261 religious encyclopedia exile of the Israelites Extreme Unction

Download 6.59 Mb.
Size6.59 Mb.
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   65


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

their symbol. The other points‑on the Eucharist,

purgatory, etc.‑were non‑essential. The Greeks

retained their whole ritual and marriage of the

priests. Regarding the pope, a formula was

adopted which the Greeks could and did interpret

as acknowledging his primacy " in the way which

is determined in the acts of ecumenical councils

and in the sacred canons." The patriarchs of

Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru­

salem could thus imagine they had preserved their

privileges. The Latins, however, interpreted the

last clause as a confirmation of their claims and

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


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.


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.


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.



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

had no intention of completely surrendering his

rights =s cardinal. The result was a break with

Napoleon; and in May, 1806, Fesch was recalled

from Rome. In 1809 he declined the archbishop­

ric of Paris, a peace‑offering from Napoleon, and

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.



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

looseness of her own usage. A delimitation of the

term is necessary to abolish the confusion which

has developed in its use. The Neto English Dic­

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.

The sequence of perception, events, and thought

was the novelty of form of the object, the injury

done it by breaking off the fluke, the subsequent

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

finder, who is supposed to know its peculiarities

becomes a sort of priest. And the repute of the

Download 6.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   65

The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page