EVANGELICAL
644
EVANGELICAL
rishioners; they feared, in many cases, to be altogether
abandoned by indifferent congregations. The de-
fenders of the union argued that its disruption would
produce at least five particular churches at war with
one another and powerless to withstand the inroads of
the Catholic Church; that the union was a Prussian
achievement to be supported by all true lovers of
Prussia. The theologians of the Union demanded a
consensus-symboIu7n, "an ordination formula in which
the consensus of the two Churches was to be containetl
without depriving the individual congregation of the
right of giving a call on the groiuid of the particular
confession" (Gardner, I, 967); others were satisfied
with a confederation professing no formulated creetl
and resting solely on unfettered science. The trend
of religious thought during this period, the middle of
the nineteenth century, followed the impulse given by
the king. Frederick William IV's motto was: "land
my house intend to serve the Lord ". He was piously,
even pietistically, inclined, hated infidelity and pan-
theism, cherished the Divine right of kings, and loved
to dream of ancient institutions in Church and State.
In a short time the Prussian universities, and in their
wake the other German universities, except Giessen
and Jena, became centres of positive belief's and ten-
dencies. The king favoured men of his own thinking
and made known his dislike to transfer the arduous
duties of his "supreme episcopate" to free parishes
formed on the apostolic model. Theological teaching
in schools and press, although starting from the same
positive creeds, diverged in two different streams.
On the one side there were the partisans of a via medio,
endeavouring to find the golden mean between the
Lutheran Confession of Faith and the Rationalism of
the period. On the other side stood the Neo- Luther-
ans. These theologians held to Luther's doctrine on
justification but rejected his invisible Church and uni-
versal priesthood ; they defended a Divinely ordained
hierarchy, and their teaching on sacrifice, orders, and
sacraments nearly approached the Roman. This cur-
rent runs parallel with Puseyism in England; Heng-
stenberg (d. 1S09) was its main support.
The General Synod of Berlin (2 June-29 Aug., 1846) had given rise to great hopes for the consolida- tion of the Union. It was resolved that the National Evangelical Church should have no other basis than the "consensus"; that the parish councils (Gcmrinde- Presbytericn) and consistories be amalgamated so that clergy and laity might work together; that a standing general synod be added to the standing su- preme consistory (Oberconsistorium). The crucial task of the synod was to find an acceptable formula of consensus. Karl Immanuel Nitzsch, of Bonn, set up a profession of faith intended to take the place of the reformed formularies: it consisted of vague Biblical texts into which both Lutherans and Reformed might easily read their particular doctrines or no particular doctrine at all. The synod accepted the formula. But the country received it with scorn and contempt, and it was rejected by everyone. Hengstenberg in his "Kirchenzeitung" branded the synod as a Robber Synod, a denial of Christ; its decrees were not to be executed, because they failed to give expression to "the general Protestant consciousness". The con- sensus only served to increase existing dissensions. The most vital questions divided the leading minds: Was the territorial ruler by right the sinnnuis episcopus within his territory? Was it advi.sable to impo.se an evangelical church disci[iline, and if so, which? What part was to be conceded to laymen in the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments?
The very sterility of controversy turned some prac- tical men from words to works: tlie "Inner Mi.ssion" was originated ( IS IK) by Wicheren. the founder of the Hamburg Ifaiihrs /lints (properly Hugc's Ibnise, from the name of its former occupant), an institution which covers almost the whole field of Christian charity.
The preacher Fliedner (d. 1SG4) instituted the order
of Protestant deaconesses, an imitation of the Catho-
lic Sisters of Charity in the main objects of their life.
Court preacher Zimmermann of Darmstadt foimded
the Gustav-Adolfs-Verein (1841-2), a union whose
avowed primary object is to support the evangelical
missions in outlying districts (the Diaspora), its sec-
ondary object being to bind together all Protestants
regardless of denominational differences, and to op-
pose a solid bulwark to the encroachments of Catho-
licism. The secondary object caused a split in the
I'nion. At the general assembly in Berlin (1846) the
Konigsberg preacher Rupp, who had been deprived of
his office for breaking away from the Protestant form-
ularies and from the national Church, presented
himself as a deputy. On the question of his admission
as such the assembly disagreed: Rupp was, however,
excluded by a small majority, a distinct breach of the
principles of the LTnion. The meeting of 1847 resolved
that henceforth the Union should direct its main
efforts to the "conversion of the Roman Catholics", a
resolution to which it has remained faithful to this day.
The short-lived movement of the " Protestant Friends", or "Friends of Light", was started in oppo- sition to pietistic orthodoxy which threatened free- dom in teaching. Article 3 of the programme which they issued from the Moravian settlement at Gna- denau, in 1841, runs: "We hold it to be our right and our duty to submit to the test of our reason whatever is set before us as religion." LTlich, a simple-minded man who had the gift of popular preaching, and Pa.stor Wislicenus, a downright Rationalist, were the soul of this movement. The Berlin magistrates pre- sentetl to King Frederick William IV an address con- ceived in the spirit of the Protestant Friends. They entreated him to grant the Church a free constitution in keeping with the neetis of the time, and freedom of teaching limited only by public morality and the safety of the State. The king in person received his theological municipality, who paraded in fourteen state coaches before the royal castle. His pietism was ruffled by the pretensions of the town councillors; in language not over gracious he told them to mind their own business. This happened 22 August, 1845; it marks the end of the Protestant Friends but also the beginning of the "Free Conmiunities" {Freie Gemcin- den). As formerly the right wing of the L'nion had se- ceded to form Neo-Lutheran communities, so now the left wing withdrew to form dissenting rationalistic congregations. Their meetings were prohibited, but Rupp, Ulich, and Wislicenus resisted until by royal decree of 30 March, 1847, the new dissenters were allowed to separate from the Established Church with- out the loss of their civil rights; yet not without many vexatious formalities and expenses. The Free Com- munities, wanting internal cohesion to resist the royal disfavour and the ceaseless assaults of thedominant pietist clique, came to a speedy end.
The wave of liberal aspirations which rolled over Europe in 1848 left its mark on the Churches in Prus- sia. Paragraph 1.5 of the new Constitution read: "The Evangelical, and the Roman Catholic Church, and every other religious society, orders and manages its own affairs independently (selhststdndig)." The Catho- lics had the benefit of this law until the beginning of the Kulturkampf, but among the Protestants, the ruling orthodox pietists, led by Hengstenberg, were determined that no freedom should be given to any other party. They evaded the law by a new theory, viz. the king, being the pnu-i/nnitn membrum eccUsiw, i. e. tlie chief member of the Church, rules it by an inherent right which no law can take from him; in fact Par. 15 makes the territorial lord quite indepen- dent of all State interference with his management of his own Church. The king himself did not favour this extraordinary doctrine. "Do I look like a bishop?" he said, pointing to his uniform and .spurs. His ideal
