Part 1223

"At the close of the Thirty Years' war there ran through Protestant Germany a broad line; upon the one side of that line stood the followers of Luther and Zwingli, of Melanchthon and Calvin—these were the Church people; upon the other side stood Menno Simon and 'The Separatists'—these were the Sect people. It was a line which divided persecution by new boundaries, and left the faggot and the stake in new hands, for the Peace of Westphalia had thrown the guarantees of its powerful protection only over the one side of this Protestant division. … When 'the news spread through the Old World that William Penn, the Quaker, had opened an asylum to the good and the oppressed of every nation, and Humanity went through Europe gathering up the children of misfortune,' our forefathers came out from their hiding places in the forest depths and the mountain valleys which the sun never penetrated, clad in homespun, their feet shod with wood, their dialects ofttimes unintelligible to each other. There was scarcely a family among them which could not be traced to some ancestor burned at the stake for conscience sake. Judge Pennypacker says: 'Their whole literature smacks of fire. Beside a record like theirs the sufferings of Pilgrim and Quaker seem trivial.' … The thousands of Germans, Swiss and Dutch who migrated here on the invitation of Penn, came without ability to speak the English language, and without any knowledge, except that derived from general report, of the customs and habits of thought of the English people. {3798} They went vigorously to work to clear the wilderness and establish homes. They were sober, religious, orderly, industrious and thrifty. The reports the earlier settlers made to their friends at home of the prosperity and liberty they enjoyed in their new homes, induced from year to year many others to come. Their numbers increased so much as to alarm the proprietary officials. Logan wanted their immigration prevented by Act of Parliament, 'for fear the colony would in time be lost to the crown.' He wrote a letter in which he says: 'The numbers from Germany at this rate will soon produce a German colony here, and perhaps such a one as Britain received from Saxony in the 5th Century.' As early as 1747, one of the proprietary Governors attributed the prosperity of the Pennsylvania colony to the thrift, sobriety and good characters of the Germans. Numerous as they were, because this was in its government a purely English colony, the part they took in its public affairs was necessarily limited. The Government officials and the vast majority of the members of the Assembly were all English. During the long struggle in the Colonies to adjust the strained relations with Great Britain, the Germans were seemingly indifferent. They saw no practical gain in surrendering the Penn Charter, and Proprietary Government, under which they had obtained their homes, for the direct rule of the British King. They could not understand the distinction between King and Parliament. … When, therefore, in 1776, the issue was suddenly enlarged into a broad demand for final separation from Great Britain, and the creation of a Republic, all their traditional love of freedom was fully aroused. Under the Proprietary rule, although constituting nearly one-half the population of the colony, they were practically without representation in the General Assembly, and without voice in the Government. The right of 'electing or being elected' to the Assembly was confined to natural born subjects of England, or persons naturalized in England or in the province, who were 21 years old, and freeholders of the province owning fifty acres of seated land, and at least twelve acres improved, or worth clear fifty pounds and a resident for two years. Naturalization was not the simple thing it now is. The conditions were exceptionally severe, and comparatively few Germans qualified themselves to vote. The delegates to the Colonial Congress were selected by the General Assembly. In November, 1775, the Assembly instructed the Pennsylvania delegates not to vote for separation from Great Britain. The majority of the delegates were against separation. … At the election for new members in May, 1776, in Philadelphia, three out of four of those elected were opposed to separation. The situation was most critical. Independence and union were not possible without Pennsylvania. Geographically, she was midway between the Colonies. She was one of the wealthiest and strongest. Her government was in the hands of those opposed to separation. One course only remained. Peaceful efforts in the Assembly to enfranchise the Germans, by repealing the naturalization laws and oath of allegiance, had failed, and now this must be accomplished by revolution, because their enfranchisement would give the friends of liberty and union an overwhelming and aggressive majority. This was the course resolved on. The Philadelphia Committee called a conference of committees of the Counties. On the 18th of June, 1776, this provincial conference, numbering 104, met in Philadelphia. The German counties were represented no longer by English tories. There were leading Germans in the delegations from Philadelphia, Lancaster, Northampton, York, Bucks and Berks. In Berks, the royalist Biddle gives place to eight prominent Germans, headed by Governor Heister, Colonels Hunter, Eckert and Lutz. The proprietary government of Pennsylvania, with its Tory Assembly, was overthrown—foundation, pillar and dome. This conference called a Provincial Convention to frame a new Government. On the petition of the Germans, the members of that Convention were to be elected by persons qualified to vote for Assembly, and by the military associators (volunteers), being freemen 21 years of age, resident in the province one year. This gave the Germans the right to vote. Thus says Bancroft: 'The Germans were incorporated into the people and made one with them.' The 19th of June, 1776, enfranchised the Germans, and made the Declaration of Independence possible. … It is absolutely true, that, as the English people of the province were divided in 1776, the Germans were the potential factors in securing the essential vote of Pennsylvania for the Declaration of Independence. … Throughout the Revolution, these Germans … were the steadfast defenders of the new Republic. Dr. Stille, in his recent admirable 'Life of Dickinson,' concedes that 'no portion of the population was more ready to defend its homes, or took up arms more willingly in support of the American cause.' Washington, when in Philadelphia after the war, testified his high appreciation of the hearty support the Germans gave him, and the cause he represented, by worshiping with his family in the old German church on Race street. The descendants of the Pennsylvania-Germans have settled all over the West, contributing to Ohio, Illinois and other Western States, the same sturdy, honest population that characterizes Pennsylvania. From Revolutionary times until now, they have borne an honorable part In the Nation's history and progress."

_E. K. Martin and G. F. Baer, Addresses (Proceedings, Pennsylvania-German Convention, April 15, 1891), pages 14-24._

PENNY NEWSPAPERS, The beginning of.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1830-1888, and 1853-1870 (page 2601).

PETER, ST., and the Church at Rome.

See PAPACY (page 2417).

PETER THE HERMIT, and the first Crusade.

See (in this Supplement) CRUSADES.

PHŒNICIAN COMMERCE.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT; also PHŒNICIANS (page 2530).

PINEL, and the treatment of the Insane.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19TH CENTURIES (page 2142).

PITT, William.

See CHATHAM.

{3799}

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, The.

"The rise of Plymouth Brotherism was almost contemporaneous with that of Tractarianism, and, far apart as the two systems appear to be, they were partly due to the action of similar causes. In both cases there was a dissatisfaction with the state of spiritual life, and a longing for something more real, more elevated in tone, more practical in results. … The society or 'assembly,' as the Brethren love to call it, was a development. There was no purpose on the part of its founders of establishing any new sect or party. A few men with spiritual affinities, desiring a religious fellowship which they could not find in the ordinary services of their Church, grouped themselves in small companies and held periodical meetings for the study of the Scriptures, for Christian conference, and for prayer. From the very beginning the movement had attractions for devout men of high social position and some culture. Mr. Darby, who was one of the leading spirits in Dublin, and who is said by those who have had personal acquaintance with the inner life of the Brethren to wield a power over his followers to which there is no parallel among ecclesiastics, except in the case of the Pope himself, was originally a curate of the Church of Ireland. Mr. Benjamin W. Newton, who was one of the principal members of the similar society in Plymouth, which has given its name to the movement, was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. Dr. Tregelles, another of the Plymouth company, was a distinguished Biblical scholar. Mr. A. Groves, who, perhaps, rather than Mr. Darby or Mr. Newton, may be regarded as the promoter of these meetings, but who early withdrew from the party when, on a return from a visit to the East, he found that their social religious gatherings were rapidly developing into a distinct sectarian organization, was a student for the Anglican ministry at Trinity College, Dublin. The Brethren despise culture, and yet apart from men of culture it is hard to see how the movement could have had such success."

_J. G. Rogers, The Church Systems of England in the 19th Century, lecture 10._

POLAR EXPLORATION.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

POLARIS, Voyage of the.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1871-1872.

PORTUGAL: Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN.

PORTUGAL: Exploration, and colonization in Africa.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

PRINCETON COLLEGE.

The College of New Jersey, more commonly called Princeton College, "originated in the plan of Jonathan Dickinson, John Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Aaron Burr, with others, to found an institution 'in which ample provision should be made for the intellectual and religious culture of youth desirous to obtain a liberal education, and more especially for the thorough training of such as were candidates for the holy ministry.' Its first charter was granted in 1746 by the Honorable John Hamilton, President of His Majesty's Council, and is noteworthy as the first college charter ever given in this country by a Governor or acting Governor with simply the consent of his Council. A second and more ample charter was granted September 14th, 1748, by the 'trusty and well-beloved' Jonathan Belcher, Esquire, Governor and Commander-in-chief of the province of New Jersey. After the war of the Revolution, the charter was confirmed and renewed by the Legislature of New Jersey. The Corporation is styled in that instrument 'the Trustees of the College of New Jersey.' … On April 27th, 1747, the Trustees made a public announcement that they had 'appointed the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, President,' and that the college would be opened in the fourth week of May next at Elizabethtown. President Dickinson having died on the 7th of October following, the Rev. Aaron Burr assumed the duties of the Presidency and the college was removed from Elizabethtown to Newark. Soon after, it was removed from Newark to Princeton, where in 1754-1755 the first college building was erected. … The College of New Jersey, as now constituted, includes the John C. Green School of Science. This institution, which has its own professors and instructors, was founded in 1873 upon an endowment of Mr. John C. Green. The first college building, erected in 1754-5, was named Nassau Hall, at the request of Governor Belcher."

_College of New Jersey, Catalogue, 1893-4, pages 8-9._

ALSO IN: _J. F. Hageman, History of Princeton and its Institutions._

PROFIT-SHARING EXPERIMENTS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889, and 1859-1887 (pages 2944 and 2947).

PROUDHON, and the doctrines of Anarchism.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894 (page 2941).

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1258 (page 1962).

PRUSSIA, The rise of.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700; also, page 309.

PULLMAN STRIKE, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894 (page 2957).

R.

RAE, Dr., Franklin search expeditions of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851, and 1853-1854.

RAILWAYS, in modern inland commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

RAPP, George, and the Rappites.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

REDWOOD LIBRARY.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 2019).

REFORMATION, The Protestant: Outline sketch.

See EUROPE (pages 1053-1065).

REFORMATION, The Protestant: The beginning in Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 16TH CENTURY; also, page 1456.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

RENAISSANCE, Libraries of the.

See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE (page 2008).

ROCHDALE SOCIETY, The Co-operative.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886 (page 2938).

ROME: Outline sketch of the history of the Republic and the Empire.

See EUROPE (pages 996-1013).

{3800}

ROME: Charlemagne's restoration of the Empire in the West. His imperial coronation and its significance.

"The Germans, who had destroyed the Western Empire, now, after having been received into Roman civilisation and the bosom of the Church, effected its restoration. And the Church, whose laws controlled the West, created anew from within herself the Roman Empire, as the political form of her cosmopolitan principle, and that spiritual unity within which the Popes had embraced so many nations. Her supremacy over all churches of the West could, moreover, only attain complete recognition through the Emperor and the Empire. The restoration of the Empire was rendered necessary by the formidable power of Islam, which not only harassed Byzantium, but, from the side of Sicily and Spain, also threatened Rome. The Greek Emperors could rule the West together with the East so long as the Roman Church was weak, so long as Italy lay sunk in lethargy, and the German West swarmed with lawless barbarians. It was no longer possible to do so when the Church attained independence, Italy consciousness of her nationality, and Europe had become united in the powerful Frankish Empire, at the head of which stood a great monarch. Thus the idea of proclaiming Charles Emperor arose, and thus was carried out the scheme with which the irate Italians had threatened Leo the Isaurian at the beginning of the Iconoclastic controversy. The West now demanded the occupation of the Imperial throne. True, the Byzantine Empire had, in the course of time, acquired a legal sanction. Byzantium, however, was but the daughter of Rome. From Rome the Imperium had proceeded; here the Cæsars had their seat. The illustrious mother of the Empire now resumed her rights, when, as in ancient times, she offered the Imperial crown to the most powerful ruler of the West. … A transaction so momentous, and rendered necessary by the ideas of the time and the demands of the West, but which, nevertheless, bore the semblance of a revolt against the rights of Byzantium, could scarcely have been the work of the moment, but more probably was the result of a sequence of historic causes and resolutions consequent upon them. Can we doubt that the Imperial crown had been the goal of Charles's ambition and the ideal of such of his friends as cherished Roman aspirations? He himself came to Rome evidently to take the crown, or, at least, to form some decisive resolution with regard to it, and during his sojourn in France the Pope had declared himself ready to help in the accomplishment of this great revolution. … We may suppose that Charles's clerical friends were the most zealous supporters of the scheme, which perhaps was not received by the Pope with a like degree of enthusiasm. Alcuin's letter proves that he, at least, had already been initiated into the idea; and the Frankish envoys, after a year spent in Rome, had doubtless come to an understanding with the Romans, on whose vote the election mainly depended. The Romans it was who, exercising the ancient suffrages of the Senate and people, had elected Charles their Patricius, and who now, in virtue of the same rights, elected him Emperor. And only as Emperor of the Romans and of Rome did he become Emperor of the entire State. A decree of the Roman nobility and people had undoubtedly preceded the coronation; and Charles's nomination as Roman Emperor (in strict accordance with the plan of a papal election) was effected by the three traditional elective bodies. The great revolution which extinguished the ancient rights of the Byzantines was not to appear the arbitrary deed of either King or Pope, but the act of God Himself, and therefore the legal transaction of Christendom, as expressed by the voice of the Roman people, of the parliament of the united clergy, optimates, and citizens assembled in Rome, Germans as well as Latins. The Frankish chroniclers themselves say that Charles was made Emperor by the election of the Roman people, quote the united parliament of the two nations, and enumerate the list of the members who took part in the parliament: the Pope, the entire assembly of bishops, clergy, and abbots, the Frankish senate, the Roman optimates, and the rest of the Christian people. The resolution of the Romans and Franks was announced to Charles in the form of a request. Are we to believe that, like Augustus in former days, he made a feint of reluctance to accept the supreme dignity, until it was forced upon him as an accomplished fact? Are we to receive as hypocritical the assurance of a man so pious and heroic, when he asserts that the Imperial crown came upon him wholly as a surprise, and adds that he would not have entered S. Peter's had he known of Leo's intention? Had not Charles's son, Pipin, been purposely recalled from the war against Benevento, in order to witness the Imperial coronation? An explanation of these conflicting statements has been sought in the statement of Eginhard, who maintains that Charles's hesitation was dictated by respect for Byzantium; that he had not yet assented to the scheme, and had sought by negotiations to gain the recognition of the Greeks to the election; that, therefore, the coronation really did take him by surprise, and, with regard to the time chosen, seemed inopportune. This view is supported by reasons of probability, which, however, solely concern the occasion chosen for the coronation, since to his elevation to the Imperial throne Charles had already long given his consent. … When, in later times, the German Empire came into conflict with the Papacy, doctors of canon law advanced the theory that the Emperor received the crown solely by favour of the Pope, and traced the investiture to Charles's coronation at the hands of Leo the Third. The Emperors, on the other hand, appealed to the shout of the people: 'Life and victory to the Emperor of the Romans, crowned by God,' and asserted that they derived the crown, the inalienable heritage of the Cæsars, from God alone. The Romans, on their side, maintained that Charles owed the crown entirely to the majesty of the Roman Senate and people. The dispute as to the actual source of Empire continued throughout the entire Middle Ages, and, while exercising no actual change in the world's history, revealed an indwelling need of mankind; the necessity, namely, of referring the world of facts back to a rudimentary right by which power becomes legalised. Pope Leo the Third as little possessed the right to bestow the crown of Empire, which was not his, as Charles did to claim it. {3801} The Pope, however, regarded himself as the representative of the Empire and of Romanism; and undoubtedly, as the head of Latin nationality, and still more as the recognised spiritual overseer of the Christian republic, he possessed the power of accomplishing that revolution which, without the aid of the Church, would have been impossible. Mankind at large regarded him as the sacred intercessor between the world and the Divinity; and it was only through his coronation and unction at the papal hands that the Empire of Charles received divine sanction in the eyes of men. The elective right of the Romans, on the other hand, in whatever form it may appear, was uncontested, and in no later Imperial election could it have been of so decisive legal significance."

_F. Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, book 4, chapter 7, section 3 (volume 2)._

ROME: Ancient commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

ROME: Money and banking.

See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME (page 2203).

RONALDS, Sir Francis, The telegraphic experiments of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1753-1820 (page 771).

ROSS, Captain, Polar Expeditions of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1829-1833 and 1848-1849.

RUSSIA, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

RUTGERS COLLEGE.

"Rutgers College, located at New Brunswick, was chartered by George III. in 1770, and was called Queen's College, in honour of his consort. The present name was substituted by the legislature of the State, in 1825, at request of the trustees, in honour of Colonel Henry Rutgers, of New York, to whom the institution is indebted for liberal pecuniary benefactions. The charter was originally granted to such Protestants as had adopted the constitution of the reformed churches in the Netherlands, as revised by the national synod of Dordrecht, in the years 1618 and 1619. … The Theological College of the Reformed Dutch Church is established here and intimately blended with the literary institution."

_T. F. Gordon, Gazetteer of the State of New Jersey. (bound with "History of New Jersey"), page 86._

S.

SAINT SIMON, and Saint-Simonism.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825 (page 2939).

SALVATION ARMY, The.