[See page image]

Page 285

der Chrisdichen orthodoxiachen Basher and ScWften, pp. 486 sqq. and pp. 77 eqq., 1564-70). His chief opponent was Martin Frecht (q.v.) at Ulm, who brought about his departure ~n 1539, and his formal condemnation at the convention of Evangelical theologians at Schmalkald in 1540 led by Melanchthon. No less hostile were the Swiss theologians, mainly to his Christology; foremost of these was Vadianus at St. Gall (see WATT, JOACHIM VON). Schwenckfeld defended his view in numerous missives and tracts; among which the most comprehensive in substance was Konfession and Erkldrung vow Erkdntnus Christi and seiner GMwAen Herrlichkeit (1540; ut sup., pp. 91 sqq.). During the succeeding years he frequently changed his abode, though not without a successful propaganda of his doctrines among both theologians and laymen, the latter including various princes. His death was followed by a more favorable judgment of his life and greater esteem for his personality.

II. Characterization: Schwenekfeld's character was marked by a genuine piety and religious feeling, attested beyond question by a transformation from a state of religious and moral indifference-though, at its worst, not of a perverted type-to that of a man for whom religion came to be his one and all. Many passages in his writings bear witness of pure devoutness and profound Christian mysticism, which, however, did not render him guilty of indifference to morality or wholesome activity. In his personal life he laid stress on holiness; and those persons who without prejudice expressed judgment had a favorable, even a hallowed, impression of him. Even his worst enemies scarcely attribute any evil to him. His industry in matters of religion was enormous, and, as far as possible, in a personal way. He preferred to treat all subjects either by letter or oral discussion. The picture of a practical Pietist which he presents was not without its shady side. Devout and humble, he yet became quite often conscious of a feeling that he was not " as other men are." His polemics, compared with that of most of his antagonists, was more mild, leaving here and there, however, the impression of artificiality. He was inflexible in opinion; for, self-taught, he was so thoroughly imbued with self-discovered truths that no authority could make him waver. An aristocrat he continued to be all his life, refusing either to bow to another or to the multitude, but desiring to find a resonant echo in a small circle of like-minded associates. He had no appreciation of the necessity of larger associations, external or dinances, or anything statutory; and in this he was by nature a pure enthusiast. His intellectual powers, both of constructive thought and expression, were affluent; nor was he wanting in originality, though of restricted compass. In the course of years, he acquired a respectable knowledge of patristic and medieval theology, particularly on the mystical side, as well as an acquaintance with the current output. His own theology was not a finished system, but certain dominant and fundamental ideas repeatedly recur. Pertinent for review are those points which bear a historical significance; namely on the Word and the Spirit, the Lord's Supper, and Christology.

III. Theology: Central in Schwenckfeld's theol

ogy was his relative definition of the Word and the

Spirit; or of historical revelation and present re

generation. In the development of

r. Word his thought, he shows contact with

and Spirit. Augustine, German mysticism, espe

cially with John Tauler (q.v.), and

perhaps with the Bohemian, or Moravian, Brethren

(see BOHEMIAN BRETHREN; UNITY OF THE BRETH

REN). In addition he makes a series of independ

ent deductions, and rounds off this aggregate com

plex, bide making skilful correlations with the

teaching of Holy Scripture, on the one hand, and,

on the other, with the doctrines of faith, regenera

tion, and justification. Taking issue vigorously

with'the Lutheran theology, he distinguishes himself

from men like S. Franck (q.v.), in so far as he does

not represent the innate theory of the inner Word,

but is a strict supernaturalist; and has, besides, a

far deeper apprehension of the corruption of hu

man nature through sin, and places a higher val

uation upon the importance of historical redemp

tion through Jesus Christ. To this theme, indeed,

Schwenckfeld more or less explicitly recurs in al

most all his writings. His first connective presen

tation of the relation of the Word and the Spirit,

though unfinished in outline and less sharply de

fined against the Lutheran view, was in the tract

issued by (Ecolampadius (ut sup.), a document of

no great length, but rich in matter. What in

duced definiteness in both respects was the publica

tion of a great number of tracts against Flacius.

The principal of these, constituting also the chief

sources for Schwenekfeld's doctrine of the Word

and the Spirit, were the following: (1) Yom unter

eehaide des worts Gottes and der Heyligen Schrift;

(2) Voii der hailigen Schrft irem Innhalt / Ampt /

rechtem Nutt / Brauch and Missbrauch (Strasburg,

1594); (3) Yom leerampt des newen Testaments.

Das khein predicant der nicht from ist and Gottsdig

lebt / do$ Eroangelium . . . khan seliglich wit frueht

predigen (1555); (4) Confutatio and Ablainung des

dritten Schmachbuchlins F. Illyrici; (5) Besehluss

unnds Valets Auff Fluciy Illyrici letste zwai 8ehmaeh

b4ehlin . . . (1555); and (6) Vom worte Gottes das

khein wader wort Gottes sei / aigentlieh xu reden, denn

der Sun Gottes. Schwenckfeld correlates the doc

trine of the Word as a means of grace with that of

the Scripture as revelation, and conditions one upon

the other. He shares the ancient orthodox con

ception of inspiration, save that he contests the

point that its direct product appears in the Bible;

which, for him, has rather merely the value of a

human, imperfect image and similitude of that

which inspiration wrought in the hearts of the

prophets and apostles. Accordingly, Scripture has

no manner of significance as regards the inception

of the religious life in man, but simply adverts to

the same, and bears witness thereof. It is not the

Scripture which brings the Spirit, but man filled

with the Spirit brings this to the Scripture (Vow

Worte Gottes, xxii.e). Without arriving at perma

nent and very closely defined ideas on this point,

he valued the Scripture mainly as a trustworthy

historical documentary source of Christian revels.

Lion (lxxi., xvi.); and, like Zwingli, as a normative