moral teachings. Hobbes was the theorist of an institution that needed to decide between beliefs in order to impose them, through schools and the clergy, on every member of the population. One reason that legitimacy was more of a problem for Hobbes than his precursors was thus his need to justify new types of government activity. But in any case a dogma about method helped to propel him in the same direction. He wanted to give
, ten orphanages, a professional school, four ‘Villages of Freedom’ (places where slaves who had been freed by religious groups lived), three hospitals, three homes for the elderly and, from 1922, a seminary for the education of the local clergy.37 On the eve of the war, the local health organisation was managed by thirty-three medical doctor priests and fifty-three nurse nuns. Although local missionaries and local clergy were opposing Fascist occupation, in May 1935 the Ethiopian government banned all Catholics from the country. The decision proved to be disastrous
not personally acquainted with the Jews they denounced, nor did they always know their names. Moreover, twenty-nine or 16% of the processi were initiated by a delation of an Inquisitorial constable, a famigliaro or a clergyman. At a time when subjects were supposed to be declaring their religious allegiances, so the Church might supervise them effectively, it was still the clergy who imposed the distinctions between the Jews and their neighbouring Christians (who it seems often ignored these rulings). It was these men – confessors, preachers, local friars, priests
in principle and politics, and agent of imperial ecclesiastical policies.16 Taking up lines of thought initiated by Luther, Melanchthon developed a theory of secular rule that underscored the ruler’s duty to protect religion in a territory. This duty might call for the expulsion of Catholic clergy, the establishment of evangelical worship, and the creation of secular agencies to take up disciplinary tasks previously performed by the Catholic church. Melanchthon’s program of polity presented a heavy burden of pastoral responsibility to princes who may have wanted
which the scare figure of deism was manufactured, dealing primarily with the period from the 1690s to the 1730s. I illustrate how sections of the clergy and political class were keen to talk up the existence and threat of a deist movement for their own particular ends. Most importantly, the debate further deepens the discussion on how centrally important was public opinion to the whole process of creating the historical record. The next two case studies on France and Italy, however, contain very little discussion devoted to deism and instead concentrate much more
people like Shanly practised was little different from the services offered by the clergy, and it is no wonder people sought out such healers who were willing to use religion for practical rather than purely spiritual purposes. Not surprisingly, some members of the clergy saw the installation of a more sober, less participatory and inflexible relationship between priest and parishioners as being detrimental to the best interests
that has received the bulk of scholarly attention for its influence on early modern pastoral. Similarly, with regard to the literary ancestors of Spenser’s Fox, we can distinguish the foxes that form part of the Aesopian tradition, which tends to comment on political situations, from foxes that derive from sixteenth-century ecclesiastical pastoral and thus comment on concerns about the clergy. Little’s definition of ecclesiastical pastoral as “allegorical pastoral … in which the reader is meant to understand the shepherds as priests and the ‘shepherding’ they discuss
were no philosophers in attendance.119 Religious figures, on the other hand, were more prepared to discuss science and medicine. While no philosophers or lawyers attended the ‘Man and His Future’ symposium, the predominantly 40 The making of British bioethics scientific audience was joined by the Revd H. C. Trowell, curate of Stratford-Sub-Castle, who discussed food allocation and family planning in the developing world.120 Theologians and the clergy were also second only to scientists and doctors in responding to Science and Ethics. In line with the complexity
the first ones, his vertical lines of soldiers’ pikes raised and spirals of gun smoke draw us into the chaos of battle. He focuses his drawing on all those victimized, expulsed from inns and churches, violated in their homes. His etching spares nothing: panoramas of towns ransacked, miniatures of individuals suffering at the hands of mercenaries run amok. During this time, the public viewed the assault on clergy, women, children, and travelers as particularly vile. Callot pioneered an art of representing ordinary people caught in the crossfire of political conflict
University. When, however, he was not able to refuse honestly on any pretext, at length he agreed (although unwilling and angry) to judges from Paris and from the Theological faculty of Erfurt. Certainly among these judges he found greater familiarity and favor than did Eck, since he (Luther) had been educated in letters among them. Truly, he hoped to find among them judges who would approve the attacker, since they had recently been offended by the Pope in the case of Reuchlin and in the privileges of the French clergy, rather than those who would take the part of the