BIBLIOGRAPHY: John Fox, Acts and Monuments, ed. J.
Townsend, v. 428, vi. 146, 222, 553, 664, 705, vii. 1‑28, 8 vole., London, 1837‑41; A. b wood, Athenie Oxonienwa, ed. P. Bliss, ii. 759‑761, 4 vole., ib. 1813‑20; G. Burnet, Hiat. of the Reformation, ed. N. Pocock, ii. 127, iii. 350. 362, v. 197‑205, Oxford, 1865; DNB, xviii. 380‑382 (contains good list of sources).
FERRARA‑FLORENCE, COUNCIL OF:An assembly which met at Ferrara early in 1438 to consider proposals for union between the Greek and Latin Churches. The great danger threatening the Greek empire at the hands of the Turks led the emperor, John Pabeologus, to disregard the aversion generally felt in the East for Rome and to make proposals for a union of the two branches of Christendom to both the pope, Eugenius IV., and the Council of Basel, which was in session at the time. The pope was unwilling that the council‑with which his relations were anything but amicable(see BABEL, COUNCIL OF; EUGENIUB IV.) should share in the glory of a possible successful outcome of negotiations, and thought his purposes would be better served if its sessions were transferred to an Italian city. Toward the end of 1437 he directed it to meet at Ferrara on Jan. 8, 1438. A complete rupture between pope and council resulted, the majority of the latter remaining at Basel, where they deposed the pope. A minority, however, who were favorable to the pope met at Ferrara. Early in Mar., 1438, the Greeks, about 700 persons, arrived at Ferrara as guests of the pope; the emperor arrived on the fourth of the month, the patriarch of Constantinople on the seventh. Prominent among the Greeks were Besaarion, archbishop of Nicaea, afterward cardinal of the Church of Rome (see BF38ARION, JoHANNFS), a friend of union, and Markos Eugenikos (q.v.), metropolitan of Ephesus, whose one thought was to defend the peculiarities of the Greek peoples against the imperious papacy; it was mainly due to his influence that the dogmatic discussions on the doctrinal differences, especially on the procession of the Holy Spirit, held in 1438 were without result. Financial difficulties obliged the pope to transfer the council to Florence. Here the first session was held Feb. 26, 1439, and the metropolitan Isidore of Kief was especially conspicuous as friend of the Union. After much discussion it was agreed that the terms used by the Church Fathers ‑the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and from the Father through the Son‑are in the main identical (see FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY). By this the Greeks had actually acknowledged the authority of the ilioque; but in no case would they adopt it in their symbol; they declared, however, their willingness to unite with the Latins retaining their own rites. In the beginning of June, 1439 the discussions of the ilioque could be considered as closed; those on purgatory, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., were relatively unimportant. But the whole union‑scheme threatened to become again doubtful when the question concerning the " papacy " came up for discussion. A formula was invented, however, which each party could interpret according to its own view (see below). In the midst of these negotiations the patriarch of Constantinople died, June 10, 1439, and a ter‑
mination of the discussions seemed more than ever desirable. On July 5 an agreement was arrived at, but Markos Eugenikos refused to sign it; another opponent to the union, the bishop of Stauropolis had already fled from Florence. It is noteworthy that the decree was signed by 115 Latins and by only thirty‑three Greeks. The union‑document was prepared in Latin and Greek by Ambrose Traversari, and corrections were afterward made here and there in the Greek by Bessarion. Both the Greek and Latin text may be considered authentic. On July 6, 1439, the solemn consummation of the union was celebrated in the cathedral at Florence. Cardinal Cesarini read the decree in Latin, Bessarion in Greek; after its general adoption Pope Eugenius celebrated public mass.
As concerns the contents of the decree, the main
doctrinal difference was adjusted on paper, as
already stated; the Greeks acknowledged the
correctness of the ftlioque, without adopting it in
read, the pope has the primacy in the church, " as
is determined in the acts of ecumenical councils
and in the sacred canons " (the original copy of the
decree with other copies is at Florence in the
Laurentian library). On Aug. 26, 1439 the em
peror left for Constantinople by way of Venice.
A real union had not been accomplished, the Greeks
would not " Latinize," the fall of Constantinople
was not prevented, and in 1472 a synod in Constan
tinople solemnly and openly renounced the union
of Florence. PAUL TBCHACKERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources: The original protocols are lost, but the preliminary negotiations are brought together by E. Cecconi. Studi atorici sul concilio di Firenze, Florence, 1869; the Acts of the Council, compiled by O. Giustinisni, are in Mansi, Concilia, vol. xxxi and Labbe, Concilia, xiii. 825 aqq. (from the Latin standpoint); the Ada Grcera, by Dorotheus of Mitylene, are in Harduin, Concilia, vol. ix., and in Mansi, vol. xxxi (from the Greek standpoint); the " Great History " of the Greek Sylvester Syropulus, giving the views of a divergent Greek party, was published by R. Creyghton, London, 1660; the union decree appeared, ed. Milanesi, in Archivio atorico ltaliano. new ser., vi (1857), 219. The modern Latin point of view appears in Hefele, Conciliengeschirhte, vii. 659 sqq.; the Greek, by Gorski, in Hist. of the Council of Florence, ed. Neale, London, 1861. Consult further: A. Pichler, Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennunp zwiachen dem Orient and den Occident, Munich, 1864; T. Fromman, Kritische Beitrape zur Geachichte der Florentiner Kircheneinipungen, Halle, 1872; idem, in Jahrbacher for deutsche Theolopie, xxii. 4 (1877), 659 sqq.; J. Driiseke, in Z;VT, xxxvii (1894), 31 sqq.; Pastor, Popes, i. 315 sqq.; Creighton, Papacy, ii. 333‑341, 382‑384.
FERRARI, ANDREAS:Cardinal; b. at Pratopiano, diocese of Parma, Italy, Aug. 13, 1850. He was appointed in 1885 professor of dogmatic theology and rector of the Great Seminary of Parma.
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG
Later becoming vicar‑general of Parma, he was consecrated bishop of Guastalla in 1890, whence he was translated to Como in the following year. In 1894 he was enthroned archbishop of Milan, and in the same year was created cardinal priest of Sant'Anastasia. He is a member Of the congregations of Bishops and Regulars, Indulgences, and the Index.
FERRATA, DOMENICO: Cardinal; b. at Gradoli, diocese of Montefiascone (50 m. n.w. of Rome), Italy, Mar. 4, 1847. He studied at the Jesuit colleges at Orvieto and Montefiascone, and at the University of Rome. He was then professor of canon law at the Roman Seminary and also professor of church history, exegesis, dogmatic theology, and the institutes of ecclesiastical law at the Propaganda. In 1877 he became a member of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, and in 1879 was appointed auditor of the papal nuncio at Paris. After his return to Italy, he was made undersecretary of his Congregation and domestic prelate to the pope, and in 1884 he was president of the Pontificia Accademia dei Nobili Ecclesiastici. In 1885 he was preconized titular archbishop of Thessalonica and sent to Belgium as papal nuncio. On his return, he became secretary of his congregation, and in 1891 was nuncio at Paris. He was created cardinal priest of Santa Prisca in 1896. He is a member of the Congregations of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, the Council, Rites, the Inquisition, Studies, Indulgences, and Loreto, besides being a commissioner for the reunion of dissenting churches and for the apostolic visitation of the dioceses of Italy.
FERRER, VINCENTE. See VINCENT FERRER, SAINT.
FERRIER, far"ry6', JEREMIE: French Protestant; b. at Nimes c. 1560; d. in Paris Sept. 26, 1626. He was pastor of the Protestant congregation at Alais, afterward at Nimes, and in 1601 was appointed professor of theology at the academy at Nimes. On the occasion of his inauguration he defended publicly the thesis that Pope Clement VIII. was the Antichrist, and later he won a great reputation by his sermons against the Jesuits. Nevertheless, some doubt of his sincerity arose in 1611; and in 1612, suspected of having sold out to the Romanists, he was suspended for six years by the Synod of Privas. So strong was the feeling against him that in the rioting which followed, Ferrier barely escaped with his life. In 161'4 he went to Paris, abjured Protestantism, and subsequently became a counselor of state under Louis XIII. He published De l'AnteeArist et de ses marqum, contre les calomnies des ennemis de l'6glise catholique (Paris, 1615), in which he retracted his former anti‑Romanist utterances; and Le Catholique d'Otat (1625), a defense of Richelieu's policy.
BIHLIOGRAPHT:L. Mdnard, Hiat. . de Nimes, Vol. v., 7 vols., Paris, 175o‑‑58; A. Bowel, Hiet. de Nglise r6form6e de Niarnes, Ntmes, 1856; E. and it. Haag, La France yrote‑tame, ed. H. L. Bordier, Paris, 1577‑E6; Liehtenberger, EBR, iv. 712‑716.
FERRIS, ISAAC: American (Dutch) Reformed; b. in New York Oct. 9, 1799; d. at Roselle, N. J.,
June 16, 1873. He was graduated from Columbia College (1816) and the Rutgers Seminary (1820). He held pastorates in the Dutch Reformed Church at New Brunswick, N. J. (1821‑24), Albany, N. Y. (1824‑36), and the Market Street Church, New York (1836‑53), and was president of the New York Sunday School Union (1837‑73), also of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1842 he was sent to Holland on behalf of American missionaries in the Dutch East Indies. He was chancellor of New York University (185‑70; emeritus 1870‑73), and throughout his connection with the University he was professor of moral science and Christian evidences, also acting professor of constitutional and international law 18551869. Through his efforts the heavy debt under which the institution had labored since its foundation was removed, several new departments were added to the course of instruction, and the standard of scholarship materially raised. He was also principal of the Rutgers Female Institute and president of its board of trustees. He published numerous occasional sermons and addresses, including Jubilee Memorial o f the American Bile Society; being a Review of its First Fifty Years of Work (New York, 1867), an address delivered at the Jubilee of the American Bible Society at New York in 1866.
FERRIS, JOHN MASON: Dutch Reformed; b. at Albany, N. Y., Jan. 17, 1825. He was graduated from the University of the City of New York (A.B., 1843) and the New Brunswick Theological Seminary (1849). He was pastor of the Reformed Church at Tarrytown, N. Y. (1849‑54), the Second Reformed Church at Chicago (1854‑62), and the First Reformed Church at Grand Rapids, Mich. (18625). In 1865 he was appointed corresponding secretary of tile Board of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Church in America, since 1883 has been editor of The Christian Intelligencer (New York), and treasurer of the Board of Foreign Missions since 1886.
FERRY, PAUL: French Protestant; b. at Metz Feb. 24, 1591; d. there July 28, 1669. He was educated at the seminary of Montauban and became pastor of the Reformed Congregation at Metz in 1612. Here he labored, as preacher and author, for fifty‑seven years. He was a very prolific writer; but most of his works still remain in manuscript. His principal work is the CatEchisme gmEral de la R~ formation de la Religion (S6dan,1654), in which he showed that the Reformation was a necessary result of the corruption of the Church. This book called forth a refutation from Bosauet, then canon and archdeacon of Metz. The disputation thus begun led to mutual esteem between the contestants, and in 1666 Ferry carried on a lengthy correspondence with Boasuct in the interest of a fusion of Protestantism and Catholicism, which was then being considered by the French government. He had already labored in vain to secure a union of the various branches of Protestantism, and had even induced John Durie (q.v.) to come to Metz in 1662 to discuss the subject with him. His Lettre aux ministres de Gen'‑ (in Biblioth6que anglaise, Vol.
805 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
ii.), in defense of a poor lunatic who was burned at Geneva for blasphemies against the Trinity in 1632, has been called his best piece of writing. Ferry was an eloquent preacher, a man of learning, and had great influence among both Protestants and Roman Catholics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. M. Baird, Huguenot& and We‑Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, i. 359‑385, New York; Liehten‑
berger, ESR, iv. 717.
FESCH, JOSEPH: French cardinal, half‑brother
of Laetitia, mother of Napoleon I.; b. at Ajaccio,
Corsica, Jan. 3, 1763; d. at Rome May 13, 183^.
He studied at the seminary in Aix and became a
priest before 1789. At the outbreak of the French
Revolution he took service in the army, and in
1796 was Napoleon's commissary of war in Italy.
When Napoleon was made consul he returned to
the Church, and became archbishop of Lyons in
1802. The following year he was made a cardinal
and sent to Rome as French ambassador. In 1804
he successfully negotiated for the coronation of
the emperor by the pope at Paris, and in 1805 he
was made Grand Almoner of France, Grand Cross
of the Legion of Honor, and a member of the
Senate. Although until now he had been ready to
further the interests of his illustrious nephew, he
also declined to declare Napoleon's divorce of the
same year valid. As president of the National
Ecclesiastical Council at Paris in 1811 he led the
opposition. Accordingly, the council was dis
solved, and Fesch fell into complete disgrace. He
retired to Lyons, and in 1814 to a nunnery he had
established at Gravina, Italy. After Napoleon's
return from Elba he was made a member of the
House of Peers. On the restoration of the Bour
bons he withdrew to Rome, leaving his bishopric
in the hands of a vicar for twenty‑four years. In
1856 Ajaccio, his native city, erected a monument
to his memory. (C. PFENDER.)
B133LIOGRAPHY: Lyonnet, Le Cardinal PeeeA, 2 vole., Lyons,
1841; A. du Cases, Hdat. des negociationa diplomatiquas, . la comeapondance inbdite de l'empxsur Napoldm aeea
Zs cardinal Fesch, 3 vole., Paris, 1855; HL, iv. 1383‑86.
FESTUS. See FELiR ANA FESTu8.
The Word and Its Employment (g 1). Primary and Secondary Fetishism (§ 2). Character of the Fetish ($ 3). Operation Aided by Suggestion (§ 4) Objects Employed and Area of Cult (§ 5). Cases of Reversion (§ 6).
Fetishism (Portuguese feitigo, "charm, talisman ") is a form of worship regarded as in itself superhumanly powerful in directing or assisting to the attainment of some desired end. The use of the word as denoting a religious cult goes back to C. de Brosses, Du eulte des dietw ftfiches (Paris, 1760), who rightly supposed that certain customs of the Africans constituted a form of primitive religion. The Portuguese term is the name given to the beads, medals, and crucifixes carried by IV.‑20
sailors, and supposed by them to afford protection when in danger and was applied to the fetishes of the Africans by these same sailors,
i. The from whom De Brosses obtained it. Word and in more modern treatises on religion Its Employ‑ the term has been used very loosely.
ment. Comte (Philosophic pOSitive, Paris,
1830‑•12) made fetishism equivalent
to animism. Lippert' (Die Religionen der eurO
pdischen Culturvolker, Berlin, 1881) meant by it
the embodiment of departed' spirits in some tangi
ble or visible object. Miss Mngaley and Mr. Nas
sau cover by it practically the whole of African
religious life, though Miss Yingaley recognizes the
tionary defines a fetish as " differing from an idol
in that it is worshiped in its own character, not as the
symbol, image, or occasional residence of a deity."
Mr. Lang describes fetishism as " the worship of
odds and ends," a description which admirably
hits off the fortuitous selection of a fetish and the
apparent lack of intrinsic worthfulnew. in the
object chosen. Schultze regards it as " a religious
worship of material objects," a definition which
would suit many phases of animism. And Waits
defines a fetish as "an object of religious veneration,
wherein the material and the spirit within it are
regarded as one, the two being inseparable."
The difficulties of the subject and the resulting confusion are due to two circumstances, its affinities and connections with animism on the one side and with magic oil the other. In fetishism there is the same anthropomorphic conception of material objects as in animism; the most passive objects may be regarded as having volition and power to accomplish some end. A fetish is often used as the materials of magic are used and for similar purposes. But another cause of confusion is the fact that no distinction is made between a primitive and a developed variety. s. Primary Primitive fetishism is suggested by and Second‑ Mr. Lang's description. The original
ary Fet‑ fetish is an adventitious find of which ishism. care is taken, to which success in an undertaking is ascribed; and subsequent worship is accorded. The classic example is that of a Bushman who on leaving his but to transact some important business, trod on a stone which caused him some pain. He at once picked up the stone, regarding it as a fetish which had obtruded itself upon his notice for the purpose of forwarding his undertaking. His object was accomplished, and he thereafter paid the stone due homage. The adventitious meeting of this object at the moment of the inception of an enterprise was to the African an indication of its fetishistic character, and his success in the work proved for him its potency in that particular direction. Almost as classic is the case of the anchor cast up on the West African coast. A native broke off a fluke in order to utilize the iron, and soon after died. The natives thereafter on passing the spot always paid reverence to the anchof and frequently employed it as a destructive agent.
death of the offender, and the inference that the anchor was a malignant fetish to be propitiated.
On this principle any object of peculiar form‑a deformed horn of a deer, the trigger of a gun, or any object dropped by a European, a queerly
shaped stone, a particolored feather, a tooth, etc.may become a fetish, the use of which may be indeterminate at the time but which is believed to
possess power in some particular direction by reason p
of its very strangeness. But resemblance to an
object or to the achievement desired plays no nec
essary part as it does in mimetic magic (see CoMPARA
TTvE RELIGION, VI. 1, a, 1 5). Secondary fetishism
shows a likeness to magic in that it is the result of
the exercise of primitive invention like that which
attempts to produce rain by simulating its fall. It is an attempt to force or create that which does not readily come to hand. Thus natives on the Guinea Coast take a joint of bamboo, a shell, or some similar object and fill it with oddly assorted materials; this they suppose furnishes a residence for a spirit which may be induced to enter the mass, make it its home, become one with it, and thus be available for assistance to the possessor. Or the home of the spirit may be a piece of wood carved into a rude resemblance to some object. In this case there is recognition of a distinction between the spirit and its home, a distinction which does not exist in primary fetishism, in which the stone, anchor, feather, etc., is itself a fetish. On another side the fetish is to be distinguished from charms, amulets and the like, by the fact that it is supposed to operate by its own inherent power, while charms work by virtue imparted from some higher power.
The fundamental character of a fetish is that the material object is itself the power and the object of worship and possesses personality and will. A second characteristic is that its power is not general, but is used for a definite end, usually material, and for a single kind of purpose. Hence for the
various purposes of life the worshiper 3. Charac‑ may accumulate a vast number of ter of the fetishes. A case is known where an
Fetish. individual had over 20,000, the use
of each of which he professed to be
able to describe. The assumed value and power
of a fetish therefore depends upon accidental coin
cidence, upon the savage fallacy of post hoc propter
hoc. Success in an undertaking makes almost
certain the power of the fetish chosen for that par
ticular purpose. But the fetishist may recognize
after repeated failures that the object is worth
less for the end in view and may then discard it.
He will not, even then, admit its impotence but
will assert that its power does not lie in that direc
tion. The institution rests therefore upon a rude
empiricism. The first essay with a fetish is a test
which subsequent essays will either establish or
disprove. A series of successes may occur which
raise the value of the object so enormously that its
service is desired by a tribe, and in that case the