it unto God and his light (Matt. v. 14, 16; II Cor. iv. 5-6; cf. Rom. ii. 19; Acts xxvi. 18). But .the real illuminator is Christ; the true light (John i. 9; cf. II Tim. i. 10). The apostolic preaching of the Gospel is itself " illumination," and its purpose is '° to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (11 Cor. iv. 6). The Christians, accordingly, are those who have been " once enlightened" (Hob. vi. 4, a. 32). It is important for the mystical conception that illumination and contemplation take place only upon the basis of a moral purification. It was, significant for Protestant theology that Luther in his Smaller Catechism inserted the illumination in the ordo 8atutis (" calls, gathers, illumines, sanctifies "). The Apology and the Formula of Concord represent the illumination as taking place through the Word, and regard it as a fanatical error to teach an illu mination without the Word. This difference gives the conception its peculiar stamp: the illumination is subordinated to the calling and is effected only through the Word. And this is the reason, too, why the older Protestant dogmaticians use the term only occasionally. Hollas was the first to give it a place of its own in the ordo aahutis (Ezamen theologicum, Stockholm, 1741, pp. 813 sqq.). This is due to the importance which the illumination. received in the mystical and Pietistic literature. For Hollas, in introducing the idea, takes the position that the illumination may be present in an imperfect degree in the human intellect without any sanctification of the will. Johann Arndt, however, in his Biicher room wahren Chrietentum (Magdeburg, 1610), defends the mystical usage of the term rejected by Hollas, declaring that the Holy Spirit illuminates only those who renounce the world and on this wise follow Christ (I. zxxvii. 16, xcaix. 4, ITI. i. 2, 11). In this way the illumination is made a special divine act, surpassing the vocation, inasmuch as it is realized only in the case of those who "desist from all that which God himself is not, from oneself and all creatures," "and keep their inmost souls pure from the creatures and the world. Thus God illuminates from within, for all must stream forth from within God's being. This inner light then shines forth in the works " (III., u.). It is from the point of view of this opposition that the view of Hollas is to be understood. The conception of Hollas was also that of the Pietistic dogmaticians: " illumination itself consists in this, that the Holy Ghost in his light by means of the Word of God pictures and makes known heavenly truth to the human understanding with such clearness, force, and conviction that man thereby recog nizes it as truth, believes it with divine assurance, and thus knows what God has graciously given him, and is able to judge spiritual things spiritually " (Freylinghausen, Grundlegung der Theologce, p. 166, Halle, 1705). The same is true also of the rationalistic dogmaticiane (e.g., Wegecheider, I=tihtUones theoi*ce, Halle, 1815, ¢ 158, pp. 497-498). In the same direction, moreover, tend the views of the more modern dogmaticians so far as they employ the term at all (e.g., Domer, Glmtbenalehre, ii. 2, p. 727, Berlin, 1881, and, especially, Frank, System der ChrisUichen Wahrheit, ii. 333, Leipsic, 1894).
|
451 |
|
452 |
|
453 |
|
454 |
|
455 |
|
456 |
|
457 |
|
458 |
|
459 |
|
460 |
|
461 |
|
462 |
|
463 |
|
464 |
|
465 |
|
466 |
|
467 |
|
468 |
|
469 |
|
470 |
|
471 |
|
472 |
|
473 |
|
474 |
|
475 |
|
476 |
|
477 |
|
478 |
|
479 |
|
480 |
|
481 |
|
482 |
|
483 |
|
484 |
|
485 |
|
486 |
|
487 |
|
488 |
|
489 |
|
490 |
|
491 |
|
492 |
|
493 |
|
494 |
|
495 |
|
496 |
|
497 |
|
498 |
|
499 |
|
500 |
When King Sancho of Portugal declined to pay the tribute promised by his father to the see of Peter, Innocent demanded the same with energy. Moreover, he exacted obedience to the papal regulations from Duke Ladislaus of Poland, who was robbing the Church and the bishops of their estates and rights. How strenuously Innocent insisted that the pope alone had the right to excommunicate kings or to release them from the ban appeared when Archbishop Eric of Trondhjem absolved Hakon, king of Sweden, after he had restored to the Church what his father had taken from it by violence, without consulting the pope. Innocent wrote to the archbishop that he had imitated himself as an ape might a man, and only absolution by the representative of Peter had validity. The renown of this powerful pope impelled Prince John of the Bulgarians to hope that by submitting to the see of Rome he might secure his sovereignty against foes at home, as well as against the claims of the Byzantine emperors. On Nov. 8, 1204, he received from the pope's legate the royal crown, the scepter, and a banner which Innocent had sent him, adorned with the cross of Christ and Peter's keys.
The fearlessness of Innocent, his firm perseverance in a path once taken, and his proud disdain of all temporal supremacy, born of the conviction that he was not simply the representative of St. Peter, but also the vicar of Christ and of God, was most brilliantly verified in his behavior toward the English king John. The monks of Canterbury cathedral, upon the death of their archbishop, Hubert, elected their superior, Reginald, as successor to the deceased prelate; when he proved unworthy of such confidence, they elected, at the king's wish, Bishop John of Norwich. Innocent did not confirm the latter's election, but induced certain members of the Canterbury convention, who were sojourning in Rome, to elevate the cardinal priest, Stephen Langton (q.v.), to the archiepiscopal throne, and a vehement conflict between State and Church was then inevitable, for the king was not disposed to yield in favor of a man imposed forcibly upon him by the pope. The papal threat of the interdict taking practical effect on Mar. 24, 1208, the king retaliated by giving orders to banish all clerics from England, and to confiscate their estates. Hereupon the pope excommunicated him. All devices to keep news of the pope's action from England were fruitless; the sentence became known, and the king felt its operation in a revolt of the nobility. When Innocent furthermore released all subjects from the fealty and obedience they had sworn to the king, and threatened -the penalty of excommunication against every one who had any dealings with him, the uprising grew stronger and stronger. At this pass the pope had recourse to the extreme step of pronouncing the crown forfeit, also summoning Philip Augustus to drive the unworthy fellow from the throne, and himself to take permanent possession thereof; whoever should take part in the war against John was to count as a crusader, and become participant in all the indulgences of a crusader. John now yielded and resolved to ac. acquiesce in the proposals once more set before him by the Curia through the legates Pandolfo and Durando. At Dover, on May 13, 1213, the king concluded an agreement with the Roman plenipotentiaries, to the effect that he would recognize Stephen as archbishop of Canterbury; restore all Church properties that he had appropriated to himself; authorize the return of the emigrated and expelled clergy and monks; accord liberty to the captive; and more to the same effect. But this Dover scene had even a still graver sequel. Really to secure himself against the impending invasion by the French pretender to the crown, though nominally in expiation of his sins, on May 18, 1213, John surrendered his kingdoms of England and Ireland to God and the pope, but then recovered them qs papal feudatory, on condition of discharging an annual feudal rentage to the see of Peter--700 marks for England, and 300 marks for Ireland. He was not absolved from the ban, however, until he had humbled himself before Archbishop Stephen. Beside all this, the land still remained under the interdict until July 2, 1214; that is to say, till the king had made restitution to the clergy, by a heavy sum of money, for the damages he had inflicted upon them during his grievous persecutions. Peace was now restored; but the king's oppressed and overtaxed barons could not endure the humiliation put upon them by John when he conveyed the realm to the pope. Their grievances not being removed, they had recourse to arms, in 1215, when they took possession of London and forced from the king the Magna Charta. No sooner had its contents become known to Innocent than he roundly denounced the compact, inasmuch as it encroached too seriously upon the royal prerogatives, and indirectly upon the see of Peter, now that the pope was John's liege lord. He declared the charter void and worthless, outrageous, without binding force. But neither this pronouncement nor repeated excommunications of all the king's adversaries had the least result. By nothing else did the papacy so sorely injure itself in England as by this opposition to the Magna Charta.
As vicar of Christ, Innocent appealed to kings and peoples for a crusade to the Holy Land. The preaching of Fulco of Neuilly (q.v.) won a portion of the French nobility, under the leadership
|
501 |
|
502 |
|
503 |
|
504 |
|
505 |
|
506 |
|
507 |
|
508 |
| Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL. |  |