[Image] [Hi-Res Image]
Page 219
219 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Synaxarium Syncretism the discordant religions themselves would receive endorsement. Perhaps from this arose the false as sumption that the demand for an alliance of par tially dissenting persons on the basis of their con sensus meant a jumbling together of religions. At any rate the term came to be wrenched from its original practical sense and was forcibly applied to a confused mixing of religions, and later was strained even to the extent that it was derived from synkerannumi (" to mix up "). The theologian J. K. Dannhauer, Mysterium syncretismi detecti (Strasburg, 1648), who includes all combinations of the unlike under syncretism and compares the per fection of the Lutheran doctrine with the eye that cannot stand a particle of dust, and Abraham Ca lovius (q.v.), raised the point against Calixtus that the term signified things irreconcilably different, such as the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. This is the only meaning implied in the term in the eon= troversies; but even syncretists like Calixtus de clined the epithet. Its original laudable meaning gradually disappeared; so that the incorrect mean ing of a perverse attempt at combining unlike and irreconcilable elements of truth persisted. The re cent attempts, by reason of the historical tendency in theology, to show Christianity at the beginning as syncretistic (H. Gunkel), or the old Catholic Christianity of c. 250 as a syncretistic religion (A. Hamack), has invested the term with a new im portance. II. Syncretistic Controversies: Three periods may be noted, separated by seasons of quiet: namely from the Conference of Thorn till the death of Calix tus, 1645-56; from the colloquies of Hesse-Cassel and Berlin till the order of silence to the Saxon theo logians, 1661-69; and the last struggles r. The of Calovius for the Consensus and Synod of against Johann Musaeus (q.v.), until Charenton. his death, 1675-86. All the efforts be fore 1645 to bring together the Lu theran and Reformed Churches may be considered as preliminary to the controversies. In reply to an appealed question the general synod of the French Reformed Church at Charenton in 1631 instructed, upon the basis of the essential agreement of the churches of the Augsburg Confession and the other Reformed churches and of the absence of supersti tion and idolatry from their worship, that in the French churches those Lutherans who approached in the spirit of friendship and peace should be ad mitted to the communion without abjuration; and that such could as sponsors present children for baptism, if they only promised the consistory that they would never incite those so baptized to trans gress the doctrine received in those churches, and that they would bring them up in the instruction of those articles of doctrine on which there was agreement. This was approved also by many of the strictest Reformed theologians outside of France, but aroused violent attacks from the Roman Catho lics in France against Protestant union. The prin ciple of a union of the unlike upon the fundamental of faith was alleged to be the foundation of a new sect, namely, the neutralists, the worst heresy of all, because it led to the renouncing of all love for their own religion, obligated to indifferentism, and
led to heresy (F. Veron). Others claimed to see in it an apostasy from the faith of their fathers, a violence done to the constitution, i.e., the Edict of Nantes, thus releasing Roman Catholics from the observance ,of the latter.
1. The First Period: Georg Calixtus (q.v.; ut sup.), by his extensive travel and acquaintance and his comprehensive studies, had acquired a broader irenic attitude toward the confessional bodies and
a more real appreciation of the rela 1. In tive inner truth and value of the dog Prussia' mss than most Lutheran theologians of his time. He looked with concern upon the crystallization of theology and the ecclesiastical authorization of fixed dogma as a menace to free investigation, the peace of the Church, and the hope of Protestantism. This variance with the trend of the times was apparent in his many writings. He naturally aroused the ill-will of the guardians of orthodoxy and self-assumed sole defenders of the Reformation and drew their attacks, such as the attempted refutation at the convention of theologians at Jena, 1621; and the polemic of Statius Biischser, later entitled Cryptopapismus theologise Helmstadiensis (1640). But the open assault of orthodoxy upon Calixtus and his Helmstedt colleagues was first occasioned by the events of 1645 and 1648. When King Ladislaus IV. of Poland issued the call for the Conference of Thorn, Calixtus not only circulated and commended the proclamation by a writing of his own, but also sought appointment as a delegate. Hereby he drew upon himself the enmity of the East Prussians, who were engaged in a struggle against union with their ruler, the Reformed elector of Brandenburg, and were led by Colestin Myslenta (1588-1653) of Konigsberg and Abraham Calovius (q.v.) of Danzig (then Polish). The latter prevented the election of Calixtus from Danzig; then, when the elector delegated him from KSnigsberg, Calovius succeeded in having him barred from the chairmanship of the Lutheran collocutors, a post which was secured for Johann Hulsemann (q.v.) of Wittenberg, and even from entering the conference at all as a Lutheran, as well as a representative for the towns of Thorn and Elbing. Nevertheless, Calixtus rendered the valuable service of his learning and counsel to the Reformed. Next, as Elector Johann Georg I. of Saxony had forbidden all innovations from theological conventions, the theologians of that electorate united with Halsemann in a joint memoir (Des. 29, 1647) accusing the theologians of Helmstedt with in4ovations and departures from the Augsburg Confession and with undermining the foundations of Evangelical doctrine. In reply Calixtus branded his accuser, whoever he might be, as an infamous calumniator, until he had proved his charges. This set the opposition in the succeeding years to watch for every possible deviation on the part of the Helmstedt theologians and to denounce it as a departure, inviting the inference that efforts for union were untrustworthy. In Prussia the electcr replaced Calovius at KSnigsberg with C. Dreier, and appointed as professor of theology J. Latemann, respectively friend and pupil of Calixtus. Myslenta and his supporters invited a joint Censurse theologorum ortho-
