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
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.
FRANK, FRANZ HERMANN REINHOLD VON:
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,
869 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Ee
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
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
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
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
given). 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
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.
FRANKFORT RECESS (or AGREEMENT; called
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.
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‑
Fraticelli THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 372
begriffs, vi. 174 sqq.i Leipsie, 1800; W. Preger, Matthias Fladus Illyricua and seine Zeit, ii. 70, Erlangen, 1861; J. C. L. Gieseler, Church History, ed. H. B. Smith, iv. 444 sqq., New York, 1868 (valuable as' a summary).