δ8 ORIENTATION.
the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Encyclical of Nov. 1, 1885, “concerning the Christian constitution of states,” wisely moderates, but reaffirms, in substance, the political principles of his predecessor." A revocation would be fatal to the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. The practice of persecution is a question of power and expediency; and although isolated cases still occur from time to time,” the revival of medizval intolerance
tion implies the approval of intolerance. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II., 232. Janssen, while he condemns the Protestant persecutions of Catholics, approves the Catholic persecutions of Protestants in the time of the Reformation. He says: “Fiir die katholische Gteistlichkeit, die katholischen Fiirsten und Magistrate und das katholische Volk war es ein Kampf der Sebsterhaltung, wenn sie Alles aufboten, wm dem Protestantismus den Eingang in thre Gebiete zu wehren und thn, wenn er eingedrungen uar, daraus wieder zu entfernen.” —Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, 111., 193.
1 After glorifying the Middle Ages and the hierarchical rule of the church over the state, Leo XIII. in that Encyclical proceeds to say: “ No doubt the same excellent state of things would have continued, if the agreement of the. two powers had continued, and greater things might rightfully have been expected, if men had obeyed the authority, the teaching office, and the counsels of the church with more fidelity and perseverance. For that is to be regarded as a perpetual law which Ivo, of Chartres, wrote to Pope Paschal 11.: ‘When kingship and priesthood are agreed, the world is well ruled, the church flourishes and bears fruit. But when they are at variance, not only do little things not grow, but even great things fall into miserable ruin and decay.’”” Then the pope rejects among the evil consequences of the “revolution” of the sixteenth century (meaning, of course, the Reformation) the erroneous opinion that “no religion should be publicly professed [ by the state]; nor ought one to be preferred to the rest; nor ought there to be any inquiry which of many is alone true; nor ought one to be specially favored, but to each alike equal rights ought to be assigned, provided only, that the social order incurs no injury from them.” This is probably aimed at Italy and France, but implies also a condemnation of the separation of church and state as it exists in the United States. Further on, the pope approvingly refers to the Encyclical Mirari Vos of Gregory XVI. (Aug. 15, 1832), which condemns the separation of church and state, and to the Syllabus of Pius [X., who “noted many false opinions and ordered them to be collected together in order that in so great a conflux of errors Catholics might have something which they might follow without stumbling.”
2 Thus, in 1852, the Madiai family were imprisoned in Florence for holding prayer meetings and reading the Bible, and in 1853, Matamoras, Carrasco and their friends were imprisoned and condemned to the galleys at Madrid for the same offense, and were only released after a powerful protest of an international deputation of the Evangelical Alliance. No public worship except the Roman Catholic was tolerated in the city of Rome before 1870.
§ 11. PROTESTANTISM AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 59
is an impossibility, and would be condemned by intelligent and liberal Roman Catholics as a folly and a crime.
3. The Protestant theory and practice of persecution and toleration.
(a) The Lutheran Reformers and Churches.
Luther was the most advanced among the Reformers in the ideas of toleration and liberty. He clearly saw the far-reaching effect of his own protest against Rome, and during his stormand pressure-period, from 1517 to 1521, he was ἃ fearless champion of liberty. He has left some of the noblest utterances against coercion in matters of conscience, which contain almost every essential feature of the modern theory on the subject. He draws a sharp line between the temporal power which is confined to the body and worldly goods, and the spiritual government which belongs toGod. Hesays that “no one can command or ought to command the soul, except God, who alone can show it the way to heaven;” that “the thoughts and mind of man are known only to God;” that “it is futile and impossible to command, or by force to compel any man’s belief ;” that “heresy is a spiritual thing which no iron can hew down, no fire burn, no water drown;” that “belief is a free thing which cannot be enforced.” He opposed the doctrine of the Anabaptists with every argument at his command, but disapproved the cruel persecution to which they were subjected in Protestant as well as Catholic countries. “It is not right,” he said in a book against them (1528), “and I deeply regret that such wretched people should be so miserably murdered, burned, and cruelly put to
1See his tract, written in 1523, Von weltlicher Obrigkett, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei? In Walch X. 426-479, especially the second part, col. 451 sqq. “Der Seelen kann und soll niemand gebieten, er wisse denn thr den Weg zu weisen gen Himmel. Das kann aber kein Mensch thun, sondern Gott allein. Darum in den Sachen, die der Seelen Seligkeit betreffen, soll nichts denn Grottes Wort gelehret und angenommen werden” (453). Es ist ein frei Werk wm den Glauben, dazu man memand kann zwingen . . . Zum Glauben kann und soll man niemand zwingen” (455 sq.). He justly confines the duty of obedience taught in Rom. 13: 1, and 1 Pet. 2: 18, to secular matters, and qualifies them by Matt. 22: 21.