Meanwhile the Protestant evangelical societies have not been asleep. The Gustavus-Adolphus Society (a Society founded for the support of poor Protestant congregations in Catholic countries, and one of the best proofs of the reviving spirit in the German Church,) have expressed their opinion that by the constitution of the Society, they are precluded from assisting the new movement by specific grants of money, but at the same time stating their desire to urge on the spirit that was abroad by all means in their power. Collections accordingly have been made in the various large towns, to defray the necessary expenses incurred by the support of clergy, the performance of public worship and the like. Places of meeting have been granted in most cases by the authorities of the town. So far as we are aware, only one member of the new community has openly gone over to the Protestant Lutheran Church.
In Breslau the long-vacant and much-disputed episcopal chair still remains unoccupied,—von Diepenbrock having expressly refused the offer, on the alleged ground of the unsettled state of the Church. During the late sittings of the Diet at Breslau, the excitement was altogether of a religious and not of a political kind. Ronge and the anti-Popish movement were the great subjects of conversation. "The Separation," says an account, "is widening daily, and quarters are now full of agitation which before were peaceful as the grave. Our ears are once more deafened by the No Popery cry. The congregation here now numbers above 600 families." Ronge is busily occupied with the affairs of the Church—delivering the most stirring addresses—and everywhere receiving fresh proofs of sympathy and support.
Czerski, the pastor of Schneidemühl, has followed Luther's example in the matter of marriage, the Protestant clergyman officiating. He has since been formally degraded and excommunicated, previous to which, we believe that in many places seven masses were offered up daily for his return to the communion of the Church. In addition, all who adhere to his opinions have been excommunicated en masse. A small pamphlet has lately come out in Berlin, which states, that he had been always distinguished by great laboriousness in his parish, and that he had previously excited great attention by a stirring Address which he had delivered in the open air, on the matter of some Indulgence, pointing out the true method of repentance and pardon, and advising the people to have nothing farther to do with Indulgences, as the greatest of them could not make a man a Christian. He is represented as a person of great simplicity of character, and of deep feeling. He is firm in expressing his determination to adhere to the Bible and not to the Church. He and Ronge have been both, by letter from high quarters, admonished to be on their guard, as attempts on their life from some fanatics were dreaded. Several threatening letters had been also sent to some of the more active lay members in the new Church. At Breslau, on Sabbath, 9th March, the first public service was celebrated. Dr. Steiner delivered an Address on the momentous step which had been taken, and then requested the community to use the right of free election of their pastor, now restored to them. John Ronge was unanimously chosen. Czerski was present from Schneidemühl, to take part in the services of the day. Intimation was made that Kerbler, hitherto vicar in Lindenau, was present, and had joined the New Church. Then followed the induction of the new pastor into his charge. Twelve girls dressed in white, with garlands of flowers, formed a procession,* which was followed by John Ronge, Czerski, Kerbler, and the chief members of the congregation. Dr. Steiner then delivered a powerful Address to the new pastor on the duties of his office. Ronge replied to his people, and promised not to forsake them in joy or sorrow, after which the ordinary services of public worship began. After a hymn, he ascended the pulpit, and delivered a discourse on the true character of the Church, which he said was founded on the two maxims of Christ,—"Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect;" and "Love God, and your neighbour as yourself," and not on exclusive confessions, forms, and ceremonies. The great matter was to make Christianity inward and spiritual, and then to act accordingly. The man who did this was a true Christian, and herein lay the possibility of having a universal Christian Church, which should be one in knowledge, in love, and in deed. After leaving the pulpit, he read the New Confession of Faith from the altar, to which those present responded with a hearty "Amen." A selected piece from the Passion was then read, with the words of the institution of the Supper, which was followed by the choral, "Holy, holy, holy." The whole was closed with the Lord's prayer, the Hymn "Great God we praise thee," and the Benediction. The service seems to be pretty nearly the same as in the Protestant German Church, at least as it is now celebrated in the Cathedral of Berlin.
* This must be regarded as a German rather than Popish
custom.
But the matter of controversy is not confined to the humble parish-priests of Silesia. While the two Bishops of Treves and Cologne, Arnoldi and von Geissel, have been issuing their annual pastoral letters in Lent, filled with the most extravagant declarations of ultramontane opinions, the Bishop of Mayence, von Kaiser, has issued a document breathing a very different spirit. In the former, each of the faithful is admonished in opposition to the movements which are at present taking place in the Catholic Church, to hold firmly by Rome and the Pope, as the central-point of the Church—is warned against apostacy and false doctrine, whilst the faith in relics, and what belongs thereto, is expressly inculcated. Bishop Kaiser, again, in a mild and tolerant spirit, dwells largely upon the fundamental principle of brotherly love and reconciliation, and although he attaches great weight to positive belief, yet, above all things, he gives prominence to the principle of the Apostle Paul:—"If I had all faith, and had not charity, I am nothing." Without this, he adds, all our works have no value before God. This pastoral letter has, in its whole contents, reference to the Church relations of the present times, and must be regarded as a determined protest against the wild proceedings of the Jesuits. He proves that it is neither Catholic nor Christian to make a tool of fanaticism, intolerance, and proselytism,—that the principle of toleration is also a Catholic one, and that both Churches can subsist together in peace, if the authors of disturbance were only powerfully restrained. He moreover acknowledges the claims of Protestantism,—a fact which, in reference to the recent course of events, is of vast importance:—"It is possible," says he, "for men of different creeds, if they have good moral principles, to live together in the same country, and to meet in civil life peacefully, friendly, and lovingly, and yet for each to remain unchangeably true to his individual belief. This experience has taught; already 300 years have past since in Germany a section of our brethren in the faith separated themselves from us. The division has taken place. Divine Providence has permitted it, and permits it still. What God permits, man should permit too; or should man not will it so—still he must. If the mixture of men of different creeds has once become realized as a fact, then has their living together become a matter of necessity. It were, accordingly, foolish and unreasonable, if they did not wish, as much as in them lay, honestly and truly, by reciprocal toleration and indulgence, to make these differences lighter and less felt. It were foolish, hypocritical, and supercilious, at the same time, if they passed judgment upon each other's faith and believing life harshly and uncharitably, rather than to be reserved in their judgment, and to consider that each man for himself, and among his own fellow-believers, has faults enough to rectify. * * * * God is love, and we prove our love of God by our love of man. In faith we are not at one, but in love we can and ought to be so—in love, we can and ought to strive with one another, and by love can we best show the truth and purity of our belief, and place ourselves in the best position for recommending it to others, until it shall please God that we all together should attain to the unity of the faith.'"
We believe it difficult to exaggerate the importance of this document. Here is a man holding a high office in the Catholic Church—living in the very midst of the scenes lately enacted, with two bishops on either side of his diocese, who seem equally ready personally to take part in, or with all the power of their office, to defend the most extravagant superstitions, or the most insidious policy of Jesuitism, with a people who showed how thoroughly they were given up to idolatry, and with a clergy equally capable of misleading or being misled,—still calmly lifting up his voice for a purer faith, and for the manifestation of the true spirit of Christian liberty and love. It seems most probable that this defence of toleration may, ere long, make its author personally feel what intolerance is. He is already denounced by the ultra-Catholic party in the Rhine provinces, and report says, in the Vatican itself. If so, we may expect to hear more of Bishop Kaiser of Mayence. Meanwhile, it is gratifying to state that Addresses have been sent to him by his clergy and fellow-citizens, fully participating in his spirit, and expressive of their joy that he has all along so strongly discountenanced the doings in the neighbouring diocese of Treves; while a Special Address has been presented to him from Offenbach, praying that he, as their spiritual guide, would lead the way in making them discard the leading errors of Popery. To show that this spirit of dissatisfaction is not confined to an individual case, we may state, that at least one other Bishop has, in his annual Address, passed over what has taken place without a single allusion or remark; nay, that even in Treves itself, which seems destined to become the Mecca of continental Popery, there were priests whom nothing but the fear of consequences compelled to take part in the degrading scenes referred to.
And now, in drawing this hasty sketch to a close, we have left ourselves room for but one or two general remarks.
1. From what has been said, it must be as a matter of fact, plain, that Germany is now the scene of a most remarkable awakening. Catholic Germany is again, after a lapse of more than three centuries, the scene of an open secession from the Church of Rome; and at the head of the movement stands one, who writes with Luther-like power—who has gone through many of Luther's experiences, and who has already shown that he has imbibed a vast deal of Luther's spirit, in deed as well as word. The occasion too, of the movements, was not unlike—Indulgences in the one case, and relics, accompanied with Indulgences, in the other, have awakened men's minds to see the evils of the whole system, and to shake off their connection with it. Congregations have been formed—a new Church is being established, and men on all sides say and show that they identify themselves with the movement. The Pope is busied now with giving new directions for the German Church; and is earnestly setting himself to narrow, as far as policy, or concession, or remonstrance can do, the evils of the schism which has already taken place. The new Church, it is true, still adheres to the name Catholic, and Ronge has said, that to pure Catholicism he remains true; but we quarrel not with names, if the faith and doings of the men be Protestant in fact. And moreover, it is at once evident, that as regards the immediate progress of the movement, it is perhaps well that Ronge should still, if he so pleases, call himself Catholic, as by so doing, he is not to be viewed with the same jealousy or distrust by his Catholic brethren, which would be the case, if he at once openly avowed that he had become Protestant. In this event he would be treated as a heretic by hundreds, whose eyes, like Luther's, may not at once be opened to see that the Church of Rome is not the true and only Church of Christ.
2. As to the real character of the present movement, in a religious point of view, it becomes us, as yet, to speak with caution. The period has not arrived for our forming a proper estimate of it, as we have not yet all the materials for so doing; and still more as great allowance must be made for two circumstances—1st, The half-formed condition of the new community in its present transition state; and 2d, That progress in their views of divine truth, which may take place with them as it did with Luther. Meanwhile, taking both circumstances into view, it cannot be questioned that much of the present movement may be traced to causes other than those connected with the deeply Evangelical principles, which characterized the Reformation. It is true, the Reformation began also with a mere outward abuse; but this was rather the first occasion for the manifestation of the Christian principle, that was the soul of the movement in the sixteenth century, and determined its whole spiritual character. The great Evangelical doctrine of Justification by Faith was, in principle, opposed to all such practices, of which Indulgences was only one specimen; but this doctrine went a great deal further, namely, in supplying the positive and constructive principle of the Reformation throughout. The trade in Indulgences might have been opposed upon grounds of mere worldly politics—from an infidel hatred of all systems of religion—from a mere moral dislike at hypocrisy or superstition; but it required a true spiritual principle, connected with man's relation to God as a sinner, to give it its full value as regards the cause of Evangelical truth. The Reformation proceeded from a living principle within, which was at war with outward practices and systems,—instead of merely opposing these from principles drawn from a different circle of motives and actions apart from religion. Popery was overthrown by the French Revolution, as well as the Reformation; but no one would think of comparing as analagous the moral causes at work in both cases. And now as to Ronge's movement, we desiderate the statement of the great evangelical principles on which he falls back, and which would prove his struggle to be freed from priestly thraldom to be the desire of reaching the true liberty of the sons of God in Christ. It cannot be concealed that much of the spirit of Ronge's letters is explicable from the mere desire of independence of priestly tyranny, or from principles of a general enlightenment—or of warm patriotism, not necessarily of a religious character. Certain it is, that in all his productions there is much to desiderate; nay, we may go farther, and declare that there is much in them which seems to savour of the modern German Liberalism, with all its parade of words about the dignity of human nature, and the demands of the spirit of the age, and the shadowy future of an ideal perfectibility. It is not to be denied, moreover, that many of the Addresses sent to Ronge breathe a good deal the same spirit, and are sadly wanting in the strong statements of men who have been really made to feel that this is a matter affecting the salvation of the soul, and man's highest interests as an immortal being. This we are far from stating from feelings of suspicion or hypercritical jealousy. Quite the reverse. We are merely pointing out a source of danger in passing too hurried a decision on a movement which may not yet have had time or opportunities enough to bring out or establish its real spiritual character.
But on this point we have said enough, and desire that what we have said be not construed into an avowed opinion as to the character of this movement as a whole; but rather as indicating the possible direction which may be given to it, if the principles hinted at be really at the bottom of it. We earnestly hope that such is not the fact.