad grace at the second and last congress at Würzburg in 1864, but the whole scheme was thus brought to an end.

§ 191.11. =Theological Journals.=--The most severely scientific journal of this century is the Tübingen _Theol. Quartalschrift_, which, however, since the Vatican Council has been struggling to maintain a neutral position between the extremes of the Old and the New Catholicism. In order if possible to displace it the Jesuits Wieser and Stenstrup of Innsbruck [Innsbrück] started in 1877 their _Zeitschrift für Kath. Theologie_. The ably conducted _Theol. Litteraturblatt_, started in 1866 by Prof. Reusch of Bonn, had to be abandoned in 1878, after raising the standard of Old Catholicism.