261 religious encyclopedia exile of the Israelites Extreme Unction

Download 6.59 Mb.
Size6.59 Mb.
1   ...   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   ...   65


ristia (London, 1858; HelmstAdt, 1704; Frank­fort, 1707; new ed., with Eng. transl., 2 vols., Ox­ford, 1850‑58, forming part of the Anglo‑Catholic Library).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Vita audoria is prefixed to the Con­siderationes. Consult DNB, xix. 411‑412.


RIUS) : Portuguese Dominican and theologian; b.

at Lisbon about the beginning of the sixteenth

century; d. at /Almada (2 m. s. of Lisbon) Jan. 10,

1581. He was educated in his native city and at

Paris,,and shortly after his return about 1540 was

appointed censor and court‑chaplain. He was a

royal delegate to the Council of Trent in 1581, and

was appointed, together with Marino, archbishop

of Lanciano, and Foscarari, bishop of Modena, to

prepare a catechism and to revise the Missal and

Breviary; he was also secretary of a committee to

continue the Index ltbrorum prohibitorum. He re­

turned to Portugal in 1588 and was made prior of

his monastery, and shortly afterward provincial,

but in 1571 he retired to the monastery at Almada,

where he lived in strict seclusion for the remainder

of his life. His chief works are Isaite prophette

vdus et nova ex Hebraico mrsio, cum cammentario

in quo omnes loci qutWus sans docnrina adverstcs

heeretieos atque Judwos eon irmari poteit surnmo

studio ac diligentia explicantur (Venice, 1583); and

the unpublished Commentaria in omnes liibras

prophetarurn ac Job, Davidis et Salomonis and Lu­

cubrationes in eroangelia qute per totum anni curricu­

lum leguntur. (O. ZSexLERt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: R. Simon, Hietoire critique du Vieux Testa­ment, i. 3, chap. xv., Pads, 1875, Eng. transl., Critical History of as O. T., London, 1682; J. Qudtif and J. Eohard, Script, ordinis pradimtorum, ii. 281 eqq., Paris, 1721; H. Hurter, Nomenclator literariw; i.159‑181, Innehruolc, 1892; %L. iv. 1800‑1801.


FORMOSUS: Pope 891898. He was born at Rome c. 818, was elevated to the office of cardinal bishop of Porto in 864, and was employed by va­rious popes on important missions: Nicholas 1. sent him to the Bulgarians in 866, when Prince Bogoris Asked for Roman missionaries (see BuL­GARIAN6, CONVERSION OF THE). Adrian II. sent him to Gaul in 889, to negotiate with the Frankish clergy concerning the divorce of Icing Lothair, and to Trent in 872 to take part in the conferences be­tween the Empress Engelbecga and Louis the Ger­man respecting the transfer of Italy to the latter°s eldest son. John VIII. also honored Formasus at the outset, in 875 sending him as envoy to Charles the Bald. Soon afterward, however, there set in a complete reaction in this pope's opinion of For­mosus. As opponent of John's West Frankish policy, he was summoned by the pope before a Roman synod; and on failing to present himself within the appointed term, he was sentenced, at a second synod, June 30, 876, to deposition and ex­communication. This severe sentence was based on allegations that Formosus had aspired to the archiepiscopate in Bulgaria; that he had created a party for himself in Rome with designs upon the apostolic see; and that he had once forsaken his



diocese ten weeks, when it was menaced by the Saracens. The fact is that Formosus fell a victim to political opposition. The excommunication was repeated at the Synod of Troyes in 878. Foi­mosus then submitted himself to the pope and gained reinstatement in the Church, but only un­der sworn promise never again to return to Rome, or to strive to recover his diocese. Till the death of John VIII. Formosus lived in the West Frankish kingdom pat Sens. But John's successor, Mari­nus, absolved him from the compulsory oath, per­mitted him to return to Rome, and restored to him the diocese of Porto. In this episcopal capac­ity he bestowed consecration upon Stephen V., in 885. In 891 he himself ascended the papal throne.

As pope Formosus had opportunity to display energy in several directions. He showed great strictness toward the Eastern clergy, and rejected the appeal for the reconciliation of the priests or­dained by the Patriarch Photius, being ready to receive them into the fellowship of the Church merely as laymen. In the strife between Arch­bishop Hermann of Cologne and Archbishbp Adal­gar of Hamburg‑Bremen about the relations of the dioceses of Bremen and Cologne (see ADALAAR; HAMBuRa, ARCHBisH0pRIC OF), Formosus, con­formably to the synod held at Frankfort in 892, under the presidency of Archbishop Hatto of Mainz, decided that Bremen should remain united with Hamburg; only the. archbishop of Hamburg, either in person or by deputy, must be present at the provincial synods in Cologne. In the strife between Count Eudo of Paris and Charles the Simple for the throne of the West Franks, Formo­sus upheld the latter, and summoned to his sup­port the German king Arnulf. The dissolution of the Frankish kingdom was a matter of great mo­went for the apostolic see. At the outset, For mosm was compelled to ally himself with Duke­Vido of Spoleto, but the latter's aggressive atti­tude proved‑so formidable that even by 893 he called Arnulf to help. He invested the latter with the imperial crown in 898. Formosus died Apr. 4, 896.

The name of FormoaW, however, owes its re­nown not so much to his deeds as pope, as to the crimes committed against his dead body, and to the dogmatic confusions therewith connected. Under Stephen VI. (896,897), the Spoletan party again came into ascendancy at Rome, and used its power to make a repulsive exhibition of its hatred for the deceased pope on account of his German sympathies. Stephen VI. convened a synod, the corpse of Formosm was exhumed, and, arrayed in pontifical state, it was enthroned on St. Peter's cathedra,* thereupon complaint was lodged against the departed pontiff, charging him with uncanon­ical usurpation of the papal see; the synod pro­nounced him deposed, and all the consecrations he had performed null and vo(d; they tore from his body the apostolic vestments, cut off the three oath‑fingers from his right hand, and buried his body in a remote place; it was afterward sunk in the Tiber. In 897 Pope Theodore II. repealed the decisions of the synod; and in the following year John IX. expressly proclaimed, through two syn‑

Formula of Concord


ods, the validity of the consecrations dispensed by Formosus. Nevertheless the infatuation of the anti‑German party was such that Sergius III. (904‑911) surpassed the decisions of that scanda­lous synod, compelling the clergy ordained by Formosus to undergo a second consecration.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Epietolce of Formosus are in Bouquet,

Recueil, ix. 202‑204, and, with the Pravilegia and notes, in MPL, cxxix. 837‑854. Sources are: Lindprand, An­tapodosis, i. 28 in MGH, Script., iii (1839), 282‑283; Chroniea S. Benedicti, ib. p. 204; Attnales Fuldenses, ib. i. (1826) 409 sqq.; Maraani Scotti chronicon, ib. (1844) 553; Flodoard, Hist. Remensis ecclesia, ib. xiii (1881), 559­560; the writings of Auxilius and Vulgarius in defense of Formosus, in E. Diimmler, Auxilius uml Vulgarius, Leipsic, 1866. Consult: Jaff6, Regesta, i. 435‑439; E. Dummler, Geschichte des oatfrdnkischen Reichs, vols. ii.­iii., Leipsie, 1887‑88; J. Langen, Geschichte der romischen Kirche . . Us Gregor VIZ., pp. 295 sqq., Bonn, 1892; F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, iii. 126‑232, London, 1895; Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 93‑114; Bower, Popes, ii. 297‑299.

Preliminary History (§ 1). Mediation of Jakob Andrea (§ 2). The Formulas of Maulbronn and Torgau (6 3). The Formula of Concord (¢ 4).

The Formula of Concord is the last of the six con­

fessional books of the Lutheran Church, forming

the close of the Book of Concord. The Lutheran

Church, from the beginning, has stood for pure doc­

trine; i.e., the doctrine of the three symbols of the

ancient Church, of the Augsburg Con­

I. Prelimi‑ fession (or more precisely of Luther,)

nary His‑ and of the church and school of

tory. Wittenberg. Melanchthon dogmatized

and thus externalized the authority of

Luther; but he departed from LLther's doctrine.

Thus, after Luther's death dissensions arose, and two

opposite tendencies were developed. Both parties­

the Melanchthonians or Crypto‑Calvinists (see PHI­

LIPPISTS) and the Gnesio‑Lutherans such as Flacius

,q.v.)‑fell into extremes and exaggerations. Among

the questions in dispute may be mentioned the In­

terim and the matter of adiaphora (after 1547);

Osiander's doctrine of justification (after 1550); the

Majoristic controversy (see MAJOR, GEGRG) over the

assertion of Major and Menius that good works are

necessary for salvation and the opinion of Amsdorf

that they are an obstacle to salvation (after 1552), and

in connection with it the antinomistic controversy;

the controversy on the Lord's Supper (after 1552);

the synergistic controversy (after 1555); and the

Christological controversies, which began in the

early sixties. The idea of effecting an agreement

between the two contending parties arose at an

early time. In 1556 Flacius issued " lenient prop­

ositions " in that direction, but made them de­

pendent upon a public confession of those who had

erred. Melanchthon acknowledged his fault in regard

to the Interim, but excused his attitude. The serious­

nessof the situationwas generally felt at the Relig­

ious Colloquy of Worms in 1557 (see WORMS), when

the Saxon theologians (i.e., the party of Flacius)

questioned the right. of their Philippist opponents

to appeal to the Augsburg Confession. The Prot­

estant princes tried to establish peace by the Frank­

fort Recess (q.v.) in 1558, at which the introduc‑


tion of an official censorship of writings of a relig­ious nature was decreed; but the adherents of Flacius successfully resisted all such attempts. At the Diet of Naumburg (1561), where an open Calvinist like Frederick III. of the Palatinate was the leader, the divergence in doctrine regarding the Lord's Supper became more evident than ever. It was felt that. the Augsburg Confession was not a sufficient confessional basis. A convention at Liineburg, for instance, demanded a corpus doc­trincewhich should comprise, besides the Augsburg Confession, the Augsburg Apology, the Schmal­kald Articles, and Luther's catechism, as well as his other writings. Such corpora doctrines arose now in different parts of the country. The Melanclr thoniana also produced a Corpus doctrince chris­tiante (Leipsic, 1560), in which they embodied

chiefly works of Melanchthon. In this way fixed norms of doctrine were established. The next task was to establish a common corpus doctrinte for the whole Lutheran Church of Germany. It was solved by the " Book of Concord " [the title of the Formula concordice in the editio princeps, 1580;

this name was afterward reserved for the collec­

tion of all the Lutheran symbols], in which the dif­

ferent corpora doctrince found their consummation.

The different collections of confessions, however,

did not wipe out the old controversies on the Phil­

ippist errors. The need of a new confession as the

only satisfactory solution of the difficulty was felt

more and more. In June, 1567, Landgrave Will­

iam IV. of Hesse‑Cassel and Duke

a. Media‑ Christopher of Wiirttemberg com­

tion missioned Jakob Andrea to draw up

of Jakob a formula which could be accepted by

Andrea. all theologians of the Augsburg Confes­

sion. It bore the title, Bekenntnis and

kurze Erklarung etlicher zwieeptlltiger Artikel, riach

welcher sine christliche Einigkeit in den Kirchen, der

Augsb. Konfession xugethan getroffen and die arger­

liche, larrgwierige SPoltung hingelegt werden mochte.

It related chiefly to the five articles of justification

by faith, good works, free will, adiaphora and the

Lord's Supper. But the time was not yet ripe for

the success of the plan. Duke Christopher, the

originator of the idea, died, and Landgrave William

of Hesse‑Cassel conceived the impracticable scheme

of applying the intended agreement not only to all

elements of German Protestantism, but also to the

Reformed Churches outside of Germany. In

Electoral Saxony Philippism still flourished, and

the theologians of Ducal Saxony still clung to their

ultra‑Lutheran views. Andrea's journeys to Sax­

ony in 1569 and 1570 did not alter the situa­

tion. After the death of Duke John William of

Saxony the ultra‑Lutheran party was dispersed

under the protectorate of Elector August, and the

eyes of the elector, who had always regarded him­

self a good Lutheran, were opened to the Crypto­

Calvinism existent in his own country. In 1573, be­

fore the overthrow of Crypto‑Calvinism in Electoral

Saxony, Andrea had published Sechs christliche

Predigten (Tiibingen, 1573), in which he tried to

settle the controversies not by theological investi­

gations, but by the catechism. The sermons

openly showed his Lutheran convictions. He had



changed his position; there was no attempt any longer to conceal anything that might be disagree­able to the Philippists. The original thought of reconciling Lutherans and Philippists by a formula of compromise had been abandoned as impossible. The plan now was to draw up a formula that should consolidate all Lutherans against Philip­pists and Calvinists. Through the mediation of the theological faculty in Tabingen, the sermons of Andrea were not unfavorably received in North Germany by leaders like Martin Chemnitz of Bruns­wick, Joachim Westphal of Hamburg, David. Chy­treus and the theological faculty of Rostock. Andrea was asked to put his sermons in the form of articles. Thus originated the so‑called Swabian Concordia, which showed great similarity to the later Formula of Concord. It was signed by the theo­logians in Tfbingen and the members of the con­sistory in Stuttgart, and in Mar., 1574, was sent to Duke Julius of Brunswick and to Chemnitz, that they might enter into negotiations with the churches of Lower Saxony.

After the overthrow of Philippism in Electoral Saxony, the elector himself felt the need of ending the disastrous controversies by a generally accepted formula. In Nov., 1575, at the instance of Count George Ernest of Henneberg, Duke Louis of W iirt­temberg and Margrave Charles of Baden, Lucas

Osiander, court preacher of Warttem‑

3. The berg, Balthasar Bidembach, provost Formulas of at Stuttgart, and Abel Scherdinger,

Maulbronn court preacher of Henneberg, with and several theologians of Baden, com‑

Torgau. posed the Formula of Maulbronn,

which was signed in the monastery of Maulbronn Jan. 19, 1576. This formula agreed with the Swabian Concordia in content, but de­parted from it in that it preserved the order of articles in the Augsburg Confession. Both for­mulas were sent to Elector August, wlio asked An­drea for an opinion on them. Andrea gave the pref­erence to the Formula of Maulbronn and at the same time induced the elector to convoke an as­sembly of theologians for the purpose of establish­ing a common corpus doctrince. The time was favorable, as many of the old polemical agitators had died. In Feb., 1576, there was a convention at Lichtenberg, and from May 28 to June 7 at Torgau. The leading theologians were Nicolaus Selnecker, Andrea, Chemnitz, Chytraeus, and Andreas Musculus. On the basis of the Swabian and Maulbronn formulas there was established a third one acceptable to all parties, the Book of Torgau, of which Elector August sent copies to most of the Evangelical estates of Germany. As Landgrave William and others criticized the pro­lixity of the Book of Torgau, Andrea made an epi­tome (Kurzer summariseher Auszug der Arlikel, so zvrischen den Theologen augsburgischer Konfession I Jahre slreitig, zu Torgau durch die daselbsl versammelten and untersehriebmen Theologen im Mo­nat Junio 1676 ehristlich verglichen worden).

By Feb‑, 1577 most of the requested criticisms on the Book of Torgau had been sent to Dresden. Elector August then commissioned Andrea, Chem­nitz and Selnecker to come to an agreement on the

Formula of Concord

final form of the confession. After having been joined later by Andreas Musculus and Christof

Kbrner of Electoral Brandenburg, and

4. The by David Chytr~eus of Rostock, they

Formula of began their meetings at Bergen, near Concord. Magdeburg; and on May 28, 1577, there was laid before the elector the Book of Bergen (Bergen Formula), which is iden­tical with the Solids declaratio of the Formula of Concord. At the same time Andrea's epitome of the Book of Torgau was carefully read, article by article, and approved. The electors of Saxony and Brandenburg now sent copies of the Book of Bergen for approbation and subscription to all estates whose consent to the new plan was un­doubted. It is not strange that the confession was not received everywhere with the same willing­ness. Churches which had gone through a differ­ent process of confessional development and had adopted the later doctrines of Melanchthon, in order to retain their connection with the Calvinistic Church, rejected the confession of Bergen and were driven to the Reformed confession. At the insti­gation of Queen Elizabeth of England, Count Pala­tine John Casimir, an adherent of the Reformed faith, attempted to obstruct the acceptance of the Formula of Concord by forming a counterunion of all the Reformed Churches at the Convention of Frankfort (1577), but without success.

The " Book of Concord " was published, in Ger­man, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg Confession (June 25, 1580). The first authorized Latin text appeared in 1584, in Leipsic. The con­fession was signed by three electors, twenty dukes and princes, twenty‑four counts, four barons, thir­ty‑eight free cities, and nearly eight thousand preachers and teachers. It was rejected by Hesse, Anhalt, Pfalz‑Zweibrucken, Brunswick, Schleswig­Holstein, Denmark, Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main, Danzig, Bremen, Speyer, Worms, Nuremberg, Strasburg, Magdeburg, and Nordhausen. Silesia did not take part in the negotiations. Some of the dissenting State Churches accepted the Formula of Concord at a later time. Although it does not and can not speak the last word of the religious knowledge of Lutheranism, it was a historical necessity. The doctrinal differences produced by Melanchthonian ideas necessitated a separation of churches. The more Philippism approached Calvinism and Gnesio­Lutheranism stepped out of the limits of a party, the less possible was a union. Andrea perceived this at the right moment. A concord among the friends of Lutheranism and the establishment of a uniform corpus doctrince was possible only if the extreme Philippists together with the Calvinists were excluded. The great importance of the Formula of Concord and of the Book of Concord lies in the fact that by them the Lutheran Church maintained its independence over against Calvin­ism. It must not be imagined that a theological party had here merely obtruded its views upon the Lutheran Church; in the Formula of Concord there have come to their full development the germs of a really existing consensus of belief. Not only the extremes of Philippism, but also those of the Gnesio‑Lutherans, such as Flacius, Amsdorf, and


Osiander, were cut off. Thus the Formula of Con­cord brought peace to the Lutheran Church, and for along time gave direction to the efforts of the Church in the sphere of dogmatics.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. T. Muller, Die eymbolisehen Bilcher der

evangeliach‑lutheriaehen Kirche, Gatersloh, 1877 (text and

introduction); Schaff, Creeds, i. 258‑340 (history and

discussion, list of literature), iii. 93‑180 (text); H. E.

Jacobs, The Book of Concord, i. 487 sqq., ii. 245 sqq.,

Philadelphia. 1893. Consult: J. G. Planck, Geed tichts

der Entatehung . . proteatantisdhen Lehrbegriffa, vols.

iv.‑vi., 8 vols., Leipsic, 1791‑1800; H. L. J. Heppe, Ge­

achichle des deutadhen Protestantismus, 1666‑1681, 4 vols.,

Marburg, 1852‑58; K. F. GSsehel, Die Concordienformel

nach Arer Geachichte, Leipsie, 1858; F. H. R. Frank, Die

Theolagie der Concordienformel, 4 vols., Erlangen, 1858­

1865; G. Frank, Geschidete der proteatantischen Theologie,

pp. 330‑374, Leipsie, 1862; C. P. Kmuth, The Conserva­

tive Reformation and its Theology, pp. 288‑328, Phila­

delphia, 1872; G. Wolf, Zur Geachidhts des deutschen

Proteatantiemm, 1666‑69, Berlin, 1888; and in general

the works on the church history of the period.

FORNEY, CHRISTIAN HENRY: Church of God; b. at West Hanover, Pa., Oct. 17, 1839. He studied at Oberlin College, but left before taking a degree, and was ordained to the ministry in 1860. After being professor in Mount Joy Academy, ^a., and also pastor of the church of his denomination in the same village 1860‑63, he held pastorates at Chambersburg, Pa. (1863‑‑66), Fourth Street Church, Harrisburg, Pa. (1866‑68), and Lancaster City, Pa. (1868‑70). He was assistant editor of The Church Advocate, the organ of his denomina­tion, 1866‑69, and has been editor‑in‑chief since 1869. He was first chaplain of the Pennsylvania Houei of Representatives in 1868‑69, and since 1866 has been president of the General Eldership of the Church of God, besides being a member of many boards and committees of the same denom­ination. He describes himself as " orthodox, evangelical, postmillenarian, antidenominational, three monumental ordinances‑baptism, washing the saints' feet, and communion‑Arminian in the­ology." Besides revising and editing J. Winne­brenner's Brief View of the Church of God (Harris­burg, Pa., 1885) and Sermon on Baptism (1885), and M. P. Jewett's The Mode and Subjects of Bap­tism (1905), he has written The Christian Ordi­nances (1883) and Philosophic Basis of Ordinances and Bible Doctrine o f Sanctification (1905).

Download 6.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   ...   65

The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2022
send message

    Main page