Anti-papal movements in the depths of Roman Catholicism in the 19th century.

(Essays on the history of free flows in Roman Catholic theology - on the occasion of the centennial anniversary of the birth of I. Döllinger). This year marks the centenary of the birth (and the tenth anniversary of the death) of one of the most prominent figures in the recent history of Western Christendom. We mean the famous learned professor of church history in Munich, Ignatius Döllinger, who was born February 16–28, 1799. Although quite some time has passed since his death (he died on December 30, 1889), his personality still stands before our generation as if alive, and everyone still remembers the great excitement that gripped the entire Christian world when, after the sad memory of the Vatican Council, which plunged everyone into amazement and despondency with the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility, and with it the legalization of the lawless papal yoke over the conscience of peoples, suddenly from the depths of Roman Catholicism itself a voice of powerful protest was heard against this violation of church truth, and this voice came from the lips of the greatest expert on church history, of whom Rome itself was rightly proud. The protest was declared precisely by Döllinger, and the voice of his protest echoed powerfully in the hearts of all who, under the yoke of papal despotism, had not yet lost their consciousness of church truth. So, under his banner, all those glorious fighters for truth quickly gathered who considered it a great sin to submit to a newly invented dogma, which contradicted both their conscience and the obvious evidence of impartial history. These fighters for truth became the founders of Old Catholicism, i.e. a movement which set itself the task of restoring that true, old catholicity, which existed indifferently in East and West before the division of the churches and which was subjected to a flagrant distortion under the influence of the papal system, which reached its highest expression in the Vatican apotheosis of the infallible papacy. People of the present middle generation still vividly remember this glorious time when Döllinger made his famous protest. Before that, everyone had gone through an extremely difficult time. Taking advantage of the general direction of reaction that followed the violent movements of 1848, the papacy, with its characteristic shamelessness, sought to lay its heavy hand on all manifestations of life. Scattered everywhere, strong in its internal organization, the Order of the Jesuits with extraordinary dexterity and resourcefulness, using all sorts of “means justified by the end,” acted in favor of the rise of the papacy and succeeded in this to such an extent that the papacy already boldly acted as a boundless authority, before which sovereigns and peoples bowed, all other church authorities and even science, to the extent that it suppressed and not denied by papal absolutism, sought ways to justify and justify this colossal historical lawlessness. Having reached the pinnacle of his absolutism, the pope already boldly and shamelessly ruled the Roman Catholic world and, to the surprise of everyone, autocratically introduced new dogmas, demanding their unquestioning acceptance. Such was the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, made completely autocratically by Pope Pius IX in 1857, when he, not only without convening a council, but without even consulting the opinion of the Roman Catholic world in the person of its episcopate, but simply on the basis of his personal interpretation of tradition, literally imposed on the Western Christian world a newly invented dogma, which stood in deepest contradiction with the very essence of Christianity. And everyone unquestioningly submitted to this unheard-of arbitrariness, and the papacy, encouraged by this success in the manifestation of its lawless autocracy, did not fail to go further and at the Vatican Council achieved its apotheosis in establishing the dogma of papal infallibility. The entire Christian world was plunged into deep despondency at the sight of the servility with which the best representatives of the Roman Catholic world, after a weak and indecisive protest, agreed to endorse with their signature an imaginary dogma, not only contrary to the history and essence of Christianity, but even to common sense. In view of this, a heavy doubt crept into the souls of many about the future of Christianity in general in the West. If Christian self-consciousness there has already fallen so low that such a mockery of the Christian conscience has become possible, as the dogma of infallibility undoubtedly was, then what will happen to Christianity subsequently and will it not lose its significance in the eyes of the entire educated world? True, among the Protestant world there was no shortage of bold revelations of the violation of church truth that took place at the Vatican Council, and the council itself with its prelates became the subject of caustic mockery and ridicule in the press. There was no shortage of serious denunciations of the untruths committed in the Vatican by Orthodox Eastern theologians. But these voices were still extraneous and could not deeply affect the consciousness of the Roman Catholic peoples themselves, and therefore it was extremely offensive and sad that in Roman Catholicism itself the consciousness of church truth had already extinguished and its highest representatives slavishly signed the dogma composed by the Jesuits, which constituted a direct insult to the entire Christian world. And so, at the moment of greatest despondency of all right-thinking Christians, suddenly, like a bright ray of light from a black cloud, the famous protest of Döllinger appeared, who, fully armed with the generally recognized authority in the field of church history, boldly made a statement that he “as a Christian, theologian, historian and citizen must reject the dogma of infallibility, since it contradicts Holy Scripture, the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church, tradition and history,” and this statement he expressed his readiness to prove it before a meeting of bishops and theologians (March 28, 1871). Such a courageous statement on the part of a person whose learned authority in the field of church history had long been recognized in Rome itself was truly deeply gratifying evidence that the not-quite-Christian conscience was strangled by the papacy even in the depths of Roman Catholicism, and among it there were people who, putting the truth above all else, had the courage to openly express it before the entire Christian world. It is clear with what delight this famous protest against Vatican dogma was greeted throughout the Christian world, and the name of Döllinger, which had hitherto already enjoyed great fame in the scientific world, after this became positively the most popular in the entire Christian world. In it, everyone greeted with the deepest delight a man whose authority gave extraordinary strength to the protest of the general Christian conscience against a newly invented dogma that constituted an insult to Christianity, and countless expressions of sympathy poured in from everywhere, testifying to how deeply all Christian peoples rejoiced at the appearance of an authoritative person who came out in defense of the trampled church truth. From that time on, Döllinger's name became synonymous with the undaunted fighter for the truth and, surrounded by an aura of greatness, it was written in golden letters in the history of the Christian Church in the West. The name of Döllinger also became dear and glorious to the Orthodox-Eastern world, which, together with the entire Christian world, rejoicing at the appearance in his person of a courageous fighter for church truth, for which the Eastern Orthodox Church had been constantly fighting for centuries, was even more rejoiced that in Döllinger’s protest one could hear, as it were, the voice of the ancient undivided church for that very church truth that was preserved in the east and trampled upon in the west. In it, sensitive theological thought welcomed the possibility and the beginning of a deeply significant reaction against the excesses of papism in the depths of Roman Catholicism itself, and, moreover, a reaction in favor of such principles that constitute the distinctive essence of Eastern Orthodoxy, and therefore the essence of the very original Christianity, distorted in the West and preserved in its immutability in the East. That is why the name of Döllinger happily passed from mouth to mouth in all Orthodox countries and for a long time did not leave the pages of the spiritual and even secular press, both in Russia and in Greece and in other Orthodox countries. The charm of Döllinger's name on everyone was so great that it decisively overshadowed all other figures who acted with him in the field of struggle for church truth in the West. Under the influence of this charm, many even directly thought that Döllinger was for the first time a champion of church truth in the depths of Roman Catholicism, and it was this idea that elevated him especially in the eyes of a society not sufficiently familiar with the course of church-historical development in our century. Meanwhile, this idea was far from correct. Of course, Döllinger gained unfading fame for his courageous protest against Vatican dogma and his name will forever remain glorious in the history of Christianity in the West; but only if one was unfamiliar with the course of church-historical development in the West in modern times could one think that it was Döllinger who was the ancestor and founder of that movement, which later received the name Old Catholicism and became an important moment in the church-historical development of our century. Moreover, if Döllinger, precisely as a deus ex machina, had unexpectedly appeared as the exponent of this entire movement, then this movement itself would not have had in itself that essential guarantee for vitality and stability, which is given only by gradual organic growth and the development of ideas from the principles of a deep worldview. In fact, Old Catholicism is the fruit of the organic development of theological thought in the depths of Roman Catholicism. It is not a matter of Döllinger’s personal protest, but is deeply rooted in the theological thought that preceded him, which, gradually developing, found in him only its brilliant exponent, and as such he became the visible initiator of the movement prepared by the previous course of the theological and church-historical process. Our theological science, which has already done a lot to clarify the essence of Old Catholicism as a religious system, as far as we know, has not yet touched upon the study of the very genesis of that worldview, which, gradually developing, prepared the ground for the origin of Old Catholicism in its current state. Meanwhile, the study of this genesis is important not only for a correct historical assessment of the current figures of Old Catholicism, but also even more for determining how strong this movement itself is, how much it contains historical stability against the tests of time and the legal capacity to take a certain place in the system of modern Christianity. After all, if Old Catholicism had only been the work of Döllinger and an expression of his scientific protest against the violation of church truth, then it would not have had a sufficient guarantee that it would be able to outlive its ancestor, because as a personal work it would certainly have carried within itself the limitations inseparable from the personality and would not have represented the makings for a comprehensive historical development. But the strength of Old Catholicism lies precisely in the fact that it is not the work of a personal genius, but is the expression and completion of an entire theological movement, which, deeply rooted in the best theological self-awareness in the depths of Roman Catholicism itself, gradually developed and, having passed through several stages, found expression in Döllinger, in whose person, under the influence of the special conditions of his time, it matured to the point of forming an independent religious system. In these essays, we intend to make a brief historical overview of those theological trends that, based on the deepest need of the human spirit for free self-determination, either manifested themselves in individual theological speculation, or were expressed in entire church trends and movements, and finally led to the formation of the soil on which the historical feat of the famous Döllinger matured. The study of this process in itself may not be devoid of deep historical interest, since it will reveal to us a picture of a truly tragic struggle of the free Christian spirit in its quest for truth with a system that, by its very essence and by its far from legitimate origin, fearing historical truth, attacked with brutal violence the brave testers of truth and mercilessly tried to extinguish the light of reason that they wanted to ignite in the conscience of the part subject to Rome Christian world. But just as even the darkest cloud cannot completely darken the light of the sun, so all the absolutism of the papacy turned out to be insufficient to extinguish the light of reason, which strived for the knowledge of Christian truth in its form free from papal distortion, and although some of the noble bearers of this light paid severely for their desire for truth, their fate did not deter others from coming forward for the same noble cause, until the truth finally found such a great champion as Döllinger spoke with unshakable courage openly before the entire Christian world, to whose memory, as a great champion of church truth, we dedicate these essays. 1 I. Hermes and his theological school The last century left two obvious truths even for ordinary consciousness to its successor - the 19th century, namely: firstly, that the newest culture since the Reformation has absorbed elements terribly destructive for Christianity, which found shameless expression in the horrors of the blasphemous denial of not only all churchliness, but also Christianity itself during the great revolution, and secondly, that the main ecclesiastical authority of the Western Christian world - the papacy - turned out to be powerless to repel these to the destructive elements and even for a time itself became a victim of a destructive hurricane. When deism flourished in England with its basic idea of ​​the non-interference of the Divine in the destinies of people, who therefore, left to themselves, had to rely entirely on their reason, in accordance with it establishing their relations with the fatal laws of nature, and when this deism, transferred to France, degenerated into the crudest materialism of the encyclopedists, and then on the soil of Germany received a philosophical coloring, taking the form of a critically free-thinking rationalism, then for any more or less attentive observer of the course of mental and religious development, it became clear that thought, hitherto protected by the immutable authority of the papacy, since the Reformation, which removed the shackles of papism from the entire half of the Western Christian world and weakened their burden in general, received a strong tendency towards autonomy, towards self-determination according to the internal laws of reason. This autonomy was given particular expressiveness by the speech of a number of philosophers, strong in their free speculation, who, no longer able to cope with the established religious authority, boldly came forward with their claims to radically recreate the entire worldview of modern humanity and base it on the laws of purely logical thinking. So we see this in Kant, Fichte and Hegel, who not only in their speculation followed a path completely independent of any authorities, but also directly broke with previous views, criticizing and questioning the very sources and essence of our knowledge. It is clear what a huge revolution in the worldview was produced by philosophy, which not only subjected to merciless criticism all concepts inherited from past centuries, but also shook confidence in the very reality of even ordinary objects of our knowledge, in the very reliability of the knowledge of our feelings and our mind. When applied to religion and Christianity, such a philosophy could not help but be reflected in the extreme decline of their authority, since it not only undermined their authority, but also reduced to the ground of illusoryness and subjectivity much of what was previously considered immutable and beyond any doubt in them. Religion taught people to think that the objective world with all its phenomena is accessible to man thanks to the two organs of knowledge given to him - faith and reason: with reason, a person comprehends the phenomena of our limited earthly or natural world, and by faith he can cognize everything that lies beyond it - the phenomena of the supernatural world. Critical philosophy began to teach that even if reason does not represent a complete guarantee of reliable knowledge of things, then faith is already a completely organ of subjective knowledge and as such cannot have any significance in the actual knowledge of things. Therefore, in any case, a person must limit his knowledge to reason, and deny everything that does not fit the category of reason as something subjective and illusory. This process of logical thinking about the limitations of the organs of our knowledge did not fail to degenerate into a crude denial of everything supernatural as unreal, and freethinkers began to look at religion itself as an invention of priests (the favorite explanation of the unbelievers of the last century). If religion in general is something unreal, then Christianity, as one of the religions, should also have been completely negated. It was indeed denied as an outdated form of an outdated worldview, and all the facts that made up its content were explained either by the deception of generally unreliable feelings, or even by the deliberate deception of those interested in its support. It is clear what role the papacy had to play after this. If Christianity itself is not valid, then the papacy at its head is only an empty, artificially created form that serves only to suppress free human thought. The Reformation rejected the papacy as an artificially and illegally formed growth on the body of Christianity that constrained the movement of religious thought and feeling in the Christian church; rationalism went further, and if it declared Christianity itself to be an obsolete form, then the papacy, as its external expression, should have collapsed even before Christianity. This idea fully found visible justification during the horrors of the French Revolution, when Christianity was formally abolished and the papacy destroyed, or became a pathetic toy in the hands of a wayward French conqueror who neglected nothing in achieving his goals. But no matter how widespread negative philosophical criticism was at the end of the last and beginning of our century, its adherents still constituted only the most insignificant part of Western humanity. Next to her stood a huge world that could not live without religion, whose entire internal and external life was inextricably linked with Christianity, so to take Christianity away from it would mean to deprive it of its most precious content, to plunge it from light into darkness and to rob it of the very meaning of life. And this was clearly recognized by all right-thinking people of that time, who, while paying tribute to the rights of reason, at the same time realized that reason is never able to satisfy all the demands of the spirit and that faith, and with it religion, is a necessary source for maintaining the very spiritual life of mankind. But with such a view, the reality itself seemed all the more sad, in which religion was undermined and real significance was attached only to what could be directly substantiated by reason. Since the papacy itself, as the main authority and support of Christianity and faith in the West (and that was the only thing we were talking about), lost its prestige and, in fact, even seemed to many to be destroyed forever, 2 the question naturally arose among many: should Christianity really perish with the papacy? In view of the complete instability of the papacy as a stronghold of Christianity, is it not possible to give it a different formulation in which it would gain greater stability and authority in the eyes of modern humanity, corroded by skepticism? In view of the fact that modern humanity attached importance only to what was obtained by the work of the mind and was based on undoubted, logically compulsory conclusions, is it not possible to relegate Christianity precisely to the soil of reason and look for justification for it in its data? It was necessary to have great faith in the rationality of Christianity in order to pose the question about it in this particular form, since this question itself assumed that in its deepest essence Christianity is not only an object of faith, but also fully corresponds to the data of reason, so that no matter how supernatural its content may be, in any case, it does not contradict reason and can find justification for itself in the own conclusions of reason. It was precisely this thought that guided the famous theologian Georg Hermes when he came out with his short essay: “Research on the Inner Truth of Christianity.” 3 G. Hermes was born in 1775 in the Rhine region of Germany - Westphalia and received a good education at the gymnasium and university in Münster, this important center of intellectual life in Germany in the 18th century. His youth coincided precisely with the period of the most terrible flowering of revolutionary rationalism, when all the foundations, both religious and political, were apparently crumbling, all the old authorities were overthrown and unbridled thought no longer wanted to recognize anything sacred and ideal, denying everything that did not correspond to reason and could not find justification in it. He was brought up and raised in a pious Roman Catholic family and from childhood he was accustomed to treat with reverence all the institutions of his church, and of course, he had a special reverence for the Holy Father, who somewhere far away, in the eternal city, sat on his historically glorious throne and was “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” In a word, he grew up in the most ordinary atmosphere of an ordinary Roman Catholic worldview. 4 But when Hermes, in adulthood, went through the highest school of his education and plunged into the turbulent sea of the mental and political life of his time, he saw, to his great chagrin, that Roman Catholicism, as it really was, was quickly losing ground, and the pope, idolized by him and his people, was not only unable to provide with his authority support for a religion strongly shaken by the spirit of the times, but he himself had lost all authority and became a toy in the hands director of destinies of that time. In 1799, Hermes took holy orders, but in the same year the papacy in the person of Pius VI was subjected to the greatest humiliation and, in fact, after his death it was considered completely destroyed - to the joy of all unbelievers and enemies of Christianity. Heavy thoughts sank into the soul of Hermes and a fatal question arose before him: could it really be that, together with the papacy, Christianity also became obsolete? If Christianity is understood as all good Catholics understood it, namely in the fullness of its implementation in the form of Roman Catholicism with the Pope at its head, then apparently this could not be denied. The Reformation had once taken away half the world from the papacy, and the revolution now threatened to wipe the papacy from the very face of the earth and, along with the papacy, rejected all of Christianity. But if the papacy, therefore, obviously does not stand up to criticism before history, can we conclude from this that Christianity itself does not stand up to such criticism? From the point of view of narrow papism, this is perhaps so; but previous history has already shown that the papacy and Christianity are by no means such quantities that one would be unthinkable without the other. Christianity can be conceivable in itself, and it has its own “inner truth”, which can withstand all the fluctuations and disturbances in the life of mankind. It was precisely these thoughts that guided Hermes when he began his “Research on the Inner Truth” of Christianity. But this was only a test of the pen of a young learned theologian, and this work, in addition to unexpressed assumptions, was entirely based on the usual apologetics of Christianity in Roman Catholic theology. And he himself soon realized that this kind of apologetics did not fully correspond to the current demands of the time, when it was necessary not to repeat current statements about the truth of Christianity in its essence on the basis of existing methods and authorities, but it was necessary to take into account the very spirit of the time, which denied all authorities and recognized only what could be justified by the logical process of thinking and reduced to such basic self-evident truths that exclude the very possibility of not only denial, but also doubt in them. Having set himself this lofty goal, he began to carefully study the philosophy of Kant and Fichte, thinking to find in them purely philosophical means for the scientific or philosophical justification of Christianity he had conceived. From Kant and Fichte he really learned a lot, especially their amazing process of abstract thinking and strict observation of the extreme limits of the legal capacity of reason; but essentially this philosophy did not satisfy him, but only gave his rich mind a method for developing an independent theological and philosophical worldview, which he expressed in his famous “Introduction to Christ-Catholic Theology.” 5 This work constitutes the main glory of Hermes as an independent theologian, and it had a huge influence on the subsequent direction of Roman Catholic theology, so that in this respect it is not for nothing that he is compared with Schleiermacher, who set the tone for the entire direction of Protestant theology of our century. 6 This work also serves as the main source for determining his theological worldview. His work is divided into two parts: “Philosophical Introduction” and “Positive Introduction”. In the preface to the first, Hermes describes in detail and with remarkable vividness the mental process by which he came to the idea of ​​​​taking up the philosophical foundation of Christianity. With complete sincerity, he tells how, even in his youth, seeing everywhere the dominance of the most unbridled unbelief and skepticism, he felt the extreme helplessness in which every Christian who wants to believe rationally finds himself. The philosophy and science of that time arrogantly demanded that a Christian give a reasonable answer about his faith and hope, and yet Christianity itself was like a city without walls, so that all sorts of doubts and destructive trends could freely invade it. Seeing such a sad state, young Hermes did not know what to do. Skeptical influences threatened to overcome his believing soul. “A lot of questions and doubts arose in me,” he says, “that occupied me day and night, and although I knew how to answer them, upon closer attention I had to admit that in reality I could not answer any of them. I couldn’t even resist the doubt: does God really exist? - until, finally, my conscience, or whatever the irresistible force inside me that was urging me to call it, began to reproach me so often and so loudly for the insincerity with which I wanted to deceive myself regarding the basis of everything, that I finally decided to openly move on to this issue and put it before and above all others.” 7 Here we see before us a person who does not want to be limited to conventional truths, but, out of his deep inner need, wants to explore everything to the first fundamentals, in order to finally be based on such unshakable truths that exclude any possibility of doubt. This is a purely philosophical requirement, and it presupposes in the theologian that boldness of conviction that is not afraid of any research, because it is confident that the truth will always triumph, no matter what tests it is subjected to. It is like gold, which the more it is exposed to fire, the lighter and purer it becomes. Under the influence of such inner impulses, Hermes decided to explore the very foundations of the three main truths of theology - about God, revelation and eternal life. For this purpose, he turned to theological books. “But how amazed I was,” he writes, “when I soon found that what was occupied by my thought was either not touched upon at all in theological books, or was assumed to be already known; Likewise, my inquiries from others did not give me anything comforting, and often even led to a sad result. Sad, but not despairing, after this I returned again to myself, firmly resolved to study and not rest until I found an answer to my questions that would convince me, even if I had to devote my whole life to it. The solution to these issues was more valuable to me than life itself.” This mood took possession of him back in 1795, therefore, when he was still a 20-year-old youth, and then he decided at all costs to achieve such confidence in solving these issues that would give him a completely stable basis for his religious worldview. Since the theology of that time did not satisfy him at all, because it slavishly adhered to the old positions, fearing that, having descended from the point of view of traditional dogmatism, he would not be completely lost in the abyss of modern skepticism, Hermes, sensitive to all the mental trends of his time, turned to the study of contemporary philosophy. At this time, the sage of Koenigsberg stood at the height of his philosophical fame, before whom the entire educated world bowed. Next to him stood another philosopher, Fichte, who also captivated him with the sublimity of his philosophical speculation. It was to them that Hermes turned, in the hope that they would find enough light to illuminate and calm his soul, tired of the search for truth. With his characteristic ardor, he devoted himself to the study of these advanced philosophers and worked on resolving the questions that occupied him for more than 20 years! Only a truly deeply thirsty nature can languish for so long over the resolution of the greatest questions that constitute the very essence of the spiritual existence of every Christian. This yearning was all the stronger because Hermes deliberately decided not to dwell on anything in half-faith or half-conviction, but to doubt everything until finally the “unconditional necessity of reason” itself forced him to come to a definite decision. Here, obviously, Hermes not only sank into the very depths of the critical metaphysics of his time, but went further, and just as Descartes, through merciless doubt in everything, finally found an unshakably stable point of affirmation in his Cogito ergo sum, so Hermes found a similar point in his conviction that reason has a criterion of truth, namely the very “necessity of reason” in recognizing the fundamental truths of existence. Having gone through this thorny path of doubt through the entire process of the deepest philosophical speculation, Hermes, to his great joy, saw that the path he had chosen to seek truth turned out to be completely reliable for him and, after 20 years of languor, led him to his desired goal. “And thus - thanks be to my God, whom I have found! - I came to the conviction that I so desired and sought: I was convinced that God exists; I was convinced that I would exist and live forever: I was convinced that Christianity is a divine revelation.” 8 With the goal of giving others the opportunity in a similar way to find purely scientific confidence in the truths they contain, Hermes published his “Introduction to Christ-Catholic Theology.” In his first philosophical part, after introductory remarks about how necessary a theology built on philosophical principles is, he directly in his first reasoning poses the question: “is it possible for a person to have decisive confidence in the truth, how is it achieved, and is any of them applicable to the proof of Christianity?” The solution to this question expressed the whole essence of his theory of knowledge. Our knowledge is twofold: either we accept it as given to us from the outside, or we ourselves develop it through our own thinking and freely accept it. 9 But in both cases we need such a final criterion of knowledge that would give us confidence in its immutability or truth. Truth, according to its usual definition, is the agreement of knowledge with what is known, 10 but does what is known itself have sufficient guarantees for its objective reality? Kant showed that what seems real to us in perception is only the content of our own spirit and the world in itself is inaccessible to us, so that consequently our knowledge here does not have a solid foundation for itself. Here we walk around in complete uncertainty as to whether what we consider to be objectively real is really real. Thus, theoretical reason does not give us the desired guarantee of the reality of the knowable, and therefore of truth itself. It is therefore necessary to look for another basis for this confidence, without which all our knowledge loses its foundation and even its very meaning. This basis exists, and simple psychology sees it in the fact of verification from the so-called “immediate necessity of reason.” No matter how much we deny the phenomena we perceive, in the end we come to such fundamental provisions that cannot be denied due to the very impossibility of their denial, and their necessary compulsion for reason. Thus, reason cannot deny the truth that two and two make four, and this is because in reason itself lies the inherent need to recognize the undeniable as truth, because there is absolutely perfect harmony between the human ability of cognition and the objective existence of the knowable. And if so, then, consequently, speculation receives for itself a solid support point for critical verification of the entire worldview. But since, in essence, here too we accept the objectivity of what we know not by virtue of the free recognition of reason, but by virtue of its inherent logical necessity, then, consequently, we accept these latter provisions, necessary for reason, only on faith, which is precisely the extreme and last criterion of the reality of our knowledge that is only accessible to our limited spirit. We recognize the existence of the objective world only because we believe in the absolute agreement of our mind with the entire system of world existence. What is faith, according to Hermes? “It is such a state of decision (or conviction) existing in us in the reality of something known, into which we come due to the necessary acceptance of obligatory (practical) reason.” “This faith is completely reasonable and it is the goal of all philosophy, the only true criterion of earthly man and the exclusive condition for his exaltation. On the contrary, unbelief and superstition are equally unphilosophical errors and both avenge their existence by the inevitable humiliation of their followers. Yes, it cannot be otherwise, because what is a person’s faith, so is his reality, and what is his reality, so is his morality (his desires and actions). Therefore, with a very broad view and a deeply religious spirit, the great world apostle says: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). 11 Faith, therefore, according to Hermes, is the last basis that our theoretical and practical reason has for accepting a known phenomenon as true and stopping at the recognition of its objectivity with determination or conviction, as it is caused by the internal necessity of reason itself. Such faith has this advantage over faith in its ordinary usage as the acceptance or recognition of a phenomenon as truth on the basis of external authority, that while the latter forces us to accept as truth something that is given to the mind from the outside and to which the mind must obey as ready given, whether standing above it or simply inaccessible to its verification, “rational” or philosophical faith is the very inner conviction of the mind, which accepts the phenomenon as truth by virtue of its natural necessity or impossibility denying it without destroying any possibility of constructing a worldview, just as it is impossible for reason, due to its internal necessity, to deny the proposition that two and two make four. This faith, in essence, is the deepest basis of knowledge, since without it no knowledge is possible, although it itself in its deepest essence is determined and clarified by reason. As a rational faith, it then provides a solid support point for the development and justification of a true religious worldview, and in this worldview the main essential idea is the idea of ​​God, as such, without which our rational faith cannot conceive of either the completeness, or the very rationality and validity of all world existence, or its origin, which is presupposed by the very necessity of theoretical reason, or its goal, required by the necessity of practical reason. Only the idea of ​​God as the first principle of all being gives complete satisfaction to the inner necessity of reason, and therefore the existence of God for rational faith is precisely the position that the inner necessity of reason itself unconditionally demands. If God exists, then the highest divine Revelation necessarily exists, which is again required by the internal necessity of reason, as aware of its own limitations in knowledge and therefore necessarily in need of such a revelation that would take it beyond the limits of its own limitations, introducing it into the realm of truths comprehended and justified by rational faith. As a logical consequence of the recognition of these two provisions, there is then the recognition of the eternal life or immortality of the human spirit. If there is a God who gave man the highest Revelation, then rational faith further requires the idea of immortality, as such a continuation of the existence of the human spirit, in which the latter could rise above its earthly limitations and be able to fully comprehend that for which the narrow limits of real bodily existence are not enough to fully comprehend, when a person sees everything only as in the mirror of fortune-telling, while in his very nature lies the deepest need to see and contemplate the truth in all the clarity of perfect knowledge. And such knowledge, required by the internal necessity of the mind itself, is possible only in eternal life, as it takes our spirit beyond its temporary limitations. 12 But this theoretical reasoning only leads to an affirmation of the possibility and necessity of these three basic ideas of our rational faith. Their content must be derived from special sources or principles of knowledge, and therefore the question arises: what serves as these sources or principles of knowledge for theological thought? Can reason itself serve as such a source or principle of knowledge? This question is of paramount importance in the worldview of Hermes and subsequently, as we will see, a misunderstanding of his theological system led to his condemnation of something of which he was completely innocent. Judging by the course of his theological and philosophical speculation, one can easily fall into the assumption that Hermes makes reason the main principle or source of knowledge in the field of scientific theology. But this is incorrect, and Hermes himself expressively denies this, saying that reason would only then be such a principle of knowledge if scientific theology had to build its worldview from the ideas of pure reason, regardless of the facts of actual history. Meanwhile, it deals with the facts of history and must accept them as something ready given and only comprehend and explain it to its consciousness with a knowing mind. Thus, according to Hermes, reason itself cannot at all be the principle of knowledge. 13 What is the real principle of knowledge in Christian theology? Hermes recognizes three such principles or sources of knowledge: firstly, the Holy Scripture of the New Testament, as containing the historically real truth about Christ; secondly - oral tradition, by which is meant not contained in the books of the New Testament, but located outside them, at first only orally, and then through writing, the testimony of the theological teaching of Jesus Christ was transmitted, and thirdly - the continuous oral teaching of the church. 14 At the same time, however, Hermes makes a reservation that in the full sense the name of the principle of knowledge belongs only to the first two principles, as the main sources of Christian theology, and the third principle is of secondary importance and retains its significance as a principle of knowledge only to the extent that it coincides in its content with the first two and therefore depends on them. In its essence, this is already, in a sense, a cognitive principle, insofar as its purpose is to make understandable and accessible to everyone those teachings and deeds of Christ that are contained in the first two basic principles of knowledge in Christian theology. This third principle receives in this respect the character of the history of the theological teaching of Christ, and insofar as Christian theology draws from this source, it is called Christ-Catholic. Besides these three principles of knowledge, Christian theology has no others, and those who would like to take reason as such a principle would undermine the very essence of Christian theology, turning it from Christian theology into a “theology of reason.” And such a “theology of reason” would deal “not with what Christ taught, but rather with what He could teach in general, or would begin to determine what He would teach in our time, or even prescribe to Him what He should teach then.” 15 It is clear what kind of arbitrariness this “theology of reason” would introduce into the area where thought must deal with ready-made facts of history that satisfy all the requirements of reason for the latter to recognize them as reliable by virtue of the very “necessity of reason.” 16 Based on the theory of knowledge he developed, Hermes comes to a positive answer to both of these fundamental questions for all further theology. In the second or positive part of his “Introduction”, he already applies the truths he obtained to the particular facts of Christianity, namely to the question of the authenticity and reliability of the books of the New Testament. His reason here finally triumphs over all doubts and Hermes triumphantly appears as a rationally convinced Christian, for whom faith is not something merely accepted on the basis of someone else’s authority, and therefore something external to the spirit, but represented the best victorious wreath in his triumph over all the dark forces of doubt and denial. In the same spirit, he then compiled a whole course of his “Christian Catholic Dogmatics,” 17 published after his death by one of his most devoted students, and even a course of “moral theology,” which, however, did not see the light of day for the simple reason that his minister considered the scattered papers left behind by his master to have no significance and gave them a completely non-literary use. Hermes, as has been said, developed his system of theological and philosophical worldview only after much effort and terribly intense work of the spirit. This tireless search for truth was fully reflected in his professorial activities. His lectures on theology were distinguished by their extraordinary vitality, and since they placed theology on a completely unusual basis of purely rational research and justification of the most essential truths of Christianity, they made a huge impression. His auditoriums were constantly crowded with enthusiastic listeners back in Münster, where he was a professor from 1807 to 1820; but his fame especially increased when he moved to the famous University of Bonn. This university, founded (in 1818) by the generosity of Frederick William IV, who in his philanthropy decided to eclipse all other German universities with his brainchild, really quickly took a leading position among other universities and attracted the best forces from everywhere. Its theological faculty received particular fame, since it, more than other universities, provided freedom of theological speculation - partly, perhaps, due to the fact that Bonn, by its very position, stood, so to speak, on the international frontier, in which trends converged not only from Germany, but also from neighboring France and Holland, to which it at times belonged. In this new church of science, freer from old traditions than all other universities with their more or less medieval structure, there was complete scope for the free theological speculation of Hermes, which not only corresponded to the living demands of the time, but also captivated both with the internal power of persuasiveness and the peculiar freshness of the method itself. The youth were delighted with the new professor, and soon a circle of enthusiastic students gathered around him, who completely adopted the teacher’s method and subsequently became its distributors throughout almost all of Germany, as the best of his students gradually occupied university departments in other cities. 18 It is clear what an unprecedented revival this brought to the hitherto dead scholasticism of Roman Catholic theology, which was numb in photophobia and did not go beyond a mechanical repetition of the dry formulas of medieval dogma. For many, this was an extremely gratifying revelation, and provided clear proof that theological science could consist of something other than the repetition of scholastic propositions, that it could become on a par with other sciences and boldly call upon reason to justify and affirm the eternal truths of Christianity, that in one word it could be as vital as ever-living Christianity itself. But it would be surprising if there were not those who were dissatisfied with such a renewal and revitalization of theological thought. All this revival of theological thought seemed suspicious to them, and the enthusiasm for it on the part of young people even seemed downright dangerous. In fact, here theology was reduced to a philosophical basis, its accomplices were thinkers such as Kant and Fichte, who attached too much importance to reason, destroyed the old worldview, the very proofs of the existence of God, on which dogmatics rested in ancient times, were considered insufficient and everything was subjected to merciless criticism and doubt. Is it not because the theology of Hermes received such vitality that it was completely imbued with the skepticism of the new philosophy and thus fueled doubts in young minds? For the representatives of the old school, this was undeniable, since Hermes himself, in the “Introduction” he published, directly stated that he decided to doubt everything until he reached a point at which necessity itself would force reason to recognize what was beyond all doubt. The path is very dangerous and slippery in general, but in Roman theology it is unheard of and unprecedented. And so the opposition was not slow to appear and became hostile towards the popular theologian. First quietly, and then openly, rumors began to spread that not everything was going well at the Faculty of Theology in Bonn and that a trend had arisen there that was extremely dangerous for the Roman Church. The main spreaders of this rumor were the Jesuits, who, after the restoration of their order in 1814 (“at the request of the entire Christian world,” as Pope Pius VII put it with almost insane naivety in his famous bull Sollicitudo of 1814), decided to justify the hope placed on them as the best guardians of “orthodoxy.” And openly and secretly, the Jesuits managed to form a fairly strong party, which was dissatisfied with Hermes and his theology. Secret denunciations flew to Rome, and from there quite clear expressions of discontent were heard. The Munich nuncio was instructed to investigate this matter. Fortunately for Hermes, the Archbishop of Cologne, who was in charge of the Bonn Theological Faculty, was Count Spiegel, a very educated and enlightened man, who was himself interested in the theological lectures of Hermes and repeatedly personally talked with him on theological issues. He did not find anything dangerous in the views of Hermes and in this sense more than once wrote to Rome, reassuring the zealots with the assurance that he himself valued the truth, and would be the first to suppress error, but he did not find such either in the teachings of Hermes himself or his disciples. Nevertheless, the opposition did not calm down and began to spread the rumor more and more persistently that the Bonn Theological Faculty had become a hotbed of a new dangerous heresy - Hermesianism! One can imagine how much grief and trouble this underground hostility of the Jesuits brought to the famous theologian, who so deeply took to heart the interests of theological science, to which he devoted the best years of his life, working on resolving the most significant issues for every Christian. The most unpleasant and dangerous side of this opposition to the new direction was that it was in the full sense underground: some dark forces were undoubtedly working to crush and strangle the new theological and philosophical direction, various dark rumors and rumors were spreading everywhere, denunciations were flying to the archbishop and to Rome, but who these enemies were remained essentially unknown. They were elusive. Moreover, the very accusations rained down on Hermes and his school were dominated by extreme vagueness and uncertainty: he was accused of rationalism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, but no one could definitely say what exactly. All these griefs and troubles could not help but respond to Hermes, who fell ill and died in 1831, mourned by his many students, many of whom, as already said, occupied university chairs in various cities of Germany, especially southern Germany, and even more joined the ranks of the clergy, carrying away the ideas of their glorious teacher. The death of Hermes not only did not calm his enemies, but only further encouraged them in their campaign against his school. During his lifetime, they did not dare to openly oppose him, since the charm of his personality and authority was too great in science and educated society to allow them to reveal their hostility towards him with impunity. Therefore, they acted underground, limiting themselves to secret denunciations and insinuations. But when he himself left the stage, things took a steeper turn. The enemies began to act openly and shamelessly, and their campaign became even more bitter when Archbishop Spiegel died, who until the end of his life remained unconvinced in his opinion about the trustworthiness of Hermes and his disciples, and in his place was appointed Clemens August von Droste-Wischering, a man of completely different views, narrow-minded and suspicious, and, moreover, had long been hostile to Hermes, with whom he had clashed back in Münster, where he, as vicar general, showed clear disapproval of the lectures of Hermes: when, after Hermes moved to Bonn, some theology students expressed a desire to follow him and move to the same university, he even threatened them with deprivation of the right to occupy priestly places. This was a man better than whom the Jesuits could not have found, and it was they who nominated him to the see of the Archbishop of Cologne in the hope that he would uproot the ulcer of freethinking and heresy that had arisen in Bonn. And he fully justified the hopes placed on him. But how much the matter had already taken a turn unfavorable for the school of Hermes is shown by the fact that as soon as Archbishop Spiegel died (Aug. 2, 1835) and had not yet been appointed, but only a new archbishop was in mind, in Rome the matter was already decided on the account of Hermesianism. Under the influence of numerous denunciations, in which the enemies of Hermes did not cease to prove all the harm and danger of his school, the investigation of this issue from the scientific and theological side in Rome was entrusted, so to speak, to a jury, so to speak, a completely trusted dogmatist in the Vatican, the famous Jesuit scientist Perrone, the author of the most popular and hitherto in the Roman Catholic world “Dogmatica”. 19 And this learned Jesuit dogmatist, although it was known about him that he knew almost no German, presented a detailed analysis of the works of Hermes and with amazing shamelessness, reinforcing his thoughts and directly distorting his expressions, proclaimed the German learned theologian a dangerous heretic who fully deserved condemnation. 20 This verdict of the jury of dogmatists decided the fate of Hermes: a decree was made in this sense in the Vatican, which was issued in the form of a papal breve of September 26, 1835. In it, Pope Gregory XVI, pouring out the bitterness of his heart in complaints about all sorts of machinations of enemies against the church and saying in general about Hermes that he belongs to those people who “always learn and never come to the knowledge of the truth,” condemns and prohibits both his “Introduction to Christo-Catholic Theology” and “Dogmatica”, where the pope sees expressions inconvenient and contrary to the teachings of the church about the essence and rules of faith, about Holy Scripture, tradition, revelation and the teaching position in the church, about the foundations of authenticity, about the proofs of the existence of God, about the essence of God, His holiness, righteousness, freedom and the purpose of creation, about the necessity of grace, about the distribution of its gifts, about rewards and punishments in this life and the afterlife, about the primitive state of the first parents, about original sin and the powers of fallen man. As a general feature of Hermesian errors, the pope notes a clear inclination towards skepticism and indifferentism, disdain for the old theological school, deviation towards heretical opinions, and the restoration of old, already condemned errors. 21 In a word, from the height of the papal throne, the teaching of Hermes was declared false and harmful both in its very essence and in its application to all the essential truths of Christian dogma, and all of his main works were included in the “Index” of prohibited books. 22 This official condemnation of Hermes from the height of the papal throne was an extreme surprise for all his students and admirers, of whom there were already quite a lot - both among professors and educated clergy, and in general the enlightened secular society, which happily rested on these works, sparkling with the freshness of theological thought, from the boring and deadening scholasticism of official Latin theology. No doubt, fear of the power of his followers explains the fact that the breve condemning Hermes was published only in Rome itself, and in Bonn, where it would undoubtedly have been met with extreme disapproval, was transmitted only confidentially, to the deputy archbishop of Cologne, as the main head of the theological faculty at the University of Bonn. 23 Nevertheless, the fact happened and the breve became known in Bonn, and when everyone became familiar with its contents, they were not only amazed, but also completely indignant. It became clear to everyone that the “Holy Father” had become a victim of the blind enmity of the Jesuits towards the theologian they hated. Among the closest students and followers of Hermes (and many of them, as already said, occupied university chairs and enjoyed great influence), the papal breve aroused all the more indignation because the secret machinations through which this condemnation of their famous teacher was achieved became clear to them. This condemnation was a matter of the most shameless slander, because their teacher never adhered to those errors that were attributed to him by papal decree. They themselves were ready to condemn all the errors listed in the log, and indeed condemned them; but the fact is that neither they nor their late teacher ever taught anything like this, and if Hermes had lived, he would have indignantly renounced all those errors and heresies that were attributed to him in such an authoritative document as the papal breve. Obviously, some strange misunderstanding occurred here, or some malicious slander was at work, which misled even the pope himself. Things took a very unpleasant turn. But the campaign against Hermes did not weaken, and his enemies, having found a helpful organ in the Aschaffenburg Catholic Church Newspaper, began to smash both Hermes himself and his followers even more violently. The latter remained silent at first, but since the enemies of Hermes, relying on the papal brevet, began to shamelessly denigrate the memory of the theologian, who was the glory of the University of Bonn, his students could not stand it and decided to come out in print to defend the honor of their teacher. In this sense, an article appeared in the Augsburg General Newspaper of November 19, 1835, which directly expressed surprise at the groundlessness of the condemnation of Hermes. Although, this anonymous article said, the enemies of Hermes won a brilliant victory over him, this victory is unlikely to be lasting, because, in the end, the truth always wins: after all, one can expect “that numerous, and in Prussia, almost all theological departments occupied by friends, students of a glorious, sincerely Christian professor who tirelessly fought for the Catholic Church, will not rest on this matter and will not allow their friend and teacher to be forever exposed to by the entire Christian world as a sophist - even with the help of a papal charter. Judging by the papal brief, one can imagine what characterization the enemies of Hermes presented about him to the Holy Father - about a man who for more than 20 years was the venerable colleague of the most venerable German theologians (some of whom are still living), the friend and adviser of bishops and other prelates in the most difficult matters, the actual founder of the Catholic Theological Faculty in Bonn in scientific terms and the educator of a very large part clergy in two famous dioceses - Munster and Cologne, 24 - in what form, we repeat, they presented such a person! After all, to put it in a nutshell, in the breve he is exposed as a harmful talker, an arrogant seducer and a heretic, such as church history can indicate! One would think that half of the theologians in Germany stormed the Holy See (with their accusations against Hermes)! But in vain would we look in Germany for such zealots for the house of God. While Hermes was alive, only one famous anonymous person, who changed his beliefs many times, dared to attack him in a shameful manner, but Hermes himself did not even consider it worth the trouble to answer him. After his death, some gentlemen who did not have enough courage to identify themselves openly, no matter how much they were called to do so, began to speak out against him in the Aschaffenburg Church Newspaper. However, to date, not one of the numerous learned Catholic journals in Germany, as far as we know, has found or indicated in the theological writings of Hermes any of those gross heresies that are listed in the papal breve. Likewise, we have not heard of any complaints about heresies from the bishops of those dioceses in which the friends and students of Hermes have been teaching theology for half a century... How did the works of Hermes get into the Index? We could tell you something about how, what and who worked here, but this time we will stick only to the papal charter. According to it, excerpts and translations were made from the works of Hermes, which were submitted to a special commission for consideration. But that the Roman translators did not understand Hermes is clear from the papal breve. It says that in the writings of Hermes plura ex ambiguo dicta, plura flexiloque et obscura. Meanwhile, every critical connoisseur of German literature must admit that there are few other German writers who would have such definiteness in word expression, such correct style and such clarity as Hermes. From our long acquaintance with him, we know with what diligence he often sought the only correct expression. It is somewhat broad in places, but essentially for no other reason than so as not to be obscure and not be subject to reinterpretation. We think it would be possible to assign a prize to someone who would be able to find at least one ambiguous and dark expression in his writings. The breve goes on to say that his writings contain absurda - absurdities! Even his German accusers felt forced to protest against this. Hermes and absurda are two mutually exclusive concepts! There can be only one opinion about this in Germany. With such a misunderstanding of his philosophy, it is not surprising that regarding his positive dogma, conclusions were drawn about the heresies it contained that Hermes had never even dreamed of! We therefore hope that after a more correct presentation and discussion of the matter, the honor of the most worthy clergyman of the Catholic Church, one of the deepest and most honest students of the truth and one of the most learned and most honored theologians in Germany, will be restored again.” 25 The author based his hope for the possibility of the pope’s reversal of the condemnation of the teachings and writings of Hermes, pronounced by him, apparently due to a misunderstanding, on the fact that recently before that the pope, in a letter from the Bishop of Strasbourg to the French scientist Botin, who denied the participation of reason in religion, recognized as true and Catholic the very provisions that Hermes essentially recognized, 26 as well as on the well-known fact that Benedict XIII removed the Roman Index "Ecclesiastical History" by Alexander Natalis, included in this Index by Pope Innocent XI. 27 This calm and thorough word in defense of Hermes, however, not only did not convince his enemies, but, on the contrary, only inflamed their enmity even more, and in their main organ (the Aschaffenburg Catholic Church Newspaper) a whole series of articles appeared in which unknown authors ardently defended the correctness of the papal breve, and, not limiting themselves to Hermes himself, they began to directly expose all his students and followers of dangerous heresies, accusing them of that they allegedly decided to mislead the opinion of all of Germany and on this basis create a scandal - to humiliate the head of the Roman church. 28 At the same time, the opponents of Hermes stopped even sparing individuals, and began to directly name those professors and adherents of Hermes who were obvious continuers of his delusion and opposed the verdict of the infallible pope. Such polemics naturally irritated the Hermesians even more, and passions threatened to flare up to an extraordinary degree. The dispute spread to the clergy, who were also divided into parties over the teachings of Hermes. In order to calm the passions somewhat, the Deputy Archbishop of Cologne, Husgen, intervened in the matter and issued a district message to the deans and priests, in which, recalling that the pope had condemned the writings of Hermes and that it was the duty of each of the faithful to sacredly obey the verdict of the Holy See, he made it their duty and strictly forbade them to interfere in this matter, to mention it in public conversations and in teachings. 29 Nevertheless, the controversy between the adherents and opponents of Hermes flared up more and more, and while the university professors, defending not only the honor of their teacher, but also their professorship, continued to argue in favor of the theological school of Hermes, proving that it had been condemned due to a misunderstanding, their opponents were already directly appealing to the zealots of the church, calling on them to make united efforts to fight the dangerous “heresy” that had arisen in Bonn, who not only does not want to admit her error, but even dares to rebel against the verdict of the infallible pope! The excitement from the professors spread to the students, among whom parties also formed and even various polemical pamphlets and handwritten notebooks on the issue of Hermesianism were passed around. 30 This was the situation when, in the summer of 1836, the newly appointed Archbishop Clemens-August, from the family of barons Droste-Wischering, arrived in Cologne. Everyone knew about his attitude towards Hermes, and it was no secret to anyone that even in Munster, as vicar general, he showed obvious hostility towards him. It is not surprising if opponents of the Hermes theological school raised their heads and loudly expressed the hope that the new archbishop, as if by the Providence of God himself, was called to eradicate the plague of heresy that arose at the University of Bonn. The archbishop himself was also aware of the importance of the mission ahead of him, but at first he apparently wanted to show impartiality, so when the programs of the professors of the theological faculty were presented to him for consideration, he submitted them to the university council without any comments, although the programs belonged to avowed “Hermesians.” Soon, however, his mood was clearly revealed when, in November 1836, he was dissatisfied with a defensive article in favor of “Hermesianism” in the 20th issue of the Bonn The Journal for Philosophy and Catholic Theology, 31 which had become the main organ of the Hermesians, wanted to subject this journal to its censorship, citing the resolution of the IV session of the Council of Trent. The professors, however, opposed this, pointing out that the above decree only subjected editions of Holy Scripture and anonymous works to episcopal censorship, and in addition referred to the Prussian state law, according to which only religious and edifying books, and not purely scientific works, needed episcopal approval. Such a rebuff from the professors of the theological faculty, which according to the charter was subordinate to his jurisdiction, apparently irritated him; but he did not resort to direct action through the Ministry of Public Education, although he could declare to it his right to oppose the spread of such teachings, which, in his opinion, were harmful to student youth as disagreeing with the teachings of the church - and, in all likelihood, because he did not hope to find support for himself in the ministry, which stood at the point of view of indifference to scientific disputes at the university. Here, obviously, one of those fatal collisions was presented that are inevitable when pursuing the theory of papal supremacy. Every Roman Catholic hierarch is fatally presented with a dilemma - who to serve: the pope, or the government of the country? Since these two powers are essentially inconsistent with each other, trying to be a faithful papist, he becomes a bad citizen, and trying to be a good citizen, a faithful servant of the state, he betrays his supreme head - the pope. This fatal dilemma has broken many honest hearts, who did not want to compromise with their conscience. The position of Archbishop Clemens-Augustus was also extremely difficult. When he was elevated to the important post of Archbishop of Cologne, he took an oath of allegiance to the King of Prussia and the fundamental laws of the country, and one of the paragraphs of these laws directly states: “No foreign bishop or other church authorities can arrogate to themselves the right to legislative power,” and others decreed that “no bishop can make new regulations in matters of religion and church without the permission of the state, or accept those from foreigners.” church authorities." 32 Meanwhile, in view of the disagreement between the papacy and Prussia on significant issues of social life, Rome exerted irresistible pressure on the archbishop, forcing him to act contrary to these laws, just as the papacy itself acted contrary to them. Thus, according to §118 of Prussian legislation, “all papal bulls, breves and all orders of foreign authorities, before their publication and execution, must be submitted to the state for consideration and approval,” 33 meanwhile the papal breve, which condemned Hermes, not only was not submitted to the government for consideration and approval, but was not even brought to its attention, but was directly presented to the spiritual authorities for execution as a legislative act, although Hermes, as a professor and government official, was a full-fledged Prussian citizen and as such could be deprived of his rights only by the very government of the country, from which he received confirmation of his professorship and the rights associated with it. It is clear that the Prussian government was jealous of such attacks. And in the Hermesian dispute, it sided with the professors of the University of Bonn and, seeing them as victims of papal autocracy, of course it was not averse to supporting them in the fight against the secret papal power. Archbishop Clemens-August fully understood and felt this, and since he, both by his character and by his sympathies, was a pure papist, for whom the voice of the pope is the broadcast of the infallible, he henceforth decided to act exclusively in the interests of the papacy, sacrificing to them his duties towards the state. As a result of this collision, a striking episode of the church-political struggle took place, which led to a catastrophe that caused a lot of noise in its time. That is why, instead of resolving the discord that had arisen at the university through a direct agreement with the ministry, the archbishop decided to resort to a different method of influencing professors - through secret pressure on their listeners, students of the theological faculty. For this purpose, he sent out a circular to the confessors of the city of Bonn (dated January 12, 1837) with the following content: “Since I learned that some confessors in Bonn are in difficulty in giving answers to questions asked to them in confession or in general to questions regarding whether it is possible to read the works of the deceased. Hermes and whether students of theology can attend those lectures in which the provisions contained in those works are proposed, then I instruct you (and all confessors alike) to inform you on my behalf, as it turns out to be more convenient under the circumstances, that 1) no one dares to read either the works of the late Hermes, even those published after his death, nor those that came out in defense of those works, nor handwritten notebooks compiled in the spirit of those works; 2) none of the students of theology dares to attend lectures, the content of which is in accordance with the mentioned works, and 3) regarding the famous papal verdict against the writings of Hermes, then to those who are in doubt or even, following the example of Hermes, abandoning the straight path, try to cover up their disobedience with the objection that the papal verdict was not published and therefore unnecessary, please explain that a) after all, the publication has only the purpose of making a certain order known, and that b) this papal verdict is quite well known to the Hermesians, their writings show this, and c) that if this apology of theirs were truly excusable, then secular power would have full power to hinder the action of the centri unitatis established by the Lord, which of course could not but be pleasant to the Hermesians, as well as to sectarians in general, who can only hold on with the help of secular power, which, however, can never be a judge in matters of this kind. 34 Although this circular was sent out confidentially, of course, everyone soon learned about it, especially since the confessors were not slow to show their zeal in carrying it out and began to instill in theology students the idea that the archbishop would prohibit not only reading the works of Hermes, but also attending lectures by those professors who were suspected of adherence to Hermesianism. The measure had its effect, and the professors of the Bonn Faculty of Theology were surprised to see how their classrooms began to empty. It became clear to everyone that the archbishop sharply opposed the Hermesians, and when the true text of the circular became known, they saw from it that the Hermesians were already directly equated with “sectarians in general.” This prejudice of his towards the professors of the faculty was also manifested in the fact that when the lecture programs for the next half-year were presented to him, he returned them with various harsh remarks. Thus, on the program of one professor it was noted that he “cannot give approval to his lectures, because in them the word of God is not always interpreted with due reverence and not in accordance with dogmas”; on the program of another professor there was a note that the archbishop could not “speak about it until the books on which the readings will be made are presented to him,” and about the program of the third professor, the archbishop noted that he “has nothing against it, if only what is announced will be read.” 35 The faculty apparently left these comments as rather vague, without consequences, and the ministry allowed the programs to be printed without any changes. But nevertheless, it was clear to everyone that things could not be left in this situation, since on the one hand the professors felt in an awkward position, and on the other hand, the students, under the influence of the secret admonitions of their confessors, began to become increasingly alienated from the audiences of the Hermesian professors, and therefore the trustee of the university, Refus, considered it his duty to personally talk with the archbishop in order to induce him either to formally state his accusations against the professors, or not to pose any difficulties for their lectures. The meeting took place on March 19. The trustee asked the archbishop to take some measures to restore internal peace at the university, for example, to call the professors to his place in order to make sure in a conversation with them whether their mood was Catholic or non-Catholic. To this the archbishop, however, said that he did not want to enter into any personal contact with these people until the matter was settled. The trustee asked him that in this case he would demand a written explanation from the professors on dubious points, but the archbishop refused this too. The trustee then asked the archbishop to appoint a special commission to supervise the lectures of the professors, or at least to indicate a reliable textbook to guide them. The archbishop did not agree to this either, and the trustee had to make one more proposal, so that the archbishop himself would more accurately indicate the points that seemed dubious to him in their lectures, in order to then present them to the professors. Apparently Clemens-Augustus agreed to this, but in reality gave the matter a different turn, and after a while he published 18 theses, which set out a kind of Roman Catholic confession of faith, deliberately contrasting it with “Hermesianism.” But these theses were not presented to either the government or the professors, but were simply proposed for signature by confessors and priests. The 18th thesis read: “I promise and swear to show my archbishop, in everything that concerns teaching and discipline, due respect and obedience, without any internal reservation, and I acknowledge that according to the rank of the Catholic hierarchy, I cannot and should not appeal to anyone other than the pope.” 36 The archbishop dealt very harshly with those who refused to subscribe to these theses. Thus, when Chaplain Weber, in Cologne, expressed doubt about the legality of signing these theses, as containing a confession of faith not approved by the pope, although he taught free of charge at the institute for the deaf and dumb and conscientiously performed his pastoral duties, he was deprived of his place and transferred to a worse parish. 37 Thus, Clemens-Augustus's relations with the Hermesians became extremely strained. The government was worried about this, fearing that all this might lead to some kind of unrest. His position was very difficult. Although, according to the laws of Prussia, as shown above, no foreign order could be valid until it was presented to the government of the country and was approved by it, but in this case everything was done in addition to and contrary to the government of Prussia. First of all, a papal decree appeared, which not only condemned the teaching of one of the best professors of the University of Bonn, but also entailed the secret persecution of almost the entire theological faculty by the archbishop, while the latter apparently did not want to enter into any explanations with representatives of government authorities, but directly referred to papal authority, considering it superior to the authority of the government. Moreover, this papal decree was not presented to the government at all, as was certainly required by the laws of the country, in order to give it force and legality of action, and yet, by virtue of this papal decree, officially unknown to the government, the archbishop considered himself entitled to almost close the entire faculty and issue theses and orders tending precisely towards this goal. In order to get out of this difficulty and not further complicate the situation, the trustee of the university, on behalf of State Minister Altenstein, decided to try another measure. Having gathered all the professors of theology, he demanded from them that, under pain of losing their positions, they should not dare to mention the works of Hermes either in lectures or in private conversations in the performance of their duties, and also stop talking about the papal condemnation that fell on these works and generally avoid all polemics for and against Hermes and his theological school. 38 The professors signed the protocol he proposed in this sense, and carried it out in good faith. But the government was mistaken in thinking that with such an event it would achieve pacification of the raging passions. The main organ of the enemies of Hermesianism was not satisfied with this. With purely Jesuitical persistence, he began to expose the internal life of the university, and argued that the professors did not even think of fulfilling the promise given to them, that although they did not call Hermes by name in their lectures, they continued to teach in his spirit, meaningfully called him “a great thinker, and in general bypassed the protocol in every possible way, continuing to preach Hermesianism. In view of this, the newspaper would have wanted more and, finally, directly demanded that all professors suspected of Hermesianism resign, and if they do not resign voluntarily, then the government should force them to do so. 39 The archbishop himself, apparently inspired by the same body around which all the threads of Jesuit intrigue against Hermesianism were concentrated, continued to act in the same spirit, and in order to undermine the authority of the Hermesian professors, he issued a secret order to the students of the hostel so that they should not dare attend anyone’s lectures at the university, except those of professors Klee and Walter, known enemies of the new theological school. But here the order of the archbishop met with the difficulty that the director of the hostel was Professor Achterfeld, one of the most ardent adherents of Hermes, who subsequently made a posthumous publication of his dogmatics. Knowing this, the archbishop had already expressed his distrust of the director-professor in advance, depriving him of the right to make a confession, and when the offended professor turned to him with a request to explain the reason for such disfavor, Clemens-August arrogantly replied: “if I had found it necessary or expedient to explain the reasons that prompted me to take away the cura previously granted to you, then I would have already done it. Cologne, 19 Feb. 1837. Clemens-August." The dormitory students found themselves in an extremely difficult situation and did not know who to listen to, the archbishop, who forbade attending lectures by anyone other than the indicated two professors, or the director, who, relying on the fact that the programs of all professors of the theological faculty were approved by the government, considered himself entitled to demand that students attend all lectures required by the charter without distinction. The matter was even set up quite abruptly, and at the beginning of the six-month semester the students of the dormitory were directly given the choice of either attending all lectures or leaving the dormitory. Most of the students declared that they considered it their duty to adhere to the orders of their archbishop and their confessors, and indeed, out of the seventy students in the hostel, sixty left it, and many of them, having no means of subsistence, had to leave the university completely. 40 The result was sad, but it nevertheless brought considerable joy to the enemies of Hermesianism, since with the graduation of such a large number of theology students, the entire theological faculty of the University of Bonn was essentially empty - and this was all the Jesuit party sought, seeing in this faculty a dangerous center of freethinking for it. However, the matter took such an unpleasant turn and the public excitement was so strong that the government found it necessary to intervene in it and make another attempt to resolve the difficulty through an agreement with the archbishop. But now it was too late. The archbishop no longer wanted to enter into any compromises and stood his ground. His relationship with the government became completely hostile. This was facilitated by the still very aggravated issue of mixed marriages, in which the archbishop did not want to know any demands of the government and, with the inflexibility of a faithful servant of Rome, acted in the interests of the latter. Since resolving the issue of mixed marriages was especially important for the government, because it was associated with significant state interests in maintaining the preponderance of Protestantism as the main spiritual and popular element in Prussia, it, in an effort to persuade the archbishop to its view on this issue, even promised him to help suppress the Hermesians. But that didn't help either. Clemens-Augustus increasingly arrogantly rejected any proposals from the government, directly declaring that he obeyed only his supreme head, the pope, and followed his orders. Then the government had no choice but to take repressive measures. It invited the archbishop to resign, promising him a pension of 12,000 thalers, but he arrogantly rejected this offer, saying that “it would be better to live on alms from the faithful, like the ancient bishops, and still do his duty.” With this, the government's patience was overflowing, and on November 15 an order was issued to arrest Archbishop Clemens-Augustus, who, under escort of dragoons, was escorted to the Minden fortress. 41 Such a catastrophe ended the struggle that arose over Hermesianism between spiritual and secular authorities. But although the latter’s main opponent was eliminated, the Jesuit party was not broken, and on the contrary, with even greater bitterness it continued to crush the enemies of the church, i.e. Hermesians, and praise its valiant champion, Archbishop Clemens Augustus, whom extreme papists did not fail to proclaim even “Athanasius the Great” of the 19th century. 42 The Hermesians continued to defend the honor of their teacher and his school, but how difficult it was for them to fight against the pricks was shown by a very curious episode of this struggle, which occurred a few months before the arrest of the archbishop. The most staunch and zealous defenders of Hermes and his theology were professors Elvenich and Brown, and especially the first, who, back in 1836, published an essay in Latin in which, having laid out the philosophical and theological system of Hermes with philosophical thoroughness, he showed the entire groundlessness of accusing him of heresy. 43 But since it was obviously impossible for Clemens-Augustus to obtain the truth for their teacher, who was innocently convicted, in their opinion, these courageous professors even decided to go to Rome to personally express their reasons in favor of Hermes and his theological school there before the pope. The government, which began to be very burdened by these disputes, gave them permission to do this, and they actually went to Rome, where they arrived at the end of May 1837. But all measures had already been taken to ensure that their mission would end in nothing. And indeed, there they were immediately thrown into the very hornet's nest of their teacher's worst enemies and placed at the disposal of the Jesuit general Rootaan, who was entrusted with investigating their case, although it was he who led the whole intrigue against Hermes. With his characteristic skill, he began to exhaust the patience of the professors, trying to drag out the matter as long as possible. Only a month later they managed to achieve an audience with the pope, who, however, did not give them any definite answer, noting to them only: “I think that you came to Rome not to teach the Holy See, but to learn from it.” Meanwhile, the Jesuit general continued to push them around with proud disdain. First of all, he instructed them to translate all the works of Hermes into Latin. The work was enormous, but the professors sat down to it. When they, however, translated part of them (namely, part of the “Introduction”) and presented it to Rootaan with an explanatory note, the latter, on behalf of the pope, expressed displeasure to them that they were conducting the matter too slowly and deliberately delaying it. They should have done this translation earlier and brought it with them to Rome, but they only now started it. In addition, they started with the positive part of the “Introduction,” when they should have started with the philosophical part, which contains precisely the main misconceptions of Hermes. Why all these delays and subterfuges? “In all this,” the Jesuit general wrote to them, “the Holy Father saw useless delays and behavior that was not accustomed to in Rome. If there could remain any doubt whether the teaching of Hermes was correctly condemned, then in view of the Acta Hermesiana (works of Elvenich) it should disappear. Why further negotiations? This unabashedly arrogant attitude showed the professors that their cause was lost. From Rome, obviously, they could not hope for an impartial study. They tried once again to appeal to the pope's secretary of state, Cardinal Lambruschini, begging him to investigate the matter, and submitted a note addressed to the pope himself. But Lambruschini returned their last letter to them unopened, accompanied by a note in which he wrote, among other things: “You have entered the path of error. Instead of submitting, you cling to the distinctio juris et facti invented by the Jansenists. Don't write to me in future. The matter is over - causa finita est, and may the delusion itself end with it.” 44 Thus Roma locuta – causa finita! The ill-fated professors had to get out of Rome as quickly as possible. They were finally convinced that there was no more truth in Rome, and upon returning to their homeland they continued, at their own risk and peril, polemics with the opponents of their school, in their “Journal of Philosophy and Catholic Theology,” but their cause was obviously lost, and in 1844, two of the main advocates of Hermesianism, Professors Brown and Achterfeld (publisher of “Dogmatics” of Hermes) were prohibited from further lecturing, and they were forced to resign, although the Prussian government, in order to calm public opinion, retained their full professorship. Finally, in 1847, Pope Pius IX fully confirmed the Hermesian verdict of Gregory XVI. In vain, the unyielding defender of the honor of his teacher, Professor Elvenich again brilliantly proved the entire groundlessness of this new condemnation and irrefutably showed that the entire condemnation of Hermes rested on a misunderstanding, since in fact the teaching of Hermes in essential points is identical with the teaching of the pope himself, 45 - the matter was hopeless and inevitably had to perish under the weight of a double condemnation, and indeed, it perished. Little by little the theological school of Hermes was completely suppressed. This is how the first attempt at free theological self-determination in the depths of Roman Catholicism in the 19th century ended sadly. It was completely strangled by the Jesuits. But her story is highly instructive. Now examining this entire “Hermesian dispute,” one cannot help but marvel at how much effort was spent on destroying the learned theologian who dared to express his theological and philosophical views, which were the fruit of the painful and long-term work of a deeply serious and true believer. Looking at this whole matter objectively, one can only be surprised at the suspicion of Rome and its resourcefulness in inventing all sorts of heresies. We have already sufficiently defined above the general character of the worldview of Hermes. Let us even admit that, being carried away by the philosophical-critical method, in his philosophical and theological speculations he relied too much on reason. Thus, putting it forward as a criterion of truth, he expressed the idea that the truth of supernatural revealed teaching is determined for us by the fact that it does not contradict naturally revealed teaching, i.e. with the truths of reason. The thought, of course, is bold and can lead to confusion by the harshness of its expression, although in a certain sense even it can find justification in the undoubted position that since human reason is a reflection of the Mind of God, then in its normal state no truth of God can stand in contradiction with what human reason recognizes and should recognize as such. And of course Hermes, following Kant, had in mind precisely “pure reason”, which by its very essence is intended to contemplation of the truths of the Mind of God. His mistake was also that he did not give faith an independent meaning, but derived it from the same reason, seeing in it that moment of rational perception when the very “necessity of reason” forces one to recognize a certain position as truth, giving it unconditional determination and confidence. But all these are abstractions that are completely inaccessible to the ordinary consciousness of the masses, and since this speculation, according to Hermes’s own consciousness, gave him a strong support in faith, freed him from the doubts that oppressed him and could correspond to the living demands of the time for the scientific justification of the truths of Christianity by the method of purely philosophical research, then one would think that Rome would at least treat this theological movement with indifference, as an esoteric teaching, not going beyond the bounds of close special circles of theologically and philosophically educated individuals. Meanwhile, Rome became extremely excited, its faithful servants - the Jesuits - sounded the alarm, launched all their centuries-tested machinations - slander and denunciations, nominated their main dogmatist for polemics with the Bonn professor and ensured that the pope himself, having no sufficient grounds for his verdict, except for perverted texts and distortions in thoughts, condemned the teaching with his authority Hermes, accusing him of a variety of errors and heresies, from which both his closest disciples and, in their opinion, Hermes himself would be horrified and indignant - due to the complete groundlessness of such a sentence! That, due to its extreme abstraction, few of his zealous opponents really understood the teaching of Hermes, his opponents themselves, the more conscientious ones, admit this. Thus, K. Werner, the author of the famous “History of Catholic Theology,” directly admits that “for a long time there was no clear and coherent presentation and illumination of the Hermes teaching from the point of view of church orthodoxy and in relation to those various points that were indicated by the Holy See as incompatible with traditional church teaching.” 46 Only in 1845, the published work of F. Werner for the first time provided a coherent presentation and theological criticism of the dogmatic errors of the condemned school. 47 Thus, according to the consciousness of the representatives of Roman Catholic theology themselves, Hermes was condemned much earlier than anyone was able to clearly understand and coherently present his worldview; and we can add that even after this, none of his theological opponents bothered to thoroughly study the philosophical and theological system of Hermesianism, proof of which can be the presentation of this system by K. Werner himself - very vague, dry and obviously unclear to his own consciousness. The main goal of these polemicists was, at all costs, to find in the writings of Hermes justification and confirmation of the papal verdict on them, and for this, of course, all sorts of means were justified - overexposure and distortion. In any case, such a subtle researcher as the venerable historian Nippold directly says that Hermes is completely innocent of what he was especially accused of. Although he, together with Kant, proceeded from systematic doubt, which he wanted to overcome not by external compulsory authority, but by the internal necessity of reason itself, but by saying that “every rational person is forced by his God-given reason to recognize church authority as standing above reason, he thereby defines his ultimate goal - not to damage church dogma, but to substantiate it, to place it above all doubt. He does not recognize reason as the principle of knowledge, but this principle lies in three main provisions - in scripture, tradition and the infallible torment of the church; his mind is only a cognizing principle and its work consists precisely in truly cognizing and expounding these principles of knowledge. Reason should not be a judge of the truths of faith contained in Revelation, but only testify that Revelation is historically and internally true.” 48 If we then take into account that Hermes actually recognized such a method of theological research in his “Introduction to Theology,” i.e. in basic or natural theology, which specifically requires the application of reason to the understanding of fundamental theological truths, and in relation to dogma, he himself was aware of the need for due restrictions in this regard, as he directly speaks about it, 49 then the injustice of his condemnation will become all the more obvious to an impartial researcher and the more mysterious the true reason for this condemnation becomes. If so, then what is the reason for such extreme agitation of the Roman hierarchy and the Jesuits against the writings of Hermes and his theological school? This reason must be sought not at all in what the papal brevet and all subsequent interpreters of it and the enemies of Hermes pointed out, but in something completely different, namely in the very spirit with which these writings and the movement they caused were imbued. With the insight characteristic of the papacy and especially its main agent and champion - the Jesuit Order, sophisticated especially during the long struggle for the rights and inviolability of the papacy against encroachers on them since the Reformation, they were extremely suspicious of everything that could in one way or another undermine the authority of the papacy. They saw everywhere Febronianism, which at the end of the last century boldly tore away from the papacy the artificially and illegally created aura of unlimited autocracy and introduced it into the legal limits of the primacy of honor. 50 Meanwhile, the entire system of Hermes, however, not with loud cries and protests against the excesses of the papacy (there are no such protests in it at all), but with its very essence and the basic principle of the theological worldview undoubtedly undermined the papacy in the system of Christianity as something not absolutely necessary in it, and even contrary to the very principle of knowledge. If Hermes taught that even in solving the most essential questions, such as the existence of God, revelation and eternal life, he followed the path of doubt until reason itself, by virtue of its necessity, gave him a decisive affirmation on them, then a similar method applied to the papacy and its entire system could only lead to the denial or elimination of the papacy from the system of Christianity. After all, it, as based on untruth, confirmed by forgeries and all sorts of artificial machinations, obviously could not take place in a system that put forward reasonable doubt as a criterion of truth, seeking the fundamental principles of a truth that cannot be denied due to the “necessity of reason”: the papacy did not and could not have such fundamental principles, and therefore, when applied to it, this method of research inevitably had to lead to denial. Although Hermes himself did not carry out his method so far, but limited himself only to the study of the fundamental truths of Christianity, it was clear that if only this analysis was further carried out, the entire papacy with its huge structure, built over the course of almost one and a half thousand years, would inevitably collapse under the all-crushing analysis of pure reason, and this was clear to the Jesuits more than anyone, as the most zealous champions of the papacy, created by the papacy and specifically for maintaining and strengthening papacy. As created by untruth and resting on untruth, the papacy, like any artificially supported system, suffers damage even when it is not only directly denied, but also when it is simply kept silent about it or even given an insufficiently prominent place in the system of Christianity, or, finally, when they simply talk about Christianity in general, without giving it a specific form. In this case, papism always reveals a nervous jealousy, and quite understandable in its position, since any silence about the papacy as a necessary condition of Christianity itself inspires it with the thought of whether this silence lies in its negation. Meanwhile, Hermes not only kept silent about papism as a necessary condition for the existence of Christianity, but even directly put forward the idea of ​​Christianity as independent of any local restrictions. In this regard, it is highly significant that he avoids the very term “Roman Catholic” as applied to the Christian Church and its theology and introduces a term that later directly became the motto of a Christianity independent of the papacy. He precisely introduces the term “Christo-Catholic” in application to theology and dogmatics, 51 and by this he implicitly wants to show that he does not mean theology in its Roman coloring, but namely the theology of Christ’s Catholic Church, and the writings themselves serve as direct confirmation of this. 52 This is precisely what raised a storm against him in the camp of the Jesuits, these ardent champions of papism as the very essence of Christianity, and all other accusations of Hermes of errors and heresies were made only to divert attention, as was often practiced by the papacy in general and is still practiced by the congregation of the Index, which declares when banning certain books not at all the motives and reasons by which it was actually guided, but completely side and often completely disrespectful. This explains the strange fact that Hermes was accused of such errors and heresies, which his disciples renounced and which Hermes himself would undoubtedly have renounced: at the heart of the entire persecution of Hermes and his school lay the true conviction that his theological and philosophical system, consistently implemented, did not give place to the papacy and fundamentally undermined this entire artificially created structure. Be that as it may, the first movement of theological thought towards free self-determination in the 19th century was strangled at the roots. The Hermesians were scattered and little by little the entire school of Hermes was destroyed. The Jesuits rejoiced at their triumph over the hated “Hermesianism.” But they forgot the great truth that the spirit cannot be extinguished by any external measures, and while they extinguished it in one point, it sought to manifest itself in another, and the more zealously they tried to suppress it, it declared itself. And indeed, while the struggle against Hermesianism was going on, a theologian-thinker appeared on the scene who went much further in this same direction and not only tacitly affirmed Christianity apart from papism, but also directly denied the latter and even - which is especially significant - openly pointed to the example of the Orthodox East as proof of the possibility of the existence of Christianity without a pope. We will now move on to this remarkable personality, almost completely unknown among us, although in part he was in direct contact with Russia and had a certain influence on it. These essays represent part of a study of the history of internal movements within Roman Catholicism in the 19th century. This study is in close connection with our previous study on “Roman Catholicism in America” (St. Petersburg, 1882). Already in that study (also mainly dealing with Roman Catholicism in the 19th century), we had to delve into the internal life of Roman Catholicism to explain its external church life; but there this was only a secondary matter, now we intend to specifically outline the phenomena of the inner life of Roman Catholicism in the 19th century, precisely those currents of theological thought in which the deep need of the ever-living Christian spirit was expressed to free itself from the yoke of the medieval system in order to break out into the freedom of true Christianity - to achieve “the freedom of the children of God.” In our theological and church-historical literature, this is, one might say, a completely untouched area, so that the literature relating to it is almost completely absent from our main theological repositories, and we had great difficulty in collecting it abroad through antiquarian means. Hence, even from this side, studying it seems to us far from superfluous, and in view of what was said above, even with everything necessary. It is known that when Pius VI died in captivity on August 28. 1799, there was no longer a pope, no papal state, and not even a college of cardinals to form a conclave. In revolutionary clubs in Paris they blasphemously celebrated a funeral feast for the death of the papacy, and with it, Christianity!.. Untersuchungen über die innere Wahrheit des Cbristenthums. Münster 1805. For his life see Esser, Heber Hermes Leben und Lehren. Cologne 1832. Einleitung in die christkatholische Theologie, von Georg Hermes. I Theil: Philosophische Einleitung, 2 Aufl. Münster 1831. II Theil: Positive Einleitung, Munster 1829. We translate the term Christkatholisch adopted by Hermes with the term “Christ-Catholic”, and not “Christian-Catholic” (as Pope Pius VII later did in his bull - Christiano-catholicus) because Hermes, like his followers, meant by this term compare two Catholicisms - namely the Catholicism of Christ and the Catholicism of Rome. Such a comparison for the papacy, of course, was completely inconvenient, and therefore the pope wanted to soften this opposition by translating the term Hermes with the word Christiano-catholicus. The famous church historian Nippold places Hermes even higher than Schleiermacher in this regard. See his Geschichte der Neuesten Kirchengeschichte, 3rd ed. Bd. II, pp.636–637. On the significance of Schleiermacher, see “Christian Reading” 1897. I, p.127 et seq. Einleitung I Th. pp. IV and V Vorrede. Einleitung I Th. page XI. In the first case, according to the terminology of Hermes, it is Fürwahrhalten, and in the second, Fürwahrhannehmen. See Einleitung I, pp. 83 et seq. Wed. exposition of the teachings of Hermes in K. Werner, Geschichte der katholischen Theologie, 1866, p. 406 et seq. and Gams, Geschichte der Kirchein XIX Jahrhundert, III, pp.500 et seq. The presentation of both suffers from obvious overexposures - in the sense of the subsequent papal condemnation of this teaching. See below. All this finds literal confirmation in the very writings of Hermes. Thus, on page 65 of his “Introduction” (1st philosophical part) he directly refutes the opinion of those who try to look at reason as Erkenntnissprinzip der christlichen Theologie. Reason cannot at all be such a principle because “Vernunft umöglich die Geschichte einer Thatsache aus sich hervorgeben; und darauf kommt dock alles an, solange nach christlicher Theologie die Frage ist.” “But should reason be completely excluded from this area?” - asks Hermes, and decisively answers: - Als Erkenntniss-Prinzip durchaus. “But as a cognizing principle,” he adds, “it occupies a high place and in essence is the only one” (Einleitung I Theil p. 65). Einleitung I, 62–63. All this must be kept in mind in order to understand the dispute that subsequently arose over the essence of the teachings of Hermes. See below. Hermes devotes the entire first part of his “Positive Introduction to Theology” to this question of the reliability of the writings of the New Testament as a source of Christian theology, and his argument is striking in the harmony and thoroughness of the logical development of thought in solving the most important problems of New Testament criticism. Die christkatolische Dogmatik, ed. in three volumes by Hermes' students Achterfeld and Brown in 1831–1834, after the author's death The influence of the living word of Hermes was enormous. A whole theological school soon formed around him in Bonn, which was joined not only by his closest students - Braun, Achterfeld, Vogelsang, Müller, but also by his senior colleagues, like Schulz and Ritter, the philosopher Elvenich, and the lawyer Droste-Gulshoff. His students occupied departments at universities and seminaries in Breslau and Braunsberg, Cologne, Trier, Kulm and Ermeland. Nippold, Bd. II, p.636. His Praelectiones theologicae, in 9 volumes, went through up to 40 editions and is considered an inexhaustible arsenal of polemics against Protestantism and other faiths - in defense of Roman Catholicism in its most typical, scholastic medieval expression. "The main role at the very beginning of the matter was played especially by the Jesuit Father Perrone (the same one whose monstrous polemical techniques caused Prof. Gase's Handbuch der Polemik). At the same time, he, as a truly Roman exemplary dogmatist, revealed such ignorance of the German language that he polemicized precisely against those expressions of Hermes, which were completely misunderstood by him. " This is how Nippold responds, vol. II, p. 637. Prof. Frederick also says that Hermes was actually condemned by Pope Gregory XVI on the basis of a review by the Jesuit Perrone, compiled through often completely falsely translated texts from the works of Hermes Geschichte des vat. Concils, I, 213. It is interesting to compare with this the statement in the papal bull itself that the writings of Hermes were examined “Theologis germanicae linguae.” peritissimis." See the text of the bulls in Acta historico-ecclesiastica, 1835. p.13. Gaze also testifies to how Jesuit Perrone was “peritissimus germanicae linguae”, “The Jesuit Prof. Perrone,” he says, “in his dogmatic work refuted one saying of Hermes, and, however, it later turned out, and he himself admitted it, that it was only a misunderstanding due to ignorance of the German language.” Hase, Die beiden Erzbischöfe, p.74. Prof. Elvenich developed this issue in particular detail and detail in his work - Der Hermesianismus und Johannes Perrone, Breslau 1844. Brevet dated September 26, 1835 Dum acerbissimas. This document is so important in terms of characterizing the papal attitude towards theological science that it deserves a more accurate reproduction (in original terms). The Breve begins like this: Dum acerbissimas ingemiscimus catholicae religionis calamitates, et jacturas, ex teterrimo, diuturnoque bello, quo nefarii homines, apertique Ecclesiae hostes, coacto undique agmine, totis viribus, totisque artibus, turn armis, turn calumnis, turn contumeliis et maledictis, turn seditiosis denique, sacrilegisque libellis, earn, si fieri posset, prorsus exinanire ac desfruere adnituntur, and then it is said that Hermes belongs to those, qui, semper discentes et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes, magistri existunt erroris, quia veritatis discipuli non fuerunt. Peregrinis quippe improbandisque doctrinis sacra ipsi inficiunt studia, - that he is a regio, quem universa traditio et sancti patres in exponendis ac vindicandis fidei veritatibus tramite stravere, deflectens, quin et superbe contemnens et damnans, tenebrosam ad errorem omnigenum viam moliaturin dubio positivo tanquam basi omnis theologicae inquisitionis, et in principle quod statuit, rationem, principem normam ac unicum medium esse, quo homo assequi possit supernaturalium veritatum cognitionem, that in general in his writings there are doctrinae absonae a catholicarum veritatum principiis, plura reperiri perperam disputata, plura ex ambiguo dicta, plura flexiloqua et obscura, ad implicandam et vitiandam catholicorum dogmatum intelligentiam arte et apte concinnata, et ut plurimum ex acatholicorum commends erroribusque congesta: praesertim circa naturam fidei et credendorum regulam, Scripturam, traditionem, revelationem et ecclesiae magisterium, motiva credibilitatis, circa argumenta, queis existentia Dei adstrui confirmarique consuevit, ipsius Dei essentiam, sanctitatem, justitiam, libertatem, ejusque finem in operibus, quae a theologis vocantur ad extra, nec non circa gratiae necessitatem, ejus que ac donorum distributionem, retributionem praemiorum et poenarum inflictionem, circa protoparentum statum, peccatum originale ac hominis lapsi vires, that in general these books contain “false, unreasonable, seductive teachings (captiosae), leading to skepticism and indifferentism, echoing heresy.” See Acta historico-ecclesiastica The literature on the subject of “Hermesianism” is very extensive. Although the movement itself was not particularly long-lasting, it greatly excited minds, and this excitement not only swept across Germany, dividing it into hostile parties, but also resonated in other Roman Catholic countries. The University of Bonn became the main center of Hermianism, and its literary organ was the university journal “Zeitschrift für Philosophie und kath. Theologie”, where since 1833. Many articles were published in defense of Hermes and his theological school. Then came a whole series of writings and pamphlets by both supporters and opponents of Hermes, and in addition many different pamphlets (some anonymous), in which this issue was hotly discussed (for example, Die Wahrheit in der Hermei’schen Sache. Darmstadt 1837). For the most part, this volatile polemical literature is now a bibliographic rarity. For a more or less complete review of this literature, see Nippold, Handbuch der neuesten Kirchengeschichte, Bd. II, pp.837–839. Particularly useful in terms of an indicator of the mood of that time is the Repertorium, published by Professor Reinwald of the University of Bonn, which gave a detailed account of all phenomena in the field of theological literature. The most important official documents related to this are collected in Acta historico-ecclesiastica seculi XIX, ed. Revnvald, for 1835, 1836 and 1837. In general, the papal bull condemning Hermes was not openly announced according to the established procedure, but entered, so to speak, by smuggling, so that neither the government nor the university knew about its existence for a long time, and when its text appeared in the newspapers, they doubted its authenticity. The government also ignored it, since it was not communicated to it through official means. The whole matter was conducted in a purely Jesuit way, in order to avoid sharp protest from professors and public opinion against such an unfounded condemnation of a very popular theologian professor. On this see Die Wahrheit, pp. 7–13 et seq. What general respect and trust, as a professor and shepherd, Hermes enjoyed during his lifetime from Archbishop Spiegel of Cologne is shown by the fact that the archbishop, having given him the high position of rector of the cathedral chapter in Cologne, petitioned the pope for permission to combine this position with a professorship at the university, for which a special papal dispensation followed. Acta historico-ecclesiastica seculi XIX, for 1836, pp. 264–267. It is worth noting that regarding Botin’s teaching, the later famous author of the famous “Symbolism” Möhler wrote to him an extensive letter, and in his letter, defending the rights of reason in theological science, he expressed positions very close to the point of view of Hermes. See this letter in Acta 1836. p.338 et seq. The main of these articles, see Acta for 1836. p.269 et seq. The excitement that was among professors and students about the condemnation of their teacher Hermes can also be evidenced by the fact that letters passed through their hands in which both the Breve and the highest church authorities were extremely sharply condemned. So in a letter to Professor Achterfeld it was said: "You will not believe how excited I am by the shame that such unfortunate blunders of the highest church authorities are bringing upon our church. One such fact destroys all the hitherto acquired reputation that our truly scientific superiority over Protestantism gave to Catholicism. And if you only knew what dirty hands shuffle the cards that poor dad has to play - and under the table they pull the wire that sets the pope’s hands in motion to sign such condemnations and lightning-fast threats!” Hase Die beide Erzbischöfe. p.83. Some professors, not daring to utter the very name of Hermes after the bull, nevertheless often mentioned him in lectures, calling him simply “a great thinker.” Acta for 1836, p.82. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und katholische Theologie. Auszug aus dem Preussischem allgem. Landrecht, §§135 and 117. See Wahrbeit, appendix pp. 43–44. Auszug aus dem Preussischem allgem. Landrecht, p.43. Acta hist.-eccles. for 1837, p. 442. Acta hist.-eccles. for 1837, p.408. Acta hist.-eccles. for 1837, p.410. Hase, Die beiden Erzbischöfe p.91. The archbishop went so far in his zeal against Hermesianism that he began to persecute many among the clergy on suspicion of sympathy for this teaching, and on the same suspicion he dismissed all the teachers of the theological seminary in Cologne. See Gieseler – Lehrbuch den Kirchengeschichte, Bonn 1855, Bd. V, p.351. Acta hist.-eccles. for 1837, p.443. Minutes of April 21, 1837 Die Wahrheit in der Hermesschen Sache, p.27. Hase, Die beiden Erzbischöfe, p.93. The extent to which the arrested archbishop did not enjoy sympathy even in the cathedral chapter of Cologne, this was clearly revealed from the latter’s report to the pope on the occasion of the catastrophe. Expressing regret over the sad incident, the cathedral chapter wrote: “In what ways our most venerable archbishop sinned against domestic laws and for what reasons he lost the favor of the king is not our business to investigate and discuss this. But we cannot hide the fact that we could not approve of his course of action in all respects. Only a few were given access to it; He apparently did not trust many, and especially learned and experienced persons, and neglected their advice, while he himself, due to his advanced age, was hardly able to manage such a large and little-known diocese: he treated many, and especially young priests, very unfriendly and not at all canonical, and through fear forced them to sign theses, which not all agreed with the established teaching of the church; He tried to destroy much of what had been previously and especially by his pious predecessor, of his pious memory, established quite correctly and with great difficulty, so that in the way he governed, not so much zeal for creation was revealed as a desire for destruction. We noticed all this, not without bitter sorrow, and would have already brought a complaint to the Holy See if we had not been restrained by the high dignity of the archbishop, our respect for him and the hope that experience would teach him to follow the best advice.” Pope Gregory XVI, however, did not particularly take this aspect of the matter into account and in his illocution at the consistory meeting of December 10, he burst out thunder against the Prussian government, accusing it of despotism and violence against the Roman Church. See also p. 109 et seq. Hase, Die beiden Erzbischöfe, pp.97 et seq. It is in this sense that the well-known work of Görres, “Athanasius”, which in its time caused a lot of noise, was written. See his Acta Hermesiana, scripsit P.I. Elvenich, Goettingae 1836. A detailed and documented account of this was subsequently made by the professors themselves in a special book in Latin: Acta Bomana, ediderunt Dr. Braun et Dr. Ehenich. Hannoveriae et Lipsiae 1838. See Pius IX, die Hermesianer und der Erzbischof von Geissel. Offene Briefe von Dr. P.I.Elvenich, 2-te Auflage, Breslau 1848. K.Werner. Geschichte der katholischen Theologie, München 1866, p.415. K.Werner. Geschichte der katholischen Theologie, München 1866. Here, of course, published under a pseudonym (and this is typical!) Myletor is the work Der Hermesianimus, vorzugsweise von seiner dogmatischen Seite dargestellt in Briefen zweier theologie. Freunde, Begensburg 1845. Its author later turned out to be F.X. Werner. Nippold, – Handbuch der Neuesten Kirchengeschichte, 3rd ed. Berlin 1890, Bd.II, p.639. For more details on this, see Meltzeer in his excellent biography of one of the most important students of Hermes Balzer (1877). Sufficient confirmation of this can be provided by our above presentation of the Hermes system. It is interesting to compare what was written in the Roman Catholic journals against Hermes after the papal condemnation of his writings with the impression made by the leading Roman Catholic journal, the Tübingen Quartalschrift, when its “Introduction” first appeared. The magazine wrote that “this work expresses such a thirst for truth, such unyielding fortitude in the pursuit of it, such an irresistible desire for scientific firmness, such warm religiosity and such deep-rooted tolerance for dissenters that the reader is carried away by the head and heart of the author and his work." See Theologische Quartalschrift 1820, approx. in Nippold ibid., p. 636. See for example Einleitung I, page XXIII (Vorrede) and especially the introduction to his Christkath. Dogmatik. About Febronianism, see the article by P.S. Sokolov in “Christian Reading” for 1897 ““A champion of old Catholicism in the last century.” So he calls his main work “Introduction 11” “Einleitung in die christ katholische Theologie”, his Dogmatics - Die christ katholische Dogmatik. The term Christkatholisch later became a truly specific term in the whole movement towards independence from the papacy in the so-called “German Catholicism” (we will talk about it later) and it was still retained in Switzerland by the Old Catholics, as a term indicating the recognition of the head of the church not of the Pope, but of Christ. In this sense, “Christian Catholicism” was advocated, for example, by the lawyer Ellendorf in the 40s. In his “Historisch-Kirchenrechtlichen Blättern für Deutschland” (Berlin 1840), he wrote directly and expressively: “Jch bin christkatholisch, aber nicht gömisch (Bd.Ill, p. 347); like the ancient men (Polycrates of Ephesus, the bishops of Mapoasia, Firmilian and his companions in Pontus, Cyprian and the bishops of Africa) I do not believe in the divine establishment of the Roman primate and everything associated with it, but I believe in everything that those men believed, i.e. Jch bin christkatholich ". See J. Kamre, Geschichte der religiosen Bewegungen der neuern Zeit, Leipzig 1862. I Band, p. 43 note.