Full Text for Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists, part 2 (Text)

744 Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists and large they considered his teachings just the rantings of a political orator, who would cool off if he ever got into power. We know now that they made a big mistake. The whole theory of purity of race is of course so much nonsense when viewed scientifi­cally. Hitler and the members of his party adhered to it fanatically and acted upon it. The war therefore was more than a mere struggle for territory. What concerns us more vitally than the political implications is the fact that Nazi ideology struck at the very heart of Christian teaching. The voelkische Weltanschauung, as taught by Hitler and his party, was diametrically opposed to the Christian view of life, as must be evident to anyone who has given the matter even a little thought. It was simply pagan, plainly opposed to the will of God as revealed in His holy Word. Surely, it is not mixing Church and State if we expose the anti-Christian teachings of a powerful organization, no matter who its mem­bers are. Our brief review of the world scene has not been too en­couraging. We are living in times of strife and turmoil. As leaders in the Church it behooves us to be alert and to face the future with faith and courage. In a world of confusion we need not be confused. Our task is plainly outlined by the Lord Himself. We must go on preaching, teaching, serving. If we are faithful in that, we need not be dismayed, no matter how dark the clouds that appear on the horizon may seem, for we have the blessed Savior's assurance that He will be with us always and that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" His Church. Edmonton, Alberta, Can. A. GUEBERT I • I Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists The Thirty Years' War, which had caused the Holy Roman Empire to disintegrate into several hundred little despotic states, virtually destroying the sentiment of national unity and creating a state of chaos in its social and economic life, was equally desolat­ing in its effects upon religion. By way of contrast with this de­plorable condition of the empire, France had its day of military and social glory. No wonder that for decades to come German men and women, disgusted '.'lith conditions in their homeland, were fas­cinated by the splendor of their illustrious neighbor across the Rhine. Under such circumstances it was only natural that re­ligion, too, would be exposed to influences emanating from France. "Enlightenment" was the favorite watchword of that period. Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists 745 Some of the German princes, like Duke Ernest the Pious, made an effort to stem the tide of religious indifferentism which threatened to engulf their states. Under the religious settlement of the Peace of Westphalia this was their privilege. Seckendorf tells us in the preface to his Christen-Stat that Duke Maurice of Saxe-Zeitz would not tolerate atheists and despisers of religion at his court; but the very publication of this book shows that such persons appeared there. It was in the course of his discussions with people who held irreligious views that Seckendorf gathered the material for the first part of his book, which is against atheists. In praise of Duke Maurice the baron says that when he entered the latter's services as privy councilor and chancellor more than twenty years before, he found to his great pleasure that the duke not merely adhered to the outward form of worship, but accord­ing to all appearances also firmly believed the Christian truth; for the duke, he said, earnestly confessed it on every occasion and defended it according to his ability. The duke, however, as Secken­dork admits, was not a great scholar. This left the matter of Christian apologetics largp.ly in the hands of his able privy councilor. The situation at the ducal court suggested the writing of the Christen-Stat. In a letter to Leibniz, written in 1683, Seckendorf acknowledges his indebtedness to Pascal's Pensees for the idea of the Christen-Stat and introduces the name of Philipp Jakob Spener as one of those who encouraged him to proceed with this work.1 Leibniz in reply refers to the prevailing impiety, especially at the. courts, and explains why such a work produced by a man of Seckendorf's stature would be particularly influential in com­batting it.2 The great German philosopher was not to be disappointed in the finished product. The Christen-Stat is not only an apology for Christianity, but a practical effort to raise the spiritual level of the Church.s The first part is directed against atheists; the remainder of the book is devoted to Christian exhortation and spiritual edification. Seckendorf has here assumed the role of a Lutheran bishop, issuing a pastoral letter for the spiritual wel­fare of his flock. His aim is to make of the people faithful and sanctified Christians; for he is convinced that as such they will be excellent either as rulers or as subjects, according to their respective stations. True citizenship he seeks in heaven; the earth is merely a miserable and temporary dwelling place:! Leibniz was delighted with it, considering it the best book of its kind in the German language. He wrote to Seckendorf: "I could not refrain from running through it at once from cover to cover, with the greatest delight." 5 746 Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists In the foreword to his Christen-Stat, as well as in the letter to Leibniz, Seckendorf mentions Spener. The latter, too, was profoundly distressed over the low ebb of spirituality within the Church, but -more than that -was also determined to do some­thing about it. Philipp Jakob Spener, known as the father of Pietism, was one of the most remarkable personages in the Church of t.~e seventeenth century. In his first charge at Strassburg he labored with such signal success as preacher and professor that within three years he received a call to become the senior minister at Frankfort-on-the-Main. There those who accepted his ap­plication of the Scriptures met with him in private for further instruction and strengthening of their spiritual life. Thus there originated in 1670 the ecclesiolae which were to become one of the distinct characteristics of Pietism. The first nine years of Spener;s activity at Frankfort were generally peaceful. During this time he established his reputation as a loyal teacher and defender of the Lutheran doctrines. The calm was broken when, in 1675, he pub­lished his Pia Desideria. The hostility aroused by these indeed sprang largely from the collegia pietatis, by which name Spener's groups of laymen for mutual edification became known, and was intensified when such meetings were inaugurated elsewhere. Theologically Spener fol­lowed the beaten path of the Lutheran Confessions. Where he parted from them, the deviation, as Albrecht Ritschl remarks, was quite concealed. His purpose was to improve the Christian life of the Church.6 In 1686 Spener received a call to Dresden. Some time before, when Lucius -the court preacher and confessor of John George III, the elector of Saxony -was dangerously ill, the latter had com­missioned his privy councilor, Seckendorf, to inquire of Spener whether, in the case of a vacancy, he would be inclined to accept the position of court chaplain, and Spener had replied that he would if God so willed iF In accepting the call to Dresden, Spener assumed what was considered the highest ecclesiastical post in the Lutheran Church of Germany. Seckendorf may not have sug­gested the idea of calling Spener to Dresden, but he persuaded him, when he was hesitant about going to Dresden, to accept the call.s The baron was being drawn into the stirring fortunes of the Pietists. Spener came to Dresden with some apprehension; his misgiv­ings were not to deceive him. He had indeed entered a larger field of activity but also one of combat. The Saxon clergy and some court officials soon adopted a course of systematic opposi­tion to the new court chaplain.9 Efforts were made to induce him to resign his pastorate, but this he refused to do. However, when Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists 747 he received a call to the court of Brandenburg, he accepted it and, in April, 1691, removed to Berlin, where he served as consistorial councilor and provost of St. Nicolai Church. In the same month in which Spener removed to Dresden (July, 1686) August Hermann Francke and Paul Anton inau­gurated their so-called collegium philobiblicum at the University of Leipzig. After some time, however, the faculty, after a formal investigation, prohibited his lectures and forced Francke, together with Anton, to leave the city. Francke repaired to Erfurt, where he joined his friend Joachim Justus Breithaupt. On September 27, 1691, after only a brief ministry there, he was driven from Erfurt.l0 But he was now to enter upon the richest period of his eventful life. He received and accepted a call to the newly founded uni­versity in Halle, first as professor of Greek and oriental languages and later of theology. At the same time he assumed the pastorate of the church at Glaucha, a suburb of Halle. Arriving in Halle on January 7, 1692, he opened there an era of Christian philan­thropy which will ever remain an object of admiration to all who have a heart for the destitute. Seckendorf had a hand in getting Francke to Halle, as he had in getting Spener to Dresden. On the first Sunday in Advent of the preceding year, Francke had preached for Provost Llitkens in Berlin. Seckendorf, who had just arrived in that city, per­suaded the then all-powerful minister von Danckelmann to go to hear him. Von Danckelmann attended the service with a number of privy councilors. Having heard Francke, they resolved unan­imously to retain him.l1 Thus at various times and places Seckendorf is found involved in the affairs of prominent Pietists. The questions may then be asked: What was Seckendorf's relation with the Pietists? Was he one himself? How did Pietism, if at all, affect his writing of history? It is self-evident that a statesman whose activities took him to the various German states would have to come in contact with Pietists and could not avoid, at one time or another, having to deal with their program of proposed church reforms. Again, it must be remembered that he lived in the very age and area which produced Pietism. Gustav Kramer thinks that Pietism was the reaction of the Christian soul against the generally prevailing formalism and externalism of the ecclesiastical life. However, not all men who were interested in a functional Christianity joined the Pietistic movement. In tracing Seckendorf's connection with the Pietists, one may begin with his attendance at the gymnasium in Gotha. The in­struction which he there received in the years 1541 and 1642, ac­cording to A. Bram, at that time already breathed the spirit of the 748 Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists ideas and aspirations of a dawning Pietism, as they appeared in the Schulbericht of Duke Ernest the PiOUS.12 Seckendorf, who had already been trained by his God-fearing mother to lead a sanc­tified life, freely imbibed the spirit of piety which prevailed in the company of such men as Reiher, Glass, and Bronchorst. Although Glass lived only to the beginning of the Pietist move­ment, he may be regarded in particular as of a kindred spirit to Spener. It should be remembered that Francke had also been a pupil of the pious pedagogs at Gotha. This may explain Secken­dorf's sympathy with his pedagogical principles at Halle.13 A. Tho­luck speaks of the court at Gotha as "a Spener circle before Spener," but adds: "and yet not quite, for piety was still afraid to deviate by the breadth of a finger from the existing arrange­ments and traditions in doctrine and life, and believed that there were channels and means ror the revival of the Church without any innovations in the constitution of the existing State Church." 14 At this point it may be well to remember that piety and what has become historically known as Pietism are not one and the same thing. It will not be possible to determine accurately how much Seckendorf was responsible for the spiritual and ecclesiastical conditions obtaining in Saxe-Gotha during his eighteen years of service there, nor how much the court of Ernest the Pious, or "Bet-Ernst," as he was also called, contributed to his spiritual development; but it is certain that Seckendorf continued to the end of his life to work for the kind of Christianity which was practiced at thc Gotha court. The beginnings of Spenerian Pietism are to be found in the period of Seckendorf's services under Duke Maurice of Zeitz. Three years after the publication of the Pia Desideria, Seckendorf seems to have come into more direct contact with Pietism for the first time. The wife of Landgrave Levvis VI of Hessen-Darmstadt was Elisabeth Dorothea, a daughter of Ernest the Pious. She brought to Darmstadt a measure of that devoutness and religious sincerity for which Duke Ernest and his pious councilor were known. Spener's ideas had been favorably received in Darmstadt and at first welcomed with enthusiasm by Dr. Balthaser Mentzer, but the collegia pietatis changed his mind. In January, 1678, he succeeded in persuading the aging landgrave to issue an edict forbidding them.15 Just then Seckendorf came to Darmstadt. Spener feared that under those circumstances the baron did not get a good impression of him. He spared no pains to dispel any prejudices which Seckendorf rrJ.ght have against him, since he hoped that through the patrocini.1tm of so dear a man in Saxony the SusplCIOns which at that time were being spread about by his opponents might be effectively counteracted.16 Indeed, the Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists 749 Duchess Sophie Elisabeth, wife of Duke Maurice, may have con­tributed much to that end. She was the daughter of the duke of Holstein-Sonderburg and had as a girl attended Spener's collegia pietatis in Frankfort. Both Spener and Seckendorf praised the efforts of the duke and the duchess towards a functioning and practical Christianity. Spener's first letter to Seckendorf is dated July 22, 1681. It cannot be definitely established what brought about this im­proved relationship between the two men. Seckendorf, on his part, mentions his acquaintance with Spener's writings. Spener's aims were too much like his own not to engage his interest; both strove for a practical Christianity. Already in his first letter to Spener, Seckendorf suggested that they discuss things "wbich re­dound to the glory of God. and the welfare of the Church." 17 The first specific subject of their correspondence was the improvement of the ministry. Both were convinced that the clergy were primarily to blame for the prevailing low state of the spiritual life in the Lutheran Church. Accordingly they thought it necessary to reach an agreement on how to raise the standards of the clergy. Seckendorf planned to support with practical measures Spener's efforts to reform from within. Persuaded that the academic life at the universities was not conducive to true spirituality, he suggested training the clergy in a special theological seminary and accordingly prepared a memorial, dated at Zeitz on February 11, 1680, to that effect. Spener approved the plan.IS Nothing came of it, probably owing to the death of Duke Maurice and the chancellor's subsequent retirement to Meuselwitz. Un­fortunately Seckendorf's letters from his correspondence with Spener, with one exception, have not been preserved. They must have been quite numerous.19 Spener speaks of "tot epistulae." 20 The ties binding the two friends were strengthened when Seckendorf in August, 1682, met Spener personally at Frankfort. It is quite probable that one of the subjects of their conversation was Spener's projected Tabulae catecheticae, which were dedicated to Seckendorf and published in the following year. On his journey from Frankfort to his new post in Dresden, Spener visited his friend at Meuselwitz. There Seckendorf was at leisure to con­centrate on his program of reform, which in many ways closely conformed to Spener's. One result of his meditation on the ills of the estates and how to cure them has already been noted­his Christen-Stat. The similarity of the objectives of this book and the Pia Desideria leaves little doubt as to its influence in further­ing the spread of Pietism. The Pietists were not slow to recognize in Seckendorf a champion of their cause. Spener quite naturally found in the Christen-Stat an arsenal for his own purposes; he 750 Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists frequently quoted it with approval. He commended, for example, to a university what Seckendorf has to say about the need of studying the Scriptures.21 Spener advocated returning the power of church discipline to the entire Church and was pleased to find that "in the Christian statesman's, Herrn von Seckendorf's, Christen-Stat" this right of the Church is so often defended.22 In speaking of the difficulty of getting "truly converted and godly Theologi" for vacant pastorates, he referred to the recommenda­tions of this "Christian politicus" in his Christen-Stat.23 To sup­port his claim that philosophy is harmful to the Church and true theology, he again cited the Christen-Stat.24 Spener was pleased that Seckendorf included his opinion on excommunication in the Additiones appended to his Christen-Stat, though he also noted Seckendori's opinion that the members of the Church must first be instructed how to use beneficially their right to excommu­nicate.25 Seckendorf, on his part, showed the high esteem in which he held Spener by translating into Latin a number of his sermons which had been delivered in 1676 and 1677 and later pub­lished under the title: Des tiitigen Christentums Notwendigkeit und M oglichkeit. 26 Seckendorf had hoped to find rest and quiet at his beloved Meuselwitz; but his connections with the leading public men in Church and State were too extensive and his domicile was too close to electoral Saxony for him to escape being drawn into the religious controversies of the time. During Advent of the year 1689, Francke, who had just been expelled from the University of Leipzig by its thelogical faculty, visited him at Meuselwitz. The baron had him preach for his resident pastor, M. Hermann, who was at the time a candidate for the position of court preacher at Zeitz. It is possible that Seckendorf considered Francke for the possible vacancy at Meuselwitz. At any rate, this visit may have laid the foundation for the affection which thereafter bound them together until the baron's death.27 Spener likewise was Secken­dori's guest at Meuselwitz (July 3-6, 1691) on his way from turbulent Dresden to his new charge in Berlin.28 No one was more competent to acquaint Seckendorf with the burning re­ligious questions of that period than Francke and Spener; both were veterans directly from the field of combat. Francke's troubles at Leipzig and Spener's at Dresden opened the floodgates for an outburst of controversial literature on the subject of Pietism. The most notorious of the many writings to appear in print was an anonymous one which originated in the orthodox camp. Johann Georg Walch ascribes it to Albrecht Christian Roth, pastor in Halle, who for a time was vesper preacher in the Thomas Church in Leipzig. Having been first Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists 751 published in Latin, it is known as the Imago pietismi. Later it was issued in a German translation under the title: Ebenbild der Pietisterey, die zwar liicherlich; doch vielleicht nicht wider Billig­keit also beniemet wird sich finden sollen.29 The Imago pietismi raises a number of accusations against Pietism, some of them being of a rather personal nature and directed against its spiritual orig­inators and leaders. Having listed the abuses of Pietism in nine groups and its errors in eleven, the author comes to the con­clusion: "Therefore Pietism thus described constitutes a sect which can be tolerated neither by the Church nor by the State." 30 Such an attack could not go unchallenged. Various replies to its accusatic ns appeared. The most noteworthy of these was that by Seckendorf, who from this moment is foun.a to take an active part in the defense of the Pietists. Like the attack which it was to meet, Seckendorf's reply appeared anonymously, though no one seemed to doubt its authorship. The manuscript arrived in Berlin in January, 1692, bearing the title: "Bericht und Er­innerung auf eine im Druck lateinisch und deutsch ausgestreute Schrift, im latein Imago pietismi; zu deutsch aber, Ebenbild der Pietisterey genannt .... " 31 It cannot now be determined to what extent, if any, Seckendorf was actuated by any direct request from some higher authority to publish this apology. As a matter of fact, however, it appeared at a time most convenient for the Elector of Brandenburg to ward off any damage that the Imago pietismi might possibly do to the new university at Halle. Ernst Lotze, who has made a thorough study of Seckendorf's connection with Pietism, considers it unlikely that the baron -dignified, peaceable, and reserved as he was -would of his own accord have mixed into theological quarrels of such a "trivial" nature.32 In Berlin, where the manuscript was censored and approved by the privy council, it ,'las decided to '"vithhold the author's name in order to avoid the suggestion that Pietism was being officially sponsored by the court of Brandenburg. Spener, who traced the history of Pietism from the disturbances at Leipzig to date in the foreword (dated: Berlin, February 16, 1692), did not hesitate to affix his name to it. * Already on February 25 Spener was able to report to Francke that the printing was under way, but that it might still be eight days before the job would be finished. Speed was essential, for the plan was to present the apology to the en­suing diet at Dresden in defense of the Pietists, who were being subjected to serious criticism in electoral Saxony.33 Seckendorf's reply to the Imago pietismi, like all of his writ-'" Spener named Seckendorf as the author in his Grilndliche Be­antwortung. In the second edition (Halle, 1713) Seckendorf is given as the author. 752 Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists ings, is dignified and considerate. It reveals an intelligent grasp of the points of controversy. As the Jesuit Maimbourg's history of Lutheranism is presented and refuted section by section in Seckendorl's Commentarius, so the Imago pietismi is presented in sections ("Bericht"), and to each section is added the refutation {"Erinnerung"} .34 Inasmuch as the author of the Imago pietismi challenged not only the Pietists, but also other "cordatos et his­toriae pietisticae gnaros," Seckendorl, as a "cordatus" and "honest" man, who is acquainted with some -and not the least -of those who have been attacked under the hateful name of Pietists, would disclose this or that in reply to it. Having in a thorough and objective manner examined the "abuses" and "errors" of which the Pietists had been accused, he reached the same conclusion as Spener in the foreword: Pietism is anything but a new sect or heresy. As such it is a mere fiction, a false rumor, for which the malice of certain theological circles and the ignorance of the stirred':'up people are to blame; perhaps also the indiscreet for­wardness of certain pietistically inclined people. Seckendorf pro­fessed his readiness to confer more explicitly with the author of the Imago pietismi, but in the spirit of the "Erinnerungen," of whose trulhfulness and justice he was convinced. For his judg­ment was based, he said, on '.'.That he himself had seen and heard of those whom he considered innocent of the insinuations against them in the Imago pietismi -trusting that they were honest with him. Should they, on the other hand, have dealt treacherously with him and sooner or later have come forth with visions and fanaticism ("Schwarmereyen"), he would, with God, be one of the first to lament their deceit and regard them as such, as they should then in their guilt have revealed themselves.35 Seckendorl's apology did not fail to make an impression. The reading public quite correctly surmised who its famous author was. It was also honorably introduced by a highly respected personage -Spener. This eminent divine here for the first time stepped forth as the literary defender of Pietism. The pleasure with which Seckendorl's writing was received by the Pietists can readily be imagined. Spener, for his part, expressed the hope that it might appeal the more to all impartial thinkers, in as much as the author had no personal interest in the whole matter and had written merely for his love of the truth and the peace of the Church. He had a good reason for hoping this, for the accusations in the Imago pietismi were directed against him. Seckendorl had become a defender of Spener a..'1.d his cause.36 Soon he was to vindicate also his friend Francke at Halle. Already in 1690 the Elector of Brandenburg, Frederick III­soon to become King Frederick I of Prussia -was thinking of Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists 753 founding a new university in Halle. On June 30 the elector, who was then in Cleves, ordered the founding of the university, and on August 30, 1692, he issued a decree appointing Seckendorf as its first chancellor. It was significant that for intellectual leader­ship at the new school he selected men like August Hermann Francke, Samuel Pufendorf, and Christian Thomasius. The latter, like Fra.'1cke, but not for the same reason, had been driven out of Leipzig. The resolution of the elector, to make Seckendorf his privy councilor and to place him at the head of the university in Halle as chancellor, fully demonstrated of what importance this institution was to become to Pietism. Seckendorf's call to Halle was, as Lotze points out, no less than a call to the battlefield of Pietist controversy.37 In a letter to Spener, dated Meuselwitz, May 30, 1692 -the only extant writing of Seckendorf to that friend -the baron wrote: "Gott wird das Werk fordern, wo seine ehre durch mich alten schwachen mann annoch in einigen Dingen befordert werden soil; denn solchen Zweck suche ich, und finde sonst weder Ruhm noch Nutzen dabey." 38 As chancellor, Seckendorf was to supervise both instructors and students, pointing out to each his respective duty. Once or twice a week he was to hold a meeting in his house or at the most convenient place, confer diligently with the professors, and faith­fully show the students how to plan their studies and future journeys. And to the best of his ability he was to help establish good order at the university and cause it to flourish. The elector clearly showed in his commission to Seckendorf what he expected for his new school from a man with the baron's reputation and talents.39 Students were already arriving, and everything seemed ready for the beginning of instruction, when the faculty of the school and the ministry of the city became involved in a controversy which threatened the position of Francke at the University. The latter's strict church discipline as pastor at Glaucha incited some of his church members to bring complaints against him. His clerical opponents in the orthodox camp supported the dissatisfied laymen, and the strife was on. For once in his troubles Francke was to have the government on his side. His appeal for assistance met with a ready response in Berlin. Already on July 26, 1692, an electoral rescript created a commission to deal with Francke's difficulties. The members of this body were to be the chancellor of the university at Jena, who was to serve as chairman, the jurist Kaspar Kreuzing of Halle, and Seckendorf, who had previously gained some experience in a similar affair at Halberstadt. For some unknown reason the chancellor of J ena declined to serve. 48 754 Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists This placed the chief responsibility in this matter on Seckendorf. The latter also spent the week of August 14 to 21 in Halle to prepare for his removal to that city and to act in Francke's case. On August 18 he gave Francke and his complaining parishioners a hearing. The next day he sent a report to the elector. With a clear understanding of the issues, he prevailed upon the elector to order a thorough investigation of all the questions involved and was thereby instrumental in obtaining for Francke a measure of consideration and justice which had been denied him in Leipzig and Erfurt. In response to Seckendorf's report the elector in September, 1692, issued a rescript which resulted in a fair trial of the case and the peaceful solution of the problems involved.40 A new commission "Nas appointed to act in the case. It consisted of the following members: Seckendorf; Dr. Liltkens, the provost of St. Peter's in Berlin; and the Herren von Platen and von Diesskau. The sessions, held from November 18 to 27, were con­ducted with great deliberateness and care.41 At their conclusion, Seckendorf drew up a compact of peace which was approved by the elector and ordered read from all the pulpits in the churches of Halle.42 Great was the joy of the Pietisls, as well as that of Seckendorf, over the reconciliation of the estranged parties. Spener regarded it as "a special grace of God that preserved Herr von Seckendorf, when the stone had so weakened him, long enough to complete this task." 43 Indeed, this work of peace was to be Seckendorf's last. While he was still conferring with the elector regarding the establishment of the university, his old malady, the stone, cast him upon his bed for what proved to be his last illness. He died on the very day on which his compact of peace was read from the pulpits in Halle.44 The grief of the Pietists over Seckendorf's unexpected death was widespread and sincere, and rightly so. With his pen Secken­dorf had appeared as a defender of Spener; with his prestige as a statesman and scholar he had prepared the ground for Francke in Halle, and as an arbiter had made it possible for him to continue his beneficent work there. No wonder that Spener lamented the baron's untimely death and that Francke mourned over it as over the death of a father. Seckendorf's death meant an irreparable loss to the cause of Pietism.41S The question whether Seckendorf himself was a Pietist is suf­ficiently involved to admit a difference of opinion. This question is a difficult one, because there is no simple criterion for reaching an all-embracing definition of Pietism or Pietists. Pietism was not the same thing at all places and during all periods of its develop­ment. The Pietism of Spener and Francke was not the same. Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists 755 The definitions of partisans and foes have always differed widely. Preserved Smith flatly calls Seckendorf a Pietist,46 Kurt Guggis­berg, speaking of the baron's delight over the fact that the Prot­estant confessions agree in so many fundamental points, refers to him as one "in whom the Pietist aurora dawns." 47 Martin Spahn, however, intimates that not all who joined the Pietist move­ment were Pietists. \Vithout any reflections on Seckendorf's mo­tives, he says that not a few learned men drew near to the young community of Pietists, not only persons like the now aged Secken­dorf, who within his limited sphere was still as busy as a bee and who was then writing his Christen-Stat (1685), but also such pugnacious natures as the Leipzig Christian Thomasius. However, he continues, quite soon it became evident that it was no longer religious sympathy, as in the sixties, which induced the leading intellects to join a religious society, but that, coincidentally, the enmity of the clergy against both groups occasioned the alliance. It is quite obvious that not all who co-operated with the Pietists or were even in sympathy with many of their aims need be classi­fied as Pietists. If a religious liberal like Thomasius could sym­pathize with the Pietists, an orthodox Lutheran might defend them for very different reasons. Kolde asserts that it is scarcely per­missible to call Seckendorf a Pietist.48 Lotze agrees with Kolde. After a thorough investigation of the historian's connections with Pietism, he reaches the following conclusion: Devoted to a living and practical Christianity, averse to separatism and mysticism, Seckendorf belongs to Pietism only according to one side of his being. Although his share in the Pietist movement is not a small one, we, too, do not number him with the representatives of a genuine Pietism, but, with Tholuck, place him in the ranks of the enlivening witnesses of the Lutheran Church of the seventeenth century -of those few but eminent and sympathetic personalities to whom we owe it that in a time of churchly decline the pulse of Lutheran doctrine and life did not stop.49 Of one thing there can be no doubt -of Seckendorf's funda­mental orthodoxy, If, therefore, he himself was not a Pietist, he was most assuredly an orthodox defender of Pietists. The question is now in order: How, if at all, did Seckendorf's intimate relation with the Pietists affect his writings as a church historian? It was to be expected that a widespread and dynamic spiritual movement such as Pietism would be revolutionary in its effect on historiography, as is evident in the case of Gottfried Arnold; but a study of Seckendorf's Commentarius bears out the correctness of Gustav Wolf's observation: "In his personal opinions Seckendorf already approaches closely to Pietism, but without 756 Seckendorf an Orthodox Defender of Pietists being directly influenced by it in the Commentarius." 50 However, the degree of objectivity attained by Seckendorf in his historical writings is a broad subject for another study. Concordia, Mo. L. W. SpIT'l REFERENCES 1 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Gottfried Wilhelm Leib­niz Siimtliche Schriften uoo Briefe. Erste Reihe. .4.11gemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel. (3 vols.; Leipzig: K. F. Kohler Verlag, 1923-1938), III, 566 f. 2 Ibid., p. 572. 3 Seckendorf's Christen-Stat is reviewed in the Acta eruditorum, 1685, pp.343-49. 4 J. C. Bluntschli, Geschichte des allgemeinen Staatsrechts und der Politik. Seit dem sechzehnten Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (2d ed.; Miinchen: Literarisch-artistische Anstalt der J. G. Cotta'scherr Buch­handlung, 1867), p. 134. 5 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, op. cit., p.547. 6 Albrecht Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus (3 vols.; Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1880-1886), II, 125 ff. 7 J. B. Trautmann and K. A. E. Kluge, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche (3 vols.; Dresden: Justus Nawnann. 1857), III, 276. 8 Ernst Lotze, Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf und sein Anteil an der pietistischen Bewegung des XVII. Jahrhunderts. Ein Beitrag ;mr Ge­schichte des Pietismus (Quedlinburg: H. Kloppels Buchdruckerei, 1911), pp.28f. 9 Wilhelm Hossbach, Philipp Jakob Spener und seine Zeit (2 vols.; Berlin: Ferdinand Diinunler, 1828), I, 214 f. 10 E. A. W. Krauss, Lebensbilder aus der Geschichte der christlichen Kirche (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1912), pp. 603-5. 11 Gustav Kramer. AUGust Hermann Francke. Ein Lebenshild (2 vols.; Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1880), 1,102. 12 A. Briim, Der gothaische Schulmethodus. Eine kritische Unter­suchung ilber die ersten Spuren des Pietismus in der Piidagogik des 17. Jahrhunderts (Dissertation, Erlangen; Berlin, 1897), cited by Lotze, op. cit., p. 13. Lotze's book is the most authoritative work on the subject of Seckendorf's relation \rvith Pietism. 13 Lotze, ibid., p. 13. 14 Quoted by Lotze, ibid., p.17. 15 Johann Georg Walch, Historische und theologische Einleitung in die Religions-Streitigkeiten, welche sonderlich ausser der Evangelisch­Lutherischen Kirche enstanden (10 vols.; Jena: bey Johann Meyers Wittwe, 1730-1739), Parts IV and V, 1102-9. 16 Philipp Jakob S].olener, Theologische Bedencken und anciLere brief­liche Antworten auf geistlichel sonderlich zur Erbauung gericht~te Materien (4 vols., 3d ed.; Halle: in Verlegung des Waysen-Hauses, 1712-1715), III, 460. 17 Lotze, op. cit., pp. 24 f. 18 Cf. Theol. Bedencken, IV, 526-35. 19 Lotze, op. cit., 25 f. 20 Spener, "Foreword," Tabulae catechetictle, quoted ibid., p.27. 21 Theol. Bedencken, I, 398. 22 Ibid., III, 613. 23 Ibid., p.651. The Lord's Prayer, the Pastor's Prayer 24 Ibid., IV, 185. 25 Ibid., p.289. 757 26 Cf. Theodor Kolde, "Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf," Reale'J\cyklo­piidie, fur prot. Theol. u. Kirche, ed. Albert Hauck, 3d ed., Vol.XVIll (1906): Capita doctrinae et praxis christianae insignia ex 59 illustribus N. Test. dictis deducta et evangeliis domi1ticalibus, in concionibus a. 1677, Francof. ad. Moen. habitis applicata a. P. J. Spe'Rero 1689. 27 Lotze, op. cit., p.37. 28 Ibid., pp. 37 f. 29 Walch, op. cit., Parts IV and V, 1149. 30 Lotze, op. cit., p.40. &1 Walch, op. cit., Parts IV and V, 1151 f. 32 Op. cit., p.41. 33 Ibid., pp. 41 f. 34 The title page ends with the words: "Gedachte Schrifft! oder sogenanntes Ebenbild/ ist 1."1 gegenwiirtigem Tractat von Wort zu Worte stiickweise eingeriicket! die Beantwort -und Erinnerung aber mit andern Litem darunter gesetzt/ zu befinden." Quoted ibid., pp. 42 f. 35 Ibid., pp. 43 f. 36 Ibid., pp. 44 f. 37 Ibid., p. 38. 88 Ibid., p. 58. 30 Ibid., p. 59. 40 Ibid., pp. 59-63. u Kramer, op. cit., I, 115. 42 Rambach (ed.), op. cit., p.311. 43 Theol. Bedencken, III, 721. 44 Rambach (ed.), op. cit., p.311. Kramer, op. cit., I, 117. 45 Cf. Lotze, op. cit., p.69. 46 Preserved Smith, A History of Mudern Culture (2 vols.; New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1930-1939), II, 242. 47 Kurt Guggisberg, Das Zwinglibild des Protestantismus ein WandeZ der Zeiten (Leipzig: Verlag von M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1934), p.89. 48 Theodor KoIde, "Veit Ludwig von Seckendorf," Realencyklopiidie fur prot. Theol. und Kirche, ed. Albert Hauck, 3d ed., Vol XVIII (1906). 49 Lotze; op. cit., pp. 87 f. 50 Gustav Wolf, Quellenkunde der deutschen Reformationsgeschichte (3 vols.; Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1915-1923), I, 10. 4 •• The Lord's Prayer, the Pastor's Prayer The Seventh Petition 'A'J.J..a Qvaat nJ.ta~ Il1CO 'tov 1(O'Vl]Qov. But Deliver Us From Evil. Matt. 6: 13; Luke 11: 4. Jesus acknowledges the existence of evil and the reality of deliverance from it. Since the Father is to be implored, it follows that there is deliverance with Him and that He is not involved in, but ever opposed to, the evil. The Deliverer is mightier than the evil. This petition would have no purpose if His children were not