True Christianity. Arndt Johann

embodies strictly accurate historical notices, and derives only subordinate matter, such as incidents in domestic life, conversations, etc., from analogy and a fruitful imagination, exhibits him in the true light, as an affectionate husband, a cheerful companion, a generous and self-sacrificing friend of the sick and the poor – in short, as a model in all the relations of life. There is no exaggeration in this language. He possessed great firmness of character; indeed, a truly heroic spirit dwelt in him. He manifested this trait on many trying occasions – not only when he preferred poverty and exile to a denial of a single Gospel truth or Lutheran usage, but also in many other scenes of conflict. The ravages of the pestilence could not alarm his heroic soul; the open and violent denunciations of enemies he always encountered in the spirit of Him who said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” (John 18:23.) There was a certain calmness or gentleness in his manner of treating his enemies, which, combined with his earnestness and candor in repelling their calumnies, invariably subdued them. Love – love, not to the amiable and good, or to the poor and sorrowing alone, but also to his enemies – was too often and too variously manifested, to leave the spectator in doubt respecting its true source – a genuine faith in Christ, and deep, ardent love to Him. In truth, it is here that the peculiar type of his religion is seen; he lived more in heaven than on earth. The sacerdotal prayer of Christ (John, Chap. 17) was an unfailing source of light, of hope, of peace and joy to his soul. Expressions like these, “As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (ver. 21) – “I in them, and thou in me, etc.” (ver. 23), and language like that of Paul: “Christ in you, etc.” (Col. 1:27), furnished him virtually with the formula: “Christ in me, and I in Christ.” Such was his faith in Christ, and such was his love to Him, that he was always calm and hopeful. Hence features appeared in his religious character which his worldly-minded contemporaries could not fully appreciate; they were formed by two different series of Gospel doctrines, which cannot come in conflict, but which relate to two entirely different objects – Christ, the Saviour, and fallen man. No one more sincerely embraced the doctrine of Original Sin, as held by the Lutheran Church, than Arndt did; of this his writings furnish the evidence. His own searching self-examination, constantly maintained in the light of Scripture, revealed to him the utter corruption of his own heart by nature; he found nothing in himself but sin. He was conscious that he could do nothing without Christ, and deeply felt that grace – nothing but grace – could renew his nature, and save him. These convictions induced him to insist with such earnestness, in his Four Books, on the true and genuine repentance of the sinner. At the same time, there was nothing like sternness, gloom, or despondency connected with his sincere and profound self-abasement. For he received with equal strength of faith another series of truths – he believed with all his heart that “after the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Tit. 3:4-7. Here a new tide of emotions flowed through his soul. Wonder, joy, gratitude, love, took possession of him. His large heart was full of happiness that the lost could be found and saved – that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Rom. 5:20. And now, when these two distinct principles appear in him in their practical union, the type of his religion is clearly developed. He was grave and earnest, humble, and free from all confidence in himself, for he was “by nature a child of wrath.” Eph. 2:3. But, on the other hand, God had, in pity and in love, given him a Saviour, engrafted him in that Saviour through Holy Baptism, bestowed on him the fulness of grace, and invited him, as a repentant, believing, pardoned child of Adam, to enter heaven. If sin abounded through the first Adam, grace did, through the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), much more abound. His writings, therefore, now assume a very cheerful character —love is the prevailing theme. Nothing morose appears in them – sorrow for sin and repentance – faith in Christ and love to him, are his soul-inspiring themes, and a cheerful spirit, a sense of fervent, joyful gratitude to God, a heavenly calm, pervade alike his heart and its language as uttered in the “True Christianity.”

      § 27. The essential features of vital godliness are always the same; yet “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:4. Paul insists on faith; John, on love. Luther's religion was, like that of Arndt, earnest, and yet cheerful. Both were enabled by their personal experience to understand the nature of these Christian virtues, and also the distinction between them. Luther dwells with wonderful power on faith. Arndt delights to speak of God's love. There is something very beautiful in these different developments of true godliness in the servants of Christ, while the influences of the same divine Spirit controls them alike.

      § 28. It would be an error to suppose that the whole world had risen up in arms against Arndt, after he had assumed his position as an humble and devout Christian. Vast numbers received his First Book on True Christianity with gratitude and joy. It enlightened their minds; it controlled the conscience; it diffused the warmth of life through their souls; and they thanked God that such a book, so full of love, had been given to the world. A comparatively small number of men rose up against him. Certain individuals, such as his colleague, Denecke, a co-pastor of the same congregation in Brunswick, were, no doubt, influenced by envy and personal dislike. But others who opposed him, were by no means governed solely by unworthy personal considerations. Some of them were so much concerned about “questions and strifes of words” (1 Tim. 6:4), that they overlooked and misconceived the heavenly-mindedness of Arndt. Others, who did him injustice, were led astray by the infelicity of the times. We have already referred to the disastrous influences of the mysticism and fanaticism which, in addition to other corruptions of the true faith, had appeared about, and after, the period of the birth of Arndt. For instance, the Swiss physician, Paracelsus (who died as a Roman Catholic in 1541), had published various fantastic and mystical writings, in which he professed that he understood both mundane and supermundane mysteries. Now a certain Lutheran pastor in Saxony, named Weigel, who died in 1588, and who had been confessedly a man of an upright walk and conversation, had yielded to a tendency to the mysticism and theosophy of Paracelsus. He was thus led theoretically to undervalue the doctrines of the church, and to represent them as merely allegorical forms, involving truths not known to ordinary men. The natural results of his theory, if its folly had not been exposed, would unquestionably have seriously affected the authority of the written Word. Before his writings were published, a friend had communicated to Arndt a short extract from them, which contained none of his errors; the author's name had been withheld. Arndt, in his innocence, inserted the passage in his book, and was thus burdened with the odium of all the Weigelian errors; but he was subsequently released from all censure, and his freedom from anything like the mysticism of Weigel was generally conceded.

      § 29. Another ground of the charge of mysticism which his opponents advanced, was found in his repeated references in the “True Christianity” to Tauler. Here, too, Arndt made a brilliant defence, by quoting the great Luther as his authority. The latter had obtained possession of a manuscript without a title or an author's name, which deeply interested him. It dwelt entirely on the communion of the soul with God, and on kindred topics. Luther, whose godliness was healthy and sound, was so much charmed with the work, that he published a part of it at Wittenberg in 1516, and prefixed the title: “A spiritual, noble little work, explaining the distinction between the old and the new man; showing, also, who are the children of Adam and the children of God, and how Adam must die in us, and Christ live in us.” During the course of the next year he published the whole work, with an extended Preface of his own, and adopted the title: “A German Theology”; this general title it has since retained. It was received with unbounded favor, and circulated rapidly throughout Europe, for instance, in three English, seven Latin, four French, etc., translations, besides numerous editions of the original German. It was supposed to have been written by Tauler, a very devout man, who was born in the year 1290. His religious tendencies led him, like Luther, to enter a monastery. The sermons and other writings which he left behind, while their general character assign to him a place among those who are denominated “Mystics,” nevertheless abound in holy and devout aspirations, and were dictated by a spirit that sought and found peace in the grace of God alone. – Arndt entertained the opinion that the “German Theology” was a production of