Hermes, Georg

HERMES, her'mes, GEORG: German Roman Catholic theologian; b. at Dreierwalde, near Teck lenburg (20 m. n.n.e. of Münster), Life. Westphalia, Apr. 22, 1775; d. at Bonn May 26, 1831. He graduated in phi losophy and theology at Münster, was appointed teacher in the gymnasium there in 1798, and ad vanced to the priesthood the following year, al though he continued teaching. In 1807 he began lecturing on theology at the academy of Münster, particularly on the introduction to theology, which he considered of great importance, because its object was to show the reasonableness and necessity of Christianity. In 1819 he was called to the University of Bonn as professor of dogmatic theology. His activity and success reached their climax here, and he formed a school of his own. Toward 1830 his influence was dominant in the theological faculty at Bonn, in the seminaries at Culm, Treves, and Ermeland, and extended even to Breslau and Braunsberg. He had followers in the other faculties, too, e.g., P. J. Eivenich (1796-1886), in philosophy, who became professor in Breslau in 1829, and be came an Old Catholic in 1870. Some of his fol lowers among theologians were J. W. J. Braun (q.v.); Johann Heinrich Achterfeld (1788-1877), who became professor of theology at Braunsberg in 1818 and professor at Bonn in 1826; and Johann Baptista Baltzer (1803-71), who became professor of theology at Breslau in 1830. When Count Spiegel was made archbishop of Cologne the influence of Hermes became more powerful, since the archbishop appointed him honorary canon and examining chaplain. The latter position furnished him the opportunity to raise the educational level among the clergy, and to keep out of influential po sitions men who did not share his views. D6l linger's appointment as professor of church history is said to have been prevented by him. The bishops of the Rhine provinces favored his pupils, since they made studious, earnest, and diligent priests. Hermes developed his theological views in his Untemuchungen über die innere Wahrheit des Chris tentums (Münster,1805), Philosophische His Einleitung in die chrmtkatholische Theo Theology. logie (1819; 2d ed., 2 vols., 1831 1834), and Christkatholische Dog matik (ed. Achterfeld, 3 vols., 1834-36). He accepts, without any question, every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. "A man can believe, however, only that which he has recognized as true from evidence furnished by his reason." This evi dence compels us to acknowledge the existence of God, and of his attributes. From God man receives the supernatural truths which make up the content of Christianity; they are- contained in the Bible and in tradition; the Church, as teacher, explains both correctly and infallibly. This system seems to imply a full acknowledgment of revelation and of tradition. But reason plays, nevertheless, an important part, not by be coming the judge of the truths of revelation, but by proving that they are true per se and historically; as soon as this evidence is furnished, reason must, of course, submit to their authority in matters per taining to salvation. Suppose, however, that reason doubts the truths of revelation and does not feel compelled to consider them as a higher authority. In that case the avenue to revelation is blocked, and the organ by which it is understood is lost. The system of Hermes is, thus, prejudicial to the principle of authority in the Catholic Church. It is, moreover, objectionable from another point of view. If a clearly thinking man must necessarily arrive at Christian faith, he can prove its truth to any one who is able to think logically. The process of reasoning would, consequently, suffice to make a Christian.

After his death the teaching of Hermes was attacked by a number of men, and stanchly de fended by his pupils, who were knownism Con- as Hermesians. In 1835 a papal brief demned. appeared condemning as unorthodox the teaching of Hermes concerning the nature of faith, the Bible, tradition, revelation, the proofs for the existence of God, the necessity of grace, and original sin. His followers did not deny that the sentences, mentioned by the brief, if taken singly, were to be condemned, as indeed the scien tific attitude as a whole. Their contention was, however, that Hermes, if alive, would disown them completely. They maintained in an article pub lished in the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (1835) that the teaching of their master had been -mis represented at Rome, and that its condemnation would be prejudicial to the best interests of the Roman Catholic Church. In Apr., 1837, Braun and Elvenich went to Rome to convince the pope that the papal brief did not present the doctrines of Hermes; but the attempt failed, since most of the German theologians were now against Hermes' teaching. They remained in Rome till Apr., 1838, and wrote in defense of their position Meletemata theologica (Hanover, 1838), which the pope refused to permit them to publish at Rome. All attempts to show that the doctrine of Hermes differed from those condemned in the papal brief failed. The system of Hermes stood condemned, and his follow ers were debarred from ecclesiastical offices; Braun and Elvenich were retired from their professorships, although honorably and with full stipends. The Prussian government, too, yielded in a number of ways for the sake of peace; for instance, in the matter of granting the bishops the right to take the initiative in removing a theological professor with the consent of the government. The archbishop of Breslau, Forster, was the first to use this right against Boltzer in 1860.

The explanation of the favorable reception of Hermes' works and their condemnation afterward lies in the change of attitude toward philosophyfrom the Wolff-Kantian rationalism to Schelling's romanticism. Windischmann, the first man to attack Hermes, had made this change, and his following was increasing constantly in the Roman Catholic Church. Closely connected with this change in philosophy is the reactionary tendency which set in about that time against the liberal ecclesiastical policy of the bishops along the Rhine, particularly of the archbishop of Cologne, Spiegel, who had endeavored to give his clergy a better education. His successor, Droste-Vischering (q.v.),

243

had disliked Hermes already while bishop at Münster, and had forbidden his theological students to pursue their studies anywhere but at Münster. The Prussian government tried in vain to have him rescind this order, and had to suspend the seminary in 1820. The papal brief gave Droste-Vischering an opportunity to combat the system of Hermes and liberalism at the same time; and the defeat which both suffered is an indication of the fact that reactionary tendencies had set in.

(Paul Tschackert.)

Bibliography: W. Ewer, Denkschrift auf Georg Hermes, Cologne, 1832; A. von Sieger, Urphilosophie und das Nothwendigkeitasydem von G. Hermes, Düsseldorf, 1831; J. Host, Haupinomente der hermesischen Philosophie, M�nster, 1832; P. J. Elvenich, Acta Hermesiana, Göttingen, 1838; idem, Pius IX., die Henneaianer und der ErzbiSchof von Geissel, Breslau, 1848; J. M. Meeker, Die hermeaischen Lehren in Bezug auf die papstliche Verur theilung, Mainz, 1837; J. Braun and G. J. Elvenich, Meletemata theologia, Leipsic, 1838; C. G. Niedner, Philosophio: Hermesio: . . . explicatio et exietimatio, ib. 1838; Acts antihernuaiana, Regensburg, 1839; P. G. Perrone, Zur Geschichte des Hermeeianismus, ib.1839; D. Bernhardi, Laokoon oder Hermes and Perrone, Cologne, 1842; F. X. Werner, Der Hermesianismus vorzugmeise von seiner dogmatischen Seite, Regensburg, 1845; K. Werner, Geschichte der katholischen Theologie, Munich, 1889.