"Lutheran, Papist, and Calvinist, all these three beliefs exist; however, there is doubt, where Christianity is to be found."

Friedrich von Logau, 1649



The breakdown of religious negotiations between the followers of the old faith and the Protestants at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 disappointed the hope for an early settlement, making clear to all participating parties how precarious the situation really was. Fearing impending war in 1531, the Protestant princes united in the so-called Schmalkaldic League and turned to France for support. As a result, Emperor Charles V was forced to restrain his struggle against the Reformation which seemed to be spreading unrelentingly throughout the Empire.

As a schism became more likely, the humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam published his "Liber de sarcienda ecclesiae concordia" (1533) in which he discussed the restoration of Church concord. [1] Erasmus was certainly aware that over the course of many centuries numerous evils had crept into the Church. Still, he continued to believe that it was possible to overcome these evils without resulting in a schism: "This disease is not so far advanced, that it cannot be healed." [2] Erasmus recommended a form of veneration of the saints that placed their human virtues in the foreground. He also favoured a reduction in the number of holidays as well as an alleviation of the dictates of fasting. A council should restore peace within the Christian community and enforce reform of the Church. Erasmus accepted the heart of Christian doctrine and wanted to maintain it unaltered - even in the question of free will. On the other hand, however, he indicated a readiness to grant Protestants their own form of worship should the negotiations fail.

The Council of Trent (1545-1563), which took place only after many years of difficult negotiations, instituted beneficial changes in the interest of Church reform. Of great importance was the decision to establish seminars for priests which would improve the education of clerics. However, the Council failed in its attempt to resurrect ecclesiastical unity. The anathemas of the Council, which were aimed at the Protestants, practically excluded any possibility of compromise. The degree to which the atmosphere had worsened can be seen in Rome's condemnation of Erasmus' works in the year 1559.

Erasmus of Rotterdam and Philipp Melanchthon can be regarded as the founders of the irenic movement which was committed to restoring church unity in the West through peaceful measures. However, the history of irenics appears quite diffuse. Because of the diverse goals of its supporters, one cannot talk about a "movement" in the true sense of the word. Differences of opinion emerged, especially regarding the question to what extent the notion of tolerance could be reconciled with the Christian concept of truth. [3] However, what united supporters of the irenic movement - both Catholics and Protestants influenced by humanist thought - was the desire to contribute in a peaceful manner to an understanding among the Christian confessions. [4] The word "irenic" derives from the Greek "eirene" (peace), and the theologian Franciscus Iunius was the first to use the term in his 1593 publication "Eirenicum de Pace Ecclesiae Catholicae".

In 1555, the Religious Peace of Augsburg led to an agreement between the adherents of the old faith and the Protestants - an agreement that took the given political circumstances in Germany into consideration. Like almost no other, Emperor Ferdinand I pushed for this peace treaty. Nevertheless, he was aware of the fragility of the settlement. For this reason, he attempted to make it impossible to overturn the peace by restoring church unity. Thus, in 1564 he called upon Georg Witzel and Georg Cassander to compose testimonials that would examine the correspondence between Catholic and Protestant teachings and lay the foundation for future religious discourse. In their earlier writings, both humanists had already explored a reconciliation between the confessions. They viewed the Apostles' Creed as the norm for Christian doctrine and advocated a return to the Church of the first five centuries which were celebrated as the Golden Age of Christianity. In questions concerning the marriage of clerics and the offering of the chalice to the laity, they were prepared for far-reaching concessions to the Protestants. In their testimonials they expounded in detail on the "Confessio Augustana", the Evangelical creed from the year 1530, and attempted to determine which articles could come into consideration for a common discussion based on the conclusions of the Council of Trent.

Emperor Ferdinand I died before the completion of the testimonials. His successor, Maximilian II, requested Witzel and Cassander to continue on with their work. Although the testimonials did not in the end lead to concrete results, [5] the historical contribution of Witzel and Cassander should not be underestimated. They took Erasmus of Rotterdam's concept of reunion and systematically developed it further. Through their high esteem of the Old Church, they bridged the way to the irenic thought of the seventeenth century.

Calvinism's swift dissemination in the second half of the sixteenth century led to new constellations in the confessional landscape of Europe. This also affected irenic thought. In reaction to the devastating violence between Catholics and Huguenots in France, which threatened to break up the political and social structure of the country, aristocrats and intellectual burghers united in the "Parti des Politiques". The "Politiques" held the view that the political interests of the monarchy should in principle be valued more than confessional affiliation. They advocated a "mutua tolerantia" between confessions: within one state, Catholics and Huguenots should live together in peace and be allowed to practice their religion freely.

In the Netherlands, the religious question was interwoven with the war for independence against Spain. William of Orange, the symbolic figure of this struggle, strove for a constellation that would allow the unhampered development of the various confessions. However, his concept of religious pluralism failed. He could prevent neither the division of the Netherlands nor the repression of the Catholic Church in those areas conquered through revolt. Catholics were permitted only the "privatum exercitium" of their faith.

The political victory of the Calvinists in the northern Netherlands did indeed have consequences for confessional matters, but not to the extent that many had earlier feared. The government of the young republic desisted from persecuting the Catholics and instead practised a moderate program of religious politics. Two different reasons account for this shift in policy: on one hand, the tradition of Erasmus was deeply rooted in Dutch culture. The regents, who usually came from the well-to-do class of burghers, had not participated in the rebellion so that after the expulsion of the Spanish they could submit to the yoke of the Calvinist preachers. On the other hand, they hoped for economic advantages through their religious tolerance. In this context, one thinks of their liberal stance towards Jewish refugees who had been banished from Spain and Portugal and who found sanctuary in the Netherlands. There, refugees quickly advanced to leading positions in commerce and finance and contributed to the economic expansion of the country.

The intellectual climate in the Netherlands favoured the formation of a broad current of irenic thought with a far-reaching and long-lasting influence. Irenic thinkers were above all inspired by the concept of tolerance developed by Sebastian Castellio (1515-1563), who spoke out in his writings against the persecution of heretics. [6] However, in the seventeenth century irenic thought suffered a setback. Disputes between Calvinists and Remonstrants led to the arrest and execution of the powerful advocate of the States, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, who had been one of the architects of the moderate politics governing religion in the Netherlands. During the Synod of Dordrecht (1618/1619), the Calvinists pushed through a condemnation of the Remonstrants, who advocated a moderate form of the doctrine of predestination. In 1621, the war against Spain was rekindled anew. Although irenics lost influence after the defeat of the Remonstrants, it still influenced the political culture of the Netherlands in the following decades.

While Calvinists and Remonstrants were divided over the question of predestination, there were many in the Netherlands who urged for prudence. In his 1611 writing "Meletius", Hugo Grotius lamented the irreconcilability of the adversaries and warned against abandoning the way of consensus in individual theological issues: differences were not to gloss over the fact that the teachings of Christ were the common foundation for the estranged parties. To remind them of this, he wrote a tract which addressed the fundamental principles of the Christian religion. Although the "Meletius" was not published, its contents were decisive to Grotius' later irenic program. [7]

After his escape from the Netherlands in the year 1621, Grotius spent several years in Paris where he wrote "De iure belli ac pacis". In 1634 he became a diplomat in service to Sweden. Meanwhile, questions of theology, particularly the freedom of worship, shifted more and more to the forefront of his scholarly interests. In his writings, he pleaded for a "mutua tolerantia" as a first step towards the restoration of religious consensus. A great sensation was caused by the "Commentatio de Antichristo" (1640) in which Grotius refuted the widespread Protestant theological opinion that equated the pope in Rome with the Antichrist. Shortly thereafter, his "Annotata ad Consultationem Cassandri" appeared. This work was a commentary to the testimonial written for Ferdinand I in 1565 and stated that the schism in faith should, in the tradition of Erasmus, be overcome. Like Georg Cassander, Grotius was also of the opinion that there was no irreconcilable contradiction between the Tridentine creed and the "Confessio Augustana". [8] Through his irenic endeavours, he exposed himself to the fierce hostilities of the Calvinists. In the last years of his life, rumours - spread by both Catholics and Protestants - claimed that he had converted to Catholicism.

In contrast to France and the Netherlands where the question of the freedom of worship was bitterly fought over, a comparatively favourable constellation appeared to be developing in the Holy Roman Empire. The 1555 Religious Peace of Augsburg principally placed the decision of the confessional status of a territory in the hands of the sovereigns. The inhabitants of the confessionally mixed cities of the Empire (Augsburg, for example) were granted a certain amount of equal representation and religious tolerance. Thus, despite its considerable limitations, the principle of tolerance was instituted for the first time in the constitution of the Empire. [9] Yet, the struggle over the interpretation of the Religious Peace of Augsburg as well as the demands of the Calvinists to be recognised as a confession eventually undermined the agreements made in 1555. The Thirty Years' War is to be regarded as the logical consequence of these tensions - a consequence that made restoring peace in the Holy Roman Empire impossible.

Georg Calixt (1586-1656), an evangelical theologian who taught at the university in Helmstedt, conceived his irenic program within the context of the war. That theological disputations should demonstrate consensus with the Old Church was at the heart of his irenic thought. Initially, he viewed the "consensus antiquitatis" as a suitable instrument in the fight against the papacy. Judging from the traditional principles of the Old Church, he exposed and condemned the Sacrifice of the Mass, the indulgence, and the doctrine of purgatory as innovations that had been introduced by the pope during the Middle Ages. Calixt's transition from polemical to irenic arguments took place in the midst of the war when he recognised that in their confrontations, both Protestants and Catholics appealed to the traditions of the Old Church. His reading of works by Cassander and other irenic thinkers of the sixteenth century may have played a critical role in the development of his thought.

The first signs of a shift in Calixt's thought can be found in his tracts from 1633 and 1634. Calixt advocated a religious discussion between representatives of the various confessions based on the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine of the Old Church. Such a discussion, he hoped, would lead to a restoration of ecclesiastical concord. [10] However, his suggestions were not original and therefore little attention was paid to them. Only the Archbishop of Mainz, Anselm Casimir Wamboldt von Umstadt, showed interest and asked theologians of the University of Mainz to review Calixt's suggestions. The theologians, however, reacted critically: in their opinion, Calixt's "consensus antiquitatis" did not offer an adequate foundation for a religious discussion because it neglected the doctrine of papal primacy. As spokesperson for the theologians emerged the Jesuit Vitus Erbermann. In writings such as "Anatomia Calixtina" (1644) and "EIPHNIKON catholicum" (1645), Erbermann rejected Calixt's call. He accused Calixt of playing down the confessional differences between Catholics and Protestants. A reconciliation, argued Erbermann, would only be possible if the Protestants declared themselves prepared to submit to papal authority.

While Calixt tried in vain to reach an understanding with the Catholic theologians in Mainz, he received the news that the Polish king Ladislaus IV (1632-1648) was considering organising a religious conference in Thorn with representatives of the Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed churches. Through a religious conference, the king hoped to clarify the complicated confessional conditions in his territory and return dissidents to the lap of the Roman Church. Calixt left no stone unturned in his efforts to participate as adviser in the conference. His efforts soon appeared to be crowned with success: the city of Danzig considered engaging him as a member of their delegation. However, the plan failed due to the resistance of the Danzig clergyman Abraham Calov, who perceived a threat to the evangelical doctrine in Calixt's irenic thought. In the end, Calixt received an invitation from the Elector of Brandenburg to go to Thorn and participate in the conference as his adviser. Calixt accepted the invitation.

The "Colloquium charitativum" in Thorn was inaugurated on August 28, 1645 and represents the most important attempt during the Thirty Years' War to contribute to a settlement between the confessions. In 1631 in Leipzig, only Lutherans and Calvinists participated in the conference. In Thorn, however, twenty-six Catholic, twenty-four Reformed and

fifteen Lutheran theologians were present at the opening meeting. The colloquium was to have three parts: 1. The statement of the religious beliefs of the confessions; 2. An examination of the accuracy of these beliefs; and 3. A clarification of the controversies. Yet, it was soon apparent that the delegations were primarily interested in exposing the interpretations of the others as heterodoxy. Thus, the religious talks in Thorn ultimately failed and the debates never moved beyond the first part of the discussion. On November 21, 1645, the negotiations were discontinued and the participants could show no concrete results. [11]



The course of the conference proved to be a deep disappointment to Calixt. Nevertheless, he did not allow himself to be discouraged and continued to pursue his efforts towards religious peace. The resistance, which was opposed to the "concordia ecclesiastica" desired by Calixt, reached its climax in the following years in the "Syncretistic Controversy". Orthodox Protestants like Abraham Calov accused Calixt of pursuing a program that encouraged a dangerous "religious jumble" that would only harm the Evangelical church. Furthermore, they resented that Calixt had allowed himself to be recruited as a Lutheran by the reformed Elector of Brandenburg for the conference in Thorn. The struggle only ended with Calixt's death in the year 1656. Those interested in evaluating the importance of Calixt for early modern irenics should concentrate primarily on his teaching activities in Helmstedt. As professor of theology, he trained numerous students who were deeply influenced by his call for tolerance towards Catholics and the Reformed churches. Thanks to his efforts, the university was able to become a citadel of irenic thought in Germany.

After the schism in the sixteenth century, the Roman Church continually tried to spur Protestants to return. The "Congregatio de Propaganda Fide," founded in 1622, was instructed by the Church to apply itself - in addition to world-wide mission activities - to regaining the lost territories. The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith focused on the evangelical princes in Germany who, since the Augsburg Religious Peace, were allowed to determine the confessional membership of their territories. Therefore, the "Congregatio de Propaganda Fide" pursued a strategy that concentrated on the conversion of the princes or members of their families. They were continuously informed about developments in the Empire by the nuncios in Cologne and Vienna.

During the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth centuries, numerous princes converted, most of them to the Catholic faith. Although this phenomenon can be observed in other countries, Germany was especially affected due to the deep confessional division in its territories. Various factors played a role in the decision of the individual princes. For example, the perspective of a career in the church of the Empire or with the imperial troops could serve as incentives. In the conversion of Princess Elisabeth Christine in Wolfenbüttel in the year 1707, dynastic interests played a role. Personal reasons could also have unleashed a conversion. Indeed, Catholic baroque culture and the hierarchical structure of the Church fascinated many Protestant princes. Moreover, advocates of the irenic movement like Calixt had qualified the theological differences of the confessions, making the decision in favour of conversion psychologically easier. [12]

Despite the success of the "Congregatio de Propaganda Fide", very little shifting in the assets of the confessions took place. With the decision that future confessional conversions of the princes would no longer have immediate consequences for their subjects, the Peace of Westphalia considerably limited the princes' right to "ius reformandi". In this manner, a stop was put to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Rome's resistance to the Peace of Westphalia can partially be attributed to this article in the treaty.

With the election of Johann Philipp von Schönborn as Archbishop of Mainz in 1647, an energetic figure entered the political stage. Schönborn was to decisively contribute to the successful conclusion of the peace negotiations in Münster and Osnabrück. His efforts to find a compromise between the opposing parties and his willingness to accommodate the Protestants in regard to religious matters earned him great respect at the peace congress. Those in Rome, however, were mistrustful of the goals of Schönborn's church politics. In spite of this mistrust, he succeeded in laying the foundation for the leading role of the Schönborn family in the church of the Empire during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. [13]

In the decades after the Peace of Westphalia, Johann Philipp von Schönborn, now Elector of Mainz and Arch-Chancellor of the Empire, practised a policy of mediation between France and Habsburg. Thus he hoped not only to secure peace in the Empire, but also to defend his independence against the emperor in Vienna. The most sensational product of this policy was the establishment in 1658 of the Rhenish Confederation, a federation of individual estates of the Empire organised to protect their interests. France was also to join this federation later. Because of his role as mediator, Schönborn has been reproached in the nationalistic literature of nineteenth century Germany as a puppet of France.

Within von Schönborn's immediate circle in the administrative apparatus of the archbishopric, a relatively high number of converts with key positions could be found. Following the guiding principles of the Church's reform program based on decisions made at the Council of Trent, the archbishop encouraged the conversion of individual Protestants - occasionally offering financial support. [14] Johann Philipp von Schönborn was in close contact through letters with converted princes like Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels, Christian August von Sulzbach, and Johann Friedrich von Hannover. His irenic sentiments are clearly expressed in the so-called Treaty of Grace from December 17, 1650. In this edict, Johann Philipp von Schönborn, acting as Prince-Bishop of Würzburg, assured the free and unlimited practice of religion for the Protestant community in the city of Kitzingen.

The most prominent convert at the court in Mainz was Johann Christian von Boineburg. Born in 1622 as the son of a Privy Councillor from Ducal Saxony, he studied in Jena, Marburg, and Helmstedt, where he was a student of the lawyer Hermann Conring. Between 1645 and 1652 he served as diplomat for the landgrave Johann von Hessen-Braubach. He was so successful in fulfilling his duties that Johann Philipp von Schönborn took notice of him. After the death of Johann von Hessen-Braubach, he entered into the service of the Elector of Mainz and converted to the Catholic church. One can suppose that Boineburg held conversion to be opportune, allowing him to prove himself in his new position. However, it is difficult to determine to what extent Johann Philipp von Schönborn pressured him. Boineburg was appointed Lord High-Marshall and First Minister of the electorate. In this position, he actively participated in the creation of the Rhenish Confederation. However, his successful career came to an abrupt end in 1664: a severe conflict with the elector over political strategy led to Boineburg's arrest. Although freed after six months, his role as manager of state affairs in Mainz was over.

Boineburg's significance for the history of irenics is due primarily to his correspondence with Hermann Conring, his former professor from Helmstedt. Their correspondence is a unique source of over four hundred letters that only ends with Boineburg's death in 1672. They address topics like the reunion of the Church, the doctrine of papal primacy, and the Mainz edition of the Bible from the year 1662. [15] Conring found the doctrine of papal primacy to be a form of tyranny that made the return of the Protestants under the charge of the pope an impossibility. He judged the cult of the Catholic church to be an idolatry. Boineburg replied that the Apostolic See guaranteed the unity of Christians. However, he did share Conring's reservations about the Curia's claims to power. His suggestion - to hold a religious discussion between the representatives of the University of Helmstedt and the canons of the chapter of Mainz - had no concrete results.

Parallel to Boineburg's efforts to use his contacts in Helmstedt to foster the idea of reunion, the suffragan bishop of Mainz, Peter von Walenburch, took steps to overcome the confessional division in the archbishopric. During an inspection tour in the summer of 1660, he held conversations with members of the Protestant community in Frankfurt on the Main about a return to the Catholic church. The Protestants claimed they would consent if they were allowed the laity communion "sub utraque specie". Since only the pope could make a decision about this question, Johann Philipp von Schönborn sent a diplomat to Rome with the request to grant the Frankfurt Protestants their demands. The sudden initiative was, however, thwarted by a document, the so-called "Mainz Union Plan," that appeared in the fall of 1660. This piece of writing contained eighteen articles and advocated a union between Catholics and Lutherans as well as a reform of the Church. The chalice for the laity and marriage of the clergy should be allowed. Furthermore, papal primacy and auricular confession were rejected. The reforms were to be directed by a commission of twenty-four. The conclusion of the document, however, demanded that the Reformed churches were not to be included in the agreement "because in predestination, in the Holy Supper, and in regard to the person of Christ, they are greatly deluded". [16]

The plan caused a great sensation and led to speculations about who the author could be. Within the circles of the Roman Curia, voices were raised that identified Johann Philipp von Schönborn as the head of the plan, with Boineburg as his author. These suspicions resulted in the pope's rejection of the Mainz request regarding the chalice for the laity. Among those at Mainz, only the convert Timotheus Laubenberger, who belonged to the elector's circle, reacted publicly to the Union Plan. In his work "Religions-Union" (1662), Laubenberger distanced himself from the project; simultaneously, he demonstrated his acceptance for demands like the chalice for the laity, marriage of the clergy, and mass given in the vernacular. The writing appeared with the imprimatur of Mainz's book censor, Adolph Gottfried Volusius, and therefore can be seen as the official position taken by the government in Mainz concerning the Union Plan.

With the fall of Boineburg, the heyday of irenic thought in Mainz found a sudden end. Boineburg's dismissal seemed to paralyse the other irenic thinkers. The idea of a reunion was only taken up several decades later when Cristobal de Rojas y Spinola was contracted by the emperor to win over the Protestant princes of Germany in order to form a union. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a protégé of Boineburg during his years spent at Mainz, also participated in these discussions.

The struggle for church unity in the seventeenth century ultimately fractured over the question of papal primacy. Although irenic thinkers like Hugo Grotius and Georg Calixt ardently strove for an understanding between the confessions, they also rejected the submission of their churches to the authority of the pope. Neither the primacy of jurisdiction nor the doctrine of infallibility propagated by the Catholic church was acceptable to them. Instead, they demanded a church that was oriented to old Christian structures. However, this kind of church would have meant the loss of power for the papacy and was therefore not acceptable to the majority of Catholics. Only with the realisation that all attempts to reunite the Church would continue to fail, could notions of tolerance be disseminated in early modern European society.

FOOTNOTES