1. As a consequence of the long union with Sweden, Swedish had gradually become totally dominant as the language of administration and cultural life in Finland, a status which it continued to hold long after the political union had ended. This is still reflected in the continued official bilingualism of the country. Hence the custom of recognizing for many cities and towns both Finnish and Swedish names.

2. The order had been issued also by the commander in chief of the Finnish army asking the officials of civil government to remain in their posts in the Russian occupied territories. See Anthoni, Eric, Jacob Tengström och stiftstyrelsen i Åbo 1808–1832, 2 vols. (Helsingfors, 1923, 1928), 1:13.Google Scholar

3. Tengström had not forgotten the stark lessons of history. He knew only too well that three times during the previous century the Finns had been plunged into war against the Russians. The first of these was the Great Northern War (1700–1721), which not only brought enormous sufferings to Finland, but also marked the end of Sweden as a great European power, and the remarkable rise of Peter the Great's Russia. In 1721, and again in 1743, substantial portions of Finnish territory were lost to Russia, whose border with Finland along the Kymi River since 1743 was only some 75 miles east of Helsinki. The third war (1788–1790) brought a conspiracy (the Anjala League) among Finnish officers against their king, Gustavus III. There was talk about obtaining a special political states for Finland under the protection of Russia. All this was known to Tengström as well as the view of his revered teacher, H. G. Porthan, Finland's most outstanding historian in the Swedish period: “Now that the Russian capital city (St. Petersburg)is located so near, I am afraid that Finland will sooner or later fall under the power of Russia. … I hope that I need not have to see this misfortune, but you who are young may live to see it.” Schybergson, M. G., Henrik Gabriel Porthan (Helsingfors, 1911), 2:457–459Google Scholar. The common people, however, almost to a man remained loyal to their Swedish king. Their centuries-old fear and hatred of Russia gave them no alternative, as was again manifested during the actual fighting in 1808. Osterbladh, Kaarlo, Pappissääty Suomen valtiopäivillä 1808–1906 (Helsinki, 1933), 1:44.Google Scholar

4. Fisher, Joseph R., Finland and the Tsars (London, 1901), p. 39.Google Scholar

5. Danielson, J. R., Finland's Union with the Russian Empire (Borga, 1891), p. 59.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., pp. 68–69.

7. Jutikkala, Eino with Pirinen, Kauko, A History of Finland (New York, 1962), p. 185.Google Scholar

8. Colliander, Börje, Sveriges historia efter 1809 (Åbo, 1942), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

9. Anthoni, 1: 24–25.

10. The criticism, which Tengström's early cooperation with the Russians had aroused, made him very cautious. Factors which caused him to decline to serve in the deputation were (a) that the Russian occupation of Finland was not yet complete; and (b) that in the summer of 1808 there were signs of a successful Finnish counter-offensive. The armistice was concluded on November 19, 1808. On November 30, the Czar received the Finnish deputation in St. Petersburgh. Juva, Einar W. and Juva, Mikko, Suomen Kancan Historia (5 vols., Helsinki, 1964–1967), 3:405, 4:20–23.Google Scholar

11. According to a letter of Count Speranski, the Secretary of State, the Emperor had desired to show through this appointment his trusting appreciation of the able bishop. See Rauhala, K. W., Keisarillisen Suomen Senaatti 1809–1909 (Helsinki, 1919), 1:22.Google Scholar

12. Anthoni, 1: 207, expresses the view that during the Diet of Porvoo, no other Finn enjoyed the favor and trust of Alexander I to a greater degree than the Bishop of Turku. For his part the bishop exhorted his countrymen to loyalty to the new ruler. Matters of this nature appear often in the encyclical letters sent by the bishop and his chapter to the congregations.

13. Anthoni, 1:58.

14. Ibid., pp. 65–66.

15. Danielson-Kalmari, J. R., Tien varrelta valtiolliscen itsenäisyyteen (Porvoo, 1929), 2: 133Google Scholar. The instructions to Steinheil are dated September 14, 1810 (O.S.).

16. Schybergson, M. G., “J. Tengström's brevväxling med J. A. Lindblom,” Svenska Litteratursāllskapets i Finland Förhandlingar och Uppsatser 34 (Helsingfors, 1921): 73.Google Scholar

17. Anthoni, 2: 260–262. The rejection of the proposed third diocese had nothing to do with Teugström's unwillingness to accept the proffered archbishop's title. As a sign of continued imperial favor the bishop's children were raised in 1809 to the rank of nobility (under the name of Tengström). By imperial order the question of diocesan divisions was taken up again in 1810. See also Schybergson, p. 80.

18. Anthoni, 2:262–267.

19. In a letter to Vilh. Faxe, Bishop of Lund, Tengström disclosed the interesting fact that Alexander himself had taken up the matter of new dioceses with the archbishop during his tour in Finland in 1819. Tengström had proposed Kokkola and Viipuri as the episcopal sees for the new dioceses. See Feuk, Johan, “Åbo och Lund,” Svenska Litteratursällskapets i Finland Historiska och Litteraturhistoriska Studier 39 (Helsingfors, 1964): 63Google Scholar. The value of apostolic succession was considerably emphasized by the Russian plan to introduce episcopal polity to the Lutheran Church in Russia. Only a few months after his consecration in Turku by Tengström on September 29, 1819 as Bishop of Porvoo, Zachris Cygnaeus, Jr. moved to St. Petersburg. But before his translation to the Russian capital Cygnaeus consecrated in Porvoo the first Evangelical Bishop of Saratov for Southern Russia, Superintendent I. A. Fessler. Establishing an historic episcopate for the Lutheran Church enabled the Czar to enhance its standing in the eyes of the Orthodox Church in Russia, Kansanaho, Erkki, “Venäjän evankelisen kirkon ballinto 1800-luvun alkupuoliskolla,” In Arce et Vigilia Studia Historico-Ecclesiastica in honorem Ilmari Salomies (Helsinki, 1963), pp. 237–238Google Scholar. See also Dalton, Herman, Verfassungsgeschichte der evangelisch-luthcrischen Kirche in Russland (Gotha, 1887), p. 264Google Scholar; Benz, Ernst, Bischofsamt und apostolische Sukzession im deutschen Protestantismus (Stuttgart, 1953), pp. 84–85.Google Scholar

20. Rauhala, 1:185; Schmidt, Wolfgang, Finlands kyrka genom tiderna (Stockholm, 1940), pp. 261, 278.Google Scholar

21. Anthoni, 1:219–220.

22. Tengström's own rather erastian attitude comes through in his “caesaropapistic” language, which he uses in a personal letter to Baron Rehbinder: “As the Emperor in Russia is the Patriarch and supreme Priest of the Greek Church since the time of Peter I, such a proclamation [that is, the tercentenary of the Reformation] would seem to place him in a difficult position with regard to his own Church.” Danielson-Kalmari, p. 116.

23. Ibid., p. 114.

24. Alexander authorized the tercentenary jubilee in Finland, as well as in all Protestant congregations in Russia, by far most of which were Lutheran. In St. Petersburg and Berlin, hopes were expressed that this observance would serve the cause of union between the Lutherans and the Reformed in Russia. Dalton, pp. 256–257.

25. Danielson-Kalmari, pp. 121–122.

26. Ibid., 122–123.

27. Ibid., 122–124.

28. Among the recipients of honorary doctorates was also a Scottish clergyman, the Reverend John Paterson (d. 1855), of the British and Foreign Bible Society. See below, p. 347.

29. Heinricus, G., Skildringer från Abo Akademi 1808–1828 (Helsingfors, 1911), pp. 28–30Google Scholar, Danielson-Kalmari, pp. 124–127, prints Tengström's letter to Rehbinder (November 5, 1817) which contains a detailed account of the festivities in Turku.

30. A full decade before Adam Smith had published his celebrated work “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), Chydenius had both through speech and print advocated very similar ideas. Salomies, Ilmari, Suomen Kirkon Historia (Helsinki, 1962), 3:299.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., pp. 314ff.

32. Nikander, Gabriel, Jacob Tengström såsom akademisk lärare och biskop intill 1808 (Helsingfors, 1913), pp. 13ff.Google Scholar

33. Schybergson, M. G. has published a selection of Tengström's belles-lettres in Jacob Tengströms vittra skrifter i urval … (Helsingfors, 1899)Google Scholar. See also Söderhjelm, Werner, Aboromantiken och des samband med utländska idéströmninger (Borgå, 1915), pp. 72ff., 203.Google Scholar

34. According to Professor Andersson, Tengström was the real organizer of this society; Tengström possessed an extensive music library of his own. Three of his addresses, delivered at the meeting of the Musical Society, have been published by Andersson, Otto, Musikaliska sällskapet i Åbo 1790–1808 (Åbo, 1940), pp. 46ff; 266ff.Google Scholar

35. Hägglund, Bengt, Teologins historia (Lund, 1963), pp. 325ffGoogle Scholar. For German neologists, see Hirsch, Emanuel, Geschichte der neueren evangelischen Theologie (Gütersloh, 1952), 4:3–119.Google Scholar

36. Råbergh, Herman, Teologins historia vid Åbo universitet (Helsingfors, 1901), 2:177.Google Scholar

37. Nikander, pp. 9ff. Rein, Th., Filosofins studium vid Åbo universitet (Helsingfors, 1908), pp. 224ff.Google Scholar

38. A good analysis of Tengström's dogmatic dissertation is given by Råbergh, pp. 180–182.

39. Tengström's strong sympathy for Terserus is manifested already in the preface of his work Minne öfver Joannes Elai Terserus (Åbo, 1795)Google Scholar. In later years Tengström wrote the life of Bishop Rothovius (d. 1652), a stern supporter of theological orthodoxy and strict church discipline.

40. This periodical—Journal för Präster—appeared in 1797–1799, and was edited by J. A. Lindblom, then bishop of Linköping, and later (1805–1819) Archbishop of Uppsala. From this time on, the two preiates remained good friends and kept up correspondence until 1819. See Schybergson, “Tengströms brevväxling,” pp. 1–86.

41. Journal 2 (1799): 352ff.Google Scholar

42. Quoted by Rein, pp. 238.

43. During his lengthy stay in Sweden Tengström was offered, in 1781, an assistantship in philosophy at the University of Uppsala, which he declined. See Feuk, p. 10.

44. Tengström received in the election 183 votes, and was appointed by the King, though the 72 year old Dean of Turku, Chr. Cavander, received 189 votes. Nikander, p. 107; Räbergh, p. 161.

45. Feuk, p. 17.

46. Schmidt, pp. 326–327.

47. Widén, Bill, Prästmötet i Åbo stift 1629–1864 (Helsingfors, 1968), pp. 27, 52–54Google Scholar. Occasional synods had been held in northern Finland even earlier, at least in 1628 and 1643. see Parvio, Martti, Isaacus Rothovius Turun piispa (Helsinki, 1959), pp. 120–122: Widen, p. 17.Google Scholar

48. Nikander, pp. 149–151.

49. Ibid., pp. 150ff.

50. Widén, passim.

51. Ibid., pp. 299ff; Råbergh, 2:189ff.

52. Nikander, pp. 158ff; 181ff.

53. Ibid., pp. 112–127; Schybergson, pp. 67–75. From this time on, Turku had four full professorships in the theological faculty, one of them in practical theology with an assistantship in pastoral training.

54. Anthoni, 1:193ff. In the first years of the Russian period, Bishop Tengström often referred in correspondence to his poor health.

55. Ibid., 2:274.

56. Several synods had been held in Kokkola in earlier times. See Widén, pp. 308–309.

57. Anthoni, 1:226ff.

58. Ibid., 2:306ff., 328.

59. Danielson-Kalmari, pp. 128–129.

60. Ibid. See also Pirinen, Kauko, “Arkkipiispan virka luterilaisessa kirkossa,” Ministerium Spiritus (Turku, 1968), p. 91Google Scholar; Asbriuk, Gustav and Westman, Knut B., Svea Rikets Ärkebiskopar (Stockholm, 1935), pp. 32–34Google Scholar. There appears to have been at least some desire in Turku to “accentuate” its new ecclesiastical position after 1817. An interesting little detail in this respect is the revision of the chapter seal to which was now added the metropolitan cross, a symbol of an archbishopric. See Parvio, Martti, “Turun tuomiokapitulin sinetti,” In Arce ct Vigilia, p. 73.Google Scholar

61. Rosenqvist, G. O., Det liturgiska arbetet i Finland efter skilsmässan från Sverige (Helsingfors, 1935), 1:15ff.Google Scholar

62. Protocoller, , Hällne wid de… i Näder tillförordnade Committéers Första Sammanträden (Åbo, 1818), pp. 15ff.Google Scholar

63. Ingman, Lauri, “Unden katelkismuksen valmistein kirkossamme 1800-luvun alkupuolela,” Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen Seuran Vuosikirja 6 (Helsinki, 1917): 29f.Google Scholar

64. Palmén, E. A., “1869 vuoden kirkkolain vanhemmista esitöistä,” Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen Seuran Vuosikirja 4 (Helsinki, 1915): 47–52, 56.Google Scholar

65. Protocoller, p. 65; Rosenqvist, pp. 67–75.

66. Hallio, K., Suomalaisen virsikirjan uudistus (Helsinki, 1928), pp. 15ff.Google Scholar

67. Ibid., p. 147f.

68. Ibid., pp. 25, 28. After another half century a new official hymnal was authorized in Finland (1886).

69. Rosenqvist, p. 386.

70. The documents and studies on church history were published under the title Handlingar till upplysning i Finlands Kyrko-Historia, 9 vols. (Åbo, 1820–1832)Google Scholar. The title of the work on the clergy is Afhandling em Prästerliga Tjenstgörningen och Aflö i Äbo Erke-Stift, 3 vols. (Åbo, 1820–1822).Google Scholar

71. Widén, p. 305; Råbergh, 2:226ff.

72. Ruuth, Martti, “Vuoden 1830 kirkolliset juhannusjuhlat ja niiden kirkkopoliittincn merkitys, “Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen Seuren Vuosikirja” 39–41 (Helsinki, 1951): 106ff.Google Scholar

73. Schmidt, W. A., Piirteita Suomen Evankelisen Seuran historiasta,” Ramus urens in honorem Aarno Maliniemi (Helsinki, 1952), pp. 355ff., 362.Google Scholar

74. Handlingar i anledning of Prästmötei i Åbo den 16–24 September År 1825 (Åbo, 1826), p. 79.Google Scholar