261 religious encyclopedia exile of the Israelites Extreme Unction

Download 6.59 Mb.
Size6.59 Mb.
1   ...   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   ...   65

Flaancke Frank



themselves not only in his pastoral care, but also in the field of pedagogy. In both spheres he developed the most strenuous activity, taxing his powers to the utmost. He preached twice on Sun­day, conducted daily prayer‑meetings and daily catechizations of children, and paid regular visits to the members of his congregation. In 1695 he opened his pauper‑school in the parsonage with

the aid of a poor student, and this un­3. His Phil‑ dertaking of Christian charity was the

anthropic seed from which all the other insti­Institutions. tutions of Francke developed. The

number of children grew rapidly, and soon larger accommodations had to be provided, and the number of teachers had to be increased. In 1696 there originated the P4dagogium which was intended chiefly for the education of boys whose parents lived out of town, and almost simul­taneously the orphan asylum was established. The teaching staff of these institutions consisted for the most part of poor students who, in compen­sation for their services, received free board. In 1697 there was founded the so‑called Latin School to prepare boys for academic studies. There was something almost miraculous in the growth and rapid development of these various institutions, and Francke revealed an extraordinary talent of organization in their management. His trust in God awakened everywhere the same spirit, and voluntary contributions poured in from far and near so that he considered his success a direct an­swer to his fervent prayers. In the year of his death more than 2,200 children were being in­structed in his institutions, among them 134 orphans; 175 teachers and eight inspectors were employed; and about 250 students received free board. There were also added a printing‑press and publishing establishment and a pharmacy which contributed a large profit to the institutions.

Not less important was Francke's interest in foreign missions. The orphanage with its numer­ous assistants and teachers became for a time an important center for the education of mission­aries for India. Ziegenbalg, Phitschau, and C. F. Schwarz were trained in Francke's institutions and, together with the Moravians, deserve the

credit of having inaugurated the mis­4. His Serv‑ sionary history of modern times for ice to IIIis‑ Germany. Another undertaking due

sions and to the influence of Francke is the

Pedagogy. Bible Institute founded in 1710 .by

Baron von Canatein (q.v.), a faithful

admirer of Francke. F rancke also rendered great

services to the cause of pedagogy. As he was free

from the restrictions by the authorities, he was able

to realize some of his innermost ideals. The main

purpose of education was for him to lead children to

a saving knowledge of God and Christ and to true

Christianity. Without true love to God and man

all knowledge appeared to him worthless, and he

considered it the task of the higher as well as of the

lower schools to further not. only Christian instruc­

tion, but Christian life. He hated all empty

formalism and tried in every way to introduce

object‑lessons, and to emphasize instruction for the

practical matters of life.

Francke's writings were numerous, but relatively unimportant. His Pddagogische Schriften have been edited by G. Kramer, with an account of his life and institutions, as vol. xi. of the Riblio­thek pbdeagogisher Klasaaker (2d ed., Langensalza, 1885). His Fussstapfen des noch lebenden Gottes, an account of his institutions (Halls, 1701, and

many later editions), was translated

5. His into English (An Abstract of the Mar‑

Writings. vellous Footsteps of Divine Providence,

London, 1706 and often). Other English

translations which were highly popular in their time

are Nicodemus or a treatise against the fear o f man

(London, 1706) A Letter to a Friend concerning the

Most Useful Way of Preaching (1754); Faith in

Christ inconsistent with a Solicitous Concern about

the Things of this World, a sermon (1759); A Guide to

the Reading and Sturdy o f the Holy Scripture (1813).

(T. FSnsTERt. )

BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Kramer, Beitrege zur Geschichte A. H. Franeke'e, Brwe%wecheel Franeke's and Spener's, Halls,

1861; idem, Neue Beitrage cur Geschichte Francke's, ib.

1875; idem August Hermann Prancke. Ein Letrenabild,

2 vols., Halle, 1880‑82 (the best, some mistakes in which

are corrected in w. Schrader, Geschichte der Friedrichs‑

univereitat in Halle, 2 vols., Berlin, 1894); T. FSrster,

August Hermann Franeke. Bin Lebembild, Halls, 1898.

Consult also, A. Ritsehl, Geschichte des Pietismus, vol. ii.,

Bonn, 1884; J. Jiingst‑Btettin, Pietisten, pp. 24‑38, Tii­j bingen.190B.


German Lutheran; b. at Altenburg (26 m. s. of Leipsic) Mar. 25, 1827; d. at Erlangen Feb. 7, 1894. His early life was spent at Zschernitz, and in 1839 he entered the gymnasium of Altenburg, matric­ulating in 1845 at the University of Leipsic to study theology, philosophy and philology (Ph.D., 1850; licentiate of theology, 1851). There, under the influence of Harless, Frank underwent an entire change of views, and from a rationalist he became

an enthusiastic admirer of the Lu‑

Early theran confession and of early Prot‑

Life. estant theology. In 1851 he became

subrector of a school at Ratzeburg, and two years later teacher of religion in the gym­nasium of Altenburg. In 1857 he was appointed extraordinary professor of church history and systematic theology in Erlangen, and in the follow­ing year became ordinary professor; while from 1875 until his death he occupied the chair of sys­tematic theology.

Not only as a theological leader, but also as a moral character, Frank exercised a far‑reaching in­fluence. He was thoroughly convinced of the truth of his conservative ideas; but deeply rooted as he was in Evangelical principles, he still main­tained a deep interest in modern life with its aims and problems, while he was opposed to reactionary tendencies in ecclesiastical affairs, and to external authority in political relations. He may be styled the dogmatician of the " Erlangen theology." Twice his views were essentially changed‑in Leip­sic he was won for the old truth, in Erlangen, under the influence of Hofmann, for the " new mode of teaching the old truth."

Frank's most characteristic work was his Sys­tem der christlichen Gewissheit (2 vols., Erlangen,



1870‑73; 2d ed., 1881‑83; Eng. trand. by M. J.

Evans, "System of Christian Certainty," Edin­

burgh, 1886). The great question which Frank

attempted to answer in this work was the basis of

belief. The answer is offered by the positive as­

surance of the Christian. The Christian is trans­

posed into a new state of life, and into a state of

regeneration and conversion of which he becomes

positively assured. This assurance, however, im­

plies also the assurance of an objective cause.

Thus there result three groups of objects of Chris­

tian assurance; the immanent objects

Theory of as the effects of the objective cause

Christian inherent in the subject (knowledge

Certitude. of sin; reality of the new life); the

transcendent objects (God as the

supramundane factor, the Trinity; the atoning

God‑Man); and the transmittent objects (the

Word, the Sacraments, the Church), or the

historical and concrete media. by which faith

experiences the effect of the supramundane cause.

Each of these three groups is opposed by a develop­

ment of modern intellectualism; so that rationalism

denies the reality of the peculiar religious experi­

ence of the Christian; pantheism does away with

the causality of a personal God; and criticism (as

represented by Baur and Strauss) tries to prove the

Church and church life to be merely natural phe­

nomena devoid of any specifically inherent trans­

cendent causality. According to Frank, the objects

of faith are implied in the assertion of the Ego of the

new man, and he is assured of them according to

the degree of the certainty of that Ego concerning


Having thus acquired the realities of Christian

faith, it is the task of dogmatics, as set forth by

Frank in his System der ehristlichen Wahrheit (2

vols., Erlangen, 1878‑80; 3d ed., 1893‑94), to

grasp and represent the objects of Christian

faith in their inner connection. Here

Dogmatic Frank no longer starts from sub­

System. jective assurance, but from the first

cause of Christian realities, from the

principium essendi, or God. His work accordingly

represents the evolution of the humanity of God.

The first part treats of the " principle of evolution "

and establishes the doctrine of God. The second

part is devoted to the " realization of evolution "

in three divisions: generation (creation, world,

man), degeneration (sin, devil), and regeneration,

the latter comprising the humanity of God as being

realized for the God‑Man; the humanity of God

as posited in the God‑Man; ‑arad the humanity

of God as evolving from the God‑Man, that is (a)

the humanity of God as the object of becoming

(the means of grace); (b) the humanity of God as

the subject of becoming (the order of salvation);

and (c) the humanity of God as the object‑subject

of becoming (the Church). The third part describes

the " aim of becoming," or eschatology.

The life‑work of Frank as a systematic theologian

found its completion in his System der christlichen

Sittlichksit (2 vole., Erlangen, 1884‑87; Eng. transl.,

System of the Christian Certainty, Edinburgh, 1886.)

The leading point of view in this work is the "evolu­

tion ofthe God‑Man." Frank attacked the theology

IV. 24

of Riteehl in his Ueber die kirchliehe Bedeutung

der Theologie A. Ritschls (Leipsie, 1888), arid Zur

Theologie A. Ritachls (3d. ed., 1891); and he also

wrote Evangelische Schulreden (Altenburg, 1856);

Die Theologie der Concordienformel (4 vols., Erlangen,

1858‑65); Aus dem Leben christlieher Frouen (Gii­

tersloh, 1873); Dogmatische Studien (Leipsic, 1892);

Vademeeum fur angehende Theologen (1892); and

Geschichte and Kritik der neueren Theologie (1894;

3d ed., 1898). (R. SEEBERG.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: B.. Seeberg, F. H. R. von Frank; sin Go­denkblatl, Leipsie, 1894; J. Gottechiek, Die Kirchlicdkeit der eogenannten kircklirhen Theolopie, pp. 110 aqq., Frei­burg, 1890; F. Nippold, Handbuch der neueeten Kirdeen­geechichte, iii., part 1, pp. 495 eqq., Berlin, 1890; O. PHeidrrer, Die Entuicklung der protestantisdaen Theologfe aeit Rant, pp. 183 sqq., Freiburg, 1891; G. Daxer, Der $ubjektivismus in Franks '‑System der chrisaichen Getoiee­heit" Giltersloh, 1900; F. K. E. Weber, F. H. R. non Franks GoUeelehre, Leipsic, 1001.

FRANK, GUSTAV WILHELM: German Protes­tant; b. at Schleiz (24 m. s.w. of Gam) Sept. 25, 1832; d. at Vienna Sept. 24, 1904. He studied at Jena, where he became privat‑docent in 1859 and was appointed associate professor of theology in 1864. In 1867 he was called to Vienna as full pro­fessor of dogmatic and symbolic theology, and the same year became a member of the Evangelical ecclesiastical council in Vienna. He edited E. F. Apelt's Religionsphilosophie (Leipsic, 1860), and wrote Memorabilia qucedam Flocciana (Schleiz, 1856); De Luthero rationaZismi prcecursore (Leip‑. sic, 1857); De Academia Jenensi evangelicce veri­tatis altrice (Sehleiz, 1858); Die jenaisehe Thea­logie in ihrer geschichtllichen Entwickelung (Leipsic, 1858); De Matthim Flacii Myrici in ltxbros aacros meritis (1859); Geschichte der protestantischen Theo­l" (vols. i. iii., 1862‑75, vol. iv., with Lebens­abriss by G. L6sche, 1905); Johann Major, der Wittenberger Poet (Halls, 1863); Das Tole­ranzpatent Kaiser Joseph 11 (Vienna, 1882); and Symbolce ad recentiorem C. R. ordinia Theologorum evangelicorum Vindobonensia historaam congest&, (1896).

FRANK, JACOB (Jankiev Lebowicz): Jewish adventurer, founder of the sect of Frankiate; b. in Podolia c.1720; d. at Offenbach (4 m. e. of Frank­fort) Dec. 10, 1791. He was the son of a rabbi and originally a distiller, but afterward traveled as a merchant in Turkey, where he received the sur­name of Frank, the usual designation for Occiden­tals among the Turks. In Turkey he lived chiefly in Salonica and Smyrna, the centers of Shabbe: thaianism, and himself became a prominent member of the sect of Shabbethak Zebi. On his return to. Poland he became famous as a cabalist. In 1755 he settled in Podolia, gathered about him a group of local sectaries and began to preach to them a new gospel. The essence of his teaching semis to have been a negation of moral 'and religious laws, his mission, in his own words; being " to free the world from the laws and regulations which have hitherto existed." When it leaked out that at his meetings orgies were celebrated similar to those of the Adamites (q.v.), the Roman Catholics joined the orthodox Jews in the suppression of the Frankist sect. At the rabbinical court held at Sovanta


Frankfort $ecess


many of the sectaries told of immorality practised under the guise of religious symbolism. As Frank was a Turkish subject he was allowed to leave the country, but many of his followers were imprisoned, and a congress of rabbis at Brody proclaimed ex­communication against all the impenitent heretics. Acting on the advice of Frank, his followers, as being anti‑Tahnudista, now enlisted the sympa­thies of the Roman Catholics. They claimed to find in the Zohar (see CABALA), which they substi­tuted for the Talmud, the doctrine of the Trinity, and expressed their belief in the Messiah, but with­out saying that they meant Shabbethai Zebi. The bishop of Kamenetz took up their cause, freed those who were in prison, and compelled the Tal­mudists to pay a fine to their opponents and deliver up all copies of the Talmud, which were then publicly burned at Kamenetz.

To escape the persecution to which they were again subjected after the death of their patron, the bishop, the Frankiats joined the Roman Catholic Church in 1759, Augustus IIl. of Poland acting as godfather to Frank. The insincerity of the Frank­ista, however, soon became apparent, and early in the following year Frank was arrested, convicted as a teacher of heresy, and imprisoned in the fortress at Czenstochova. He was liberated by the Rus­sians in 1773 and then became a secret agent of the Russian government. Frank's imprisonment only increased his influence, and the contributions of his numerous followers, together with the large sums received from the Russian court, now enabled him to live in princely splendor. He resided successively at Briinn, Vienna, and Offenbach, whither he re­paired in 1788, when his hypocrisy had brought him into disfavor at the Austrian court. To his followers he pretended to be the Messiah, and they thought their " holy master " immortal. On his death his daughter Eve succeeded him as the " holy mistress." The contributions now fell off, and Eve died in obscurity in 1816. The Frankists still survive in Poland, Moldavia, and Turkey. They are nominally Roman Catholics, but maintain their Jewish nationality by marrying only among themselves.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Gratz, Prank and die Prankiaten, Bres­

lau. 1866;. A. Theimer, Vetera monuments Polonix . . .

ex fobulariia vatiranie collectia, iv., Rome, 1860; JE, v.

475‑478 (where the titles of the literature in Polish are

FRANKENBERG, JOHANN HEINRICH, COUNT OF: German cardinal; b. at Gross Glogau (35 m. n.n.w. of Liegnitz), Silesia, Sept. 18, 1726; d. at Breda (24 m. w.s.w. of Bois‑le‑Duc), Holland, June 11, 1804. He was educated at the Jesuit college of his native town, at the University of Breslau, and at the German‑Hungarian college in Rome and upon his return to Germany, became coadjutor to the apostolic vicar and archbishop of Gorz. On Jan. 27, 1769 Maria Theresa appointed him arch­bishop of Mechlin and member of the Belgian coun­cil of state, and in 1778 Pius VI. invested him with the dignity of a cardinal. When Joseph II. abol­ished the episcopal seminaries in 1786 and founded state seminaries at Louvain and Luxemburg in their stead Frankenberg was the first to voice the


dissatisfaction of the clergy. The emperor, how­ever, further enacted that only those who had com­pleted a five years' course at one of these institutions were eligible for major orders, whereupon the cardinal vainly renewed his objections, maintaining that the new seminary was instituted solely for the propagation of Jansenism. The dissatisfaction of the pupils, however, resulted in open antagonism to the seminary, and the institution. was practically disorganized. Frankenberg, who was suspected of being the instigator of their unrest, was summoned to Vienna to give an account of his actions. and was kept in confinement for a time; but the turbu­lence in Belgium increased, and he was finally set free, being hailed as a martyr upon his return. He continued his protests against the general sem­inary, and restored his archiepiscopal institution of learning; but an order was issued forbidding him to teach theology under penalty of a fine of 1,000 thalers. He declared this order invalid, and was thereupon directed to go to Louvain, inspect the general seminary and give an account of his objections against it. He obeyed the order, and on June 26, 1789, framed an opinion in which he declared the professors, the text‑books, and the method of instruction unorthodox and Jansenistic. This decision was published and used as a means of agitation. Frankenberg was then accused by the imperial minister Count Trautmannsdorf of hav­ing incited the people, but he responded that he had acted only as a true shepherd of the faith, and petitioned the emperor to restore to the Church its privilege of educating the clergy as well as the youth of the land. The disturbances in Belgium at length assumed the character of an uprising, and Frankenberg was accused of being its lead­ing spirit. The minister charged him with conspir­acy and ordered him to return his various insignia of honor, whereupon the cardinal appealed to the emperor, but Joseph died before the letter reached him. When the French Revolutionists invaded Belgium, Frankenberg bravely resisted them, and was accordingly sentenced by the Convention to deportation, dying a fugitive. (K. KLtJP1n,Lt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Theiner, Der Cardinal J. H. Ors/ von

Prankenberg, Freiburg, 1850; KL, iv. 1609‑1702.

FRAIYKENTHAL COLLOQUY: A conference between representatives of the Reformed Church of the Palatinate and Anabaptists, held at Frankenthal (20 m. n. by w. of Speyer) May 28‑June 19, 1571. There were Anabaptists in the Palatinate from 1525, both native and immigrants. They had settled in great numbers along the Hardt River after they had been cured of the wild fanaticism of the earlier time. As they were industrious cultivators of the soil, Elector Ottheinrich did not dislike them. Hoping to win them over to the Church of the Palatinate, he ordered a colloquy to be held at Pfeddersheim in 1557. No agreement was reached, but the Anabaptists were still tolerated under the condition that they should keep aloof from disturbances and innovations. As some of their teachers from Moravia tried to incite them against the Reformed, Elector Frederic III. the Pious called the colloquy at Frankenthal. It was opened in the presence of the Elector by Chancellor


Frankfort Recess

Chitistoph Ehem, who had been joined by the

Electoral delegates, Wenzelaus Zuleger, Hans

Rechklau, and Otto von HSvel. On the side of the

Reformed seven prominent preachers were called

to the conference, most of them Netherlanders who

had entered the service of the Palatine Church or

who were preachers of foreign congregations­

court preacher Petrus Dathenus, Gerhard Verstegus,

Petrus Colonius, Franz Mosellanus, Engelhert

Faber, Konrad Eubulaeus and Georg Gebinger.

Prominent Anabaptists were Diebald Winter,

Rauff Bisch, Hans Rannich, and Hans Bfchel.

Thirteen important points of doctrine in which the

Anabaptists deviated from the Reformed were dis­

cussed‑the authority of the Old Testament, the

Trinity, the substance of the body of Christ, original

sin, good works, the resurrection of the body, the

relation of the Christian to the secular authority,

to the sword, and to the oath, and others; finally

the baptism of children. The chief speaker of the

Reformed was Dathenus, while Rauff Bisch was the

most efficient defender of the Anabaptist cause.

The Anabaptists showed great haughtiness and

stubbornness, refusing to acknowledge in some

points the authority of even such Anabaptists as

Menno Simons, Jakob Hutter, and Matthmus

Cervas. They rejected a thorough theological in­

vestigation as a quibble of words. Thus an agree­

ment was impossible, but the two bodies departed

without hostility, after a comprehensive protocol

had been examined and signed on both sides. The

Elector was not satisfied with the result, but decided

not to expel the Anabaptists; their leaders, how­

ever, were strictly forbidden to teach or baptize in

his country. (F. W. CuNot.)

BIHLIOQRAPHy: The proceedings (Protokoll) were printed,

Heidelberg, 1571, by Johann .Mayer. Consult: B. G.

Struve, Beriqht von der pftiWschen Kirchen‑Hiatarie, pp.

238 sqq., Frankfort, 1721; H. Alting, Historia eccleaix

Palatine, Groningen, 1728; F. W. Cuno, Bl&tter der Erin­

nerung an Dr. K. Olevianue, pp. 37‑38, Barmen, 1887.


also Frankfort Book, Formula pacis Francofor­

diance): A document signed Mar. 18, 1558, aim­

ing to compose the disputes between the strictly

orthodox Lutherans with Matthias Flacius (q.v.) as

their leader and the Philippists (q. v.) who adhered

to Melanchthon. The gulf between the two parties

had been widened by personal quarrels between the

two Saxon lines, the Ernestine line as protector of

Flacius and the Albertine line as protector of

Melanchthon, also by the rivalry of the University

of Wittenberg and the newly founded University

of Jena, which took side with Flacius. The Evan­

gelical estates tried to settle the conflict by appoint­

ingaconvention at Frankfort in June 1557, but it did

notcomeabout. The Consultationof Worms (Aug.­

Dec.1557; see Woftma) proved ineffectual since the

princes did not appear. When Ferdinand I. was

proclaimed emperor in Frankfort in Mar., 1558,

the Electors Ottheinrich of the Palatinate, August

of Saxony and Joachim II. of Brandenburg in­

duced Count Palatine Wolfgang of Zweibriicken,

Duke Christopher of W frttemberg, and Land­

grave Philip of Hesse, to take a personal part in

consultations over the settlement of the disputes.

The negotiations took place on the basis of a recom­mendation of Melanchthon, which was approved and made the basis of an agreement signed by the above­mentioned estates. The introduction of the recess attempts to refute the reproaches of the Roman Catholics that the Evangelicals disagreed among themselves. It was stated that they did not in­tend to set up a new confession, but rather'to ad­here to the pure doctrine as laid down in the Bible, the three principal creeds, and the Augsburg Con­fession with the Apology. They thought it advi­sable, however, to discuss some points of controversy on the. basis of the Augsburg Confession: (1) justi­fication; man is justified by faith alone. (2) Good works; new obedience is necessary in the justified. (3) The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; Christ is really present in the Lord's Supper. (4) Adiaphora; minor ceremonies may be used or omitted without sin and detriment. Then follows a number of resolutions upon which the princes had agreed; new controversies should not be divulged, but examined by the consiato­ries and superintendents; no theological treatises should be printed without having gone through the hands of the censor; the publication of libelous treatises should be strictly prohibited; consiatoriea and superintendents should be instructed to depose from his office any one who taught or acted in dis­agreement with the confession; the old differences should be forgiven and forgotten to make possible an agreement of all Evangelical estates on the basis of this recess; the other estates fahould be invited to join the recess.

The recess was received differently in various places. For some the real presence of Christ ,was not taught with sufficient emphasis. Others cen­sured the recess because heresies were not specially noted and condemned. Others again complained because secular princes had assumed the right to decide on ecclesiastical doctrines without the con­sultation of theologians. But the strongest op­position came from Jena and Weimar. In Weimar Amsdorf at the order of John Frederick of Saxony attacked the recess, and in Jena Flacius wrote two replies, which seem to have been circulated in manuscript only‑Refzctcttio Sdmctritani interim, in quo uses religio cum sectis et corrupts lis scelerate et Perrticiose confunditur, and Grund and Ursach, warum das Frankfurter Interim in keinem Weg snzunehmen. The same arguments' were used by the theologians whom John Frederick of Saxony asked in 1558 to reply to the invitation of the six princes to join the recess. They were answered by Melanchthon at the order of the electoral court, in a treatise entitled Resporesum Melsnchthonis de cerasura formuke pads Frsncofordiance, scripts a Theologis Wimariensibus (Sept. 24, 1558, in CR, ix. 617 sqq.). John Frederick did not succeed in gathering the opponents of the recess in Magdeburg; but on the other hand, the purpose of the recess to settle the controversies was not attained.

(C. ENDERa.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The document is best preserved in CR, ix.

499 eqq. A monograph is J. F. Lebret, De recesau Franeo‑

lurti, 1668, Tiibingen, 1796. C. A. Fslig, Haatorie der

augaburpeachen Confession, iii. 363 sqq., Hulls, 1745; G. J. Planck, Geachichte . . . unsers protestantxachen Lehr‑

1   ...   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   ...   65

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

    Main page