subject of heresy, we must now return to resume a subject already
mentioned, the persecution of heretics. According to the Canon Law,
which "was the ecclesiastical law of medieval Europe, and is still the
law of the Roman Catholic Church," heresy was defined as "error which is
voluntarily held in contradiction to a doctrine which has been clearly
stated in the creed, and has become part of the defined faith of the
church," and which is "persisted in by a member of the church." It was
regarded not only as an error, but also as a crime to be detected and
punished. As it belongs, however, to a man's thoughts and not his deeds,
it often can be proved only from suspicions. The canonists define the
degrees of suspicion as "light" calling for vigilance, "vehement"
demanding denunciation, and "violent" requiring punishment. The grounds
of suspicion have been formulated "Pope Innocent III. declared that to
lead a solitary life, to refuse to accommodate oneself to the prevailing
manners of society and to frequent unauthorized religious meetings were
abundant grounds of suspicion; while later canonists were accustomed to
give lists of deeds which made the doers suspect: a priest who did not
celebrate mass, a layman who was seen in clerical robes, those who
favoured heretics, received them as guests, gave them safe conduct,
tolerated them, trusted them, defended them, fought under them or read
their books were all to be suspect" (T. M. Lindsay in article "Heresy,"
_Ency. Brit._ 9th edition). That the dangers of heresy might be avoided,
laymen were forbidden to argue about matters of faith by Pope Alexander
IV., an oath "to abjure every heresy and to maintain in its completeness
the Catholic faith" was required by the council of Toledo (1129), the
reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue was not allowed to the
laity by Pope Pius IV. The reading of books was restricted and certain
books were prohibited. Regarding heresy as a crime, the church was not
content with inflicting its spiritual penalties, such as excommunication
and such civil disabilities as its own organization allowed it to impose
(e.g. the heretics were forbidden to give evidence in ecclesiastical
courts, fathers were forbidden to allow a son or a daughter to marry a
heretic, and to hold social intercourse with a heretic was an offence).
It regarded itself as justified in invoking the power of the state to
suppress heresy by civil pains and penalties, including even torture and
death.
The story of the persecution of heretics by the state must be briefly
sketched.
As long as the Christian Church was itself persecuted by the pagan
empire, it advocated freedom of conscience, and insisted that religion
could be promoted only by instruction and persuasion (Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Lactantius); but almost immediately after Christianity was
adopted as the religion of the Roman empire the persecution of men for
religious opinions began. While Constantine at the beginning of his
reign (313) declared complete religious liberty, and kept on the whole
to this declaration, yet he confined his favours to the orthodox
hierarchical church, and even by an edict of the year 326 formally
asserted the exclusion from these of heretics and schismatics. Arianism,
when favoured by the reigning emperor, showed itself even more
intolerant than Catholic Orthodoxy. Theodosius the Great, in 380, soon
after his baptism, issued, with his co-emperors, the following edict:
"We, the three emperors, will that all our subjects steadfastly adhere
to the religion which was taught by St Peter to the Romans, which has
been faithfully preserved by tradition, and which is now professed by
the pontiff Damasus of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of
apostolic holiness. According to the institution of the Apostles, and
the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one Godhead of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of equal majesty in the Holy
Trinity. We order that the adherents of this faith be called _Catholic
Christians_; we brand all the senseless followers of the other religions
with the infamous name of _heretics_, and forbid their conventicles
assuming the name of churches. Besides the condemnation of divine
justice, they must expect the heavy penalties which our authority,
guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict" (Schaff's
_Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity_, i. 142). The fifteen penal laws
which this emperor issued in as many years deprived them of all right to
the exercise of their religion, "excluded them from all civil offices,
and threatened them with fines, confiscation, banishment and even in
some cases with death." In 385 Maximus, his rival and colleague, caused
seven heretics to be put to death at Treves (Trier). Many bishops
approved the act, but Ambrose of Milan and Martin of Tours condemned it.
While Chrysostom disapproved of the execution of heretics, he approved
"the prohibition of their assemblies and the confiscation of their
churches." Jerome by an appeal to Deut. xiii. 6-10 appears to defend
even the execution of heretics. Augustine found a justification for
these penal measures in the "compel them to come in" of Luke xiv. 23,
although his personal leanings were towards clemency. Only the
persecuted themselves insisted on toleration as a Christian duty. In the
middle ages the church showed no hesitation about persecuting unto death
all who dared to contradict her doctrine, or challenge her practice, or
question her authority. The instruction and persuasion which St Bernard
favoured found little imitation. Even the Dominicans, who began as a
preaching order to convert heretics, soon became persecutors. In the
Albigensian Crusade (A.D. 1209-1229) thousands were slaughtered. As the
bishops were not zealous enough in enforcing penal laws against
heretics, the Tribunal of the Inquisition was founded in 1232 by Gregory
IX., and was entrusted to the Dominicans who "as _Domini canes_
subjected to the most cruel tortures all on whom the suspicion of heresy
fell, and all the resolute were handed over to the civil authorities,
who readily undertook their execution" (Kurtz, _Church History_, ii.
137-138).
At the Reformation Luther laid down the principle that the civil
government is concerned with the province of the external and temporal
life, and has nothing to do with faith and conscience. "How could the
emperor gain the right," he asks, "to rule my faith?" With that only the
Word of God is concerned. "Heresy is a spiritual thing," he says, "which
one cannot hew with any iron, burn with any fire, drown with any water.
The Word of God alone is there to do it." Nevertheless Luther assigned
to the state, which he assumes to be Christian, the function of
maintaining the Gospel and the Word of God in public life. He was not
quite consistent in carrying out his principle (see Luthard's
_Geschichte der christlichen Ethik_, ii. 33). In the Religious Peace of
Augsburg the principle "cujus regio ejus religio" was accepted; by it a
ruler's choice between Catholicism and Lutheranism bound his subjects,
but any subject unwilling to accept the decision might emigrate without
hindrance.
In Geneva under Calvin, while the _Consistoire_, or ecclesiastical
court, could inflict only spiritual penalties, yet the medieval idea of
the duty of the state to co-operate with the church to maintain the
religious purity of the community in matters of belief as well as of
conduct so far survived that the civil authority was sure to punish
those whom the ecclesiastical had censured. Calvin consented to the
death of Servetus, whose views on the Trinity he regarded as most
dangerous heresy, and whose denial of the full authority of the
Scriptures he dreaded as overthrowing the foundations of all religious
authority. Protestantism generally, it is to be observed, quite approved
the execution of the heretic. The Synod of Dort (1619) not only
condemned Arminianism, but its defenders were expelled from the
Netherlands; only in 1625 did they venture to return, and not till 1630
were they allowed to erect schools and churches. In modern Protestantism
there is a growing disinclination to deal even with errors of belief by
ecclesiastical censure; the appeal to the civil authority to inflict any
penalty is abandoned. During the course of the 19th century in Scottish
Presbyterianism the affirmation of Christ's atoning death for _all_ men,
the denial of eternal punishment, the modification of the doctrine of
the inspiration of the Scriptures by acceptance of the results of the
Higher Criticism, were all censured as perilous errors.
The subject cannot be left without a brief reference to the persecution
of witches. To the beginning of the 13th century the popular
superstitions regarding sorcery, witchcraft and compacts with the devil
were condemned by the ecclesiastical authorities as heathenish, sinful
and heretical. But after the establishment of the Inquisition "heresy
and sorcery were regarded as correlates, like two agencies resting on
and serviceable to the demoniacal powers, and were therefore treated in
the same way as offences to be punished with torture and the stake"
(Kurtz, _Church History_, ii. 195). While the Franciscans rejected the
belief in witchcraft, the Dominicans were most zealous in persecuting
witches. In the 15th century this delusion, fostered by the
ecclesiastical authorities, took possession of the mind of the people,
and thousands, mostly old women, but also a number of girls, were
tortured and burned as witches. Protestantism took over the superstition
from Catholicism. It was defended by James I. of England. As late as the
18th century death was inflicted in Germany and Switzerland on men,
women and even children accused of this crime. This superstition
dominated Scotland. Not till 1736 were the statutes against witchcraft
repealed; an act which the Associate Presbytery at Edinburgh in 1743
declared to be "contrary to the express law of God, for which a holy God
may be provoked in a way of righteous judgment."
Non-Christian religions.
The recognition and condemnation of errors in religious belief is by no
means confined to the Christian Church. Only a few instances of heresy
in other religions can be given. In regard to the fetishism of the Gold
Coast of Africa, Jevons (_Introduction to the History of Religion_, pp.
165-166) maintains that "public opinion does not approve of the worship
by an individual of a _suhman_, or private tutelary deity, and that his
dealings with it are regarded in the nature of 'black art' as it is not
a god of the community." In China there is a "classical or canonical,
primitive and therefore alone orthodox (_tsching_) and true religion,"
Confucianism and Taoism, while the "heterodox (_sic_)," Buddhism
especially, is "partly tolerated, but generally forbidden, and even
cruelly persecuted" (Chantepie de la Saussaye, _Religionsgeschichte_, i.
57). In Islam "according to an unconfirmed tradition Mahomet is said to
have foretold that his community would split into seventy-three sects
(see MAHOMMEDAN RELIGION, S _Sects_), of which only one would escape the
flames of hell." The first split was due to uncertainty regarding the
principle which should rule the succession to the Caliphate. The Arabic
and orthodox party (i.e. the Sunnites, who held by the Koran and
tradition) maintained that this should be determined by the choice of
the community. The Persian and heterodox party (the Shiites) insisted on
heredity. But this political difference was connected with theological
differences. The sect of the Mu'tazilites which affirmed that the Koran
had been created, and denied predestination, began to be persecuted by
the government in the 9th century, and discussion of religious questions
was forbidden (see CALIPHATE, sections B and C). The mystical tendency
in Islam, Sufism, is also regarded as heretical (see Kuenen's Hibbert
Lecture, pp. 45-50). Buddhism is a wide departure in doctrine and
practice from Brahmanism, and hence after a swift unfolding and quick
spread it was driven out of India and had to find a home in other lands.
Essenism from the standpoint of Judaism was heterodox in two respects,
the abandonment of animal sacrifices and the adoration of the sun.
Although in Greece there was generally wide tolerance, yet in 399 B.C.
Socrates "was indicted as an irreligious man, a corrupter of youth, and
an innovator in worship."
Besides the works quoted above, see Gottfried Arnold's _Unparteiische
Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie_ (1699-1700; ed. Schaffhausen, 1740). A
very good list of writers on heresy, ancient and medieval, is given in
Burton's _Bampton Lectures on Heresies of the Apostolic Age_ (1829).
The various Trinitarian and Christological heresies may be studied in
Dorner's _History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ_ (1845-1856;
Eng. trans., 1861-1862); the Gnostic and Manichaean heresies in the
works of Mansel, Matter and Beausobre; the medieval heresies in Hahn's
_Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter_ (1846-1850), and Preger's
_Geschichte der deutschen Mystik_ (1875); Quietism in Heppe's
_Geschichte der quietistischen Mystik_ (1875); the Pietist sects in
Palmer's _Gemeinschaften und Secten Wurttembergs_ (1875); the
Reformation and 17th-century heresies and sects in the _Anabaptisticum
et enthusiasticum Pantheon und geistliches Rust-Haus_ (1702). Bohmer's
_Jus ecclesiasticum Protestantium_ (1714-1723), and van Espen's _Jus
ecclesiasticum_ (1702) detail at great length the relations of heresy
to canon and civil law. On the question of the baptism of heretics see
Smith and Cheetham's _Dict. of Eccl. Antiquities_, "Baptism, Iteration
of"; and on that of the readmission of heretics into the church,
compare Martene, _De ritibus_, and Morinus, _De poenitentia_.
(A. E. G.*)
_Heresy according to the Law of England._--The highest point reached
by the ecclesiastical power in England was in the Act _De Haeretico
comburendo_ (2 Henry IV. c. 15). Some have supposed that a writ of
that name is as old as the common law, but its execution might be
arrested by a pardon from the crown. The Act of Henry IV. enabled the
diocesan alone, without the co-operation of a synod, to pronounce
sentence of heresy, and required the sheriff to execute it by burning
the offender, without waiting for the consent of the crown.[2] A large
number of penal statutes were enacted in the following reigns, and the
statute 1 Eliz. c. 1 is regarded by lawyers as limiting for the first
time the description of heresy to tenets declared heretical either by
the canonical Scripture or by the first four general councils, or such
as should thereafter be so declared by parliament with the assent of
Convocation. The writ was abolished by 29 Car. II. c. 9, which
reserved to the ecclesiastical courts their jurisdiction over heresy
and similar offences, and their power of awarding punishments not
extending to death. Heresy became henceforward a purely ecclesiastical
offence, although disabling laws of various kinds continued to be
enforced against Jews, Catholics and other dissenters. The temporal
courts have no knowledge of any offence known as heresy, although
incidentally (e.g. in questions of copyright) they have refused
protection to persons promulgating irreligious or blasphemous
opinions. As an ecclesiastical offence it would at this moment be
almost impossible to say what opinion, in the case of a layman at
least, would be deemed heretical. Apparently, if a proper case could
be made out, an ecclesiastical court might still sentence a layman to
excommunication for heresy, but by no other means could his opinions
be brought under censure. The last case on the subject (Jenkins _v._
Cook, _L.R._ 1 P.D. 80) leaves the matter in the same uncertainty. In
that case a clergyman refused the communion to a parishioner who
denied the personality of the devil. The judicial committee held that
the rights of the parishioners are expressly defined in the statute of
I Edw. VI. c. i, and, without admitting that the canons of the church,
which are not binding on the laity, could specify a lawful cause for
rejection, held that no lawful cause within the meaning of either the
canons or the rubric had been shown. It was maintained at the bar that
the denial of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity would not
be a lawful cause for such rejection, but the judgment only queries
whether a denial of the personality of the devil or eternal punishment
is consistent with membership of the church. The right of every layman
to the offices of the church is established by statute without
reference to opinions, and it is not possible to say what opinions, if
any, would operate to disqualify him.
The case of clergymen is entirely different. The statute 13 Eliz. c.
12, S 2, enacts that "if any person ecclesiastical, or which shall
have an ecclesiastical living, shall advisedly maintain or affirm any
doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said articles,
and by conventicle before the bishop of the diocese, or the ordinary,
or before the queen's highness's commissioners in matters
ecclesiastical, shall persist therein or not revoke his error, or
after such revocation eftsoons affirm such untrue doctrine," he shall
be deprived of his ecclesiastical promotions. The act it will be
observed applies only to clergymen, and the punishment is strictly
limited to deprivation of benefice. The judicial committee of the
privy council, as the last court of appeal, has on several occasions
pronounced judgments by which the scope of the act has been confined
to its narrowest legal effect. The court will construe the Articles of
Religion and formularies according to the _legal rules for the
interpretation of statutes and written instruments_. No rule of
doctrine is to be ascribed to the church which is not distinctly and
expressly stated or plainly involved in the _written law of the
Church_, and where there is no rule, a clergyman may express his
opinion without fear of penal consequences. In the _Essays and
Reviews_ cases (Williams _v._ the Bishop of Salisbury, and Wilson _v._
Fendall, 2 _Moo._ P.C.C., N.S. 375) it was held to be not penal for a
clergyman to speak of merit by transfer as a "fiction," or to express
a hope of the ultimate pardon of the wicked, or to affirm that any
part of the Old or New Testament, however unconnected with religious
faith or moral duty, was not written under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. In the case of Noble _v._ Voysey (_L.R._ 3 P.C. 357) in 1871
the committee held that it was not bound to affix a meaning to
articles of really dubious import, as it would have been in cases
affecting property. At the same time any manifest contradiction of the
Articles, or any obvious evasion of them, would subject the offender
to the penalties of deprivation. In some of the cases the question has
been raised how far the doctrine of the church could be ascertained by
reference to the opinions generally expressed by divines belonging to
its communion. Such opinions, it would seem, might be taken into
account as showing the extent of liberty which had been in practice,
claimed and exercised on the interpretation of the articles, but would
certainly not be allowed to increase their stringency. It is not the
business of the court to pronounce upon the absolute truth or
falsehood of any given opinion, but simply to say whether it is
formally consistent with the legal doctrines of the Church of England.
Whether Convocation has any jurisdiction in cases of heresy is a
question which has occasioned some difference of opinion among
lawyers. Hale, as quoted by Phillimore (_Ecc. Law_), says that before
the time of Richard II., that is, before any acts of Parliament were
made about heretics, it is without question that in a convocation of
the clergy or provincial synod "they might and frequently did here in
England proceed to the sentencing of heretics." But later writers,
while adhering to the statement that Convocation might declare
opinions to be heretical, doubted whether it could proceed to punish
the offender, even when he was a clerk in orders. Phillimore states
that there is no longer any doubt, even apart from the effect of the
Church Discipline Act 1840, that Convocation has no power to condemn
clergymen for heresy. The supposed right of Convocation to stamp
heretical opinions with its disapproval was exercised on a somewhat
memorable occasion. In 1864 the Convocation of the province of
Canterbury, having taken the opinion of two of the most eminent
lawyers of the day (Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir John Rolt), passed
judgment upon the volume entitled _Essays and Reviews_. The judgment
purported to "synodically condemn the said volume as containing
teaching contrary to the doctrine received by the United Church of
England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church of
Christ." These proceedings were challenged in the House of Lords by
Lord Houghton, and the lord chancellor (Westbury), speaking on behalf
of the government, stated that if there was any "synodical judgment"
it would be a violation of the law, subjecting those concerned in it
to the penalties of a _praemunire_, but that the sentence in question,
was "simply nothing, literally no sentence at all." It is thus at
least doubtful whether Convocation has a right even to express an
opinion unless specially authorized to do so by the crown, and it is
certain that it cannot do anything more. Heresy or no heresy, in the
last resort, like all other ecclesiastical questions, is decided by
the judicial committee of the council.
The English lawyers, following the Roman law, distinguish between
heresy and apostasy. The latter offence is dealt with by an act which
still stands on the statute book, although it has long been virtually
obsolete--the 9 & 10 Will. III. c. 35. If any person _who has been
educated in or has professed the Christian religion_ shall, by
writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking, assert or maintain
that there are more Gods than one, or shall deny any of the persons of
the Holy Trinity to be God, or shall deny the Christian religion to be
true or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of
divine authority, he shall for the first offence be declared incapable
of holding any ecclesiastical, civil, or military office or
employment, and for the second incapable of bringing any action, or of
being guardian, executor, legatee, or grantee, and shall suffer three
years' imprisonment without bail. Unitarians were saved from these
atrocious penalties by a later act (53 Geo. III. c. 160), which
permits Christians to deny any of the persons in the Trinity without
penal consequences.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For fuller details see separate articles.
[2] Stephen's _Commentaries_, bk. iv. ch. 7.
HEREWARD, usually but erroneously styled "the Wake" (an addition of
later days), an Englishman famous for his resistance to William the
Conqueror. It is now established that he was a tenant of Peterborough
Abbey, from which he held lands at Witham-on-the-Hill and Barholme with
Stow in the south-western corner of Lincolnshire, and of Crowland Abbey
at Rippingale in the neighbouring fenland. His first authentic act is
the storm and sacking of Peterborough in 1070, in company with outlaws
and Danish invaders. The next year he took part in the desperate stand
against the Conqueror's rule made in the isle of Ely, and, on its
capture by the Normans, escaped with his followers through the fens.
That his exploits made an exceptional impression on the popular mind is
certain from the mass of legendary history that clustered round his
name; he became, says Mr Davis, "in popular eyes the champion of the
English national cause." The Hereward legend has been fully dealt with
by him and by Professor Freeman, who observed that "with no name has
fiction been more busy."
See E. A. Freeman, _History of the Norman Conquest_, vol. iv.; J. H.
Round, _Feudal England_; H. W. C. Davis, _England under the Normans
and Angevins_. (J. H. R.)
HERFORD, a town in the Prussian province of Westphalia, situated at the
confluence of the Werre and Aa, on the Minden & Cologne railway, 9 m.
N.E. of Bielefeld, and at the junction of the railway to Detmold and
Altenbeken. Pop. (1885) 15,902; (1905) 24,821. It possesses six
Evangelical churches, notably the Munsterkirche, a Romanesque building
with a Gothic apse of the 15th century; the Marienkirche, in the Gothic
style; and the Johanniskirche, with a steeple 280 ft. high. The other
principal buildings are the Roman Catholic church, the synagogue, the
gymnasium founded in 1540, the agricultural school and the theatre.
There is a statue of Frederick William of Brandenburg. The industries
include cotton and flax-spinning, and the manufacture of linen cloth,
carpets, furniture, machinery, sugar, tobacco and leather.
Herford owes its origin to a Benedictine nunnery which is said to have
been founded in 832, and was confirmed by the emperor Louis the Pious in
839. From the emperor Frederick I. the abbess obtained princely rank and
a seat in the imperial diet. Among the abbesses was the celebrated
Elizabeth (1618-1680), eldest daughter of the elector palatine Frederick
V., who was a philosophical princess, and a pupil of Descartes. Under
her rule the sect of the Labadists settled for some time in Herford. The
foundation was secularized in 1803. Herford was a member of the
Hanseatic League, and its suzerainty passed in 1547 from the abbesses to
the dukes of Juliers. In 1631 it became a free imperial town, but in
1647 it was subjugated by the elector of Brandenburg. It came into the
possession of Westphalia in 1807, and in 1813 into that of Prussia.
See L. Holscher, _Reformationsgeschichte der Stadt Herford_
(Gutersloh, 1888).