THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
in them: some classical, e?pecially Seneca; some patristic, most frequently Augustine, Bernard, and Johannes Climacus, to whom ( lerson may be addccl; and some from their own circle, like Thomas a Kempis or David of Augsburg, the author of the Speculum monachorum particularly cherished and commended by Florentius.
Such a life as has been described was the best defense of the Brethren against all attacks which could be made upon them. Even if there are some things in their system which seem to our minds exaggerated or objectionable, it is impossible to deny their importance to the Church's history. In attempting to sum up this importance, it is necessary to say at once that, with our fuller knowledge, they can no longer be described, in the way once customary, as precursors of the Reformation. None the less, their influence, both personal and corporate, was an inspiring and a purifying one. They took different ground from the already existing " religious " communities when they showed that free-will offerings made in a spirit of devotion
might serve God and one's neighbor 15. Their In- acceptably, from both the ethical and fluence and the social standpoints; that a life of Importance, piety was possible in the midst of
daUy labor and intercourse with the world in its lower and earthly as well as its higher spiritual tasks. Such separation from the world as they practised was not a flight in the false and one-sided conception of devotion and the service of God, but was intended to render positive service to human society. Their ideal of true inner piety, springing from the love of the heart, had a powerful influence on many who were merely externally members of the Church, especially such priests and monks as were performing their service in a mere formal spirit. To say nothing of their direct influence on the clergy by education of young candidates for orders, they stirred up many a secular priest to a more faithful care of souls, a greater diligence in imparting spiritual gifts by preaching and teaching. The " conferences," offering religious instruction to the plain man in his mother tongue, had an effect that extended far beyond the walls of the houses; and the same is true of the close adherence to Scripture and its application to the practical details of every-day life.
But the best preaching is that of example; and this spoke so eloquently to the people that everywhere, except where hostility was stirred up against them by the jealousy of bad priests or monks, their life was revered. Municipal authorities, private citizens, parochial clergy were forward to help them in their work. After the Church had pronounced a formal approval of their work at the Council of Constance, bishops, cardinals, and popes were desirous to assist it in every way, as by the granting of many privileges, even including special indulgences.
The " modern devotion " which has been described, with its msistence on conversion and real sanetification, has been compared not altogether unjustly by Accjuoy with Methodism, and by Ritschl with Pietism; but both comparisons are only true up to a certain point. The system of the
Brethren was far more ecclesiastical than either of the others; the Word by which alone new life can be planlcd and nourished takes a less prominent place with them. Instead of it, they have their self-chosen exercises and meditations. This is only natural, in view of the traditional church teaching which, with their Semi-Pelagian scheme of salvation requiring absolutely their own cooperation, they fully shared. In their meditations
16. Their the life and sufferings of Christ counted Limitations, more as an example and encouragement for their own trials than as the sacrifice for their sins and the sins of the whole world. Justifying faith, as the source of the new life called into existence by the grace of God, as the synthesis of religion and ethics, meant less to them than the process of sanetification. They lacked both the deep consciousness of sin and the certainty of faith in the healing grace that blots out sin. Thus they emphasized, indeed, the freedom of the will, but not that which makes it free, the operation of the Holy Ghost through the Word; they stood out as a free association compared with the monasteries, but not free with the perfect liberty of the children of God. Attempts at reformation of Christian life in those days, whether of individuals, monastic communities, or the whole Church, thus remained restricted to the region of externals; they did not touch the heart of the matter. The longdesired reformation could not be brought about in the way offered by the Brethren of the Common Life. When Luther's call to repentance and his preaching of faith penetrated into their houses some of them thought they had all that was required in the inward reality of their devotion, not knowing the true freedom; others closed their ears to the proposal of what seemed innovations; others, again, were influenced by the intellectual power of the humanist forces that took the side of the Reformation; and some few, like the brothers of Herford, gave themselves up to the gospel of free grace, winning Luther's word of praise that he could gladly suffer such houses, and wished there were more of them. But nearly all the communities began to decay from this time; and as the old ones were dissolved new ones did not arise to take their place. Their organization had not, on the one hand (as the Windesheim monks had always said), the security of vows and complete renunciation of the world; nor, on the other, was it adapted to fulfilling the high demands of the spiritual life, on the plane on which the Reformation, following the Word of God, had set it; the old bottles could not be filled with the new wine.
A word remains to be said of their more specifically educational and intellectual influence, which was considerable and excellent, although it has been often misunderstood. The old view, represented by Cramer, Von Raumer, and Kammel, ascribed to them a very far-reaching effect upon the school system and upon the improvement of the curriculum and the methods of teaching. But careful recent investigation shows tiiat this was much exaggerated. There wei(^ not many places where the schools belonged to the Brethren or were under their direction. Most of the houses educated only