Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:44:27.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - A Tolerant Society? Religious Toleration in the Holy Roman Empire, 1648–1806

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2010

Ole Peter Grell
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Roy Porter
Affiliation:
Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London
Get access

Summary

In his essay of 1802 on the German constitution, Hegel commented that one of the many regrettable features of the Holy Roman Empire after 1648 was that it sanctioned the legality of intolerance. Paradoxically, the religious troubles of the sixteenth century and the Thirty Years War had strengthened the links between religion and the State. ‘Even civil rights are linked with religion’, he noted. Both Catholics and Protestants attempted to ‘exclude one another from civil rights and to gird and establish this exclusion with every kind of legal pedantry‘. Only Frederick the Great and Joseph II ‘put a higher value on freedom of conscience in religion than on the barbarity of legal rights’. Their toleration decrees contravened Imperial law but accorded with ‘the higher natural rights of freedom of conscience and the non-dependence of civil rights on faith’. These isolated acts, Hegel believed, pointed the way forward to the state of the future in which Church and State would be separated and man's conscience therefore truly free.

Hegel's comments place him on a watershed in the history of religious toleration in the German lands. He looked back on an era in which, since 1648, the rights of Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist communities established before 1624 were guaranteed by Imperial law. For the rest, however, toleration was a precept of prudent government, an instrument used by rulers and magistrates to maintain political and social stability or to promote prosperity. Religious freedom was granted from above by decree; its beneficiaries remained in no doubt about the fragility of their rights.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×