صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of knowledge, the confession of the church, and theological science. One cannot deny that there is great poverty of thought in the writings of Spener, Francke, and others. This is especially obvious in their sermons. That which Francke, Anton, Breithaupt, Lange, and others, who were professors of theology in universities, have accomplished in the domain of theological science, is of no great moment. While we stand with admiration before the works on systematic theology of the seventeenth century, even a historical interest is scarcely able to engage us in the works of the Pietistic divines. This scientific weakness is especially visible in the Pietists of the second generation, the younger Francke, Callenberg, and others. In this indifference to doctrine was, of course, implied an indifference to the distinguishing doctrines of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Pietism had, from the very outset, a tendency towards Union; and that was not one of the weakest reasons why it was so much favoured by the princes of Brandenburg, especially by Frederick William I. While in Brandenburg it was prohibited to attend the University of Wittenberg, it was compulsory that every Lutheran divine should study at least two years in Halle. And, in like manner, as Pietism was indifferent to the confession of the church, it was indifferent to its constitution and worship also. It was from the lap of Pietism that the congregational system came forth. The importance of public worship Pietism lowered by the value which it ascribed to its conventicles. It is in this indifference to confession, constitution, and public worship-these objective bonds of Christian communion-that the fundamental error of Pietism came out : disregard of the Church and her ordinances. For, two things are essential to the Church :1

1 According to the Lutheran doctrine.-TR.

As the bearer of word and sacraments she is the mother of faith, and she is communion of faith, which must find an expression in confession, constitution, and worship. But both of these aspects of the Church Pietism neutralized by the exclusive stress which it laid on the conversion of the single individual. The orthodox theologians were right in seeing a Donatistic element in Pietism; and, in general, he only who gives up the foundations of our Church can dispute to the orthodox theologian the right of opposition. It is a matter of course that we do not mean to identify ourselves with the coarse vehemence of men such as Mayer, Schelwig, Neumeister, Deutschmann, and others; but it must not be forgotten that Pietism soon enough manifested a rather strong feeling of overbearing superiority to orthodoxy. The discussions of Francke with Lösher, a man by far superior to the Pietists in learning, and surely not destitute of practical Christianity, have, even upon Tholuck,1 made the impression that Francke had acted with a feeling of superiority, and without understanding the difficulties of his opponent. By this opposition to the representatives of the doctrine of the church, Pietism prepared the way for 11luminism. The watchword of Pietism was-Practical Christianity. And it has displayed an extraordinary energy and activity. We would acknowledge, as it is due, the thousands of theologians who came came forth from Halle, the Orphan's Asylum (Waisenhaus) at Halle, with all the good influences exerted by it, and all the good effects proceeding from it; the voices of men such as Bogatzky, Schmolke, Woltersdorf, the missionaries to the heathen; but we would, on the other hand, not overlook the fact, that this resolving of all that is objective into practical efforts has contributed

1 Der Geist der Lutherischen Theologen Wittenbergs, S. 308 ff.

to usher in the utilitarian and moral tendencies of Illuminism.

The middle part of the eighteenth century (from about 1730 to 1770), is occupied with views which bear the character of transition. Let us first consider them in detail, before we endeavour to determine their character as a whole. Although the orthodox theology of Pietism is, as early as in the second generation, broken, yet the impulses of Pietism pervade the whole century, and even go beyond it. By these, one school especially has been affected, the home, although not the exclusive seat of which is Würtemberg, and the representatives of which are Bengel, Crusius, Oetinger, Roos, etc. This school knows that it is related to the heads of Pietism; like it, they wish for living, practical Christianity; they receive thoughts advanced by Pietism (e. g., Chiliasm); and yet they would not embrace the principle of Pietism. Bengel, who in his youth had, with a warm heart, considered the seed of Pietism in the north of Germany, says of the Pietists of the second generation: "It is true that the Halle generation has got rather too narrow for the spirit of our present time; the dignity and seriousness of Spener does no more exist, and yet there is nothing to make up for it. Therefore the good men of that school should allow themselves to be stirred up a little, and accommodate themselves to the requirements of the present age." Zinzendorf also disavowed the Halle Pietists, "those miserable Christians whom no one calls Pietists, except themselves." He disliked the tormenting method by which they divided into different stages that which they called regeneration, among which repentance held a prominent place. What Zinzendorf wished was a joyful laying hold of the blood of Christ, for the communion of love with Him.1 Yet this 1 See the proofs in Schaaf, Die evangel. Brüdergemeinde, S. 221, ff.

is not the fundamental idea of Moravianism. Zinzendorf's "special plan," as he himself calls it, was not to awaken, but to gather those who were awakened, into a communion, in which the single souls might find careful attendance and pasture, and thus to realise Spener's idea of an ecclesia in ecclesia. This idea was based upon the conviction that the Evangelical Churches of the individual countries were given up to dissolution; and yet Zinzendorf was anxious to vindicate, for the community of his elect ones, the authority and privileges of those very churches of which he had so low an opinion. The established church of Wurtemberg which, from the very beginning, had been less strict in her forms, and the heads of which, at that time, were affected with Pietism, gave to Zinzendorf ministerial ordination, and thereby a kind of sanction to his cause. To Bengel, Zinzendorf appeared at that time as the prophet of his age.1 The prophet was, no doubt, a witness against the corruption which was coming in upon the Church; but, nevertheless, Bengel could not approve of Zinzendorf's attempting a reconstruction so hastily. "I have," says he, "long ago said, that the separatists have combed asunder all the hair, and now Count Zinzendorf is beginning to plait pigtails. I think it is still rather premature. Lime and stone must first be prepared; and it is only then that we may begin to build." He disapproved of the cavalier-like mode in which Zinzendorf dealt with the doctrine of the church. "It is not good that he introduces so novel a language, as if the systems and symbols of our Church were insufficient and unsuitable." Towards the end of his life, Bengel, in a special publication,2 pointed out the deviation of Moravianism from

1 Burk, D. A. Bengels Leben und Wirken, S. 379.
2 Abriss der soyennanten Brüdergemeinde, 1751.

Scripture and the symbolical books of the church. But how faithfully soever he adhered to the faith of his fathers, his relation to the symbolical books of the church was different from that of the orthodox divines of the seventeenth century. While with the latter their relation to Scripture had been brought about by the medium of the symbolical books of the Church, Bengel's relation to the symbolical books had been brought about through the medium of Scripture. With the former, agreement with the symbolical books of the Church was the beginning,—with him, the result; and it is this direct proceeding from Scripture which characterises the class of theologians of which we are speaking. That which Bengel brought with him to Scripture was a disposition which was from the first faithful, and which had not gone through opposite opinions, although it had passed through doubts and trials,—a disposition earnest, conscientious, and yet devout and affectionate. We might indeed call conscientiousness the fundamental virtue of Bengel. Whatever he utters, be it in science, be it in life, is more mature, more well weighed, more pithy, more consecrated, than most of what his verbose age has uttered. In the great he saw the little, in the little, the great.

The theologians of the seventeenth century had not been disturbed in their strict views of inspiration by the different readings; in full belief they relied upon the textus receptus. But after the investigations of Walton, Fell, Mill, Bentley, and Wetstein, the fact could no longer be denied, that the authority of this textus receptus was accidental. While, to a man like Wetstein, this uncertainty of the text afforded a welcome and longed-for proof of his looser views on the Canon, it was to Bengel the cause of heavy trials. His endeavour was to remove, by a sure text, all objections; and to this effect his critical studies

« السابقةمتابعة »