RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Schwenckfeld
der Christlichen orthodoxischen Bucher und Schriften, pp. 486 sqq. and pp. 77 sqq., 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 und Erkldrung vom Erkdntnus Christi und seiner Gottlichen 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: Schwenckfeld '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 ordinances, 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 Iiord's Supper, and Christology.
III. Theology: Central in Schwenckfeld 's theology was his relative definition of the Word and the Spirit; or of historical revelation and present regeneration. In the development of
i. Word his thought, he shows contact with and Spirit. Augustine, German mysticism, especially with John Tauler (q.v.), and perhaps with the Bohemian, or Moravian, Brethren (see Bohemian Brethren; Unity of the Brethren). In addition he makes a series of independent deductions, and rounds off this aggregate complex, beside making skilful correlations with the teaching of Holy Scripture, on the one hand, and, on the other, with the doctrines of faith, regeneration, 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 human nature through sin, and places a higher valuation upon the importance of historical redemption through Jesus Christ. To this theme, indeed, Schwenckfeld more or less explicitly recurs in almost all his writings. His first connective presentation of the relation of the Word and the Spirit, though unfinished in outline and less sharply defined against the Lutheran view, was in the tract issued by GScolampadius (ut sup.), a document of no great length, but rich in matter. What induced definiteness in both respects was the publication of a great number of tracts against Flacius. The principal of these, constituting also the chief sources for Schwenckfeld's doctrine of the Word and the Spirit, were the following: (1) Vom unterschaide des worts Gottes und der Heyligen Schrifft; (2) Von der hailigen Schrifft irem Innhalt / Ampt / rechtem Nutz / Brauch und Missbrauch (Strasburg, 1594); (3) Vom leerampt des newen Testaments. Das khein predicant der nicht from ist und Gottselig lebt / das Evangelium khan seliglich mit frucht
predigen (1555) ; (4) Confutatio und Ablainung des dritten Schmachbuchlins F. lllyrici; (5) Beschluss unnds Valete Auff Flaciy lllyrici letste zwai schmachbuchlin (1555); and (6) Vom worte Gottes das
khein ander wort Gottes sei / aigentlich zu reden, denn der Sun Gottes. Schwenckfeld correlates the doctrine 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 conception 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 (Vom Worte Gottes, xxii.c). Without arriving at permanent and very closely defined ideas on this point, he valued the Scripture mainly as a trustworthy historical documentary source of Christian revelation (Ixxi., xvi.); and, like Zwingli, as a normative
Schwenckfeld