Chapter IV: The Counter-Reformation (8)

c. The Church and the Pastorate. Orthodoxy regarded word and
sacrament and the ministry which administered them as the
basis and foundation of the church; pietism held that the
individual believers determined the character and existence
of the church. In the one case the church was thought
to beget, nurse, and nourish believers; in the other
believers, constituted, maintained, and renewed the church,
accomplishing this best by conventicles, in which living
Christianity preserved itself and diffused its influence
abroad. The orthodox laid great stress upon clerical
ordination and the grace of office; pietists on the person
and his faith. Spener had taught that only he who has
experienced in his own heart the power of the gospel,
_i.e._ he who has been born again, can be a true preacher
and pastor. Löscher maintained that the official acts of an
unconverted preacher, if only he be orthodox, may be blessed
as well as those of a converted man, because saving power
lies not in the person of the preacher, but in the word of
God which he preaches, in its purity and simplicity, and in
the sacraments which he dispenses in accordance with their
institution. The pietists then went so far as absolutely
to deny that saving results could follow the preaching of
an unconverted man. The proclamation of forgiveness by the
church without the inward sealing had for them no meaning;
yea, they regarded it as dangerous, because it quieted
conscience and made sinners secure. Hence they keenly
opposed private confession and churchly absolution. Of a
special grace of office they would know nothing: the true
ordination is the new birth; each regenerate one, and such
a one only, is a true priest. The orthodox insisted above
all on pure doctrine and the church confession; the pietists
too regarded this as necessary, but not as the main thing.
Spener decidedly maintained the duty of accepting the church
symbols; but later pietists rejected them as man’s work, and
so containing errors. Among the orthodox, again, some went
so far as to claim for their symbols absolute immunity from
error. Spener’s opposition to the compulsory use of fixed
Scripture portions, prescribed forms of prayer, and the
exorcism formulary occasioned the most violent contentions.
On the other hand, his reintroduction of the confirmation
service before the first communion, which had fallen into
general desuetude, was imitated, and soon widely prevailed,
even among the orthodox.

d. Eschatology. Spener had interpreted the biblical doctrine of
the 1,000 years’ reign as meaning that, after the overthrow
of the papacy and the conversion of heathens and Jews, a
period of the most glorious and undisturbed tranquillity
would dawn for the kingdom of Christ on earth as prelude
to the eternal sabbath. His opponents denounced this as
chiliasm and fanaticism.

e. There was, finally, a controversy about Divine providence
occasioned by the founding of Francke’s orphan house at
Halle. The pietists pointed to the establishment and growth
of this institution as an instance of immediate divine
providence; while Löscher, by indicating the common means
employed to secure success, reduced the whole affair to the
domain of general and daily providence, without denying the
value of the strong faith in God and the active love that
characterized its founder, as well as the importance of the
Divine blessing which rested upon the work.[499]

§ 167.3. =Theology= (§ 159, 4).--The last two important
representatives of the =Old Orthodox School= were =Löscher=, who,
besides his polemic against pietism, made learned contributions
to biblical philology and church history; and his companion in
arms, =Cyprian= of Gotha, who died in A.D. 1745, the ablest
combatant of Arnold’s “_Ketzerhistorie_,” and opponent of union
efforts and of the papacy.--The =Pietist School=, more fruitful
in practical than scientific theology, contributed to devotional
literature many works that will never be forgotten. The learned
and voluminous writer =Joachim Lange=, who died A.D. 1744, the
most skilful controversialist among the Halle pietists, author
of the “Halle Latin Grammar,” which reached its sixtieth edition
in A.D. 1809, published a commentary on the whole Bible in
seven folio vols. after the Cocceian method. Of importance as
a historian of the Reformation was =Salig= of Wolfenbüttel,
who died in A.D. 1738. =Christian Thomasius= at first attached
himself to the pietists as an opponent of the rigid adherence
to the letter of the orthodox, but was repudiated by them as an
indifferentist. To him belongs the honour of having turned public
opinion against the persecution of witches (§ 117, 4). Out of
the contentions of pietists and orthodox there now rose a =third
school=, in which Lutheran theology and learning were united with
genuine piety and profound thinking, decided confessionalism with
moderation and fairness. Its most distinguished representatives
were =Hollaz= of Pomerania, died 1713 (“_Examen Theologicum
Acroamaticum_”); =Buddeus= of Jena, died 1729 (“_Hist. Ecclst.
V.T._,” “_Instit. Theol. Dogma_,” “_Isagoge Hist. Theol. Univ._”);
=J. Chr. Wolf= of Homburg, died 1739 (“_Biblioth. Hebr._,” “_Curæ
Philol. et Crit. in N.T._”); =Weismann= of Tübingen, died 1747
(“_Hist. Ecclst._”); =Carpzov= of Leipzig, died A.D. 1767 as
superintendent at Lübeck (“_Critica s. V.T._,” “_Introductio
ad Libros cen. V.T._,” “_Apparatus Antiquitt. s. Codicis_”);
=J. H. Michaelis= of Halle, died 1731 (“_Biblia. Hebr. c.
Variis Lectionibus et Brev. Annott._,” “_Uberiores Annott. in
Hagiograph._”); assisted in both by his learned nephew =Chr. Ben.
Michaelis= of Halle, died 1764; =J. G. Walch= of Jena, died 1755
(“_Einl. in die Religionsstreitigkeiten_,” “_Biblioth. Theol.
Selecta_,” “_Biblioth. Patristica_,” “_Luther’s Werke_”); =Chr.
Meth. Pfaff= of Tübingen, died 1760 (“_K. G., K. Recht, Dogmatik,
Moral_”); =L. von Mosheim= of Helmstädt [Helmstadt] and Göttingen,
died 1755, the father of modern church history (“_Institt. Hist.
Ecclst._,” “_Commentarii Rebus Christ. ante Constant. M._,”
“_Dissertationes_,” etc.); =J. Alb. Bengel= of Stuttgart, died
1752 (“_Gnomon N.T._,” a commentary on the N.T. distinguished
by pregnancy of expression and profundity of thought; from
his interpretation of Revelation he expected the millennium to
begin in A.D. 1836); and =Chr. A. Crusius= of Leipzig, died 1775
(“_Hypomnemata ad Theol. Propheticam._”)--A =fourth= theological
school arose out of the application of the mathematical
method of demonstration by the philosopher =Chr. von Wolff=
of Halle, who died A.D. 1754. Wolff attached himself to
the philosophical system of Leibnitz, and sought to unite
philosophy and Christianity; but under the manipulation of his
logico-mathematical method of proof he took all vitality out of
the system, and the pre-established harmony of the world became
a purely mechanical clockwork. He looked merely to the logical
accuracy of Christian truths, without seeking to penetrate their
inner meaning, gave formal exercise to the understanding, while
the heart was left empty and cold; and thus inevitably revelation
and mystery made way for a mere natural theology. Hence the
charge brought against the system of tending to fatalism and
atheism, not only by narrow pietists like Lange, but by able
and liberal theologians like Buddeus and Crusius, was quite
justifiable. By a cabinet order of Frederick William I. in
A.D. 1723 Wolff was deposed, and ordered within two days,
on pain of death, to quit the Prussian states. But so soon as
Frederick II. ascended the throne, in A.D. 1740, he recalled the
philosopher to Halle from Marburg, where he had meanwhile taught
with great success.[500] =Sig. Jac. Baumgarten=, the pious and
learned professor in Halle, who died in A.D. 1757, was the first
to introduce Wolff’s method into theology. In respect of contents
his theology occupies essentially the old orthodox ground.
The ablest promoter of the system was =John Carpov= of Weimar,
who died in A.D. 1768 (“_Theol. Revelata Meth. Scientifica
Adornata_”). When applied to sermons, the Wolffian method led
to the most extreme insipidity and absurdity.

§ 167.4. =Unionist Efforts.=--The distinguished theologian
Chr. Matt. Pfaff, chancellor of the University of Tübingen, who,
without being numbered among the pietists, recognised in pietism
a wholesome reaction against the barren worship of the letter
which had characterized orthodoxy, regarded a union between
the Lutheran and Reformed churches on their common beliefs,
which in importance far exceeded the points of difference, as
both practicable and desirable; and in A.D. 1720 expressed this
opinion in his “_Alloquium Irenicum ad Protestantes_,” in which
he answered the challenge of the “_Corpus Evangelicorum_” at
Regensburg (§ 153, 1). His proposal, however, found little favour
among Lutheran theologians. Not only Cyprian of Gotha, but even
such conciliatory theologians as Weismann of Tübingen and Mosheim
of Helmstädt [Helmstadt], opposed it. But forty years later a
Lutheran theologian, Heumann of Göttingen, demonstrated that “the
Reformed doctrine of the supper is true,” and proposed, in order
to end the schism, that Lutherans should drop their doctrine
of the supper and the Reformed their doctrine of predestination.
This pamphlet, edited after the author’s death by Sack of Berlin,
in A.D. 1764, produced a great sensation, and called forth a
multitude of replies on the Lutheran side, the best of which
were those of Walch of Jena and Ernesti of Leipzig. Even within
the Lutheran church, however, it found considerable favour.

§ 167.5. =Theories of Ecclesiastical Law.=--Of necessity during
the first century of the Protestant church its government was
placed in the hands of the princes, who, because there were no
others to do so, dispensed the _jura episcopalia_ as _præcipua
membra ecclesiæ_. What was allowed at first in the exigency of
these times came gradually to be regarded as a legal right.
Orthodox theology and the juristic system associated with it,
especially that of Carpzov, justified this assumption in what
is called the =episcopal system=. This theory firmly maintains
the mediæval distinction between the spiritual and civil powers
as two independent spheres ordained of God; but it installs the
prince as _summus episcopus_, combining in his person the highest
spiritual with the highest civil authority. In lands, however,
where more than one confession held sway, or where a prince
belonging to a different section of the church succeeded, the
practical difficulties of this theory became very apparent; as,
_e.g._, when a Reformed or Romish prince had to be regarded as
_summus episcopus_ of a Lutheran church. Driven thus to seek
another basis for the claims of royal supremacy, a new theory,
that of the =territorial system=, was devised, according to
which the prince possessed highest ecclesiastical authority, not
as _præcipuum membrum ecclesiæ_, but as sovereign ruler in the
state. The headship of the church was therefore not an independent
prerogative over and above that of civil government, but an
inherent element in it: _cujus regio, illius et religio_. The
historical development of the German Reformation gave support to
this theory (§ 126, 6), as seen in the proceedings of the Diet of
Spires in A.D. 1526, in the Augsburg and Westphalian Peace.
A scientific basis was given it by Puffendorf of Heidelberg,
died A.D. 1694, in alliance with Hobbes (§ 163, 3). It was
further developed and applied by Christian Thomasius of Halle,
died A.D. 1728, and by the famous J. H. Böhmer in his “_Jus
Ecclesiasticum Potestantium_.” Thomasius’ connexion with the
pietists and his indifference to confessions secured for the
theory a favourable reception in that party. Spener himself
indeed preferred the Calvinistic presbyterial constitution,
because only in it could equality be given to all the three
orders, _ministerium ecclesiasticum_, _magistratus politicus_,
_status œconomicus_. This protest by Spener against the two
systems was certainly not without influence upon the construction
of a third theory, the =collegial system=, proposed by Pfaff of
Tübingen, died A.D. 1760. According to this scheme there belonged
to the sovereign as such only the headship of the church, _jus
circa sacra_, while the _jura in sacra_, matters pertaining to
doctrine, worship, ecclesiastical law and its administration,
installation of clergy, and excommunication, as _jura
collegialia_, belonged to the whole body of church members. The
normal constitution therefore required the collective vote of
all the members through their synods. But outward circumstances
during the Reformation age had necessitated the relegating the
discharge of these collegial rights to the princes, which in
itself was not unallowable, if only the position be maintained
that the prince acts _ex commisso_, and is under obligation to
render an account to those who have commissioned him. This system,
on account of its democratic character, found hearty supporters
among the later rationalists. But as a matter of fact nowhere
was any of the three systems consistently carried out. The
constitution adopted in most of the national churches was a
weak vacillation between all the three.[501]

§ 167.6. =Church Song= (§ 159, 3) received, during the first half
of the century, many valuable contributions. Two main groups of
singers may be distinguished:

1. The pietistic school, characterized by a biblical and
practical tendency. The spiritual life of believers, the
work of grace in conversion, growth in holiness, the varying
conditions and experiences of the religious life, were
favourite themes. They were fitted, not so much for use
in the public services, as for private devotion, and few
comparatively have been retained in collections of church
hymns. The later productions of this school sank more and
more into sentimentalism and allegorical and fanciful play
of words. We may distinguish among the Halle pietists an
older school, A.D. 1690-1720, and a younger, A.D. 1720-1750.
The former, coloured by the fervent piety of Francke,
produced simple, hearty, and often profound songs. The most
distinguished representatives were =Freylinghausen=, died
A.D. 1739, Francke’s son-in-law, and director of the Halle
Orphanage, editor in A.D. 1717 of a hymn-book widely used
among the pietists, was author of the hymns “Pure Essence,
spotless Fount of Light,” “The day expires;” =Chr. Fr.
Richter=, physician to the Orphanage, died A.D. 1711, author
of thirty-three beautiful hymns, including “God, whom I as
Love have known;” =Emilia Juliana=, Countess of Schwarzburg
Rudolstadt, died A.D. 1706, who wrote 586 hymns, including
“Who knows how near my end may be?” =Schröder=, pastor in
Magdeburg, died A.D. 1728, wrote “One thing is needful: Let
me deem;” =Winckler=, cathedral preacher of Magdeburg, died
A.D. 1722, author of “Strive, when thou art called of God;”
=Dessler=, rector of Nuremburg, died A.D. 1722, composer
of “I will not let Thee go, Thou help in time of need,” “O
Friend of souls, how well is me;” =Gotter=, died A.D. 1735,
who wrote, “O Cross, we hail thy bitter reign;” =Cresselius=,
pastor in Dusseldorf [Düsseldorf], author of “Awake, O man,
and from thee shake.” The younger Halle school represents
pietism in its period of decay. Its best representatives
are =J. J. Rambach=, professor at Giessen, died A.D. 1735,
who wrote “I am baptized into thy name;” =Allendorf=, court
preacher at Cöthen, died A.D. 1773, editor of a collection
of poetic renderings from the Canticles.

2. The poets of the orthodox party, although opposed to the
pietists, are all more or less touched by the fervent piety
of Spener. =Neumeister=, pastor at Hamburg, died A.D. 1756,
was an orthodox hymn-writer of thoroughly conservative
tendencies, zealously opposing the onesidedness of pietism,
with a strong, ardent faith in the orthodox creed, but
without much significance as a poet. =Schmolck=, pastor
at Schweidnitz, died A.D. 1737, wrote over 1,000 hymns,
including “Blessed Jesus, here we stand,” “Hosanna to the
Son of David! Raise,” “Welcome, thou Victor in the strife.”
=Sol. Franck=, secretary to the consistory at Weimar, died
A.D. 1725, wrote over 300 hymns, including “Rest of the
weary, thou thyself art resting now.” The mediating party
between pietism and orthodoxy, represented by Bengel and
Crusius in theology, is represented among hymn-writers
by =J. Andr. Rothe=, died A.D. 1758, and by =Mentzer=,
died A.D. 1734, composer of “Oh, would I had a thousand
tongues!” In A.D. 1750 J. Jac. von Moser collected a
list of 50,000 spiritual songs printed in the German
language.--Continuation, § 171, 1.

§ 167.7. =Sacred Music= (§ 159, 5).--Decadence of musical taste
accompanied the lowering of the poetic standard, and pietists
went even further than the orthodox in their imitation and
adaptation of operatic airs. =Freylinghausen=, not only himself
composed many such melodies, but made a collection from various
sources in A.D. 1704, retaining some of the more popular of the
older tunes.--There now arose, amid all this depravation of taste,
a noble musician, who, like the good householder, could bring
out of his treasure things new and old. =J. Seb. Bach=, the most
perfect organist who ever lived, was musical director of the
School of St. Thomas, Leipzig, and died A.D. 1750. He turned
enthusiastically to the old chorale, which no one had ever
understood and appreciated as he did. He harmonized the old
chorales for the organ, made them the basis for elaborate organ
studies, gave expression to his profoundest feelings in his
musical compositions and in his recitatives, duets, and airs,
reproduced at the sacred concerts many fine old chorales wedded
to most appropriate Scripture passages. He is for all times
the unrivalled master in fugue, harmony, and modulation. In his
passion music we have expression given to the profoundest ideas
of German Protestantism in the noblest music. After Bach comes a
master in oratorio music hitherto unapproached, =G. Fr. Handel=
of Halle, who, from A.D. 1710 till his death in A.D. 1759,
lived mostly in England. For twenty-five years he wrought for
the opera-house, and only in his later years gave himself to
the composing of oratorios. His operas are forgotten, but his
oratorios will endure to the end of time. His most perfect
work is the “Messiah,” which Herder describes as a Christian
epic in music. Of his other great compositions, “Samson,”
“Judas Maccabæus,” and “Jephtha” may be mentioned.[502]

§ 167.8. =The Christian Life and Devotional Literature.=--Pietism
led to a powerful revival of religious life among the people,
which it sustained by zealous preaching and the publication of
devotional works. A similar activity displayed itself among the
orthodox. Francke began his charitable labours with seven florins;
but with undaunted faith he started his Orphanage, writing over
its door the words of Isaiah xl. 31. In faith and benevolence
Woltersdorff was a worthy successor of Francke; and Baron von
Canstein applied his whole means to the founding of the Bible
Institute of Halle. Missions too were now prosecuted with a zeal
and success which witnessed to the new life that had arisen in
the Lutheran church.--A remarkable manifestation of the pietistic
spirit of this age is seen in =The Praying Children in Silesia=,
A.D. 1707. Children of four years old and upward gathered in open
fields for singing and prayer, and called for the restoration of
churches taken away by the Catholics. The movement spread over
the whole land. In vain was it denounced from the pulpits and
forbidden by the authorities. Opposition only excited more and
more the zeal of the children. At last the churches were opened
for their services. The excitement then gradually subsided. It
was, however, long a subject of discussion between the pietists
and the orthodox; the latter denouncing it as the work of the
devil, the former regarding it as a wonderful awakening of God’s
grace.--Best remembered of the many devotional writers of this
period are Bogatsky of Halle, died A.D. 1774, whose “Golden
Treasury” is still highly esteemed;[503] and Von Moser, died
A.D. 1785, who lived a noble and exemplary life at Stuttgart
amid much sore persecution. The great need of simple explanation
of Scripture appears from the great sale of such popular
commentaries as those of Pfaff at Tübingen, 1730, Starke at
Leipzig, 1741, and the Halle Bible of S. J. Baumgarten, 1748.

§ 167.9. =Missions to the Heathen.=--The quickening of
religious life by pietism bore fruit in new missionary activity.
Frederick IV. of Denmark founded in his East Indian possessions
the Tranquebar mission in A.D. 1706, under Ziegenbalg and
Plutschau. Ziegenbalg, who translated the New Testament into
Tamil, died in A.D. 1719. From the Danish possessions this
mission carried its work over into the English Indian territories.
Able and zealous workers were sent out from the Halle Institute,
of whom the greatest was Chr. Fr. Schwartz, who died in A.D. 1798,
after nearly fifty years of noble service in the mission field.
In the last quarter of the century, however, under the influence
of rationalism, zeal for missions declined, the Halle society
broke up, and the English were allowed to reap the harvest
sown by the Lutherans. The Halle professor Callenberg founded
in A.D. 1728 a society for the conversion of the Jews, in the
interests of which Stephen Schultz travelled over Europe, Asia,
and Africa, preaching the Cross among the Jews. Christianity had
been introduced among the Eskimos in Greenland in the eleventh
century (§ 93, 5), but the Scandinavian colony there had been
forgotten, and no trace of the religion which it had taught any
longer remained. This reproach to Christianity lay sore on the
heart of Hans Egede, a Norwegian pastor, and he found no rest
till, supported by a Danish-Norwegian trading house, he sailed
with his family in A.D. 1721 for these frozen and inhospitable
shores. Amid almost inconceivable hardships, and with at first
but little success, he continued to labour unweariedly, and even
after the trading company abandoned the field he remained. In
A.D. 1733 he had the unexpected joy of welcoming three Moravian
missionaries, Christian David and the brothers Stach. His joy
was too soon dashed by the spiritual pride of the new arrivals,
who insisted on modelling everything after their own Moravian
principles, and separated themselves from the noble Egede, when
he refused to yield, as an unspiritual and unconverted man. Egede,
on the other hand, though deeply offended at their confounding
justification and sanctification, their contempt of pure doctrine,
and their unscriptural views and mode of speech, was ready to
attribute all this to their defective theological training.
He rewarded their unkindness, when they were stricken down in
sore sickness, with unwearied, loving care. In A.D. 1736 he
returned to Denmark, leaving his son Paul to carry on his work,
and continued director of the Greenland Mission Seminary in
Copenhagen till his death in A.D. 1758.[504]--Continuation,
§ 171, 5.

§ 168. THE CHURCH OF THE MORAVIAN BRETHREN.[505]

The highly gifted Count Zinzendorf, inspired even as a boy, out of fervent love to the Saviour, with the idea of gathering together the lovers of Jesus, took occasion of the visit of some Moravian Exultants to his estate to realize his cherished project. On the Hutberg he dropped the mustard seed of the dream of his youth into fertile soil, where, under his fervent care, it soon grew into a stately tree, whose branches spread over all European lands, and thence through all parts of the habitable globe. The society which he founded was called “The Society of the United Brethren.” The fact that this society was not overwhelmed by the extravagances to which for a time it gave way, that its fraternising with the fanatics, the extravagant talk in which its members indulged about a special covenant with the Saviour, and their not over-modest claims to a peculiar rank in the kingdom of God, did not lead to its utter overthrow in the abyss of fanaticism, and that on the slippery paths of its mystical marriage theory it was able to keep its feet, presents a phenomenon, which stands alone in church history, and more than anything else proves how deeply rooted founder and followers were in the saving truths of the gospel. The count himself laid aside many of his extravagances, and what still remained was abandoned by his sensible and prudent successor Spangenberg, so far as it was not necessarily involved in the fundamental idea of a special covenant with the Saviour. The special service rendered by the society was the protest which it raised against the generally prevailing apostasy. During this period of declension it saved the faith of many pious souls, affording them a welcome refuge, with rich spiritual nourishment and nurture. With the reawakening of the religious life in the nineteenth century, however, its adherents lost ground in Europe more and more, by maintaining their old onesidedness in life and doctrine, their depreciatory estimate of theological science, and the quarrelsome spirit which they generally manifested. But in one province, that of missions to the heathen, their energy and success have never yet been equalled. Their thorough and well-organized system of education also deserves particular mention. At present the Society of the Brethren numbers half a million, distributed among 100 settlements or thereabout.

§ 168.1. =The Founder of the Moravian Brotherhood=, Nic. Ludwig
Count von =Zinzendorf= and Pottendorf, was born in Dresden in
A.D. 1700. Spener was one of his sponsors at baptism. His father
dying early, and his mother marrying a second time, the boy,
richly endowed with gifts of head and heart, was brought up by
his godly pietistic grandmother, the Baroness von Gersdorf. There
in his earliest youth he learned to seek his happiness in the
closest personal fellowship with the Lord, and the tendency of
his whole future life to yield to the impulses of pious feeling
already began to assert itself. In his tenth year he entered the
Halle Institute under Francke, where the pietistic idea of the
need of the _ecclesiolæ in ecclesia_ took firm possession of his
heart. Even in his fifteenth year he sought its realization by
founding among his fellow students “The Order of the Grain of
Mustard Seed” (Matt. xiii. 31). After completing his school
course, his uncle and guardian, in order to put an end to his
pietistic extravagances, sent him to study law at the orthodox
University of Wittenberg. Here he had at first to suffer a sort
of martyrdom as a rigid pietist swimming against the orthodox
current. His residence at Wittenberg, however, was beneficial
to him in freeing him unconsciously of the Halle pietism,
which had restrained his spiritual development. He did indeed
firmly maintain the fundamental idea of pietism, _ecclesiolæ
in ecclesia_, but in his mind it gained a wider significance
than pietism had given it. His endeavours to secure a personal
conference, and where possible a union, between the Halle
and Wittenberg leaders were unsuccessful. In A.D. 1719 he
left Wittenberg and travelled for two years, visiting the most
distinguished representatives of all confessions and sects. This
too fostered his idea of a grand gathering of all who love the
Lord Jesus. On his return home, in A.D. 1721, at the wish of his
relatives he entered the service of the Saxon government. But a
religious genius like Zinzendorf could find no satisfaction in
such employment. And soon an opportunity presented itself for
carrying out the plan to which his thoughts and longings were
directed.[506]

§ 168.2. =The Founding of the Brotherhood=, A.D. 1722-1727. The
Schmalcald, and still more the Thirty Years’ War, had brought
frightful suffering and persecution upon the Bohemian and
Moravian Brethren. Many of them sought refuge in Poland and
Prussia. One of the refugees was the famous educationist J. Amos
Comenius, who died in A.D. 1671, after having been bishop of the
Moravians at Lissa in Posen from 1648. Those who remained behind
were, even after the Peace of Westphalia, subjected to the
cruellest oppression! Only secretly in their houses and at the
risk of their lives could they worship God according to the faith
of their fathers; and they were obliged publicly to profess their
adherence to the Romish church. Thus gradually the light of the
gospel was extinguished in the homes of their descendants, and
only a tradition, becoming ever more and more faint, remained
as a memory of their ancestral faith. A Moravian carpenter,
Christian David, born and reared in the Romish church, but
converted by evangelical preaching, succeeded in the beginning
of the eighteenth century in fanning into a flame again in some
families the light that had been quenched. This little band of
believers, under David’s leading, went forth in A.D. 1722 and
sought refuge on Zinzendorf’s estate in Lusatia. The count was
then absent, but the steward, with the hearty concurrence of
the count’s grandmother, gave them the Hutberg at Berthelsdorf
as a settlement. With the words of Psalm lxxxiv. 4 on his lips,
Christian David struck the axe into the tree for building the
first house. Soon the little town of Herrnhut had arisen, as
the centre of that Christian society which Zinzendorf now sought
with all his heart and strength to develop and promote. Gradually
other Moravians dropped in, but a yet greater number from far and
near streamed in, of all sorts of religious revivalists, pietists,
separatists, followers of Schwenckfeld, etc. Zinzendorf had no
thought of separation from the Lutheran church. The settlers were
therefore put under the pastoral care of Rothe, the worthy pastor
of Berthelsdorf (§ 167, 6). To organize such a mixed multitude
was no easy task. Only Zinzendorf’s glorious enthusiasm for
the idea of a congregation of saints, his eminent organizing
talents, the wonderful elasticity and tenacity of his will,
the extraordinary prudence, circumspection, and wisdom of his
management, made it possible to cement the incongruous elements
and avoid an open breach. The Moravians insisted upon restoring
their old constitution and discipline, and of the others, each
wished to have prominence given to whatever he thought specially
important. Only on one point were they all agreed, the duty of
refusing to conform to the Lutheran church and its pastor Rothe.
The count, therefore, felt obliged to form a new and separatist
society. Personally he had no special liking for the old Moravian
constitution; but the lot decided in its favour, while the idea
of continuing a pre-Reformation martyr church was not without a
certain charm. Thus Zinzendorf drew up a constitution with old
Moravian forms and names, on the basis of which the colony was
established, August 13th, A.D. 1727, under the name of the United
Brotherhood.

§ 168.3. =The Development of the Brotherhood down to Zinzendorf’s
Death=, A.D. 1727-1760.--With great energy the new society
proceeded to found settlements in Germany, Holland, England,
Ireland, Denmark, Norway, and North America, as well as among
German residents in other lands. In A.D. 1734, Zinzendorf
submitted to examination at Tübingen as candidate for license,
and in A.D. 1737 received episcopal consecration from the Berlin
court preacher, Jablonsky, who was at the same time bishop of
the Moravian Brethren, which the same prelate had two years
previously granted to Dr. Nitschmann, another member of the
society. The efforts of the Brethren to spread their cause now
attracted attention. The Saxon government in A.D. 1736 sent to
Herrnhut a commission, of which Löscher was a member. But in
A.D. 1736, before it submitted its report, which on the whole
was favourable, Zinzendorf quitted the country, probably by the
elector’s command at the instigation of the Austrian government,
which objected to the harbouring of so many Bohemian and Moravian
emigrants. Like all those at this time persecuted on account
of religion he took refuge in Wetterau (§ 170, 2). With his
little family of pilgrims he settled at Ronneburg near Büdingen,
founded the prosperous churches of Marienborn and Herrnhaag, and
travelled extensively in Europe and America. This period of exile
was the period when the society was most successful in spreading
outwardly, but it was also the period when it suffered most from
troubles and dissensions within. It was bitterly attacked by
Lutheran theologians, and much more venomously by apostates from
its own fold. The Brethren at this time afforded only too much
ground for misunderstanding and reproach. To this period belongs
the famous fiction of a special covenant, the Pandora-box
of all other absurdities; the development of the count’s own
theological views and peculiar form of expression in his numerous
works; the composition and introduction of unsavoury spiritual
songs, with their silly conceits and many blasphemous and even
obscene pictures and analogies; the market-crier laudations of
their church, the not always pure methods of propaganda, the
introduction of a marriage discipline fitted to break down all
modest restraints; and, finally, the so-called _Niedlichkeiten_,
or boisterous festivals. Even the pietists opposed these
antinomian excesses. Tersteegen, too (§ 169, 1), whose mystic
tendency inclined him strongly toward pietist views, reproached
the Herrnhuters with frivolity. This polemic, disagreeable as it
was, exercised a wholesome influence upon the society. The count
became more guarded in his language, and more prudent in his
behaviour, while he set aside the most objectionable excrescences
of doctrine and practice that had begun to show themselves in the
community. At last, in A.D. 1747, the Saxon government repeated
the edict of banishment so far as the person of the founder
was concerned, and when, two years later, the society expressly
accepted the Augsburg Confession, it was formally recognised
in Saxony. In this same year, A.D. 1749, an English act of
parliament recognised it as a church with a pure episcopal
succession on equal terms with the Anglican episcopal
church.--Zinzendorf continued down to his death to direct the
affairs of this church, which hung upon him with childlike
affection, reflecting his personality, not only in its
excellences, but also in all its extravagances. He died in
A.D. 1760 in the full enjoyment of that blessedness which his
fervent love for the Saviour had brought him.

§ 168.4. =Zinzendorf’s Plan and Work.=--While Zinzendorf
received his first impulse from pietism, he soon perceived its
onesidedness and narrowness. He would have no conventicle, but
one organized community; no ideal invisible, but a real visible
church; no narrow methodism, but a rich, free administration of
the Christian spirit. He did not, in the first instance, aim at
the conversion of the world, nor even at the reformation of the
church, but at gathering and preserving those belonging to the
Saviour. He hoped, however, to erect a reservoir in which he
might collect every little brooklet of living water, from which
he might again water the whole world. And when he succeeded in
organizing a community, he was quite convinced that it was the
Philadelphia of the Apocalypse (iii. 7 ff.), that it introduced
“the Philadelphian period” of church history, of which all
prophets and apostles had prophesied. His plan had originally
reference to all Christendom, and he even took a step toward
realizing this universal idea. In order to build a bridge
between the Catholic church and his own community, he issued, in
A.D. 1727, a Christo-Catholic hymn-book and prayer-book, and had
even sketched out a letter to the pope to accompany a copy of his
book. He also attempted, by a letter to the patriarchs and then
to Elizabeth, empress of Russia, to interest the Greek church
in his scheme, dwelling upon the Greek extraction of the church
of the Moravian Brethren (§ 79, 2). His gathering of members,
however, was practically limited to the Protestant churches. All
confessions and sects afforded him contingents. He was himself
heartily attached to the distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran
church. But in a society whose distinctive characteristic it was
to be the gathering point for the pious of all nationalities,
doctrine and confession could not be the uniting bond. It could
be only a fellowship of love and not of creed, and the bond
a community of loving sentiment and loving deeds. The inmost
principle of Lutheranism, reconciliation by the blood of Christ,
was saved, indeed was made the characteristic and vital doctrine,
the one point of union between Moravians, Lutherans, and Reformed.
Over the three parties stood the count himself as _ordinarius_;
but this gave an external and not a confessional unity. The
subsequent acceptance of the Augsburg Confession, in A.D. 1749,
was a political act, so as to receive a civil status, and
had otherwise no influence. Instead then of the confession,
Zinzendorf made the =constitution= the bond of union. Its forms
were borrowed from the old Moravian church order, but dominated
and inspired by Zinzendorf’s own spirit. The old Moravian
constitution was episcopal and clerical, and proceeded from
the idea of the church; while the new constitution of Herrnhut
was essentially presbyterial, and proceeded from the idea of
the community, and that as a communion of saints. The Herrnhut
bishops were only titular bishops; they had no diocese, no
jurisdiction, no power of excommunication. All these prerogatives
belonged to the united eldership, in which the lay element
was distinctly predominant. Herrnhut had no pastors, but
only preaching brothers; the pastoral care devolved upon the
elders and their assistants. But beside these half-Lutheran and
pseudo-Moravian peculiarities, there was also a Donatist element
at the basis of the constitution. This lay in the fundamental
idea of absolutely true and pure children of God, and reached
full expression in the concluding of a =special covenant= with
the Saviour at London on Sept. 16th, A.D. 1741. Leonard Dober for
some years administered the office of an elder-general. But at
the London synod it was declared that he had not the requisite
gifts for that office. Dober now wished to resign. While in
confusion as to whom they could appoint, it flashed into the
minds of all to appoint the Saviour Himself. “Our feeling and
heart conviction was, that He made a special covenant with His
little flock, taking us as His peculiar treasure, watching over
us in a special way, personally interesting Himself in every
member of our community, and doing that for us perfectly which
our previous elders could only do imperfectly.”

§ 168.5. Among the =numerous extravagances= which Zinzendorf
countenanced for a time, the following may be mentioned.

1. The notion of the motherhood of the Holy Spirit. Zinzendorf
described the holy Trinity as “man, woman, and child.”
The Spirit is the mother in three respects: the eternal
generation of the Son of God, the conception of the Man
Jesus, and the second birth of believers.

2. The notion of the fatherhood of Jesus Christ (Isa. ix. 6).
Creation is ascribed solely to the Son, hence Christ is our
special, direct Father. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
is only, “in the language of men, our father-in-law or
grandfather.”

3. In reference to our Lord’s life on earth, Zinzendorf
delighted in using terms of contempt, in order to emphasize
the depths of His humiliation.

4. In like manner he uses reproachful terms in speaking of the
style of the sacred Scriptures, and the inspired community
prefers a living Bible.

5. The theory and practice of mystical marriage, according to
Ephesians v. 32. The community and each member of it are
spiritual brides of Christ, and the marriage relation and
begetting of children were set forth and spiritualized in
a singularly indelicate manner.

§ 168.6. =Zinzendorf’s greatness= lay in the fervency of his
love of the Saviour, and in the yearning desire to gather under
the shadow of the cross all who loved the Lord. His weakness
consisted not so much in his manifested extravagances, as in his
idea that he had been called to found a society. To the realizing
of this idea he gave his life, talents, heart, and means. The
advantages of rank and culture he also gave to this one task.
He was personally convinced of his Divine call, and as he
did not recognise the authority of the written word, but only
subjective impressions, it is easily seen how he would drift into
absurdities and inconsistencies. The end contemplated seemed to
him supremely important, so that to realize it he did not scruple
to depart from strict truthfulness.--Zinzendorf’s writings,
over one hundred in number, are characterized by originality,
brilliancy, and peculiar forms of expression. Of his 2,000 hymns,
mostly improvised for public services, 700 of the best were
revised and published by Knapp. Two are still found in most
collections, and are more or less reproduced in our English hymns,
“Jesus still lead on,” and “Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness.”

§ 168.7. =The Brotherhood under Spangenberg’s
Administration.=--For its present form the Brotherhood is indebted
to its wise and sensible bishop, =Aug. Gottl. Spangenberg=, who
died A.D. 1792. Born in 1704, he became personally acquainted
with Zinzendorf in 1727, after he had completed his studies at
Jena under Buddæus, and continued ever after on terms of close
intimacy with him and his community. Through the good offices
of G. A. Francke, son and successor of A. H. Francke, he was
called in Sept., 1732, to the office of an assistantship in the
theological faculty at Halle, and appointed school inspector of
the Orphanage; but very soon offence was taken at the brotherly
fellowship which he had, not only with the society of Herrnhut,
but also with other separatists. The misunderstanding that
thus arose led in April, 1733, to his deprivation under a royal
cabinet order, and his expulsion by military power from Halle.
He now formally joined the communion of the Brethren. The first
half of his signally blessed ministry of sixty years among the
Moravians was chiefly devoted to foreign mission work, both in
their colonies abroad and in their stations in heathen lands.
In Holland in 1734, in England and Denmark in 1735, he obtained
official permission for the founding of Moravian colonies in
Surinam, in the American state of Georgia, and in Santa Cruz,
the forming and management of which he himself undertook, besides
directing the mission work in these places. Returning from
America in 1762, he won, after Zinzendorf’s death, so complete
an ascendency in the church in every respect, that he may well
be regarded as its second founder. At the Synod of Marienborn,
in A.D. 1764, the constitution was revised and perfected.
Zinzendorf’s monarchical prerogative was surrendered to the
eldership, and Spangenberg prudently secured the withdrawal of
all excrescences and extravagances. But the central idea of a
special covenant was not touched, and Sept. 16th is still held as
a grand pentecost festival. In the fifth section of the statutes
of the United Brethren at Gnaden, 1819, it distinguishes itself
from all the churches as a “society of true children of God; as
a family of God, with Jesus as its head. ” In the fourth section
of the “Historical Account of the Constitution of the United
Brethren at Gnaden, 1823,” the society is described as “a company
of living members of the invisible body of Jesus Christ;” and in
its litany for Easter morning, it adds as a fourth particular to
the article of the creed: “I believe that our brothers _N. N._,
and our sisters _N. N._ have joined the church above, and have
entered into the joy of the Lord.” The synod of A.D. 1848
modified this article, and generally the society’s distinctive
views are not made so prominent. This liberal tendency had
dogmatic expression given to it in Spangenberg’s “_Idea Fidei
Fratrum_.” Only a few new settlements have been formed since
Zinzendorf’s death, and none of any importance; while the
hitherto flourishing Moravian settlements in Wetterau were
destroyed and their members banished, in A.D. 1750, by the
reigning prince, Count von Isenburg-Büdingen, on account of
their refusing to take the oath of allegiance.--After the first
attempt to establish societies among the German emigrants in
Livonia and Esthonia in A.D. 1729-1743 had ended in the expulsion
of the Herrnhuters, these regions proved in the second half of
the century a more fruitful field than any other. They secured
there a relation to the national church such as they never
attained unto elsewhere. They had in these parts formally
organized a church within the church, whose members, mostly
peasants, felt convinced that they had been called by the Lord’s
own voice as His chosen little flock, a proceeding which caused
infinite trouble, especially in Livonia, to the faithful pastors,
who perceived the deadly mischief that was being wrought, and
witnessed against them from God’s word. This protest was too
powerful and convincing to be disregarded, and now, not only
too late, but also in too half-hearted a way, Herrnhut began,
in A.D. 1857, to turn back, so as to save its Livonian institute
by inward regeneration from certain overthrow.

§ 168.8. =The doctrinal peculiarities of the Brotherhood= cannot
be quite correctly described as un-Lutheran, or anti-Lutheran.
Bengel smartly characterized them in a single phrase: “They
plucked up the stock of sound doctrine, stripped oft what was
most essential and vital, and retained the half of it,” which not
only then, but even still retains its truth and worth. Salvation
is regarded as proceeding purely from the Son, the God-Man,
so that the relation of the Father and of the Holy Spirit to
redemption is scarcely even nominal; and the redemption of the
God-Man again is viewed one-sidedly as consisting only in His
sufferings and death, while the other side, that is grounded on
His life and resurrection, is either carefully passed over, or
its fruit is represented as borrowed from the atoning death. Thus
not only justification, but sanctification is derived exclusively
from the death of Christ, and this, not so much as a forensic
substitutionary satisfaction, although that is not expressly
denied, but rather as a Divine love-sacrifice which awakens
an answering love in us. The whole of redemption is viewed as
issuing from Christ’s blood and wounds; and since from this mode
of viewing the subject God’s grace and love are made prominent
rather than His righteousness, we hear almost exclusively of
the gospel, and little or nothing of the law. All preaching
and teaching were avowedly directed to the awakening of pious
feelings of love to God, and thus tended to foster a kind of
religious sentimentalism.

§ 168.9. =The peculiarities of worship among the Brethren=
were also directed to the excitement of pious feeling; their
sensuously sweet sacred music, their church hymns, overcharged
with emotion, their richly developed liturgies, their restoration
of the _agape_ with tea, biscuit, and chorale-singing, the
fraternal kiss at communion, in their earlier days also washing
of the feet, etc. The daily watchword from the O.T. and doctrinal
texts from the N.T. were regarded as oracles, and were intended
to give a special impress to the religious feelings of the day.
As early as A.D. 1727 they had a hymn-book containing 972 hymns.
Most of these were compositions of their own, a true reflection
of their religious sentiments at that period. It also contained
Bohemian and Moravian hymns, translated by Mich. Weiss, and
also many old favourites of the evangelical church, often sadly
mutilated. By A.D. 1749 it had received twelve appendices and
four supplements. In these appendices, especially in the twelfth,
the one-sided tendency to give prominence to feeling was carried
to the most absurd lengths of caricature in the use of offensive
and silly terms of endearment as applied to the Saviour.
Zinzendorf admitted the defects of this production, and had
it suppressed in 1751, and in London prepared a new, expurgated
edition of the hymn-book. Under Spangenberg’s presidency
Christian Gregor issued, in A.D. 1778, a hymn-book, containing
542 from Zinzendorf’s book and 308 of his own pious rhymes. He
also published a chorale book in A.D. 1784. Among their sacred
poets Zinzendorf stands easily first. His only son, Christian
Renatus, who died A.D. 1752, left behind him a number of sacred
songs. Their hymns were usually set to the melodies of the Halle
pietists.

§ 168.10. In regard to the =Christian life=, the Brotherhood
withdrew from politics and society, adopted stereotyped forms of
speech and peculiar usages, even in their dress. They sought to
live undisturbed by controversy, in personal communion with the
Saviour. Their separatism as a covenanted people may be excused
in view of the unbelief prevailing in the Protestant church, but
it has not been overcome by the reawakening of spiritual life
in the Church. As to their =ecclesiastical constitution=, Christ
Himself, as the Chief Elder of the church, should have in it the
direct government. The leaders, founding upon Proverbs xvi. 33
and Acts i. 26, held that fit expression was given to this
principle by the use of the lot; but soon opposition to this
practice arose, and with its abandonment the “special covenant”
theory lost all its significance. The lot was used in election of
office-bearers, sending of missionaries, admission to membership,
etc. But in regard to marriage, it was used only by consent
of the candidates for marriage, and an adverse result was not
enforced. The administration of the affairs of the society
lay with the conference of the united elders. From time to
time general synods with legislative power were summoned. The
membership was divided into groups of married, widowed, bachelors,
maidens, and children, with special duties, separate residences,
and also special religious services in addition to those common
to all. The church officers were bishops, presbyters, deacons,
deaconesses, and acolytes.

§ 168.11. =Missions to the Heathen.=--Zinzendorf’s meeting with
a West Indian negro in Copenhagen awakened in him at an early
period the missionary zeal. He laid the matter before the church,
and in A.D. 1732 the first Herrnhut missionaries, Dober and
Nitschmann, went out to St. Thomas, and in the following year
missions were established in Greenland, North America, almost
all the West Indian islands, South America, among the Hottentots
at the Cape, the East Indies, among the Eskimos of Labrador,
etc. Their missionary enterprise forms the most brilliant and
attractive part of the history of the Moravians. Their procedure
was admirably suited to uncultured races, and only for such. In
the East Indies, therefore, they were unsuccessful. They were
never wanting in self-denying missionaries, who resigned all from
love to the Saviour. They were mostly pious, capable artisans,
who threw themselves with all their hearts into their new work,
and devoted themselves with affectionate tenderness to the
advancement of the bodily and spiritual interests of those
among whom they laboured. One of the noblest of them all was the
missionary patriarch Zeisberger, who died in A.D. 1808, after
toiling among the North American Indians for sixty-three years.
These missions were conducted at a surprisingly small outlay. The
Brethren also interested themselves in the conversion of the Jews.
In A.D. 1738 Dober wrought among the Jews of Amsterdam; and with
greater success in A.D. 1739, Lieberkühn, who also visited the
Jews in England and Bohemia, and was honoured by them with the
title of “rabbi.”[507]

§ 169. THE REFORMED CHURCH BEFORE THE “ILLUMINATION.”

The sharpness of the contest between Calvinism and Lutheranism was moderated on both sides. The union efforts prosecuted during the first decades of the century in Germany and Switzerland were always defeated by Lutheran opposition. In the Dutch and German Reformed Churches, even during the eighteenth century, Cocceianism was still in high repute. After it had modified strict Calvinism, the opposition between Reformed orthodoxy and Arminian heterodoxy became less pronounced, and more and more Arminian tendencies found their way into Reformed theology. What pietism and Moravianism were for the Lutheran church of Germany, Methodism was, in a much greater measure, and with a more enduring influence, for the episcopal church of England.

§ 169.1. =The German Reformed Church.=--The Brandenburg dynasty
made unwearied efforts to effect a =union= between the Lutheran
and Reformed churches throughout their territories (§ 154, 4).
Frederick I. (III.) instituted for this purpose in A.D. 1703 a
_collegium caritativum_, under the presidency of the Reformed
court preacher Ursinus (ranked as bishop, that he might officiate
at the royal coronation), in which also, on the side of the
Reformed, Jablonsky, formerly a Moravian bishop, and, on the part
of the Lutherans, the cathedral preacher Winkler of Magdeburg and
Lüttke, provost of Cologne-on-the-Spree, took part. Spener, who
wanted not a made union but one which he himself was making, gave
expression to his opinion, and soon passed over. Lüttke after a
few _sederunts_ withdrew, and when Winkler in A.D. 1703 published
a plan of union, _Arcanum regium_, which the Lutheran church
merely submitted for the approval of the Reformed king, such a
storm of opposition arose against the project, that it had to
be abandoned. In the following year the king took up the matter
again in another way. Jablonsky engaged in negotiations with
England for the introduction of the Anglican episcopal system
into Prussia, in order by it to build a bridge for the union with
Lutheranism. But even this plan failed, in consequence of the
succession of Frederick William I. in A.D. 1713, whose shrewd
sense strenuously opposed it.--The vacillating statements of
the _Confessio Sigismundi_ (§ 154, 3) regarding =predestination=
made it possible for the Brandenburg Reformed theologians to
understand it as teaching the doctrine of particular as well as
universal grace, and so to make it correspond with Brandenburg
Reformed orthodoxy. The rector of the Joachimsthal Gymnasium in
Berlin, Paul Volkmann, in A.D. 1712, interpreted it as teaching
universal grace, and so in his _Theses theologicæ_ he constructed
a system of theology, in which the divine foreknowledge of the
result, as the reconciling middle term between the particularism
and universalism of the call, was set forth in a manner
favourable to the latter. The controversy that was aroused over
this, in which even Jablonsky argued for the more liberal view,
while on the other side Barckhausen, Volkmann’s colleague, in
his _Amica Collatio Doctrinæ de Gratia, quam vera ref. confitetur
Ecclesia, cum Doctr. Volkmanni_, etc., came forward under the
name of _Pacificus Verinus_ as his most determined opponent, was
put a stop to in A.D. 1719 by an edict of Frederick William I.,
which enjoined silence on both parties, without any result having
been reached.--One of the noblest mystics that ever lived was
=Gerhard Tersteegen=, died A.D. 1769. He takes a high rank as a
sacred poet. Anxious souls made pilgrimages to him from far and
near for comfort, counsel, and refreshment. Though not exactly a
separatist, he had no strong attachment to the church.[508]--The
prayer-book of =Conrad Mel=, pastor and rector at Hersfeld in
Hesse, died A.D. 1733, continues to the present day a favourite
in pious families of the Reformed communion.