Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen's Eschatology in Context [1 ed.] 9783666540882, 9783525540886

Citation preview

Elisa Bellucci

Johann Wilhelm and ­ Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s Eschatology in Context

Beiträge zur Europäischen Religionsgeschichte (BERG) Edited by Christoph Auffarth, Marvin Döbler, Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler Volume 9

Elisa Bellucci

Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s Eschatology in Context

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 676258. Printed with kindly support by the Faculty of Theology and Interdisciplinary Center for Pietism Research at the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg. Thesis to attain the title of Doctor of the Faculty of Philosophy I of Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2022 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany¸ Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike and V&R unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover image: Frontispiz of Johann Wilhelm Petersen Mysterion apokatastaseos Panton, Das ist: Das Geheimniß Der Wiederbringung aller Dinge (Ausschnitt). Pamphilia, Selbstverlag, 1701 © Studienzentrum August Hermann Francke Archiv und Bibliothek. Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Typesetting: textformart, Göttingen | www.text-form-art.de Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0920 ISBN 978-3-666-54088-2

Inhalt

A Prelude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm Petersen: a biographical sketch 11 The Petersens in the panorama of scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Perspectives and limits of the present work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1. Eschatological expectations according to Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.1 The millenarian expectation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.1.1 Rise of the eschatological controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.1.2 The millenarian expectation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1.2 From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation: The Petersens’ apokatastasis doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1.2.1 The Philadelphian Society and the discovery of universal redemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1.2.2 The apokatastasis doctrine in the Petersens’ initial works . . 63 2. Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s eschatology in context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.1 Eschatology, irenicism and progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.1.1 The irenic concern behind the Petersens’ eschatology . . . . 95 2.1.2 Irenic endeavors in Brandenburg-Prussia . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.1.3 The wait for the end of the times in Protestant territories . . 106 2.1.4 The Petersens’ eschatological view in context . . . . . . . . . 127 2.1.5 “Animos movendos spe meliorum”. Leibniz on the Petersens’ eschatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2.2 Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology . . . . 139 2.2.1 The Petersens’ eschatology and Confessio Augustana 17 . . . 140 2.2.2 Godly revelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 2.2.3 The role of the Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 2.2.4 The role of the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 3. The sources of eschatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 3.1 Sources of the millenarian expectation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 3.1.1 The witnesses of chiliasm in Nubes Testium Veritatis . . . . 193 3.1.2 The influences of Spener and of the Frankfurt environment 205

6

Inhalt

3.2 The sources of the apokatastasis doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 3.2.1 Jane Lead and the Philadelphian Society . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 3.2.2 Patristic testimonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 3.2.3 The Kabbalistic tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 3.2.4 The sources of the middle condition of the soul . . . . . . . 249 3.2.5 Luther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 3.2.6 The conceptual framework behind the Petersens’ use of different sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Primary sources (a selection, including modern editions) . . . . . . . . 274 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

A Prelude D. MAYER : After all, my lord doctor, defending the millenarian kingdom cannot bring

you so much glory, for this idea derives from the Judaic fables. … And the Turks are pursuing this idea as if their eternal life would amount to nothing but carnal delights, when they would be drinking and eating and leading a life of abundance. We must not be surprised that people who are far removed from communion with Christ lapse into such foolish thoughts, but my tears will never be enough to complain about the fact that Christians and learned people embrace these ideas. D. PETERSEN: No Evangelical theologian would tolerate the dreams of the Jews and Turks, for why should we be concern ourselves with those that are not ours. … We do not believe in a thousand-year kingdom, that we should constantly celebrate marriages, or undertake festivities and celebrate Easter, according to how the Turks imagine it; rather we believe that our Savior will reign in the thousand-year kingdom wielding the golden staff and not the iron scepter …. We will live there without the sins that perpetuate the biggest disasters and evils in the world; without sects, unified in our opinions in matters of faith; and our heart will be irradiated by our Savior’s light; without factions, for we will live as Christ’s apostles and subjects, like brothers; without war, since we will all be good friends and we will not harbour any hostility; without diseases, that disturb the peace of mind and the good health of the soul; in a word, without a single imperfection.1

1 Curieuses Gespräche Jm Reiche derer Todten Zwischen zweyen hochberühmten Männern, Johann Friedrich Mayern / Der Heil. Schrifft Doctorn, Königl. Schwedischen Ober-KirchenRaths, General-Superintendens des Herzogthums Pommern und Rügen … Prof. Theol. Publ. und Procancellario der Universität Greiffswalde Und Johann Wilhelm Petersen / Der Heil. Schrifft Doctorn, vormahligen Professoren zu Rostock, nachgehends Prediger in Hannover an St. Egydii-Kirche, darnach des Bischoffs zu Lübeck Superintendenten und Hof-Prediger, endlich Superintendenten in Lüneburg : Darinnen nechst dieser beyder hochberühmten Männer Lebens-Particularitäten, von vielen curieusen und zu unserer Zeit strittig gewordenen Glaubens-Lehren, pro & contra gestritten wird (1731), Anderer Theil, 76–7: “D. MAYER : Doch mein Herr Doctor, die Vertheidigung des tausendjährigen Reichs kan ihnen eben nicht viel Ehre bringen, indem dasselbe ursprünglich aus denen Fabeln der Juden stammet. … Diesem nun gehen die Türcken auf dem Fusse nach, als deren ewiges Leben in nichts als cörperlichen Ergötzlichkeiten bestehen wird, da sie essen und trincken, und wohl leben werden. Daß nun Leute, welche von der Gemeinschafft Christi weit entfernet, auf dergleichen thörichte Gedancken verfallen, ist eben nicht zu verwundern, allein daß Christen und GOttesgelehrte unter denenselben sich so weit vergehen, daß sie dergleichen Meynungen bey sich einwurtzeln lassen, ist mit Thränen nicht sattsam zu beklagen. … D. PETERSEN: Der Juden und Türcken Träume wird kein Evangelischer Theologus sich gefallen lassen, denn was gehen uns diejenige an, so nicht zu uns gehören. … Wir glauben kein tausendjährig Reich, daß wir beständige Hochzeit halten, und Feste und Oster-Tage begehen sollten, wie dieses die Türcken sich einbilden, sondern unsere Gedancken gehen vielmehr dahin, daß unser Heyland die Zeit über des tausendjährigen Reichs mit der güldenen Ruthe, und nicht mit dem eisernen Scepter regieren werde … . Wir werden daselbst leben ohne Sünden, als welche das grösseste Unglück

8

A Prelude

Through these words taken from a fictitious dialogue that appeared in 1731, an anonymous author portrayed a real dispute that had taken place circa 40 years before on the eschatological expectation of Christ’s millenarian Kingdom. The first character to take the floor, the Lutheran theologian Johann Friedrich Mayer (1650–1712), was a student of Balthasar Bebel, subsequently professor for theology in Wittenberg, before he became preacher in 1687 in Hamburg.2 The second figure, the theologian Johann Wilhelm Petersen (1649–1727), was the superintendent in Lüneburg at the time of the dispute. Already during his theological studies in Giessen, he was in contact with the Frankfurt circle around the theologian Philipp Jakob Spener and the lawyer Johann Jakob Schütz – considered the founders of the German Pietist movement. This excerpt directly addresses to the core of the debate between the two personalities. Mayer depicts Petersen as a vainglorious and ungodly theologian who seeks to rehabilitate a Judaic and Turkish position about Christ’s Kingdom, in particular, on the wait before the start of an earthly kingdom of the Messiah, according to a Judaic expectation, or when it would become possible to enjoy all the carnal goods, according to the Islamic eschatological vision.3 Mayer’s criticism is not just an expression of his opposition to Petersen’s opinion; in fact, it is a position shared by Lutheran theologians and rooted in the confessional writings of the Evangelical faith, i. e., in Confessio Augustana 17 (hereinafter CA 17), where the “Jewish” expectation of a future earthly kingdom of the Messiah is firmly rejected.4 On the other hand, Petersen seems to distance himself und Unheil auf der Welt anrichten; ohne Secten, indem unsere Meynungen in Glaubens-Sache einig, und unser Hertz von dem Lichte unsers Heylandes bestrahlet seyn wird; ohne Uneinigkeit, weil wir uns als Jünger und Unterthanen Christi, ja so wie Brüder leben werden; ohne Krieg, denn daselbst werden wir alle gute Freunde seyn; und keine Feindschafft hegen; ohne Kranckheit, als welche sonst die Gemüths-Ruhe und das Wohlseyn der Seelen nicht wenig stöhret; mit einem Wort, ohne eintzige Unvollkommenheit”. For an introduction to this text see R. Suitner, Die philosophischen Totengespräche der Frühaufklärung (Hamburg: Meiner, 2016), 161–77. 2 On Mayer see Art. Mayer, Johann Friedrich, in: DBE² 7 (2011), 8; D.  Blaufuß, “Der Theologe Johann Friedrich Mayer (1650–1712): Fromme Orthodoxie und Gelehrsamkeit im Luthertum”, in W. Kühlmann / ​H. Langer (ed.), Pommern in der frühen Neuzeit. Literatur und Kultur in Stadt und Religion (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994), 319–47. 3 On the Judaic eschatological position and on the Islamic one see S. Schreiner / ​J. Dan / ​ R. Ulrich, Art. Eschatologie, in: RGG⁴ 2 (1999), 1575–9. 4 See I. Dingel, Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 113. Jewish Messianic movements developed from the expectation of a “Messiah” (an idea that originated during Daniel’s time). Messianism was typical of some Judaic strands, particularly during the Midlle Ages and the early modern period (it was present, for example, in some kind of Judaic Kabbalah). However, such an excpectation was not always shared by Jews; and also, among those Jews who supported it, the Messianic expectation took on different connotations. CA 17 generalizes such an expectation as a common Jewish tenet. See J. G. Klausner / ​G. Scholem, Art. Eschatology, in Encyclopedia Judaica² 6 (2007), 859–83; H. L. Ginsberg / ​D. Flusser / ​G. J. Blidstein / ​J.Dan / ​L . Jacobs, Art.  Messiah, in

A Prelude

9

from the standpoint of the Jews and Turks, depicting instead a sort of spiritual utopian world where sin, disagreements, factions, and wars are no more, and where, conversely, the same faith illuminates the heart of all believers. Together with his wife Johanna Eleonora Petersen nee von und zu Merlau (1644–1724), Petersen (hereinafter referred to as Johann Wilhelm) was a supporter of the chiliastic expectation, about which he authored several treatises in the last decade of the seventeenth century. As Mayer’s words suggest, he had espoused a position that sparked more than a few debates among his contemporaries. Having to respond to the theologians’ criticisms was one of the main reasons why Johann Wilhelm penned several texts in defense of a standpoint on the chiliastic expectation that he and his wife espoused. Interestingly, in the above-quoted dialogue, Petersen’s remark that no Evangelical theologian would endorse the eschatological position that Mayer describes indicates that he did not want to detach from or reject the bases of the Lutheran confession. Despite this, he was removed from his office as superintendent, a decision which, however, did not prevent him from continuing to write on this subject. The dialogue reported above is a short extract from a 128-page text which presents a tight discussion on the two theologians’ positions, or better on Johann Wilhelm’s eschatological position criticized by Mayer. Chiliasm is not the only issue raised in the conversation; the dialogue also touches upon apokatastasis, or the doctrine of universal salvation. In essence, it propagates the idea that every creature, the Devil and fallen angels included, will be saved at the end of time. The chiliastic expectation, along with the apokatastasis doctrine, was the other main belief that underlay several treatises that the Petersens authored from 1698 on until the last years of their lives. In the dialogue, the Lutheran theologian Mayer criticizes this doctrine as stemming from an Origenian opinion that had already been condemned in the sixth century in the second Council of Constantinople.5 Such a universalist position was also rejected in CA 17, and to that extent all Lutheran theologians who opposed this position could refer to this article to express their condemnation, as Mayer does here. Once again, Johann Wilhelm’s standpoint is not subversive. Contrary to Mayer’s learned position, which brings into play historical arguments to censure his adversary, Johann Wilhelm invites taking the Scripture as the ultimate reference point. The text of this debate is, in turn, part of a wider corpus of fictitious “conversations in the realm of deaths” that appeared anonymously between 1729 and Encyclopedia Judaica² 11 (2007), 1407–17; I.  Wandrey / ​J.  Dan, Art.  Messias / ​Messianismus, in: RGG⁴ 5 (2002), 1146–50; H. H. Ben-Sasson, Art. Messianic Movements, in Encyclopedia Judaica² 11 (2007), 1417–27. 5 On Origen’s position on apokatastasis, see E. Prinzivalli, Art. Apocatastasis, in A. Monaci Castagno (ed.), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opera (Roma: Città Nuova, 2000), 24–9.

10

A Prelude

1734.6 The corpus discusses some of the main issues of the time, referring to wellknown figures, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, René Descartes, Christian Thomasius, and Christian Wolf. Therefore, although it is a literary composition, the fact that Johann Wilhelm’s eschatology is also discussed suggests that this did not play a secondary role at that time. The anonymous author himself describes Mayer and Johann Wilhelm as “great orators, who knew how to get the attention of listeners and readers, the one targeting more the ear, the other the heart, the one having  a more refined intellect, the other  a finer spirit, one having read more historical treatises to gain erudition, the other the Bible for his edification, however they were both eminent”.7 Curieuses Gespräche between Johann Wilhelm Petersen and Mayer offers insights into the impact of the Petersens’ eschatology on the contemporaries. The dialogue raises several questions, starting with the Petersens’ representation of the millenarian kingdom on the one hand and of universal salvation on the other. The same is also true of the connection between these two doctrines, the Petersens’ position with respect to Lutheran Orthodoxy or their responses to the works and ideas of other contemporary theologians. Starting from  a literally fiction, this work moves onto the historical level not only in order to better understand the Petersens’ position on chiliasm and apokatastasis, but also to explain it in relationship to the historical context in which it developed. What relationship had the Petersens to Lutheran Orthodoxy and to other “orthodox” theologians? From what authors and works did they take inspiration? These are the main issues addressed by the present work. Before directly addressing the core of these problems – which shape the present work – a short sketch of Johanna Eleonora’s and Johann Wilhelm’s biography will be provided to better understand the historical context and to highlight the main events that significantly influenced their life and their positions.

6 On these texts, see Suitner, Die philosophischen Totengespräche. 7 See Curieuses Gespräche Jm Reiche derer Todten, Vorrede: “Beyde Männer waren grosse Redner, und wußten die Gemüther ihrer Zuhörer und Leser leicht zu gewinnen, doch mochte einer mehr das Ohr, der andere das Hertz treffen, der eine einen besser-ausgezierten Verstand, der andere einen schönern Willen haben, der eine mehr Historische Schrifften zur Gelehrsamkeit, der andere mehr die Bibel zur Erbauung gelesen haben, indessen waren die beyde groß”.

Introduction Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm Petersen: a biographical sketch A fortuitous event in 1672 left its imprint on the life and thinking of Johanna Eleonora von und zu Merlau.1 While she was still employed in the service of Anna Margarete von Hessen-Homburg (1629–1686) as lady-in-waiting, she often accompanied the ducal family on its trips. Travelling towards Bad Ems, a place close to Frankfurt am Main, well-known for its thermal springs, Johanna Eleonora had a significant meeting, which she describes in her autobiography as a turning point: Because of the illness of our oldest princess, the entire family traveled to Bad Ems and I became acquainted through God’s wondrous ways at first with one pious friend, since he got to sit next to me on the boat with which we traveled to Bad Ems. We entered into a spiritual conversation that lasted several hours, so that the twenty miles from Frankfurt to Mainz, where he disembarked, appeared less than a quarter of an hour to me. We talked together without stopping and it was as if he were looking into my heart and everything that had given me doubts until then came out. Not a word was lost that was not in God’s spirit. I remembered all when the time came for actual practice. Yes, I found in this friend what I had doubted would exist in anyone in this world, because I had looked for so long to see whether there were true active Christians, and not finding any I had given up. When I realized that this man had such an insight

1 Johanna Eleonora Petersen narrates her life in her autobiography, written and published at two different times. The first part was published in 1689 as appendix to her first publication Gespräche der Hertzens mit Gott under the title Eine kurtze Erzehlung / Wie mich die leitende Hand Gottes biß= / her geführet / und was sie bei meiner / Seelen gethan hat. The final version was published in 1718 together with her husband’s autobiography but as separate part under the title Leben Frauen Joh. Eleonora Petersen / Gebohrnen von und zu Merlau, Hrn. D.  Jo. Wilh. Petersen Eheliebsten; Von Ihr selbst mit eigener Hand aufgesetzet, und vieler erbaulichen Merckwürdigkeiten wegen zum Druck übergeben, daher es als ein Zweyter Theil zu Ihres EheHerrn Lebens-Beschreibung beygefüget werden kann. Anno MDCCXVIII. Auf Kosten guter Freunde. This text was translated and published in English in a modern edition from which I quote: B. Becker-Cantarino (ed. and transl.), Johanna Eleonora Petersen. The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, written by herself (Chicago / ​London: The University of Chicago Press, 2005). The main reference study for Johanna Eleonora’s biography is R.  Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen. Theologische Schrifstellerin des frühen Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005).

12

Introduction

and that he could see to the bottom of my heart and that he showed such humility, meekness, clemency, holy love, and seriousness in revealing the path of truth, I was really comforted and fortified.2 Johanna Eleonora describes the conversation she had during the travel as the answer to numerous doubts and questions she had entertained until that moment. Johanna Eleonora von und zu Merlau was born on 25 April 1644 in Frankfurt am Main, in a rather unstable context on two fronts at least: political and familial situation. Her father, Georg Adolph von und zu Merlau, served as steward of the household to Landgrave Wilhelm Christoph of Hessen-Homburg, while her mother, Maria Sabina née Ganß von Utzberg, raised their four daughters alone and died when Johanna Eleonora was only nine years old.3 Remembering her childhood, Johanna Eleonora writes about some particularly challenging episodes, such as the fact that her mother was forced to flee with her daughters towards Frankfurt am Main to escape the approaching troops – not unusual at that time in the German territories, where conditions in several villages that had already experienced devastation during the Thirty Years War continued to exacerbate owing to further incursions and robberies. She also mentions that, after the mother died and the children had been entrusted to the care of a woman, burglars repeatedly broke into their house, stealing valuable objects.4 Later, in her autobiography, Johanna Eleonora would read God’s providential intervention behind all vicissitudes of her life and describe how the “guiding hand of the Lord” that had accompanied her had enabled her to leave all worldly things behind: So that you, dear reader, will know how wonderfully the Lord has guided me since my childhood and has drawn me to him on many occasions, I have written down the story of my life in a short version; especially since I, following the example of the Savior, had to endure many and various libels and lies.5

This is how the autobiographical account of Johanna Eleonora begins. At twelve years of age, Johanna Eleonora was sent by her father to serve as lady-in-waiting in noble courts. First, she served Countess Eleonora von SolmsRödelheim, whom she describes as mentally unstable, and then Anna Margarete von Hessen-Homburg, with whom she spent fourteen years.6 Throughout her autobiography, the author not only narrates life-events, but also intervenes with personal remarks and observations, often turning her critical eye to certain customs in society  –  a society that proclaimed itself to be Christian but lived contrary to the tenets of Christianity – while also describing her gradual

2 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 19, 74–5. 3 On her childhood see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 38–41. 4 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, §§ 4–6, 63–6. 5 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 1, 61. 6 On the years as lady-in-waiting see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 41–57.

Introduction

13

estrangement from worldly experiences, as she sought to move towards an authentic Christian life: These things made me think about the fact that very evil things happen in Christianity, that people can consider themselves Christians but live totally contrary to Christ’s teachings and that they are not even told to drop such customs or to leave the community of Christ. That took away from me all desire to marry.7

As Albrecht remarks, such quest for true piety (Frömmigkeit) already starts in her childhood, and receives important impulses during the years spent at the court of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Wiesenburg.8 For these reasons, Johanna Eleonora describes one particular meeting she had on River Main as the answer to what she had been looking for long time: “true active Christians”. The person with whom Johanna Eleonora had engaged in the conversation during the trip to Bad Ems was the Frankfurt lawyer Johann Jakob Schütz, who along with Philipp Jakob Spener is commonly known as the founder of Pietism.9 Since 1670 Spener had been organizing private circles where men could meet outside the official Sunday service to read and discuss the Bible privately. The ideal that mobilized these gatherings – which Spener called collegia pietatis – was to stimulate true Christian piety through an actual reading and dissemination of the Bible among lay people.10 7 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 17, 73. 8 See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 48. Albrecht also explains that it remains obscure which literature or personal contacts particularly influenced Johanna Eleonora in these years. 9 Johanna Eleonora writes that she met two “venerable servants of God from Frankfurt”, see Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 19, 74. Whereas scholars have long been persuaded that the two men were Philipp Jakob Spener and Johann Jakob Schütz and that Johanna Eleonora’s conversation partner was Philipp Jakob Spener, Deppermann has shown that it was in fact Johann Jakob Schütz. The latter also worked at the court of Duke von Holstein in Mainz and for this reason had to travel towards Mainz. Deppermann also supposes that the meeting happened on 29 May 1672. See A. Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz und die Anfänge des Pietismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 108–9; Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 50. For an introduction to the life, activity, and positions of Schütz see Deppermann’s work above quoted. For an introduction to Spener’s ideas see J. Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 10 On the beginning of the collegia pietatis see Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 264–90. Spener will later write and publish his positions (which also are the foundation of such a private gatherings) in his Postilla (an introduction to an edition of Johann Arndt, Vier Bücher von wahrem Christentum), later published as single text under the title Pia Desideria (1675). Besides Spener, Johann Jakob Schütz also played an important role in developing such conventicles. Deppermann claims that he was the first to have the idea of starting this kind of meetings and that this idea came especially from the contact with Reformed, so that – Deppermann concludes – the beginning of the collegia pietatis is more linked to Reformed traditions than to Lutheran ones. The framework presented by Wallmann must be completed with that presented by Deppermann, see Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 81–98.

14

Introduction

In 1672, the year the meeting took place, an epistolary exchange started between Johanna Eleonora and the two men from Frankfurt, Spener and Schütz. She addressed Spener as spiritual Vater, whereas Spener referred to her as Schwester.11 The correspondence with Schütz also shows a certain closeness, for he makes use of epithets such as liebste Schwester and the informal address Du in his letters to Johanna Eleonora.12 Meanwhile, even as Johanna Eleonora continued to live and work at the court, it was always clearer to her that she did not want to continue living “against her conscience”. Although it was not immediately possible for her to leave the court, she was relieved from all activities that she viewed as being against a true Christian life, such as serving at festivities and games played at get-togethers. On spending three more years working in that capacity, she wrote: three years passed in which I stayed my course in all simplicity at court. I endeavored to do nothing else but what could be done in God’s presence and with calling for his grace. I rejected all worldly pleasures by which only the flesh but not the spirit would be nourished.13

In 1675, her father, who had remarried in the interim, summoned her to his home to take care of his newborn son after the death of the mother during childbirth. But the young infant did not survive, and Johanna Eleonora received the permission to cease her serving at the court, whereupon she decided to move to Frankfurt am Main to the Saalhof estate of Maria Juliana Baur von Eyseneck.14 The contact between Johanna Eleonora and the widow Maria Juliana was established by Spener himself. At the age of 31, Johanna Eleonora could finally begin a life that she had long been wishing to lead. On the estate, the two women lived 11 See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 52–5. In the correspondence between Johanna Eleonora and Spener only Spener’s letters are preserved. 12 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 110–11. Also, in this case only Schütz’s letters are preserved. Deppermann remarks that, despite she corresponded with both authors, the first theological questions (for instance, about the interpretation of the thousand-year kingdom in Rev 20, or about the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrew) were addressed to Schütz, so that he concludes that the first spiritual authority for Johanna Eleonora in Frankfurt was Schütz and not Spener. 13 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 24, 79. Johanna Eleonora narrates that during these years she was also mocked for her wish to leave courtly life to pursue a true evangelical life, a wish seen by some people as a sign of melancholy. Melancholy was considered an emotional and physical illness caused by an imbalance of bodily fluids. Women were considered affected by it (because of the physical theory of fluid, different in men and women) and it could produce depression, hallucinations and confusions. 14 Maria Juliana von Eyseneck, née von Hynsperg (1641–1684) was born in Frankfurt am Main into a patrician family. Her husband, Johann Vincenz Baur von Eyseneck, died in 1672 leaving her with four children, the youngest of whom died shortly after the birth. On Maria Juliana, her contacts with Philipp Jakob Spener and Johanna Eleonora see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 57–65.

Introduction

15

in a sort of Christian sisterhood, along with other young women, who not only engaged in needlework, but also learned Greek, with the ultimate goal of reading the sacred text. Johanna Eleonora was already quite proficient both in Greek and in Hebrew, the two original languages of the Scripture. In Frankfurt  – at that time  a metropolitan city, where several economic and cultural exchanges took place – Johanna Eleonora not only deepened her friendship with Spener and Schütz, but also took advantage of the numerous contacts established by them, including to visitors from other territories.15 Schütz’s support was vital to Johanna Eleonora and Maria Juliane in their effort to host private gatherings where women were also given the possibility to take the floor.16 As Deppermann has highlighted, Schütz was a fundamental driving force behind the origin of the Frankfurt conventicles. The lawyer was in contact with people not only on the German territories, but also in the Netherlands, in Switzerland, in England, and the Baltic lands.17 The numerous contacts included the separatist reformer Jean de Labadie – whom Spener had already known during his stay in Geneva and whose work on the reformation of the church had, most likely, a strong influence on the genesis of the collegia – and his followers, Pierre Yvon and, especially, Anna Maria van Schurman, who had gained much fame all over Europe and with whom Schütz had exchanged several letters, having read her autobiographical work Eukleria.18 The Saalhof estate also received visits from the English Quaker leader William Penn, who later moved to 15 On Johanna Eleonora’s first years in the Saalhof estate see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 65–78. On the situation in Frankfurt after the end of the Thirty Years War (1648) see Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 31–5. After the disasters left by the war, Frankfurt developed rapidly, becoming a reach and multifaceted city. Several immigrants and different religious groups found refuge in the city (Jews, Reformed of different proveniences, Roman Catholics, Walloons). An important pole of attraction was the fiery, that took place twice per year. A part of the fiery was devoted to books; particularly, texts from the more liberal Netherlands found here a center for their diffusion. 16 The conventicles housed by Spener were visited at first by fifteen / twenty men and they were opened only to male persons. The number of participants increased in the following years. Starting from 1682 they also started gathering in the church in which the theologian preached, the Barfüßerkirche. Here women could also participate, without taking part in the discussion and hiding themselves, maybe behind a pavilion. An essential feature which animated the idea of the gatherings was that of the allgemeine geistliche Priestertum (about which Spener would also publish a text: Das geistliche Priestertum, 1677). The idea was to bring all believers (independently from the gender, or the social condition) closer to the Scripture. On the development of the collegia pietatis until 1675 see Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 290–8; Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 98–125. 17 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 222–351. On external influences on the beginning of the Frankfurt conventicles also see D. H. Shantz, An Introduction to German Pietism. Protestant Renewal at the Dawn of Modern Europe (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2013), 15–67. 18 On Schütz’s relationship to Labadists and his correspondence with van Schurman see Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 288–98.

16

Introduction

America and founded Pennsylvania. It was in the Frankfurt circle that Johanna Eleonora also became acquainted with Johann Wilhelm Petersen, whom she would marry in 1680. Johann Wilhelm Petersen was born in Osnabrück on 1 July 1649, one year after the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, that ended the Thirty Years’ War.19 This was the reason why nuncio Fabio Chigi addressed him at his baptism with the words “tu eris filius Pacis”, or you will be a son of peace. His father, Georg Petersen, was a notary, whereas his mother, Magdalene Pretorius, was the daughter of  a priest. Similar to Johanna Eleonora’s autobiographical account, Johann Wilhelm also chronicled his life to show how “God’s Providence has wonderfully guided it”, reciting Ps 66:16: “Come and hear, all you who fear God; let me tell you what he has done for me”.20 For this reason, similar to Johanna Eleonora’s autobiography, he recounted situations of danger to show proof of God’s providential intervention in them.21 At the same time, the life-narration aims to set an example for the readers, so that “all those who read it could gratefully remember what God had done for their souls and how he has protected them from so many misfortunes”.22 On the other hand, as Markus Matthias underlines, Johann Wilhelm does not describe the effects of these events on his interiority, for he remaines focused more on the external facts to portray himself as “God’s child”, setting out to remake the power of God’s Providence.23 Petersen started his first schooling in Lübeck at the Katharineum, a Protestant school, where he remained for about ten years, from 1659 to 1669. There he learned Greek and Latin by reading the works of classical authors such as Homer, Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, Cicero, as well as the New Testament. He also spent an hour a week learning Hebrew and received training in rhetoric, basic theology,

19 On Johann Wilhelm Petersen see his autobiography Das Leben Jo. Wilhelmi Petersen, Der Heil. Schrifft Doctoris, Vormahls Professoris zu Rostock, nachgehends Predigers in Hannover an St. Egidii Kirche, darnach des Bischoffs in Lübeck Superintendentis und Hof-Predigers, endlich Superintendentis in Lüneburg: Als Zeugens der Warheit Christi und seines Reiches, nach seiner grossen Oeconomie in der Wiederbringung aller Dinge published for the first time in 1717 Auf kosten guter Freunde. For the biographical profile and positions of J. W. Petersen until 1692 see M. Matthias, Johann Wilhelm und Johanna Eleonora Petersen. Eine Biographie bis zur Amtsenthebung Petersen im Jahre 1692 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). 20 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 1, 2.  21 For example, he narrates about a dangerous fall, see J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 2, 6.  22 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 1, p. 3: “… daß alle, die es lesen, sich zugleich danckbarlich erinnern, was GOtt an ihrer Seelen gethan, und für so vielem Unfall sie bewahret habe”. 23 See Matthias, Petersen, 26–7. Matthias remarks that, differently from  a “Pietist” life-narration which see the path to conversion prepared by God’s Providence already in the childhood, Johann Wilhelm’s narration shows a “grown-up person” without describing the spiritual development.

Introduction

17

and in the liberal arts (music, astronomy, geometry, and arithmetic), but not in French or English.24 In the following five years, Johann Wilhelm studied philosophy, first in Giessen and then in Rostock, where he acquired the title of magister philosophiae.25 He concluded his studies in theology in Giessen, where he was  a student of Philipp Ludwig Hanneken among others, as during his philosophical studies. During the study of theology, he also served as magister legens in the faculty of philosophy after defending his thesis in 1673 on “De opuscolo praescientiae Divinae cum libertate arbitrii et contingentia rerum”, an issue which addressed different problems such as on divine prescience, free will, and the origin of evil. During his studies in Giessen, Petersen became acquainted with the Frankfurt circle that was associated with Philipp Jakob Spener and Johann Jakob Schütz. He recounts that this contact was recommended to him by  a friend, without specifying who this person was. However, on the basis of his correspondence with Spener, it is possible to conclude that he had known the theologian since 1672 and had started visiting him personally in 1674.26 Johann Wilhelm might have paid him and the Frankfurt circle several visits during these years. In his autobiography, however, he is not as precise about distinguishing different moments and generally alludes to his participation in the conventicles organized by Spener, as well to the fact that he had met Schütz there, with whom he discussed the destiny of the church, and his future wife Johanna Eleonora von und zu Merlau. His account, however, underscores the importance of these meetings with the Frankfurt circle for his personal religious life, particularly, the significance of meeting Spener, through whom he learned to distinguish between studying the Bible according to the logic connection between the subject and the predicate and adopting an approach based on piety.27 Meanwhile, as a student of theology, Johann Wilhelm continued his acade­ mic activities, writing several sermons and disputations especially against the Reformed predestination doctrine. At the start of the 1676, when he moved back to his hometown Lübeck and sought an office in the church, Petersen continued his discussions and confrontations: this time round, with the Roman Catholics. Since the Reformation time, the Hanseatic city was home to a Roman Catholic minority. Even though they were theoretically tolerated, in practice the city sought to preserve its Protestant character. At the same time, Jesuit missionaries were sent to the city to promote conversion among citizens. At the beginning of 1677, in yet another confrontation in the city between the Protestants and the Catholic minority, Petersen was among those who expressed their position 24 On the school years in Lübeck see Matthias, Petersen, 28–32. 25 See Matthias, Petersen, 32–7. 26 See Matthias, Petersen, 46–50. Only Spener’s letters are preserved. 27 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 5, 14–15.

18

Introduction

against clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic church.28 However, the young theologian could not stay on to follow the development in this matter, for he was summoned to Rostock for a short period to serve as professor for poetry, after which he received the pastoral office, first in Hannover at the Aegidien church, and then in Lübeck, where he arrived in June 1678 to take up the office of superintendent. On 7 September 1680, Spener officiated Johann Wilhelm Petersen marriage to Johanna Eleonora von und zu Merlau.29 While it is known that Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora had met in the Frankfurt circle, as to when the meeting precisely happened is, however, difficult to discern. It appears from Johann Wilhelm’s autobiography that Johanna Eleonora had been an important spiritual reference point for him from the beginning. It was Petersen who insistently pursued the question of marriage, whereas Johanna Eleonora had left that decision to her father, taking his verdict as divine will.30 After their marriage, the couple undertook  a long educational journey through the Netherlands,  a trip which led them to Köln, Rotterdam, Leiden, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Franecker and Groningen. Johann Wilhelm visited the universities and got to know several theologians, with whom, however, he did not stay in contact. The couple spent the following eight years in Eutin, where Johann Wilhelm continued serving as superintendent.31 This period also saw the publication of Petersen’s Spruchcatechismus (1685), a text composed of 868 questions, developed not so much around Luther’s position, as it drew directly from the Scripture, whereby Luther remained a central reference point.32 In the following year, the theologian also got his Doctorate in theology,  a title which he had sought to attain during his university years, but without success, for he had been called back to Lübeck. Upon obtaining this doctorate title, Petersen undersigned the Bekenntnisschriften, i. e., the confessional texts of the Lutheran faith, upon which he had to base his teaching. As Matthias underlines, the topic first chosen by Johann Wilhelm – Israel’s hope and its conversion in the Last Days – reveals a certain affinity to Pietist ideas. As the present work will show, Spener had already dealt with a similar topic in his Pia Desideria (1675), where the conversion of Israel was seen as a sign of Christ’s upcoming millenarian Kingdom. The topic was, however, not accepted, and Petersen wrote a dissertation entitled Omnia et

28 See Matthias, Petersen, 105–7. As Matthias remarks, this episode and the other discussions in which Petersen engaged show a firm position as proponent of Lutheranism as true and pure confession. 29 On the marriage see Matthias, Petersen, 124–8; Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 78–83. 30 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 26, 81–2. 31 Matthias, Petersen, 130–46. 32 On this text see Matthias’ extensive analysis: Matthias, Petersen, 146–62.

Introduction

19

in omnibus Christus.33 This event is significant since it shows Petersen’s interest in eschatological issues, an interest which developed particularly in the 1680s’ and which Matthias also discerns from the second edition of Petersen’s Spruchcatechismus (1689), where, although not directly confessed,  a latent chiliastic position emerges. Johann Wilhelm’s church career reached its apex with the call to Lüneburg as superintendent. It was in Lüneburg that the first chiliastic texts were penned. In 1691 Johanna Eleonora published Glaubens-Gespräche mit Gott, whereas her first publication, Gespräche des Hertzens mit Gott, had come out two years earlier. In the same year, Johann Wilhelm anonymously published Species facti, where he narrated the events that transpired around the young visionary noblewomen Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg, whom the couple had housed and whose visions Johann Wilhelm had cast as  a further proof in support of chiliasm.34 Following the publication of Species Facti, a discussion ensued with some other theologians, especially from Lüneburg and Hamburg, because of Petersen’s suspected chiliastic positions. Thus, the publication of Species facti represented the culmination of an already tense situation. On the 5 February 1692, Johann Wilhelm received the decision of the consistory to relinquish his position as superintendent and leave Lüneburg within four weeks.35 Consequently, they moved to Magdeburg where, in 1693, thanks to the financial help of Baron Dodo von Knyphausen, they would buy an estate in Niederndodeleben. After some years they sold the Niederndodeleben estate to buy another one in Thymer, where they lived right until the end. Johanna Eleonora died on 9 March 1724 and Johann Wilhelm three years later.36 Because of Johann Wilhelm’s removal, the Petersens’ estate in Niederndodeleben became a center of meetings and stays for several people. They received visits from Spener’s son Wilhelm Ludwig Spener, the visionary Anna Margaretha Jahn, or the Pietist theologian and church historian Gottfried Arnold. Moreover, Niederndodeleben represented for the Petersens a center of literary production. 33 See Matthias, Petersen, 163–7. 34 Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg (1672–1712) was daughter of Christian Christoph von der Asseburg, who died some years after Rosamunde’s birth, and Gertraud Margarete. The mother, widow in a difficult financial situation, moved from Eggenstedt to Magdeburg with Rosamunde and the other four kids. The young noblewoman Rosamunde experienced visions of Christ (and sometimes also of the Devil) since when she was seven years old. On the relationship between Rosamunde and the Petersens see Matthias, Petersen, 254–301; M. Trippenbach, Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg, die Prophetin und Heilige des Pietismus (Sangerhausen: Schneider, 1914). 35 The discussions and decisions of the consistory are analyzed in detail by Matthias, see Matthias, Petersen, 254–301. This point will be discussed in the next chapters. 36 For the Petersens’ biographical profile after Johann Wilhelm’s removal see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 94–120. On Johann Wilhelm’s death date see M. Matthias, “Wann starb Johann Wilhelm Petersen?”, in: PuN 22 (1996), 230–3.

20

Introduction

The couple continued supporting their eschatology in numerous texts. At the end of his autobiography Johann Wilhelm lists 54 published treatises in addition to 106 manuscripts ready for the publication.37 Johanna Eleonora was also quite prolific, with fifteen published titles to her name,  a significant number for a woman of that time.38

The Petersens in the panorama of scholarship Despite their extensive textual production, Johanna Eleonora’s and Johann Wilhelm’s names remain generally unknown in the wider Early Modern scholarship. This picture changes if one looks to more specialist studies on German church history between the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. The name of the couple appears in numerous studies on Pietism. To give a definition of this movement or to describe this phenomenon in its multifaceted aspects is not the aim of this dissertation.39 However, it is important to recall the generally admitted division between the “Church Pietism and Radical Pietism”, to gain a better orientation of the relevant scholarship and how the role of the Petersens in this movement has been viewed in this scholarship.40 37 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, 368–94. 38 A list of Johanna Eleonora’s texts can be found in Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 45–57. Her texts are analyzed by Albrecht, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 200–349. For an introduction to the figure of Johanna Eleonora as author see Albrecht’s introduction. Albrecht defines her “theologische Schrifstellerin”, theological author, since she wrote on theological topics, but she did not study theology at the university as, for example, Johann Wilhelm; moreover, Albrecht remarks on the similarities and differences with other women-authors of that time, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 11–19. 39 Scholarship on this movement is rather voluminous; the character and borders of Pietism remain, however, not completely defined and tracked. Among the numerous studies it is important to remember M. Brecht (ed.), Geschichte des Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993–2004), 4 volumes; J. Wallmann, Der Pietismus, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005); Shantz, An Introduction to German Pietism.; J.  Strom / ​H.  Lehmann / ​ J. v. H. Melton (ed.), Pietism in Germany and North America 1680–1820² (New York: Routledge, 2016); R. Osculati, Vero cristianesimo. Teologia e società moderna nel pietismo luterano (Roma: Laterza, 1990); A.  Lagny (ed.), Les piétismes à l’âge Classique (Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Univ. du Septentrion, 2001). I will use the expressions “Pietism” and “Pietist” to indicate some authors generally defined though these expressions by scholars, being, anyway, aware that such a definition is problematic. 40 The designation “Radical Pietism” dates back to Albrecht Ritschl, see A.  Ritschl, Ge­schichte des Pietismus, (2 vol.; Bonn: Marcus, 1884), 349. A summarizing overview on the historical differences between church and radical pietism and a discussion on the different positions of the scholars on this topic is offered by J. Wallmann, “Kirchlicher und radikaler Pietismus. Zu einer kirchengeschichtlichen Grundunterscheidung”, in W. Breul / ​M. Meier / ​ L. Vogel (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 19–43.

Introduction

21

The difficulties in clearly defining the phenomenon of Pietism and in definitively tracing its boundaries complicate  a clear definition of its sub-branch Radical Pietism.41 A further difficulty is that the term “Pietism”, as used by contemporaries, had  a negative connotation, and was employed to criticize certain ideas and positions attributed to Spener and his followers.42 Similarly, the term “Radical Pietism” was coined by Ritschl to categorize the work of certain authors whose positions differed from Spener’s Pietism, and were defined by their contemporaries as Schwärmer, Fanatici, Enthusiasten (swarmers, fanatics, enthusiasts). A first general criterion for characterizing Radical Pietism is its opposition to the Orthodoxy, insofar as Radical Pietism was an umbrella term for those who deviated from the Orthodox doctrine and were deemed heterodox, appearing, in this way, as separatists and nonconformists. However – as Hans Schneider has remarked – such a definition is not satisfactory, for separatists were not necessarily heterodox.43 Schneider’s work – which remains an important reference point in research in Radical Pietism – seeks to highlight some features typical of the “radicals”: a certain danger of radicalization and a latent dynamic of separatism in relation to conventicles; influences of mystic and spiritualistic literature (such as Hoburg, Felgenhauer, Böhme, et. al.) which can be traced in the library catalogues of several authors, among them also Johann Wilhelm and Johann Jakob Schütz; and not least, eschatological expectations.44 Although Schneider’s work remains a reference study on this topic, other scholars have sought to implement Schneider’s categorization and to find new sub-categories to better describe this complex phenomenon. For example, Douglas Shantz suggests a fourfold typology of Radical Pietism: The Spiritualist-Alchemist model (Gottfried Arnold), the Millenialist model (Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen), the Conventicle model (Johann Jakob Schütz and Johann Heinrich Reitz), the Sect model (New Baptists and Moravians).45 41 Some authors, such as Albrecht Ritschl, date back the origin of Pietism to the Evangelical theologian Johann Arndt, others, such as Emanuel Hirsch, indicate Spener as the starting point of this movement. 42 See J.  Wallmann, Art. Pietismus, in: RGG⁴ 6 (2003), 1342–3; H. Schneider, German Radical Pietism (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2007), 171. 43 Schneider, Radical Pietism, 184–90. 44 See Schneider, Radical Pietism, 3–15. 45 See Shantz, An Introduction to German Pietism, 154–8. On Radical Pietism also see H. Schneider, “Der radikale Pietismus in der neueren Forschung”, in: PuN 8 (1982), 15–42; H. Schneider, “Der radikale Pietismus in der neueren Forschung (Fortsetzung)”, in: PuN 9 (1983), 117–51;  a summarizing overview on the main positions on this issue is offered by Shantz, see Shantz, An Introduction to German Pietism, 147–54. On the influences of “spiritualist literature” on Pietism see Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 336–51; Schütz was in contact not only with several authors, especially from the Netherlands, but also with several editors, such as the Frankfurt Zunner, that will be an important editor for Pietist authors

22

Introduction

Even though in the last years the categorical distinction between church and radical pietism has been progressively overcome, Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm Petersen are generally considered among the most representative figures in Radical Pietism in Pietism scholarship. For Hirsch, they are among the most fascinating representatives of fanatic Pietists; Schneider describes the work of Johann Wilhelm as follows: “Petersen appropriated Spener’s concept of a special inspiration of the reborn along with its tendency toward subjectivism and an ‘enthusiastic’ interpretation of Scripture. Church Pietism and Radical Pietism shared this biblical hermeneutic based on ‘personal experience’. Petersen forms an important link between Spener and Pietist enthusiasm”.46 Separatism, heterodoxy, spiritualism, and enthusiasm were the main concepts used by scholars to define radical Pietism, whose character and whose borders remain, however, not totally defined. Scholars, starting with Schneider himself, have called for more specific works on individual figures. As for the Petersens, this request was in large measure satisfied. In 1993, Markus Matthias published a detailed biography of Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen.47 On the basis of Johann Wilhelm’s autobiography and numerous archival documents, Matthias profiles the life, the contacts, and the main positions of Johann Wilhelm up until his removal from his church office in detail. Matthias’ work – which remains the main biographical reference for the life of Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen until 1692 – has two limitations. First, it presents a temporal limit, for it ends when the couple started publicly supporting the chiliastic position, and, therefore, chronicle their life until they started publishing and having troubles and confrontations with other theologians and with the authorities. Secondly, it focuses especially on the figure of Johann Wilhelm, without specifically defining or outlining the role and positions adopted by Johanna Eleonora. Particularly in light of the lack of attention to her positions, an entire monograph by Ruth Albrecht (2005) is devoted to Johanna Eleonora from a gender studies perspective, for Albrecht’s work focuses on Johanna Eleonora as a female author, analyzing her published writings, and illuminating on the topics and issues dealt by the author.48 Johanna Eleonora is presented as a theologische Schriftstellerin, a theological writer, although she was not a theologian in the formal sense, as she did not have a formal university (also the Petersens will publish by him). Another important contact was with Heinrich Betke (1625?–1708), who lived in Amsterdam and was one of the most important editors for mystical spiritual literature (e. g. Augustin Fuhrmann, Christian Hoburg, Friedrich Breckling, Abraham von Franckenberg, Ägidius Guttmann, Julius Sperber, Johann Tauler, Paul Felgenhauer, Johann Amos Comenius, Robert Barclay). 46 See E. Hirsch, Geschichte der neuen evangelischen Theologie (2 vol.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1951), 259; Schneider, Radical Pietism, 22.  47 Matthias, Petersen. 48 Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen.

Introduction

23

education in theology nor participated in academic disputations. She also did not have a public office as theologian – which was not allowed to women before the 20th century. Her work is, however, concerned with theological issues which she discussed on the basis of the Scripture. Thanks to Albrecht’s work, Johanna Eleonora is not only no longer in the shadow of Johann Wilhelm, she, in fact, gains her own voice and her positions are clearly pronounced, highlighting the cooperation between the two authors. Moreover, the monograph opens with a biographical section, that completes Matthias’ work, and that – together with the latter – represents the main source of biographical reference for this work. Lucinda Martin’s dissertation also analyzes Johanna Eleonora’s figure from a gender studies perspective.49 Martin highlights the role of Johanna Eleonora in the Frankfurt environment, and remarks that Johann Wilhelm came to adopt the strand of chiliasm promoted by her and Schütz only gradually. Between the studies of Matthias and Albrecht, another study on the Petersens appeared in 1994: Leben und Schreiben für den Pietismus.50 Written by Stefan Luft, this study has two advantages: first, it has no temporal limit; second, it includes numerous excerpts from the Petersens’ texts (or better – as Albrecht remarks – from Johann Wilhelm’s texts, whereas Johanna Eleonora’s voice is almost absent), quotations which, in my opinion, touch on crucial points in the Petersens’ eschatology, but which – as Matthias remarks – are lacking in a critical interpretation.51 Specific aspects concerning the Petersens’ life and thought were further analyzed in specialist articles, such as Matthias’ Mutua Consolatio Sororum, on the correspondence between Johanna Eleonora and Duchess Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz; “Enthusiastische” Hermeneutik des Pietismus, which is on Johanna Eleonora’s first publication Gespräche des Hertzens mit Gott, by the same author, and Ruth Albrecht’s Zum Briefwechsel Johann Georg Gichtels mit Johanna Eleonora Petersen, on the correspondence between Johanna Eleonora and the Böhme-follower Gichtel.52 Among the publications devoted to the Peters-

49 L. Martin, Women’s religious speech and activism in German Pietism (Johanna Merlau Petersen, Anna Nitschmann), (Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin, December 2002). 50 S. Luft, Leben und Schreiben für den Pietismus. Der Kampf des pietistischen Ehepaares Johanna Eleonora und Johann Wilhelm Petersen gegen die lutherische Orthodoxie (Herzberg: Bautz, 1994). 51 For the positions of Ruth Albrecht and Markus Matthias on Luft’s work see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 29–30; M. Matthias, “Rezension: Luft, Stefan: Leben und Schreiben für den Pietismus. Der Kampf des pietistischen Ehepaares Johanna Eleonora und Johann Wilhelm Petersen gegen die lutherische Orthodoxie”, in: PuN 22 (1996), 252–3. 52 M. Matthias, “Mutua Consolatio Sororum. Die Briefe Johanna Eleonora von Merlaus an die Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz”, in: PuN 22 (1996), 69–102; M. Matthias, “‘Enthusiastische’ Hermeneutik des Pietismus, dargestellt an Johanna Eleonora Petersens

24

Introduction

ens it is also necessary to remember Walther Nordmann’s works, which, although published almost a century ago, still represent the main reference study for the eschatological positions of the Petersens.53 Nordmann highlights several aspects of the Petersens’ theological position (their understanding of God, of human being, and of justification); nevertheless it does not distinguish the chiliastic position from the doctrine of universal salvation, and it does not distinguish Johanna Eleonora’s voice from that of Johann Wilhelm. Friedhelm Groth’s Die “Wiederbringung aller Dinge” im württembergischen Pietismus (1984) is devoted to the Petersens’ eschatology as well, but he also investigates their relationship to Spener, as well as to other universalist positions held by Württemberg authors at the beginning of the eighteenth century.54 The analysis and the presentation of the Petersens’ eschatology remains, however, quite superficial, lacking not only in several theoretical points but also in historical sources, a point partly comprehensible, if one thinks that the main studies on the Petersens and on Spener’s eschatology appeared after this work.55 The scholarship on the Petersens also includes some book-chapters or articles which investigate the couple’s positions in relationship to other authors. These studies show not only the historical connection to other authors, but also the reciprocal influences from the point of view of ideas. One of the most significant in this sense is Burkhard Dohm’s Böhme-Rezeption in England und deren Rückwirkung auf den frühen deutschen Pietismus, which outlines the reception of Jacob Böhme among English Philadelphians, particularly Jane Lead, and, through her, the return of his ideas to Germany and their reception by the Petersens.56 ‘Gespräche des Hertzens mit GOTT’ (1689)”, in: PuN 17 (1991), 36–61; R.  Albrecht, “Zum Briefwechsel Johann Georg Gichtels mit Johanna Eleonora Petersen”, in W. Breul / ​M. Meier / ​ L. Vogel (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 327–59. 53 W.  Nordmann, Die theologische Gedankenwelt in der Eschatologie des pietistischen Ehepaares Petersen (Naumburg: Stelings, 1929); W. Nordmann, “Die Eschatologie des Ehe­ paares Petersen, ihre Entwicklung und Auflösung”, in Zeitschrift des Vereins für Kirchen­ geschichte der Privinz Sachsen 26 (1930), 83–108; W.  Nordmann, “Die Eschatologie des Ehepaares Petersen, ihre Entwicklung und Auflösung”, in Zeitschrift des Vereins für Kirchengeschichte der Privinz Sachsen 27 (1931), 1–19; W. Nordmann, “In Widerstreit von Mystik und Föderalismus, Geschichtliche Grundlagen der Eschatologie bei dem pietistichen Ehepaar Petersen”, in Zeitschrift des Vereins für Kirchengeschichte 49 (1930), 146. 54 F. Groth, Die “Wiederbringung aller Dinge” im württembergischen Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). 55 In addition to the two biographies on the Petersens, in 2005 Krauter-Dierolf published a study entirely devoted to Spener’s eschatological position, where the Petersens’ position was also partly taken into consideration, see H. Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 56 B.  Dohm, “Böhme-Rezeption in England und deren Rückwirkung auf den frühen deutschen Pietismus. Jane Lead und das Ehepaar Petersen”, in W. Kühlmann / ​F. Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur europäischen Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahr­ hundert (Berlin / ​Boston: De Gruyter, 2012), 219–39.

Introduction

25

In her monograph Alsted and Leibniz, Maria Rosa Antognazza, on many occasions, quotes from the works of the Petersens to show their influence on and the reception of their eschatology by Leibniz.57 The two former works analyze in greater detail some aspects already presented by Walker in his 1964 The decline of hell.58 In this study on universalists positions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Walker also devotes  a chapter to Johann Wilhelm’s eschatology. While he gives  a broad overview of the discussions about hell and salvation, especially in the seventeenth century, the chapter on the Petersens’ position is rather superficial, and does not distinguish between chiliasm and apokatastasis. In more recent years, the Petersens have received more attention in Martin Mulsow’s work on Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland, which inserts them into a network of authors and texts united by the so-called “hermetic tradition”.59 Mulsow’s study is, in turn, partly indebted to Wilhelm Schimdt-Biggemann’s work on philosophia perennis. Outlining the concept of perennial philosophy, this latter work also devotes  a sub-chapter to Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, in which he briefly describes the main features of the apokatastasis doctrine, remarking on the cosmic meaning attributed to the figure of Christ, as well as on the Petersens’ reception of the Origenian paradigm of universal salvation.60 Last but not least, it is necessary to remember the two source editions on Johanna Eleonora’s autobiography, as well as the collection of sources on women enthusiasts, which also includes texts by the Petersens. In 2003, Prisca Guglielmetti edited Johanna Eleonora’s German autobiography with detailed annotations.61 Although less detailed in the comments, Barbara Becker-Canta­ rino’s 2005 translation of Johanna Eleonora’s autobiography has made her life more accessible to English readers,  a translation which is used also in the 57 M. R.  Antognazza, Alsted and Leibniz on God, the magistrate and the Millennium (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999). 58 D. P. Walker, The Decline of Hell. Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964). 59 Mulsow, M., Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland. 1680–1720 (2 vol.; Göttingen: Wallstein, 2018), 313–422. The hermetic tradition is a syncretic conflation of Gnostic-Helle­ nistic, Platonic-Pythagoric and mystic-Kabbalistic elements and ideas. Such kind of literature was spread since the fifteenth century in consequence of the translation of the Corpus Hermeticus by Marsilio Ficino; see A. Reckermann, Art. Hermetismus / ​Hermetisch, in: HWPh 3 (Basel: Schwabe, 1974), 1075–8; C. Thiel, Art. Hermetisch / ​Hermetik, in: Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie 3 (Stuttgart / ​Weimar: Metzler, 2008), 371–3. 60 W. Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis. Historical Outlines of Western Spirituality in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought (Dordrecht: Springer, 2004), 359–68; J.  Procopé, Art. Hermetism, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London / ​New York: Routledge, 1998), 395–7. 61 P. Guglielmetti (ed.), Johanna Eleonora Petersen geb. von und zu Merlau. Leben, von ihr selbst mit eigener Hand aufgesetzet (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2003).

26

Introduction

present work.62 Ruth Albrecht’s Begeisterte Mägde (2018) offers a collection of commented sources on the phenomenon of women enthusiasts in Germany at the turn of the eighteenth century, of whom Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg, the young noblewomen hosted and protected by the Petersens, was the first.

Perspectives and limits of the present work This work builds on multiple strands of relevant scholarship and aims to fill some gaps. Moving from Matthias’ monograph, i. e., from the time of Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s removal from his position as superintendent, this research analyzes the Petersens’ eschatology from the beginning of the 1690s right up to the turn of the new century, when the couple started supporting and writing on universal salvation. From  a biographical point of view, Matthias’ and Albrecht’s works remain the main source of reference. The present research focuses, instead, on standpoints, arguments, ideas, and doctrines used and propagated by the couple in this period of time, and analyzes their published works. Since most of the texts published in this period are from Johann Wilhelm, his voice is rendered more prominently. Moreover, Johann Wilhelm’s texts offer a clearer and richer corpus of ideas and sources in comparison to those of Johanna Eleonora. The dual reference that “Petersens” invokes raises the question of how to deal with the two authors as separate entities, as well as of distinguishing the role played by each of them separately even as they presented themselves as a couple. Did they both support the same position? Did they offer the same contribution to eschatological issues? Is it possible to individuate a prominent figure among them? Johanna Eleonora was the first to show interest in chiliastic issues, even before she met Johann Wilhelm, who, in turn, seems to have become acquainted with these ideas thanks to the contacts with the Frankfurt circle, and also seemed to be quite cautious at the beginning before accepting such ideas. From the 1690s on, the two writers began to show interest in and commitment to propagating eschatological expectations. In terms of content, the two eschatological standpoints presented in their respective works do not present disagreements. Differences can be noted in their writing style. Johanna Eleonora’s texts reflect her education as a woman of her time. The author quotes several biblical passages and builds the discourse around them, displaying great knowledge of the sacred text. In this sense, I agree with Ruth Albrecht, especially on the fact that she produced not only edification literature, but she was also a writer on theological topics. On the other hand, Johann Wilhelm’s production is a reflection of his wide erudition on the works of authors from different traditions and confessions, 62 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen.

Introduction

27

in part due to his university education, and in part due to his devotion to readings, most likely also facilitated by his removal from his position, following which he surely had more free time. Therefore, Johann Wilhelm’s texts present ideas and defend positions not only on the basis of the Scripture, but also in reference to other authors. Johann Wilhelm’s treatises are thus a more accessible corpus for outlining their positions, and for identifying authors and traditions which shaped their eschatology – also the main aim of the present work.63 Moreover, most of Johann Wilhelm’s treatises are responses to the works of other theologians, who wrote against not only their chiliastic writings, but later also on their universalist position. This fact is important for two reasons. First, it is necessary to recall that it was Johanna Eleonora who first published on chiliasm and apokatastasis.64 Her publications always elicited criticisms or suspicions from other theologians, which then compelled Johann Wilhelm to publish numerous other treatises to explain and to defend their ideas. Therefore, whereas Johanna Eleonora could be seen as the main and the initial propagator of such ideas, Johann Wilhelm was the main defender of their positions. The work of Johann Wilhelm represents not only a more easily accessible source for describing their eschatological positions, but also for tracing the discussions with other theologians, and, in so doing, for defining the Petersens’ standpoint in relationship to other authors’ positions and to the context within which it arose. Exactly this point represents one of the main novelties of the present work compared to the former scholarships. 63 In light of this, i. e., that Johann Wilhelm quotes several sources in his texts, whereas Johanna Eleonora bases her argumentations on the Bible, it seems to me that Das ewige Evangelium (published anonymously but usually attributed to Johanna Eleonora) represents an exception. In this text, indeed, not only biblical passages, but also some authors are quoted as witnesses to the doctrines of universal salvation and middle condition of the soul; moreover, the treatise concludes by reporting some excerpts from Luther’s works. The authorship of this text already at the Petersens’ time was not sure, it was sometimes attributed to both, sometimes just to him and sometimes just to her. Ruth Albrecht has faced the problem of the authorship of this treatise in her monography, claiming, on the basis of some letters and statements by Johann Wilhelm’s himself, that the authorship must be clearly attributed to Johanna Eleonora, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 279–80. However, despite Johann Wilhelm’s statements remarked by Albrecht seem to live no doubts about the authorship, I think that it is at least necessary to take into consideration the fact that this treatise represents an exception in Johanna Eleonora’s production from the point of view of composition and argumentation, based not only on the Scripture but also on other authors. Therefore, it seems to me not implausible to suppose a strong influence from Johann Wilhelm, and to see behind this text a twofold authorship to which development both took part, although it was, maybe, just Johanna Eleonora who penned the book. In this work I will, anyway, speak about Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium. 64 As shown in the next chapter, the first work on chiliasm that was published was Johanna Eleonora’s Glaubens-Gespräche (1691), the first treatise on apokatastasis was Das ewige Evangelium (1698), whose authorship is attributed to her (see note above).

28

Introduction

On the other hand, the eschatological position of the Petersens has already been profiled with regard to its general but also its most important features (with respect to chiliasm, double resurrection and pre-millenarianism; love as God’s main attribute, different meaning of the concept of “eternity”, and cosmic meaning of Christ’s figure within the apokatastasis doctrine). Nevertheless, these positions were neither analyzed in detail, nor viewed in relationship to the criticisms addressed to them. By undertaking just that, this dissertation also seeks to approach the question of the character of Pietism and, especially, of Radical Pietism on the basis of the relationships, the contrasts, and the connections between the Petersens and other authors. The aim of this investigation is not to define “what is Pietism” and “what is Radical Pietism” – which would require taking into consideration several other figures. Rather, it is to delineate the Petersens’ position starting with their relationship to other authors and their stance towards them. Specifically, it is not a matter of establishing whether the Petersens were heterodox or radical  – which would presuppose  a specific doctrinal viewpoint as research-perspective. Rather it is of describing their position on the basis of their own account and, secondly, in relationship to other authors mentioned in the texts or linked to them. Did they define their position in contrast to Lutheran Orthodoxy? Did Johann Wilhelm show a clear intent of separating from the official church? These issues will be addressed starting from an analysis of the published works of the Petersens. In this sense, the following points should be clarified. First, to also include other authors’ views linked to them is here considered since helpful to better understand their position. Second, the issue about the Petersens’ stance towards orthodoxy is analyzed not starting from a definition of what is orthodoxy. “Orthodoxy” is not considered here an invariant category, rather a positioning. In this sense, the concept “Orthodoxy” is used and described as it emerges from the debates and from the texts analyzed. This study seeks to delineate the main issues discussed in some of their published works (chapter 1) and to explain them in relationship to the historical context (chapter 2) and to other works directly or indirectly mentioned in the analyzed works (chapter 3). Particularly, Spener represents an important reference point in the Petersens’ efforts to support and defend their positions. Another important player is the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who marked a starting point for discussions on these kinds of topics among the next generation authors, by taking a clear position on the Petersens’ eschatology. The reference to the sources used by them to support their eschatological position is also a way not only to better understand their position, but also to discern what kind of traditions and authors had an influence on them. In this regard, the topic discussed in this dissertation not only touches upon the history of Pietism, but also offers new insights on the development of ideas and issues in this period and the historical relationships between the Petersens and other authors, among them, also Leibniz and the Cambridge Platonists. In this way, this work

Introduction

29

shows the interconnection between different disciplines, such as the history of theology, philosophy, mathematics, natural sciences, offering new possible food for thought for further researches in these fields. On the other side, the present work is not exempt from limits. The period analyzed here covers circa ten years of the Petersens’ life and publications, taking into consideration their works on chiliasm, but focusing just on the initial works on apokatastasis. This is due primarily to the quantity and the length of the texts produced in these years. Moreover, whereas the eschatological positions of the couple did not substantially change in the last circa twenty years of their life, in these years, their writings often were responses to the criticism of other theologians. To analyze these would, therefore, require an equal investment into these texts as the texts considered here. In terms of the sources used, they are limited not only in terms of quantity of texts, but also by the fact that for the purpose of this study almost only published texts were consulted. Whereas several letters from Spener to Johanna Eleonora and to Johann Wilhelm are still preserved and also edited anew, most of the letters that the Petersens wrote could not be found. Considering that several documents in archives are not yet well cataloged, a patient archival search, with the help of some luck, could help bring to light something new. Finally, the approach used here is based on the ideas supported by the couple. Without totally overlooking more specifically theological or social aspects (such as references to scriptural passages, or to the socio-political context of that time), the present work considers first and foremost the ideas supported by the Petersens. These represent thus not only the starting point of this research, but also the horizon towards which this investigation is directed, as well as the main file rouge used to analyze texts, to connect them which each other, and to construct the line of argument. A theological approach could, however, bring other aspects to the fore or focus on points not considered here. The present work is divided into three chapters, and each is divided into two sections. The first chapter is an analysis of the Petersens’ eschatology. The first part of the chapter aims to distinguish the main features of their chiliastic position as it appears mainly in Johann Wilhelm’s treatises. The second part of the chapter analyzes, instead, the salient points of the Petersens’ universal salvation doctrine. Main reference sources are Das ewige Evangelium and the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton. Whereas in the first chapter these two doctrines are presented in the context of their historical development and as two separate doctrines, in the second chapter they will be analyzed in relationship to the context in which they arose. Why did the Petersens support such expectations? Were they the first authors to have dealt with such ideas? How are these two doctrines – millennium and apokatastasis – linked, if at all? The first part of the second chapter outlines the Petersens’ eschatology in relation to the broader socio-political context and to

30

Introduction

other similar positions in that century. Also, in the second part of this chapter their position is contextualized, but in  a stricter sense, i. e., in relation to the theologians who criticized their positions, analyzing the respective standpoints and arguments used to defend or to criticize chiliasm and universal salvation. The third and last chapter is a survey on the main sources that influenced how the Petersens developed their eschatological positions, and on the main authors and treatises used to support their ideas. This chapter will also be divided into two parts. The first one is devoted to the sources of chiliasm, whereas the second part to the main authors and texts that helped the Petersens embrace and shape the apokatastasis doctrine. The sources taken into consideration are limited to those explicitly quoted by them, especially by Johann Wilhelm, and to those who in my view seemed to have played the most significant role. The list of authors and texts mentioned in their treatises is, however, much more extensive. Looking into Johann Wilhelm’s library catalogue, one can find several more texts owned by the theologian.65 To prove their influence on the Petersens’ position, it is, however, necessary not only to know the contents of these works, but also to have a detailed knowledge of the Petersens’ works.66 In this sense, far from being conclusive, this work aims to be a starting point for further studies on these authors and on these topics, which can be pursued from the point of view of the historical development of their ideas, of the sources which influenced their positions, as well as from different and interdisciplinary perspectives.

65 Bibliotheca Peterseniana Id Est Apparatus Linrarius, Quo, Dum Viveret, Usus Est … die XVII. Sept, seqq, An. MDCCXXXI, Berolini in Platea vulgo die Fridrichs-Strasse dicta auf dem Fridrichswerder, in Aedibus Küsterianis. 66 In addition to the works listed in the library catalogue, the frontispieces printed in the most of their works can also be a precious source of information to better understand which traditions shaped these works. For example, the frontispiece of Johanna Eleonora’s Glaubens-Gespräche uses the same image as in Jacob Böhme’s Mysterium Magnum. Even though Johanna Eleonora does not quote Böhme in her text, this indicates a clear affiliation to his work. Similarly, several other texts present specific symbolism, such as the triangle and the eye (or a circle of eyes), used as well in Jacob Böhme’s works.

1. Eschatological expectations according to Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen

1.1 The millenarian expectation 1.1.1 Rise of the eschatological controversy When Johanna Eleonora met with the Frankfurt Pietists at the river Main near Frankfurt, she considered it the most decisive event of her life. Mirroring Johanna Eleonora’s life, her husband Johann Wilhelm also recounted a turning point in his life that took place on River Elbe. He was travelling from Lüneburg to Hamburg after the Duke Rudolf August had summoned him to clarify an issue that had arisen around 1 Thess 4, a verse which Johann Wilhelm had commented on speaking about the first resurrection of believers. The trip was perilous as the ship on which he was travelling had to navigate through icy water. Fearing for his life, Johann Wilhelm recalled the biblical episode of Jonah, who, after refusing to prophesy to Nineveh, was suddenly stuck by a storm and was trapped in the mouth of a big fish for three days. Not unlike Jonah, who was convinced that God had wanted to punish him for his refusal to prophesy, Johann Wilhelm regarded this episode as a divine sign and vowed to preach the truth of God’s Kingdom.1 After returning to Lüneburg, where he was superintendent, Johann Wilhelm started preaching from the Revelation to John on the subject of first resurrection, according to which the chosen people would reign with Christ, and God’s rage would be directed against the antichrist and the kings of the Earth.2 The interpretation of this last book of the Bible was quite  a controversial matter, 1 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 33, 130–6. 2 The image of God’s rage is taken from the apocalyptical vision of the sixth seals in Rev 6:12–17, whereas the first resurrection is taken from Rev 20:6, where it is directly linked to the millenarian kingdom. According to Rev 20, those who did not worship the beast would partake to the first resurrection and would reign with Christ for one-thousand years; they would not have to fear the second death, i. e., the final death which would follow God’s Last Judgment at the end of the millenarian kingdom. On the contrary, all other creatures would resurrect at the end of this kingdom (this is the second resurrection) and directly receive God’s definitive judgment on them. The ministerial officials of Lüneburg already suspected that Petersen supported millenarian positions and they sought to let him confess this also before he was called by Duke Rudolf August and, therefore, before this episode, see J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 33, 132. On that occasion, Petersen did not openly support the millennium; also, for this reason he read the episode of danger on the river as a sign from God, for he had not preached on his upcoming kingdom.

32

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

especially in light of the fact that the Bekenntnisschriften of the Lutheran church contains no mention of  a double resurrection, and the chiliastic position is clearly condemned in Article 17 of Confessio Augustana.3 Johann Wilhelm’s sermons about the first resurrection thus elicited numerous reactions from other theologians from Lüneburg and Celle, who suspected him to be a chiliast and called him turbator Ecclesiae Luneburgicae. In his defense, Johann Wilhelm insisted that the standpoint condemned in CA 17 only reffered to the Jewish idea of an earthly kingdom, whereas he acknowledged a one-thousand-year Kingdom of Christ during which Christ would reign in heaven with the chosen people. This event, which he called die Hochzeit des Lammes, the marriage of the Lamb, would mark the beginning of the eternal kingdom, and was supported in Rev 20.4 In light of these events, that took place between the end of the 1680s and the beginning of the 1690s, and of Johann Wilhelm’s ‘ambiguous’ position, the five main pastors of Lüneburg delivered what came to be known as Achtzehn Fragen (Eighteen Questions) to Georg Meier, senior of the spiritual ministry of Lüneburg (Senior des geistlichen Ministeriums).5 Essentially, they were asking Johann Wilhelm to provide clarifications on some issues, such as on the relationship 3 Spener, who spoke about a betterment of the condition of the church before the end of the times, did not support the idea of a double resurrection, an idea which could clearly lead to troubles and discussions with the official church. On the contrary, he always distanced himself from this point. On Spener’s eschatological position see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners. For the article 17 of the Confessio Augustana (CA) see Dingel, Die Bekenntnisschriften, 113. See on these charges J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 33, 135 and § 34, 138. 4 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 33, 135–6. 5 Both Johanna Eleonora’s and Johann Wilhelm’s autobiographies date back their discovery of Christ’s kingdom to the year 1685. This date is linked by the couple to a historical event: the beginning of the persecutions of the Huguenots in France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV, following which several protestants fled towards different territories, among them also the Brandenburg-Prussia, where the Petersens then resided, see Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 91. Although the respective autobiographies were posthumously written, some letters from Spener testify to the Petersens’ interest in the chiliastic kingdom in these years 1686–1687, see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin (Dresden, 29. November 1686), in Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1686–1691, J. Wallmann (ed.) (1 vol.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003–2017), 171–5 where Spener thanks Johann Wilhelm for a manuscript on the Apocalypse, expressing his happiness for the fact that other people have more understanding on it, and declaring that he can grasp only the fact that Rom is Babylon; An [Johanna Eleonora Petersen in Eutin] (Dresden, 9. Juni 1687), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1686–1691, 1 vol., 404–8, where he thanks Johanna Eleonora for a manuscript on the Apocalypse (most likely a first draft of her Anleitung zu gründlicher Verständniß der Heiligen Offenbahrung Jesu), also distancing himself from some points, among them the first resurrection of the martyrs and certain calculations on the beginning of the millennium; An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin (Dresden, 10. Juni 1687), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1686–1691, 1 vol., 409–13, where he admonishes Petersen for not divulgating their ideas on the Apocalypse, for, if they got into the wrong hands, they could cause troubles

The millenarian expectation

33

between the Scripture and special revelations, the concomitant suspicion of supporting enthusiastic and fanatic positions, the question of the unio mystica with God, the problem of the salvation of the heathens, the role of good works in the justification, and, finally, the relationship with Jacob Böhme, Valentin Weigel and consorten, as well as the necessity of the sana Philosophia in theology. These questions clearly pointed to a suspicion of separatism and heterodoxy, as well as of influences of fanaticism and enthusiasm. Just weeks after the Lüneburg theologians had submitted Achtzehn Fragen, Johann Wilhelm authored his first chiliastic text, explaining his standpoint on the one-thousand-year kingdom: 1. Schrifftmässige Erklährung und Beweis Der Tausend Jahre / und der daran hangenden ersten Auferstehung / Aus der Offenbahrung S. Johannis am 20. Cap., written in 1690, but published auf kosten einiger Freunde in 1692 (Written clarification and demonstration of the thousand-year kingdom and of the connected first resurrection based on chapter 20 of Revelation to John).6 Although first published two years after it was written, Johann Wilhelm had sent it immediately, in 1690, to the councilor, who, in turn, had forwarded it to the spiritual ministry (Geistliches Ministerium), which asked Duke Georg Wilhelm to take the final decision on the case.7 On 10 May 1690, the consistory in Celle judged that chiliasm could only be supported as a private opinion, which meant that all disputes on this topic were forbidden from being invoked or expressed in public sermons or writings.8 Despite the consistory’s admonition, both Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm continued to publish other texts on the topic. Of the two, Johanna to his office; at the same time, Spener suggests following the position of Sandhagen on this subject, a position that he held in high esteem. 6 This is the very first text where Petersen clearly presents his millenarian position. In the previous years he had already dealt with chiliasm in a couple of predicts (see Matthias, Petersen, 223–32), following which the five main pastors of the minister in Lüneburg wrote Achtzehen Theologische Fragen, eighteen questions to better clarify Petersen’s position. Petersen refused to answer these questions, and expressed instead his position in Schrifftmässige Erklährung. Moreover, according to Markus Matthias, already the second edition of Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s Spruch-Cathechismus (1689, 1685 first edition) is a first sign of Petersen’s conversion to chiliasm. Matthias explains, indeed, that the theologian does no longer distinguish a regnum potentiae, a regnum gratiae and a regnum gloriae, rather, he speaks only about a Reich Christi. Moreover – Matthias argues – the topic chosen by Petersen for his dissertation in 1686, “Hopes of Israel and its conversion in the last times”, indicates a progressive interest towards the chiliastic issue starting from the second half of the 1680s. See Matthias, Petersen, 161. 7 See Matthias, Petersen, 237. The Geistliches Ministerium was a church representative association which developed after the new church order as a result of the division between Reformed church and Roman Catholic church. It had the role of counterbalance the power of the Summepiscopat, the latter was composed by the Konsistorium and the Superintendent, as Johann Wilhelm Petersen himself was. 8 See on this decision Matthias, Petersen, 238–41.

34

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

Eleonora was the first to publish a text on the millenarian expectation, entitled Glaubens-Gespräche mit Gott. The work was published after the decision of the consistory but, as Johann Wilhelm hastened to explain, sent to the press before the admonition had been delivered. This text was dedicated to her husband and it was regarded by the city theologians as an avowal of millenarianism.9 In these first texts, the Petersens not only addressed the questions and concerns of the theologians and consistorial authorities who had written against them, but also the criticisms of August Pfeiffer, superintendent of Lübeck, on the question of millenarianism. In his Antichiliasmus, Pfeiffer had presented a long criticism on the millenarian positions, which he considered contrary to the Scripture, without, however, directly naming the Petersens or any other author.10 Nevertheless, the Petersens presumed the criticism had been directed at them, as confirmed some years later in a text authored by Johann Wilhelm himself.11 The chiliastic controversy definitively exploded when the couple met Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg,  a young noblewoman known for her claim to have experienced visions and internal locutions with Christ since childhood and whom the Petersens had hosted, together with her mother, in 1691–92. This connection unwittingly gave their position an enthusiastic bent. The Petersens had been introduced to Rosamunde by Julius Franz Pfeiffer, the nephew of the abovementioned superintendent of Lübeck August Pfeiffer. Franz Pfeiffer, who was interested in the chiliasm propagated by the Petersens, had may have informed Rosamunde (whom he had probably met in Leipzig or Magdeburg) about their idea of Christ’s imminent kingdom. The Petersens met Rosamunde at the end of 1690 and again in 1691, between February end and the beginning

9 Glaubens-Gespräche Mit Gott: In Drey unterschiedene Theile abgefasset / Also daß Der I. Theil / Das Werck des Glaubens in der Krafft / Der II. Theil / Das Zeugniß / die Macht und Herrlichkeit des Glaubens / Der III. Theil / Das Ende des Glaubens / welches ist der Seelen Seligkeit / vorstellet / In dieser letzten Glaublosen Zeit zur Auffmunterung und Erweckung des Glaubens auffgesetzt Von Johanna Eleonora Petersen / Gebohrne von und zu Merlau (Franckfurt / ​Leipzig: Brodthagen 1691). For an introduction to this text see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 237. 10 See Augusti Pfeiffers / Der H. Schrifft D. und der Lübeckischen Kirchen Superintendentis, Antichiliasmus, oder Erzehlung und Prüfung des betrieglichen Traums Derer so genannten Chiliasten Von der noch zukünfftigen Tausend-jährigen güldenen Zeit / oder sichtbahren Reiche Christi auff Erden vor dem jüngsten Tage: Darinnen Nicht allein dieses Schwarms eigentliche Beschaffenheit/  … ausführlich beschrieben/  … Sondern auch der Chiliasten Einwürffe/  … beantwortet werden; Mit einem dreyfachen Register ([s. l.], 1691). 11 See D. Joh. Wilhelm Petersen klarer Beweiß daß das Reich Christi noch fest stehe / Welches in der siebenden Posaune soll aufgerichtet / und darnach von Ihm Gott und seinem Vatter überantwortet werden / wieder D. Augustum Pfeiffer / … Der den Propheten Daniel / so wohl in seinem andern / als siebenden Capitel fälschlich außleget / und verkehret: Hiebey sind Zweene Brieffe des Herrn D. Pfeiffers zu finden / darinnen er das gesegnete Reich Christi … vormahls verthädiget / nun aber … verlästert hat (Franckfurt am Mayn: Zunner, 1696), § 1, 1. 

The millenarian expectation

35

of March, when she moved to Lüneburg.12 Asseburg’s supernatural experiences were regarded by Johann Wilhelm as a further proof in support of his chiliasm. Some of Rosamunde’s interior dialogues with Christ are reported by him in a text where the theologian argues in favour of the divinity of her visions: 2. Send-Schreiben An einige Theologos und Gottes-Gelehrte / Betreffend die Frage Ob Gott nach der Auffahrt Christi nicht mehr heutiges Tages durch göttliche Erscheinung den Menschenkindern sich offenbahren wolle und sich dessen gantz begeben habe? / Sampt einer erzehlten Specie Facti Von einem Adelichen Fräulein / ​ was ihr vom siebenden Jahr ihres Alters biß hieher von Gott gegeben ist, 1691. (A Letter to some theologians and erudites in theology regarding the question, whether God, since Christ’s Ascension, doth any more Reveal himself to Mankind by means of Divine Apparitions to human beings. With an exact account of what God had bestowed upon a nobel Maid from her seventh year until now). Johann Wilhelm’s defense of Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg, in addition to the publication of Johanna Eleonora’s Glaubens-Gespräche, elicited further criticism of the Geistliches Ministerium. Another consistorial proceeding was instituted in Celle to debate Petersen’s position. The discussions lasted circa one month, and the final decision was taken on 3 February 1691 to remove Johann Wilhelm from his public office as superintendent of Lüneburg. The justification for this decision was that Johann Wilhelm had publicly preached on chiliasm despite subscribing to the Symbolical books (Bekenntnisschriften), and despite the admonition of 10 May 1690. What led to Johann Wilhelm’s removale was, therefore, a chain of events. In other words, the fact that he held a chiliastic position was not the ultimate reason for his removal, as noted by Markus Matthias.13 Indeed, the consistory did not forbid Johann Wilhelm from privately espousing the chiliastic position, but it prevented him from preaching about it publicly. The fact that he continued to do so, for instance through his defense of Asseburg’s revelations and Johanna Eleonora’s Glaubens-Gespräche, was considered subversive and directed against the authorities. Despite his removal from office, the discussions around Christ’s upcoming kingdom and the first resurrection continued. Johann Wilhelm’s Species facti brought forth several reactions, especially among theologians in Lüneburg and Hamburg, whose criticism centered not so much on the millenarian expectation, as on the divine character of Asseburg’s visions. Among the authors who wrote against Petersen’s Species facti or, in general, against his chiliastic stance, were 12 On the relationship between Rosamunde and the Petersens see Matthias, Petersen, 254–301. 13 On Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s removal from office see Matthias, Petersen, 318–30. Markus Matthias, who has reconstructed the development of the Konsistorialprozeß, which took place in Celle between January and February 1692, explains that both the consistorial judgment on 21 January and on 3 February were based on the fact that Johann Wilhelm held a dangerous opinion against authorities, for he never changed his position despite prohibition.

36

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

Johann Friedrich Mayer,  a Lutheran theologian from Hamburg and general superintendent of Swedish-Pomerania, Georg Mayer, senior of the Lüneburg church, Johann Winckler, pastor at St. Michaelis Church in Hamburg, the said superintendent of Lübeck August Pfeiffer, and not least Philipp Jakob Spener.14 The texts composed by these theologians, which appeared for the most part in 1692, created a fertile ground for further animated discussions, until the end of the 1690s, encouraging, over time, the involvement of other theologians such as Caspar Hermann Sandhagen, Lutheran theologian and superintendent in Lüneburg before Petersen, and Johann Joachim Wolf, deacon in St. Ulrich in Magdeburg.15 Nubes Testium Veritatis, a text authored by Johann Wilhelm in 1696, lists thirteen publications by Johann Wilhelm, most of which are, in turn, a response to other texts.16 Listed below are other texts that Johann Wilhelm authored in addition to Schrifftmässige Erklährung and Species facti: 14 Johann Friedrich Mayer wrote Prufung des Geistes / so sich durch ein Adeliches Fräulein itzo offenbahren soll: Bey Erklährung des ordentlichen Sontags Evangelii / Dom. IV. Adventus Joh. I. In offentlicher heiliger Versamlung der Kirchen Gottes zu St. Jacob vorgestellet (S. I., 1692). Georg Mayer, Geistlicher Brieff-Wechsel Darin das Send-Schreiben / An einige Theologos und Gottes-Gelehrte / Betreffend die Frage. Ob Gott nach der Auffart Christi nicht mehr heutiges Tages durch göttliche Erscheinungen den Menschen sich offenbahren wolle  … Sampt einer erzählten Specie Facti Von einer Adelichen Jungfer … Mit einem Ordentlichen / vollständigen … Antwort-Schreiben / Nach der Regul H. Schrifft / zum Collegialischen Andencken / abgefasset und zurück gesand / Von Georgio Meyero, S. Th. D. Eccl. L. P. und Min. Lünaeb. Seniore (Lüneburg: Winckelman / Goßlar: Dunckler, 1692). Johann Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken Uber das Send-Schreiben an einige Theologos, Betreffend die Frage: Ob Gott nach der Aufffahrt Christi nicht mehr heutiges Tages durch Göttliche Erscheinung den Menschen-Kindern sich offenbahren wolle?: Sampt einer erzehlten Specie Facti, von einer Adelichen Jungfer / Zum andern mal außgefertiget / und an vielen Orten vermehret von Johanne Wincklern / Pastore zu St. Michaelis in Hamburg (Hamburg: Liebezeit / ​Ziegler 1692), on Winckler (1642–1705), see J. Wallmann, Art. Winckler, Johannes, in: RGG⁴ 8 (2005), 1588. August Pfeiffer, Augusti Pfeiffers / SS. Theol. D. und Lübeckischen Superintendentis. Antienthusiasmus, Oder: Schrifftmäßige Offenbahrung / Was von denen Enthusiasten / neuen Propheten und Visionisten / und ihren Offenbahrungen insgemein / so wol auch von denen dieser Zeit In einem Send-Schreiben Ausgesprengten Offenbarungen einer adel. Person insonderheit zu halten sey: Wobey zugleich die Revelationes derer in diesem Seculo entstandenen neuen Propheten und Prophetinnen / als Jac. Böhmens / Philipp Zieglers / Joh. Warners / Georg Reichards / Herman von der Hude / Hans Engelbrechts / Christopff Kotters / J.  Christinae Poniatoviae, Nic. Drabicii, Joh. Rothens [et] c. gebührend auff die Probe gesetzt und untersuchet werden; Mit nothwendigen Registern (Lübeck: Böckmann / ​Ratzeburg: Ortmann, 1692), on Pfeiffer (1640–1698) see J. Wallmann, Art. Pfeiffer, Johannes, in: RGG⁴ 6 (2003), 1231. P. J.  Spener, Theologisches Bedencken über einige Puncten / Nahmentlich: 1. Die gerühmte Offenbahrungen eines Adelichen Fräulein. 2. Den D. Petersen Superint. zu Lüneburg / und das von Ihm behauptete Tausendjährige Reich Christi. Und 3. Die so genannten Pietisten angehende, 1692. 15 On Sandhagen (1639–1697) see J.  Wallmann, Art. Sandhagen, Caspar Hermann, in: RGG⁴ 7 (2004), 827. 16 See Nubes Testium Veritatis De Regno Christi Glorioso, In Septima Tuba Futuro Testantium. Libri Tres (Francofourti ad Moenum: Zunnerus 1696), § 46, 178–80. The whole

The millenarian expectation

37

3. Ablehnung Der schändlichen Aufflagen / Welche ich Mit meinem guten Gewissen Für Gott In dem Angesichte Jesu Christi Und Seiner Kirchen / Hiemit darstelle / Johann. Wilhelm. Petersen, der Heiligen Schrifft Doctor, und Bekenner Jesu Christi und seines Reichs, Brodhagen, Franckfurth und Leipzig 1692. (Answer to Mayer Georg?) (Denial of the ignominious editions, which I hereby delineate on the basis of my good conscience for God and in front of Jesus Christ and His church, Johann Wilhelm Petersen, Doctor of the Holy Scripture, and confessor of Jesus Christ and of His Kingdom) 4. Iusta Animadversio, Qua Professorem aliquem Helmstadiensem Contra Regnum Jesu Christi, In septima tuba promissum, In programmate quodam Infelici prorsus & vano conatu se armantem E Scriptis Prophetarum & Apostolorum refutat Johannes Wilhelmus Petersen, D., Brodhagen, Franckfurth und Leipzig 1692 (A right consideration, through which Johann Wilhelm refutes a professor from Helmstedt [who wrote] against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, promised in the seventh trumpet, in a totally ineffective and unsuccessful effort arming himself with the writings of the prophets and of the apostles).17 5. Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi: welches in der siebenden Posaune noch zu erwarten ist / Geschrieben zu Magdeburg im Jahr nach der Geburth Christi 1692, Gedruckt im Jahr 1693 (The truth of the glorious Kingdom of Jesus Christ, expected in the seventh trumpet, affirmed in the Holy Scripture in seven propositions, and opposed to everything was written against it until now, especially by Mr Johann Winckler, the pastor in St. Michaelis church in Hamburg).18 6. Der veste Grund Des In der siebenden Posaunen annoch zukünfftigen Reiches Christi: In einer Antwort Auff einige unlängst herausgegebene Send-Schreiben /  Hrn. Caspar Hermann Sandhagens / Hochfürstl. Hollstein. General-Superintendenten, gründlich gezeiget Und Aus Gottes Wort bestättiget, the first part was published in 1692 and the second in 1694 (The solid reason for the Kingdom of Christ in the seventh trumpet: In a rigorous response based on God’s Word to

discussion is reconstructed basing partly on Matthias, Petersen for the texts up to the year 1692, partly on Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners; partly on Petersen’s Nubes Testium Veritatis and on his Lebens-Beschreibung. For a more complete list of Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s texts on this topic, particularly after the year 1696, see his Lebens-Be­ schreibung, 1719, § 75, 368–78. 17 The professor is Gerahrd Theodor Mayer, see Nubes Testium Veritatis, § 46, who, in turn, answered with Gebhardi Theodori Meieri S. Theol. Doctoris & Sacrarum Antiqvitatum Professoris Publici Ordinarii Castigatio Injustæ Animadversionis Johannis Wilhelmi Petersen Proscripti Superintendentis, Universam Christi Ecclesiam hodie inaudito exemplo misere turbantis: in Defensionem Programmatis, qvo Ecclesiæ nostræ calamitates sincero corde dolebat; Adornata & in usum Auditorum suorum publici juris facta (Helmstadii: Hesse, 1693). 18 Answer to Johann Winckler’s position on Species facti in Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken.

38

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

some letters recently published by Mr Caspar Hermann Sandhagen, generalsuperintendent of Hollstein).19 7. Eine öffentliche Stimme Gegen Das Urtheil eines Licht-scheuenden / Damit er das gesegnete Reich Christi / so in der H. Offenbahrung am XX. verheissen ist / und worauff alle Kinder des Reichs im Geiste warten / in einer Läster-Schrifft (mit dem Titel: Copia eines Sendschreibens vom Chiliasmo) unverantwortlicher Weise verurtheilet hat / aus der Freudigkeit des Glaubens erhoben, Magdeburg 1692 (A public voice against the opinion of a person who eschew the light, according to which he irresponsibly condemns the saint Kingdom of Christ, as promised in the Holy Revelation chapter 20, and for which all children of the kingdom are waiting, in a blasphemous writing (under the title: copy of a letter of chiliasm)).20 8. Freymüthige Anrede / An (Tit.) Herrn Licentiat Johannem Joachimum Wolfium, Predigern zu S. Ulrich und Levin in Magdeburg / welcher Einen Lästerer Des Reiches Christi und offenbahren Pasquillanten unchristlicher Weise zuverthätigen sich unternommen hat / In dem Angesicht der Christl. Kirchen, Magdeburg 1693 (Frank address to Mr Johann Joachim Wolf, licensed and preacher in St. Ulrich and Levin in Magdeburg, who is blasphemous against the Kingdom of Christ and has openly undertaken to defend Pasquillants in an unchristian way, in front of the Christian church).21 9. Bekenntnüß Von dem Zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi Und Der damit verbundenen Ersten Aufferstehung: Zum Unterricht Aus Den unmittelbahren Worten der heiligen Schrifft / und nach dem Zeugnüß der Warheit In Frag und Antwort gestellet, Magdeburg 1693 (Avowal of the future glorious Kingdom of Jesus Christ and of the linked first resurrection: learned from the Words of the Holy Scripture, and presented in questions and answers according to the testimony of the Truth). 10. Endliche Erklährung Gegen (Tit.) Herrn Licent. Johann. Joachim. Wolfium Zu St. Ulrich und Levin Predigern in Magdeburg / Wie auch Gegen Alle / Welche Theils mit höhnischer und lästerlicher / theils mit zänckischer und unnützer Schreib-Art mich und die von mir bekannte Wahrheit des herrlichen annoch bevorstehenden Reiches Jesu Christi bißher angetastet haben, Magdeburg 1693 19 This is an answer to Caspar Hermann Sandhagen, Casp. H. Sandhagens / der regierenden Hoch-Fürstl. Durchl. zu Schleßwig und Holstein / General-Super. Consist. Raths / Oberhoffpre­ digers und Probstes Erstes Zehen Theologischer Sendschreiben: darin unterschiedliche Oerter der Schrifft erkläret werden (1692). 20 Petersen does not say who is this person who wrote the Copia, he seems not to know it, he only asserts that he is a “Pasquillant”, “Autor des Pasquills”. 21 This is an answer to Johann Joachim Wolf, Abgenöhtigte kurtze Antwort Auff die Neuligst aus der Freudigkeit des Glaubens erhobene Offentliche Stimme des Neuen Himmlischen Propheten ([s. I.], 1693). Wolf, in turn, answered with Abgenöthigte ausführliche Antwort auff die freymüthige Anrede des  … D.  Petersen, womit er leyder!  … bezeuget, daß er sich gantz fälschlich und lästerlich für einen unschuldig-verfolgten Zeugen Jesu  … außgebe: Sampt  … Unterricht von desselben Tausendjährigen Reiche ([s. I.], 1693).

The millenarian expectation

39

(Final clarification against Mr Johann Joachim Wolf, preacher at St. Ulrich and Levin in Magdeburg, as well as against all those who, until now, partly with a scornful and blasphemous, partly with quarrelsome and futile way of writing, have questioned me and the truth by me recognized of the glorious future Kingdom of Jesus Christ). 11. Kurtzer und gründlicher Beweißthum Des Chiliasmi Sancti Apocalyptici, In einer ernstlichen Anrede an den M. Johannem Vake / Archidiaconum der Gemeine zu SS. Petri und Pauli in Hamburg/ / Aus heiliger Schrifft Mit Unwidertreiblichen Gründen, Magdeburg 1694 (Brief and rigorous argument on the saint apocalyptical chiliasm firmly based on the Holy Scripture, in an address to Johann Vake, archdeacon of the church St. Peter and Paul in Hamburg).22 12. Oeffentliche Bezeugung Für der gantzen Evangelischen Kirchen: Daß das Reich Jesu Christi / Welches ich Johann Wilhelm Petersen, Der H. Schrifft Doctor, Aus Apoc. am XX. behaupte / Weder mit den alten ketzerischen Irrthümern des Cerinthi / noch mit den Jüdischen Fabeln einige Gemeinschafft habe; Imglei­ chen / Daß dasselbige nicht gegen den 17. Artickel der Augspurgischen Confession lauffe, 1695 (Public testimony for the entire Evangelical church that the the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which I, Johann Wilhelm Petersen, doctor of the Holy Scripture, support on the basis of Rev 20, has similarities neither with the old heretic mistakes of Cerinthus, nor with the Judaic fables, and also that this does not contradict article 17 of the Augsburg Confession). 13. Erläuterung Der Bekäntniß von dem künfftigem herrlichem Reiche Jesu Christi / Und Der damit verbundenen Ersten Aufferstehung, Franckfurth am Main 1695 (Elucidation on the avowal on the future glorious Kingdom of Jesus Christ and the linked first resurrection). In addition to these texts, that represent the core and the liveliest part of the discussion on the question of the millennium, Johann Wilhelm continued writing other chiliastic texts until 1698, i. e., until he and Johanna Eleonora started writing on universal salvation. Based especially on Johann Wilhelm’s writings, the following section describes the main features of the Petersens’ chiliastic expectation.

1.1.2 The millenarian expectation In the discussions around chiliasm, in the beginning, Johann Wilhelm was charged with spreading a ketzerische Meinung, a heretical opinion that was clearly condemned in article 17 of Confessio Augustana.23 Petersen defended 22 Answer to Johann Vake. 23 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 33, 135. In CA 17 the Jewish position on the second coming of Christ on Earth is clearly condemned.

40

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

himself by distinguishing his standpoint from that condemned in CA 17, but especially, by insisting that his position was clearly derived from the Scripture. His writings show that, at the core, his thinking did not undergo a massive change over the years; sometimes he just mentioned the main points to characterize the kingdom, sometimes he explained them better and in a more in-depth manner, but the substance never changed. Petersen’s chiliastic position can be summarized in three points along three main questions: What is the Kingdom of Christ? When and how will it happen? Petersen characterized Christ’s Kingdom as a future celestial Kingdom, also called Ewiges Evangelium, or Eternal Gospel. The millennium would coincide with the seventh seal in John’s Revelation, however, it would not be possible to establish the precise date of its beginning. As to how this event would take place, Johann Wilhelm believed it would start with the first resurrection and end with apokatastasis, when God will be ‘all in all’.

Dissociating from Cerinthus’ and the Judaic position Johann Wilhelm’s first and main concern was to clarify that his standpoint differed from the “Jewish” idea of Christ’s Kingdom – i. e., that it differed from the position condemned in CA 17 – as well as from the position associated with (the heretic) Cerinthus – the first-century gnostic who supported the idea of a future earthly Kingdom of Christ and whose position was condemned as heresy.24 He distanced himself from these authors, referring directly to the Gospel of John where Jesus is invoked as having stated ‘my kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:36).25 Detailing the differences between his position and that of Cerinthus, on the one hand, as well as the Jewish position, on the other hand, as if to create a stronger defense, he asserted that whereas for Cerinthus Christ was only a man who never resurrected and Christ’s Kingdom, as promised in the Scripture, would occur on Earth, and those who chose to partake in it would enjoy all carnal goods, Johann Wilhelm disavowed all these points, declaring his belief in the divinity of Christ and in a heavenly kingdom.26 In regard to the the Judaic position, Johann Wilhelm was accused not only of supporting aspects of the Jewish doctrine condemned in CA, but also of priv 24 Cerinthus lived around 100 C. E. His positions developed most likely in a Judaic context; the sources on him are, however, not always reliable, see R. Hanig, Art. Cerinthus, in: RGG⁴ 2 (2001), 87–8. I put “Jewish” in quotation marks for it was not a shared Jewish belief; CA 17 generalizes this expectation as a common Jewish tenet, see the introduction to this work. 25 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklärung, I, 3.  26 See J. W.  Petersen, Oeffentliche Bezeugung für den gantzen Evangelischen Kirchen, §§ III–IV, 4–8. In order to speak about Cerinthus’ position Petersen refers to some church fathers, such as Eusebius, Jerome, Nicephorus, Ireneus, who represents the main sources on Cerinthus, see Hanig, Art. Cerinthus, 87–8.

The millenarian expectation

41

ileging Judaism.27 Johann Wilhelm does appear to be more indulgent towards Jews, praising their wait for the kingdom. Drawing from the works of three thinkers, the Dutch Remonstrant theologian Philipp van Limborch, the Hebraist Johann Benedict Carpzov and Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham, Johann Wilhelm aimed to show that the expectation of a future kingdom was a belief shared by both Christians and Jews. He also asserted that the Jews were more enlightened on the issue of the future Kingdom of God than several Christians.28 At the same time, he describes their position as Fabeln, or fables, explaining that, although they believed in a future kingdom, they failed to recognize Christ as their Messiah.29 Their position, he concluded, rather than be totally rejected, had to be regarded as the breach through which a common ground could be forged, especially in order to convert them.30 Thereby he had included the conversion of the Jews in the economy of Christ’s Kingdom. As some scholars have remarked, Petersen’s chiliastic expectation is distinctively Jewish.31 Indeed, on one hand, the conversion of the Jews was taken as a sign of the imminent beginning of the kingdom, on the other hand, the millennium itself was described as the arrival of the “new Jerusalem”. Johanna Eleonora also writes about conversion of the Jews in her autobiography, linking it to a dream she had in 1664. In this dream, 27 This last charge came from Johann Winckler, see J. W.  Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Anderer Theil, c. IV, 115–6. 28 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Anderer Theil, c. IV, 116–20. The text of Limborch that Petersen quotes is most likely De veritate religionis christianae amica collatio cum erudito judaeo (Goudae: Justum ab Hoeve, 1687), Tertium Scriptum Judaei, Caput X. Quod Prophetae coeleste Messiae regnum insinuaverint, 221, where the theologian dialogues with Jewish Rabbi Menasseh Ben-Israël, also quoted in Petersen’s text; on Limborch (1633–1712) see J.  Kampmann, Art. Limborch, Philippus van, in: RGG⁴ 5 (2002), 376. From the Hebraist Carpzov (see) he quotes a programmate appeared the former year at the Oster-Fest, it could be the Programmate Paschali (1691) that he quotes in Oeffentliche Bezeugung für den gantzen Evangelischen, § IV, 8; on Carpzov (1639–1699) see Art. Carpzov, Johann Benedikt II (1639–1699), in F. W.  Bautz (ed.), Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, I, 937; S. Michel, Eruditio  – Confessio  – Pietas. Kontinuität und Wandel in der lutherischen Konfessionskultur am Ende des 17. Jahrhundert; das Beispiel Johann Benedikt Carpzovs (1639–1699) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009). He quotes then Munimine Fidei by rabbi Isaac ben Abraham, a text that he found in Johannes Christophorus Wagenseilius’ Tela ignea Satanae (1681), a book written actually against Jews. 29 See J. W. Petersen, Oeffentliche Bezeugung, § V, 12–14. 30 See J. W. Petersen, Oeffentliche Bezeugung, § VI, 14–19, here 16: “Wann wir aber dasjenige / was warhafftig ist / gestehen / und krafft der dürren und deutlichen prophetischen Worte nicht leugnen / daß sie nicht annoch erfüllet werden müßten / und die Juden alsdenn hören / daß wir einiges Liecht hierinnen haben: so finden wir dadurch einen näheren Eingang zu ihnen / und können die Hoffnung zu GOtt fassen / daß wir sie gewinnen”. 31 See D. H.  Shantz, Radical Pietist Eschatology as a Complex Phenomenon. Differing Chiliastic Views in Jacob Böhme, J. W. Petersen and Conrad Bröske, in W. Breul / ​C . J. Schnurr (ed.), Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 103–14.

42

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

the young Johanna Eleonora saw five suns, of which three shone at different intensities but two did not send out rays yet. She immediately interpreted the three suns as representing the three confessions, the Lutheran, the Reformed and the Papist: “Then I thought that the sun without warmth is the Papist religion, the pale the Reformed, and the one with warmth and glow the Lutheran”. The secret of the other two suns as revealed to her “indicated two people who did not yet believe in Christ but who would become believers: one was the Jewish people and the other the heathen people, especially those who sprang from Abraham’s concubines”.32 After waking up, she looked into the Scripture to understand the meaning of this dream, and received an illumination about the conversion of the Jews and some heathens in Rom 2:25 and 4:13, “where it is said that Abraham was to be the heir to the world”.33 The Petersens’ interest in Jews (and heathens) is not a novelty. The conversion of the so-called heathens and Jews is also a central theme in Spener’s Pia Desideria (1675), the first text in which he publicly expresses a new eschatological position.34 Here he bases his expectation of the conversion of these people on Rom 11:25–26 and links this event to the wait for better conditions in the church: “If we consult the Holy Scripture, we have no doubt that God promised here on Earth a better condition than the present. First, we have the glorious prophecy of St. Paul and the mystery revealed by him in Rom 11:25–26, and that after the full number of Gentiles come in, all Israel will be saved”.35 As Peter Vogt shows, even if conversion of the Jews is a recurring theme in the works of authors linked to Pietism, it is still difficult to find an all-encompassing category to define a common Pietist stance towards the Jews, but it was not disinterested to say the least. 32 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 33, 88. 33 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 33, 88. 34 Spener’s eschatological position will be further analyzed in the next chapter. Here is important to remark that the conversion of the Jews was a central point already for him and it was as well linked to the beginning of a new church-epoch. On Spener’s position about millennium and conversion of the Jews see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 225–30. The conversion of the Jews was not a point supported by orthodox theologians. 35 See B. Köster (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Pia Desideria. Deutsch-leteinische Studienausgabe (Gießen: Brunnen, 2005), 88. On the relationship between Pietism and Jews in general see P.  Vogt, Connectedness in hope. German Pietism and the Jews, in D. H.  Shantz (ed.), A Companion to German Pietism (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 81–115 (for the English translation of the above-mentioned passage see 85). The literature on the relationship between the Jews and the Christians is ample, among several articles we remember Lucinda Martin’s, which shows the practical approach between Pietism (especially the Pietism of Halle) and the Jewish rabbis, see L. Martin, Tolerance, Anti-Judaism, and Philo-Judaism in the Pietist Periodical Bau des Reichs Gottes, in Seminar. A Journal of Germanic Studies, XLVIII, 3, September 2012, 301–16. The conversion of the Jews was a point shared in general by several Christian millenarians also outside Pietism, since it was a decisive element to establish the imminent coming of Christ’s Kingdom; see R. H. Popkin / ​G. M. Weiner (ed.), Jews Christians and Christian Jews. From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media, 1994), 3. 

The millenarian expectation

43

For what becomes evident in their writings is that the Jews were always regarded as potential Christians and their conversion was usually linked to the imminent coming of Christ and of his Kingdom. In this regard, several authors used the Jewish wisdom for more incisive insights into the Christian truth and to discover the time of the beginning of the kingdom.36 On the other hand, such interest was not always accompanied by a missionary effort to convert the Jews, especially in the seventeenth century. For example, Spener left open how the conversion would eventually happen, whether with the special effort of the church, or by God’s miraculous intervention.37 Vogt has described the relationship between Pietists and Jews as a “connectedness in hope”, an expression which also aptly describes the specific attitude of the Petersens.

A future event A second controversial point concerned the question of whether the apocalyptical kingdom was a future event. Belief in Christ’s Kingdom was not problematic as such, for this is invoked in the Gospel with several passages dedicated to Christ’s Kingdom. The issue, thus, related to the possibility of establishing whether the kingdom had already begun and whether this kingdom was an earthly or a heavenly one. According to Petersen, the kingdom promised in John’s Revelation had not yet begun, it was still a future event. By declaring “the 1000 years of John are not fulfilled yet, rather they must still be accomplished”, Johann Wilhelm distanced himself from the most of other theologians of the time, starting with Sandhagen.38 The ex-superintendent of Lüneburg believed that the promised Kingdom of Christ had already started during the reign of Constantin, when the persecutions of the Christians had ceased and a period of 36 As for example the composition of a Biblia Pentapla by Johann Otto Glüsing shows. This comprehended several translations of the Bible, among which also a German transcription of a Jewish Old Testament. Moreover, it is not rare to find in Petersen’s writings the use of Hebrew words or sentences. On the influence of Jews legacy on Christian commentators of Revelation see also D. Groh, Göttliche Weltökonomie. Perspektiven der Wissenschaftlichen Revolution vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010), 345–50, where he, dealing especially with the English environment, states that not only the Old Testament, but also other Jewish texts  – such as the Talmud and Kabbalistic works  – were used to better understand the Christian Revelation: “Dabei wurden nicht nur biblische, sondern auch talmudische und kabbalistiche Texte benutzt, die Prophezeiungen des Elias ebenso wie die der tiburtinischen Sybille. Die hebräischen Studien konnten zwar immer noch als Konkurrenz zur christlichen Offenbarung verstanden und ihre Ausbreitung dementsprechend kritisiert werden, gleichwohl wurde vielfach versucht, jüdische und christliche apokalyptische Überlieferungen dadurch noch zu präzisieren und zu vervollständigen”. 37 The Petersens, in the texts on the millennium, also do not explain how this conversion will happen. 38 J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § 1, 3: “die Johannitische 1000. Jahr noch nicht vorbey / sondern noch zu erfüllen seyn”.

44

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

peace had begun: “Christians would have received an external peace thanks to Constantin, who would become himself a Christian; they built churches, and, in this way, the dragon [scil. the Devil] could no longer rage against Christians through pagan emperors”, so Johann Wilhelm comments this position.39 Such a peace – Johann Wilhelm continues – was only an external and illusory peace. The church that developed afterwards was regarded as an extension of Constantine’s power, and to that end a “false church”, characterized by the papacy and by the diffusion of opulent bishops, and marked by the establishment of hierarchies. All these events contributed to the corruption of the church.40 After Constantine, as Johann Wilhelm continues to explain, the church was persecuted and oppressed, both from the outside and the inside. Several populations from the outside (Gothi, Vandali, Finni, Longobardi, Hunni, Heruli) invaded and tyrannized Italy continuously for more than 200 years.41 Inside the church, true witnesses of Christ were persecuted, a condition which was still ongoing and 39 See J. W.  Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § 19, 35: “… so hätten die Christen durch Constantinum Magnum, der selbst ein Christ geworden wäre / den äusserlichen Frieden bekommen / Kirchen gebauet / und da hätte der Drache nicht mehr durch die heydnische Käyser / so damahls auffgehöret hätten / gegen sie rasen können”. The idea that Christ’s reign started at Constantin’s time was quite spread in those years, see on this point Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 251–2. On the contrary, the idea that under Constantin the church had begun to corrupt is to be attributed mainly to radical groups that developed at the time of the Reformation, such as Anabaptists, the spiritualist Sebastian Franck, and Antitrinitarians. This idea is not present in the main figures of the Reformation, such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, who thought, on the contrary, that the fall of the church should be attributed to the scholastic period. The position supported by the above-mentioned “radical authors” was not always the same, nevertheless, they generally saw the connection of spiritual and political power under Constantin as the main cause of the corruption of the original church. On this point see M.  Cavarzere, Costantino  e la riforma radicale nel Cinquecento. Il successo di un mito negativo, in Enciclopedia Treccani, URL= http://www. treccani.it/enciclopedia/costantino-e-la-riforma-radicale-nel-cinquecento-il-successo-di-unmito-negativo_%28Enciclopedia-Costantiniana%29/ (updated 2013). 40 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Ander Theil, 26: “… also hat sein Geist nach den Zeiten Constantini, da zwar die Verfolgung auffgehöret / aber eine falsche Kirche / und das Pabsthum auffgekommen / in wenig Zeugen / die hie und da sich verbergen musten / verstecket / ist aber doch darnach mit desto grösserem Glantz hervorgebrochen. … aber sie hat sich auch / ob sie gleich mitten unter dem Pabstuhm in ihren verborgenen geheiligten Gliedern gewachsen / unter dem Pomp der Bischöffe und Praelaten und endlich unter dem auffkomenden Pabst sehr beugen müssen / welcher um die Zeit des Caroli Magni in seiner Hierarchia Ecclesiastica sehr zugenommen: denn wie der Pabst dem Carolo Magno seinen Thron befestigte / also stärckete wiederum der Käyser des Pabstes seinen Stuhl gewaltig. … Nun ist Gifft in der Kirche ausgesäet. Denn da sind die Bischöffe / die schon zur Zeit Constantini durch seine vielfältige donationes / satt / fett und geil waren / in den nachfolgenden Seculis immer hochmüthiger geworden / und haben die wenigen / die noch unter ihnen gut waren / und gegen den auffgehenden Greuel zeugeten / verfolget / und sie ausgeschlossen / daβ sie zu keinen Ehren-Aemtern haben kommen können”. 41 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklärung, § XIX, 35.

The millenarian expectation

45

that – according to Johann Wilhelm – would cease only with the inception of Christ’s Kingdom.42 Johann Wilhelm then concludes that the prophecy anticipated in the Scripture had not yet happened and remained a future event for: 1. the beast and the false prophet had not yet been judged according to Rev 19–20; 2. the Devil was not yet enchained and still had the power to seduce; 3. Jerusalem, the holy city, still has to reach the situation described in Ezek 38 and Rev 20.43 A further proof that the kingdom was yet to be established was based on the interpretation of Dan 7 linked to Rev 17. The future Kingdom of Christ was called the “fifth kingdom”, based on Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (Dan 7). According to Johann Wilhelm, the beasts represented four earthly reigns that would be destroyed by a fifth reign, i. e., the Kingdom of Christ. Without explaining to which historical reigns these four beasts correspond, he only clearly identified the fourth beast with the Roman empire.44 Looking to history, he argued that establishing a new reign always required abolishing the former reign, but the Roman empire had not been abolished even by Christ’s coming on the Earth. According to this reasoning, the fifth reign could not have already started. When Christ came on Earth, he had brought a kingdom of mercy, which 42 See J. W.  Petersen, Der veste Grund, X, § 7, 94: “Sondern schmückete sich mit dem Nahmen Christi / und verfolgte die Zeugen Christi / wie er je und je gethan hat / und noch biβ auff diese Zeit thut / und eben dadurch klar an den Tag giebet / daβ die gesegneten tausend Jahre / darinnen ihn Gott mit der grossen Kette in den Abgrund binden wird / noch nicht gekomen seyn / worauff wir mitauffgerechtem halse mit allen Creaturen hinein gesetze Jahre betrachte”. On the fact that Christ’s reign did not start at Constantin’s time see also J. E.  Petersen, Einige Send-Schreiben, Betreffende die Nothwendigkeit Verschiedener bißher von den meisten Gelehrten in Verdacht gezogener Lehren: Sonderlich in diesen letzten Zeiten, da die Zubereitung zur Hochzeit des Lammes, mit so größerem Eyfer und Fleiss geschehen soll; Auff einiger Freunde Begehren verfertiget / von Johanna Eleonora Petersen Gebohrnen von und zu Merlaw, 1714, Das dritte Send-Schreiben, 92–6. As Ruth Albrecht notices, here Johanna Eleonora makes uses of the expression “bessere Zeit” to indicate the one-thousand-years kingdom (see J. E. Petersen, Einige Send-Schreiben, 91: “Von der bessern Zeit aber zeugen fast alle Propheten”), an expression that can be found rarely in the Petersens’ writings, and that, on the one hand, remember Spener’s position (“Hoffnung auf besserer Zeiten”) but, on the other hand, assumes for the Petersens a different meaning – as we will see in the paragraph on Spener’s eschatological position –, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 317. 43 See J. W. Petersen, Bekentnüβ von dem zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche, § 60. 44 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § 11, 19: “daβ die vier Thiere die 4. Reiche der Welt sind / und daβ das 4te Reich das Römische Reich sey Dan. 7. 11,12,13,14,27 seqq. über dieselbe Thierische Reiche ist noch ein 5tes Reich als das Reich Christi / welches nicht ehe angehet / biβ die vier erste Reiche gantz aus sind / und zugleich alle andere Reiche und Thiere unter den gantzen himmel auffgehoben  / und zerstöhret liegen”. Pfeiffer indicates Porphyry as the ancestor of this idea, see A. Pfeiffer, Antichiliasmus, c. VII, § 2, 282–283. The interpretation of Daniel’s fourth beast as the Roman Empire can be found in the German theologian Johanne Sleidan (1506–1556), who legitimated in this way the translatio imperii from the Roman Empire to the Holy Roman Empire and, consequently, of the German Empire, see Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis, 392–408.

46

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

resided in the ‘believers’ hearth, but he had not abolished all other monarchies: “Evangelium non abolet Politias”.45 For Johann Wilhelm it was important to distinguish between two types of gospel: the gospel of mercy, corresponding to the kingdom of mercy announced by Christ’s incarnation, and the Eternal Gospel, Ewiges Evangelium, taken from the apocalyptical vision of the angel in Rev 14:6.46

The seventh trumpet, or the beginning of the millennium After clarifying the most controversial points and defending himself from the main charges, Johann Wilhelm goes on to explain how this kingdom is described in the Scripture and what kinds of signs characterize it. The beginning of Christ’s Kingdom is described in the Scripture with the image of the seventh and last trumpet: “The last trumpet, which is also called the seventh trumpet, is God’s trumpet, following which Christ appears and his manifestation begins; subsequently Christ’s day will be carried out and God’s secret accomplished, as He has proclaimed to his servants and prophets”.47 Johann Wilhelm links the seventh trumpet to the seven days of God’s creation, so that the number seven assumes a specific meaning and the seventh day conceals a big mystery “since it is detached from the other six days and it is isolated and sanctified by God”. Referring to Pierre Daniel Huet and to several other authors, Johann Wilhelm explains that the number seven is a special number because, as Pythagoreanism explains, it is not possible to obtain it from the multiplication of the other numbers under ten, therefore, it is isolated and different from all other numbers. The Greeks linked this number to the Goddess Minerva, who represents wisdom; in the same way, on the seventh day of creation God’s wisdom is concealed.48 45 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige ERklährung, § 12, 21: “Wenn man auch die Umstände besiehet / so mag die Zeit / da Christus gebohren ist / nicht das 5te Reich Danielis mit sich gebracht haben / denn das Reich / welches das Gnaden-Reich genandt wird / daβ Christus anfinge in den Hertzen der Menschen / verstöhret nicht die Königreiche (Evangelium non abolet Politias) aber das 5te Reich soll so wahrhafftig das 4te Reich und alle Reiche verstöhren und zermalmen”. 46 See J. W. Petersen, Ablehnung der schändliche Aufflagen, § 10,16; J. W. Petersen, Bekenntnüß von dem zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche, §§ 17–18. 47 See J. W. Petersen, Der veste Grund des in der siebenden Posaunen annoch zukünfftigen Reiches Christi, § XI, 27: “Die letzte Posaune welche die siebende genandt wird / ist eben dieselbige Posaune GOttes / mit welcher Christus hernieder kommt als welche mit der Herniederkunfft ihren Anfang nimmt / und darauff ihre ημερας oder Tage vollenführet / in welchen Tagen soll vollendet werden / das Geheimniß GOttes / wie er hat verkundiget seinen Knechten und Propheten”. 48 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Anderer Theil, 17: “Also ist nun auch der siebende Tag der Schöpffung ein gantz eigener / wunderbahrer und geheimer Tag / welcher wol Minerva mag genandt werden / als dazu Weißheit gehöret: Denn er wird von keinem der vorigen sechs Tagen gebohren / sondern gantz von GOtt abgesondert

The millenarian expectation

47

The beginning of the millennium is biblically represented by the ringing of the seventh trumpet. Johann Wilhelm also wonders whether it is possible to establish the precise hour of this event. In the seventeenth century, many attempts were made to calculate the end of time and the time of the return of Christ. This was based on the theosophical idea that God could be known not only through the Bible, but also by signs residing in nature. In this way, the new mathematical discoveries offered the tool to better understand nature and, in so doing, to uncover God’s mysteries, such as the end of the world inscribed within it.49 However, although several calculations circulated in the late seventeenth century, for Johann Wilhelm the millennium remained a future event, for which he did not offer the precise date of beginning: “When and at what hour does the thousand-year kingdom begin? I do not know this. It is not our duty to know und geheiliget / der auch in sensu mystico von denen 6. grossen Werckel-Tagen/ (ob er gleich auff sie folget / gleich wie die siebende Zahl auff die sechste/) nicht herkomt / und ihres gleichen nicht ist”. Petersen quotes Pierre Daniel Huet Demonstratio Evangelica, Propositio IV, Caput Undecimum, § I. Ex Mosis Libris complures manarunt variarum gentium leges, ritus, ac historiae: II. Praecipue vero Graecorum (Amstelodami: apud Janssonio-Waesbergios et Henricum et Theodorum Boom, 1680) 228. Here Huet also deals with the special meaning of the number seven by Greeks. It is very probable that Petersen took the names of some authors quoted directly from here, such as that of the Platonic philosopher Theone Smyrnaeus and Pytharogeranism in general. However, Huet does not link this number to the begin of Christ’s Kingdom. On Huet (1630–1721) see E.  Rapetti, Pierre-Daniel Huet: erudizione, filosofia, apologetica (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1999). Other authors quoted are Pietro Bungo, Petri Bungi Bergomatis Numerorum mysteria: ex abditis plurimarum disciplinarum fontibus hausta: opus maximarum rerum doctrina, et copia refertum: in quo mirus in primis, idemq[ue] perpetuus arithmeticæ Pythagoricae cum diuinae paginae numeris consensus, multiplici ratione probatur (Bergomi: Typis Comini Ventura, 1591); Samuele Rayher, Samuelis Reyheri Juris & Mathematum Prof. Publ. Mathesis Mosaica, sive Loca Pentateuchi Methematica Mathematice explicate cum Appendice aliorum S. Scipt. Locorum Mathematicorum (Joachimi Reumanni, 1679); Robertus Robert, Ravius, Hainlius, Macrobius. 49 To calculate the end of the time was not a novelty of the seventeenth century, for already between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries several similar attempts had taken place. Decisive in these attempts were contacts with Jewish scholars, who were believed to possess a secret wisdom. Numerous Jewish converts were employed by Christians to find out the date of the end of the world, i. e., the coming of Christ; see M. D. Goldish / ​R. H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Cuture (1 vol., Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, 2001), VIII. On the other hand, the development of mathematics as basis for several other sciences was another decisive element, see Groh, Göttliche Weltökonomie, 215–18: “Im 15. Jahrhundert entwickelte sich auch unter dem Renaissance-humanismus durch vielerlei Einflussfaktoren die Mathematik zu einer immer eigenständigen Disziplin, die als eine Methode zur Welterkenntnis von den einen, als Selbstzweck von den anderen betrieben wurde”. On the diffusion of calculations for establishing the end of the world and on the specific use of the mathematic to calculate the end of the time see J. Delumeau, Angst im Abendland. Die Geschichte kollektiver Ängste im Europa des 14. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Hamburg: Rowohlts, 1985), 349–52; C. Bütikofer, Der frühe Zürcher Pietismus (1689–1721). Der soziale Hintergrund und die Denk- und Lebenswelten im Spiegel der Bibliothek Johann Heinrich Lochers (1648–1718) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 332–7.

48

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

the time and the hour that the Father has reserved to his power (Acts 1:6–7)”.50 Despite not engaging in mathematical calculations, Johann Wilhelm seems interested in knowing the date of this event and quotes the Lutheran theologian Matthias Wasmuth. He found his calculations of the end of the world in a text he had viewed before it was published.51 According to Wasmuth, the year 1692 was the 5833rd year since the beginning of the world, based on the Jewish belief that the world would last 6000 years, calculated by adding 47 years to 5833 (amounting to 5880), as well as the number of the Jubilee year (120), to secure the date of the millennium: 6000.52 The number 5880 corresponds to the year 1739, year in which, according to Wasmuth’s prognostication, a conjunction of stars or a natural apokatastasis would occur.53

Christ’s “Offenbarung” and the first resurrection, or signs at the beginning of the new kingdom Describing the millenarian kingdom, Johann Wilhelm also mentions crucial events expected to occur. The beginning of the kingdom would be signaled by Christ’s arrival, but not the physical arrival, as Christ would not return to Earth as a human a second time. To describe this moment or arrival, the theologian makes use of verbs such as erscheinen or offenbaren, and adopts the metaphor of the marriage: “The holy city, the new Jerusalem, God’s upper church from the heaven comes down like an adorned bride goes towards her bridegroom”.54 The 50 See J. W.  Petersen, Bekenntnüß von dem zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, 61: “Wann aber und zu welche Stunde werden solche tausend Jahr angehen? Das weiß ich nicht. Uns gebühret auch nicht zuwissen Zeit und Stunde / welcher der Vater seiner Macht vorbehalten hat / Actor. I.6.7”. 51 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 24, 83–4. Wasmuth made this calculation at the end of his life, see Wasmuth, Matthias, ein Philologe und Theologe, in J. H. Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und Künste (53 vol.; Leipzig, 1747), 51–4, so the text could be Clavis major universalis, memorite praestare docens, pleraque eorum, quae Apodixin Astro-Chronologicam firmare possunt. Wasmuth’s name can be found also in a text published in 1688: Aeternaturae Memoriae Viri Magni Domini Matthiae Wasmuthi Professoris Theologi Celebratissimi die 18 Nov. 1688 Anima sua … commendata In Jesu Salvatore Suo placide obdormientis Sacrum esse voluit, Kiloni, Reumannus, where Petersen praises his work and quotes the above-mentioned calculation. On Matthias Wasmuth see also C. G. A. Siegfried, Art. Wasmuth, Matthias, in: ADB 41 (1896), 230–2. 52 This belief comes from the Jewish Talmudic period, but it was not a generally shared Judaic belief; see J. G. Klausner / ​G. Scholem, Art. Eschatology, 859–86. The Jubilee year was, according to the Old Testament, the year at the end of the seven Sabbatical years, when Hebrew slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven, and the mercy of God would be particularly manifest. 53 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Anderer Theil, 11.  54 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmäβige Erklährung, § 10, 19: “Denn die heilige Stadt / das neue Jerusalem kömmt als die Ober-Kirche von GOtt aus dem Himmel herab fahren zubereitet / als eine geschmückte Braut ihrem Manne”. On the methapor of the marriage see the general

The millenarian expectation

49

bridegroom is God’s heavenly church, also called “celestial Jerusalem”, “Lamb”, or “Son”. The bride is the church on Earth, the “Jerusalem on Earth”, the “church of believers”.55 Such an image is taken from some biblical passages, such as Rev 19 or Ps 45.56 Johann Wilhelm thus identifies two churches: Christ would reign in the heaven along with the elected; this church – the celestial Jerusalem – would govern the earthly church – the earthly Jerusalem –: “Such a harmony or secret and strict unification and communion between the superior church and the earthly church will occur on Mount Sion as a big unity. … Since everything in a bigger measure belongs to the superior church, it belongs to the earthly church in lowest measure”.57 This twofold distinction of Christ’s Kingdom is based on a further distinction between the elected and those who will convert at a later moment, namely the Jews and some heathens. Whereas Christ would reign in heaven with the elected, i. e., with the true believers who converted and believed in him before the beginning of his Kingdom, the Jews would convert and have their promised kingdom on Earth. In support of the conversion of the Jews, Johann Wilhelm refers to several scriptural passages which deal with the salvation of Israel, such as Ezek 38–39 or Jer 31:9 and 23:5–6, asserting that, according to Hos 3:4–5, the word “Israel” refers to the Jews, and that, although introduction to this theme by W.  Breul / ​S. Salvadori (ed.), Geschlechtlichkeit und Ehe im Pietismus (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014). From the texts collected in this study, it is possible to notice that the marriage between a man and a woman is compared sometimes to the marriage between human’s soul and Christ, sometimes to the marriage between Christ and his church. This last theme can be found particularly in Spener’s Traupredigt für das Ehepaar Johann Wilhelm und Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 7–42, where the spousal union between a man and a woman is compared with and depends upon the marriage of Christ (the bridegroom) with the true Church, or invisible Church, i. e., the Church of true believers (see on Spener’s sermon also Matthias, Petersen, 126–8: “Spener präzisiert dann den Symbolcharakter der Ehe, indem er die menschliche Ehe als das äußere Abbild für die ursprüngliche Vereinigung Christi mit der Kirche und der Einzelseele zu verstehen versucht”). Moreover, looking into Petersen’s library catalogue, one can find several Comments on the Song of Song, which surely influenced Johann Wilhelm Petersen on this point, although he does not directly quote them as sources. 55 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmäβige Erklährung, § 24, 43; J. W. Petersen, Justa animadversio, § 6, 4: “Illi Filii resurrectionis tam 144000, obsignati, quam reliquus ille magnus numerus innumerabilis diem agent nuptialem cum Agno in aeternitate, regnaturi cum Christo super Israel tanquam Ecclesiam in terris mille annos; et haec est Ecclesia, quae dicitur superna: Ecclesia autem, quae in terris est, illatanquam Israel Dei in illo millenario sancto super omnes populos regnabit”; J. W.  Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, 56: “so wird der Sohn seine Braut / so wohl die Obere Kirche / als auch die Gläubige Kirche auff Erden dem Vater zu führen / ihm sein Reich / und seine biβherige administration überantworten / und selbst unterthan seyn Dem / der ihm alles unterthan hat”. 56 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, 46. 57 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, 153–4: “Diese Harmonie, oder geheime und genaue Vereinigung und Gemeinschafft der obern Kirche mit der Kirchen auff Erden wird auff dem heiligen Berge Zion in einer grösseren Einigkeit stehen. … Denn alles was der Obern Kirchen in einem höheren Masse alsdenn zukommt / das hat die Kirche auff Erden / zu gleicher Zeit / in einem geringern Masse”.

50

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

Paul uses “Israel” to also include the heathens, this does not contradict the literal meaning of the expression. Moreover, Johann Wilhelm recalls all those prophetical passages where the salvation of Israel is promised (Ezek 37; Mic 4), which are also confirmed by Luther’s sermon on St. Stephano.58 Thus, for Johann Wilhelm, that the Jews will recognize that Christ is their Lord and in their earthly reign will be led by Christ’s heavenly Kingdom is beyond doubt. The other event which marks the beginning of the millennium is the first resurrection: “This is the first resurrection. Those who partake in the first resurrection are blessed and saints. The second death has no power on them, they will be God’s and Christ’s priests, and they will reign one-thousand years with Him”.59 Johann Wilhelm distinguishes between two corporeal resurrections, one at the beginning of the millennium: “the beginning of the one-thousand year kingdom and the first corporeal resurrection depend directly from each other and are connected”, and one at the end.60 The first resurrection is based on John’s vision in Rev 20:4–5, whose meaning is for the theologian in no way ambiguous, he explains, as “these are clear German words”.61 As with Christ’s Kingdom, the controversial point was not as much believing in the resurrection after death. The problematic issues in the discussion were, rather, the two resurrections, both not only spiritual but also corporeal.62 The first point is discussed with Wolf, who opposes Johann Wilhelm’s position on the base of Matt 25:31–36, namely: when the Lord comes, he will separate all people into two groups, on one side, the blessed and, on the other side, the condemned. From this passage Wolf draws the conclusion that there is only one judgment and one resurrection. Johann Wilhelm comments on Wolf’s position on the basis of Dan 7 and Rev 20, two passages that describe the judgment of the beast

58 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, 137–42. The text of Luther here quoted is WA, I, 504–7. 59 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmäβige Erklährung, § 1, 4: “Dis ist die erste Auferstehung / ​ selig ist der / und heilig / der Theil hat an der ersten Auferstehung / über solche hat der andere Tod keine Macht / sondern sie werden Priester Gottes und Christi seyn / und mit ihm regieren tausend Jahr”. 60 See J. W. Petersen, Freymüthige Anrede, 17: “weiln der Anfang der tausend Jahre / und die erste leibliche Aufferstehung unmittelbahrer Weise zusammen hängen / und mit einander verknüpffet sind”. 61 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, 61–2. 62 In the Bekenntnisschriften there are no references to a second resurrection, a resurrection connected to God’s final judgment is mentioned. For example, Pfeiffer states that the chiliastic position is against faith since, among other articles of faith, it also contradicts the article which states that Christ’s coming will immediately bring with it the Last Judgment and he will separate the blessed from the condemned, without establishing any millenarian kingdom. Some pages after he explicitly denies the double resurrection; see A. Pfeiffer, Anti­ chiliasmus, 1691, c. 4, § 12, 169–70 and §§ 14–17, 173–6. The distinction between first and second resurrection is based upon Rev 20 and strictly connected to the millenarian kingdom.

The millenarian expectation

51

and the delivering of the kingdom to Christ. Such passages also harmonize with Rev 8 and 19 that describe Christ’s Kingdom. In turn, all these passages match the passage quoted by Wolf from Matt 25: the event described by the Evangelist indeed corresponds with the sixth seal, namely the beginning of the millennium. But it is also clear that the event described in these passages – the ceding of the kingdom to Christ  – is not the last event; such a kingdom would, indeed, be a temporary kingdom, a one-thousand-year kingdom, which would not last eternally. In this way, Johann Wilhelm concludes definitively that a second and definitive judgment was to be expected.63 Another controversial point linked to the resurrection concerns its nature. According to most Lutheran theologians who were contemporaries of the Petersens, the resurrection described in the Scripture only had a spiritual character and not a physical one. But for the Petersens, the resurrection was clearly of corporeal nature. Johann Wilhelm cites Rev 20:12, a passage that deals with a “true death”, where only bodies are mortal, souls never die, in corroboration of which he cites Rev 2:8 where the Greek verb ἔζησεν (ezhsen) can be applied only to the body and not to the soul, so that the first resurrection could only be that of the body: “Since the death concerns the body, the resurrection also must concern the body. … Souls can never die, but bodies are mortal. When the mortal part receives immortality in the first resurrection, this means for the resurrected that their body also can die no more”.64 Another reason to support the resurrection of the body is that those who will partake in the first resurrection would be martyrs and believers in God and in Jesus, but those who died would experience a bodily death and not a death of the soul. Those who die in the soul were sinners and not martyrs or believers. The first resurrection, for this reason, had to be of the body.65 This provided a further proof in this argument that the one-thousand 63 See J. W. Petersen, Freymüthige Anrede, 19–24. 64 See J. W.  Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § XXII, 40: “Nun ist der Tod leiblich weil es Enthauptete seyn / darum muß auch die Aufferstehung leiblich seyn”; § XXI, 41: “Die Seelen können ohne dem nimmer sterben / aber die Leiber sind sterblich / wenn aber dis Sterbliche in der ersten Auferstehung die Unsterbligkeit angezogen / da heisset es von den Auferstandenen / daß sie auch nach ihren clarificirten Leibern nicht sterben können”. 65 See J. W. Petersen, Justa animadversio, § XI, 12: “Nam quaero ex te, quinam sint illi, qui in hac prima resurrectione resurgant? Textus ait, esse martyres et confessores Dei & Christi. Quaenam causa mortis illorum adducitur? Textus rotunde respondet, causam illam fuisse, testimonium Jesu, & verbum, quod coram mundo meretricio confessi fuerint, & quod neq; bestiam neque imaginem bestiae adorare voluerint. At quomodo hoc ad spiritualem resurrectionem applicabitur? Illi enim qui spiritualiter e peccatis resurgunt, antea non fuere Martyres & confessores Jesu, sed tales, qui animam per peccata regnantia perdiderant”. See also J. W. Petersen, Freymüthige Anrede, no layout, 17: “Denn welche zur geistliche Aufferstehung aufferstehen / die liegen vorhero in dem geistlichen Sünden-Tod / daraus sie aufferstehen / und sich zu GOtt bekehren; aber die / so in der Apoc. 20 specificiret werden / liegen nicht in dem geistlichen Sünden-Tod / sondern sind schon vorhero längst aus dem geistlichen Sünden-Tod

52

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

year kingdom represented a future event, and its beginning could not have coincided with the Constantin era – and as such the first resurrection of the body, which marks the beginning of the millennium, could not have happened yet.66 Those who partake in the first resurrection, the Erstgeborene, would not have to fear the second death after the second and last judgement. On the contrary, those who do not resurrect at the beginning of the millennium would be punished. During this time, they would still have the possibility to convert and be saved in the last judgment, at the end of the one-thousand-year kingdom.67 During Christ’s Kingdom, the Devil would remain enchained and have no more power to seduce. At the end of the millennium, the Devil would be set free and pave the way for the apocalyptical Gog and Magog (Rev 20:8). This time around, a second and universal resurrection would also allow those who did not partake in the first resurrection to bodily resurrect, but they would succumb to temptations for a certain period of time until the Last Judgment, when the blessed would be separated from the condemned (Rev 20:12–15): “Those who were good will not be condemned; God will save those whom he finds written in the book of life. But the others who are not written in the book of life and that will have taken bad actions will receive a judgment according to what is written in the book and will be condemned”.68 Finally, the Devil would be consigned to its second

aufferstanden / und haben GOtt in Christo JEsu gelebet / um dessen abgestattetes Zeugnüsses willen sie leiblicher weise sind getödtet worden / darum so kan in dem 20. Capitel der Heil. Offenbahrung nicht von der geistlichen Aufferstehung von den Sünden gehandelt werden / ​ sondern es muß so warhafftig allhie von einer leiblichen Aufferstehung der Heiligen / und der Gläubigen die Rede seyn”. 66 See J. W. Petersen, Freymüthige Anrede, 17. 67 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Anderer Theil, 71: “die leibliche erste Aufferstehung mit sich führet die Würde der Erstgeburth aus den Todten / und Krafft der Erstgeburth das Königreich und das Priesterthum / und die absolute Befreyung von der Macht des andern Todeß.  … Die Todten aber / welche nach den tausend Jahren erst lebendig werden / sind keine Erstgebohrne / sondern sind entweder solche / die keine Erstgeburth gehabt / oder doch dieselbige ihre Erstgeburth verkaufft und verschertzet haben: Daher sie nicht / wie die ersten / als Könige und Priester GOttes an dem tausend-jährigen Tage der Hochzeit des Lammes mit Christo regieren / auch nicht wie die ersten / von der Macht des andern Todes absolut befreyet sind / sondern sie müssen vors Gericht / als solche / die auff ihr Urtheil warten”. See also J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, 122: “In den wärenden und fliessenden Apocalyptischen tausend Jahren werden nach und nach viele Heyden von den Blättern des Holtzes des Lebens gesund / und bekehret”. 68 See J. W.  Petersen, Bekentnnüß von dem zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, 84–92; J. W. Petersen, Der veste Grund des in der siebenden Posaunen annoch zukünfftigen Reiches Christi, Erster Theil, IX, § 6, 88: “Welche nun noch Gutes gethan haben / die werden nicht verdammt / sondern GOtt / als der sie in dem Buch des Lebens gefunden / machet sie seelig / dahingegen die andern die nicht gefunden werden geschrieben in dem Buch des Lebens  / sondern böse Wercke gethan und nach der Schrifft in den Büchern / ihr Urtheil empfahen / von ihm verdammet werden”.

The millenarian expectation

53

death, and have no more power (Rev 20:10). Christ would deliver the Kingdom to the Father and God be all in all (1 Cor 15:24–28).69 This event, known as apokatastasis, is mentioned in Acts 3:20–21: “On the day of the seventh trumpet the apokatastasis [scil. the restoration] occurs, and all things God has for long proclaimed through His holy prophets will be restored”.70 Such a restoration would not represent universal salvation, as Johann Wilhelm tirelessly specifies “everything God has spoken about through his saint prophets’ mouth”. Moreover, it is clear that at the end of the millennium, when the Devil and death will be flung into the second eternal death, and with them all those whose names are not written in the book, it would not amount to a universal resurrection. The Devil would not be saved, but, having no more power, no more a distinction between good and bad would be necessary and God will be all in all, a new Earth and a new heaven would begin (Rev 21/ Isa 65:17–18/​Isa 66:22). Also, the last reign, i. e., Israel, or the earthly Jerusalem where the Jews reign, would no longer exist and everything delivered by Jesus to the Father: When this happens and all authorities and governances are abolished  – which does not yet happen during the one-thousand-year kingdom, since the reign of Israel is still present – then the Son will deliver his bride to the Father, i. e., both the heavenly and the earthly church, his Kingdom, his administration, and himself will be subjected to the Father, who has subjected everything, and God will be all in all.71

Writing on chiliasm, Johann Wilhelm presents himself as Zeuge der Warheit, a witness of the truth, entrusted with the propagation of what he has read in the Scripture, even if the belief in the upcoming Kingdom of Christ does not constitute a fundamental article of faith, and to that end is not necessary for one’s bliss.72 Nevertheless, to refuse this truth would mean to refuse the idea 69 See J. W.  Petersen, Bekentnnüß von dem zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, 93–100. 70 See J. W. Petersen, Der veste Grund des in der siebenden Posaunen annoch zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, III, § XI, 28: “da denn in den Tagen derselbigen siebenden Posaunen die αποκατασταςις da ist / und herwieder gebracht wird alles / was GOtt geredet hat durch den Mund aller seiner Propheten von der Welt an Act. 3 v. 20.21”. See also J. W. Petersen, Justa animadversio, § IX, 9; J. W.  Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, 53; J. W. Petersen, Erläuterung der Bekäntniß, 52. 71 See J. W.  Petersen, Erläuterung der Bekäntniß, 56: “Wann nun dieses alles geschehen / und alle Obrigkeit / und alle Gewalt auffgehaben / welches in den tausend Jahren noch nicht geschehen / in dem das Königreich Israel noch stand / siehe so wird der Sohn seine Braut / so wohl die Obere Kirche / als auch die Gläubige Kirche auff Erden dem Vater zu führen / ihm sein Reich / und seine bißherige administration überantworten / und selbst unterthan seyn Dem / der ihm alles unterthan hat / auff daß Gott sey alles in allem”. 72 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklärung und Beweis der tausend Jahre, § V, 9: “dieser Articul ein solcher ist / der nicht eben zu solchem fundament des Glaubens gehöret / ohn welches gründliches Erkäntniß kein Mensch könne seelig werden”. See also J. W. Petersen,

54

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

that the Devil will be imprisoned, and its power to reign on the Earth and seduce heathens would not be dimished. He then poses the following rhetorical question to those who accused him of heresy: Is it a mistake that I believe what is clearly testified in almost every page of the Scripture? That I believe that those who are godless will be annihilated and that those who are just and meek will own the earthly kingdom (Ps 37: 22,29,30,34; Matt 5:5)? That the beast and its reign will not have so huge power and that the Lord will tie him and will reign on the whole Earth (Rev 20:1–3; Isa 24: 21–23)? … Is it a mistake that I believe that Babylon and the Antichrist will be destroyed and that, on the contrary, Christ’s Kingdom on the Earth will become glorious (Dan 7; Isa 47:1–7; Isa 33:20–22; Mic 4:8)? … Is it a mistake to believe that God will always leave in such a miserable condition the creatures that he created and that are subject to the malediction of their vanity because of their depraved will, and that a restitution through Christ must occur because otherwise the fall would be bigger than the restitution in Christ?73

In 1692, when Johann Wilhelm was removed from office as superintendent of the city of Lüneburg, he continued spreading the idea of the imminent coming of Christ’s Kingdom. In the two years following 1696, the year in which Johann Wilhelm authored Nubes Testium Veritatis, this continued to be discussed. Petersen’s position and his opponents’ accusations remained basically the same as in the former years but the tone was far fiercer. One of the main polemical targets was August Pfeiffer, superintendent of Lübeck and one of the first theologians to take a clear position against chiliasm Bekentnnüß von dem zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, 4: “Ist aber die Lehre von diesem herrlichen Reiche Christi nach seinen Umständen so nothwendig / daß niemand ohne derselbigen seelig werden könne? Nein. Aber doch soll nun in diesen letzen zeiten das Geheimniß des Reiches von vielen erkannt werden / nach dem Zeugnüß des Engels / der da saget; Und du Daniel verbirge diese Worte / und versiegele diese Schrifft bis auff die letze Zeit so werden viele darüber kommen / und grossen Verstand finden. Dan 12.4”. 73 See J. W.  Petersen, Eine öffentliche Stimme gegen das Urtheil eine Licht-scheuende, 5–7: “Ist das der Irthum / daß ich glaube / was fast auff allen Blättern in der Heil. Schrifft so Sonnen-klar bezeuget ist? daß ich glaube die Gottlosen sollen ausgerottet werden / und die Gerechten und Sanfftmüthigen einmahl das Erdreich besitzen / Psalm. XXXVII 22.29.30.34. Matth. V 5. daß ich glaube / der Drache und sein Reich solle nicht immer so grosse Herrschafft behalten / sondern es werde einmahl geschehen / daß der HErr den Teuffel binden / und auff dem gantzen Erdboden regieren werde / Apoc. XX 1.2.3. Esa. XXIV 21.22.23. … Ist das der Irrthum / daß das Reich der Babylonischen Hure und des Anti-Christs soll gestürtzet / und hingegen das Reich Christi und Jerusalems einmahl allein auff Erden herrlich werden? Dan. VII 14.17.18.21.22.26.27. Esa XLVII 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Cap. XXXIII 20.21.22. Mich IV 8? … Ist das nicht ein Irrthum / zu glauben / daß GOtt die Creatur / die er so herrlich erschaffen und umb des gefallenen Menschens willen dem Fluch und Dienst der Eitelkeit unterworffen hat / immer in solchem elenden Zustande lassen / und unter dem Fluch gar zunichte machen werde; da doch durch Christum eine Wiederbringung aller Dinge geschehen muß / weil sonst der Fall grösser wäre / als die in Christo geschehene Wiederbingung?“.

The millenarian expectation

55

in his Antichiliasmus. Although Pfeiffer never mentioned the Petersens in his treatise, they at first believed that the accusations in the treatise had been directed at them. Pfeiffer privately denied it subsequently, as Johann Wilhelm reports in Klarer Beweiß daß das Reich Christi noch fest stehe: “After I was prevented of answering it by a higher hand, given that my name was not directly mentioned in the treatise, it so happened that, during my father’s burial, Doctor Pfeiffer told me that he did not refer to me in that writing. For this reason, I have not criticized and contested it until now”.74 Johann Wilhelm’s defense against Pfeiffer’s accusations is biting and not without a hint of irony. Petersen’s main justification is that Pfeiffer himself had had a glimpse of the chiliastic truth earlier, a notion which the latter subsequently denied. Johann Wilhelm quotes two letters authored by Pfeiffer from several years before, when he had not yet earned his doctorate: An den herrn Johannem Cavenium, 1 October 1660, and An Johannem Cavenium, 15 January 1661. The second letter is particularly significant since Pfeiffer seems positively inclined to the idea of a future kingdom promised in Rev 20. In this letter, Pfeiffer, first, comments on different positions on the apocalyptical millenarian kingdom. He refuses the position which asserts that the number 1000 would mean something eternal, and, therefore, the millenarian kingdom would indicate eternal life. This position was regarded by Pfeiffer as “phantasy”. He refuses the notion that Christ’s Kingdom had started immediately after the proclamation of John’s Revelation and finished during the era of Muhammed. He refused it because it could be easily proven that less than one-thousand years had passed between these two events. Finally, he also refused the idea that Christ’s Kingdom was currently expanding since the Church was no more afflicted by persecutions: he notes that no sooner had the persecutions stopped than several heretical positions arose.

74 J. W. Petersen, Klarer Beweiß daß das Reich Christi noch fest stehe, § 1, 1: “ES ist Anno 1691 von dem Herrn D. Augusto Pfeiffer / Lübeckischen Superintendenten, ein Buch unter dem Titel Antichiliasmus herauß gegangen / welches ich zu der Zeit / als ich noch in Lüneburg Superintendens war / gleich wiederlegen wolte / und den Anfang schon dazu gemacht hatte: Nachdem mir aber damahls von höherer Hand / auß beygehenckter Ursache / daß ich in dem Buche nicht mit Nahmen wäre genandt worden / solches zu beantworten verboten ward / wozu dieses kam / daß der Herr D. Pfeiffer bey der Beerdigung meines seel. Vatters mir sagte / daß er mich in solchem Scripto nicht gemeinet hätte; so habe ich solches biß auff diese Stunde nicht angreiffen und wiederlegen wollen / bevorab / da er solche wunderliche Scripta, und Meinungen von andern angezogen / mit welchen ich keine Gemeinschafft habe / und die ich selbst mit ihm wiederlegen würde”. When Pfeiffer wrote Antichiliasmus Petersen had not yet written any text on the millennium, for this reason Pfeiffer did not criticize him directly; see J. W. Petersen, Scopticismus Pfeifferianus, Oder Der Geist Ismaëls, in D. Pfeiffern offenbahret: Damit er liederlicher Weise Die Hoffnung besserer Zeiten / Oder Das Reich Christi außhöhnet / Welches vor aller unpartheyschen Augen darleget Johan Wilhelm Petersen D. (Frankfurt am Main: Zunner 1697), 18.

56

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

After refusing all the said positions, Pfeiffer deemed the standpoint of the early seventeenth century millenarian Alsted as not improbable: “I started thinking that the position of Alsted and other doctors on Christ’s millenarian kingdom is not so improbable”. Such a position – Pfeiffer explains – was indeed supported by some church fathers: I was persuaded by what Papias, who was disciple of John himself and certainly learned this from his preceptor, and other ancient fathers, [such as] Irenaeus and Justin Martyr in the second century, Origen and Tertullian in the third century, Lactantius in the fourth century stated about the millenarian Kingdom of Christ.

Moreover – Pfeiffer notices – also the Jews, based on an ancient tradition, believe something similar when they speak about a double resurrection: “The Jews themselves … believe something similar. They claim, indeed, that there is a double resurrection”.75 Johann Wilhelm concludes, therefore, that “the Magister could grasp a deeper truth on Christ than the Doctor”.76 The debate with Pfeiffer continued until Pfeiffer’s death in 1698. In Der Geist Diotrephes, a text addressed to both Pfeiffer and Johann Friedrich Mayer, Johann Wilhelm compares the two theologians to Diotrephes, a believer who, wishing to excel and having the most prominent position in his community, refused some missionaries sent by John.77 Similarly, Pfeiffer and Mayer created disorders through their texts and wanted him, together with Spener, to be 75 See J. W. Petersen, Klarer Beweiß daß das Reich Christi noch fest stehe, § 5, 11–13: “Caepi tandem apud me cogitare, Alstedii & aliorum virorum Doctorum sententiam de Regno Christi millenario adeo improbabilem non esse. Eo enim me induxit, quod Papias, ipsius Johannis discipulus, qui procul dubio suam sententiam a Praeceptore suo perdidicisse potuit, & alii Patres vetustissimi, Irenaeus & Justinus Martyr seculo secondo, Origenes & Tertullianus seculo tertio, Lactantius quarto, millenarium Christi Regnum statuerunt. … Accedit & hoc, quia etiam video, judaeos ipsos traditionum πατροσπραδοτον tenacissimos procul dubio ex aliqua veterum traditione aliquid simile credere. Statuunt enim ii duplicem Resurrectionem”. These letters are mentioned by Pfeiffer in his Antichiliasmus, where he declares that also other millenarians had stated that he had more light on that time. Pfeiffer denies however the position supported in those letters, claiming that it was fruit of phantasy, see A. Pfeiffer, Antichiliasmus, Zuschrifft, §§ 14–15. On Johann Heinrich Alsted’s position on the millennium see M. Antognazza, Alsted and Leibniz on God, the magistrate and the Millennium (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999). 76 See J. W. Petersen, Klarer Beweiß daß das Reich Christi noch fest stehe, § 6, 13: “Man muss auch bey solcher beschaffenheit sagen / daß damahls der Herr Magister von der Warheit Christi mehr gesehen / als itzo der Herr Doctor”. The text continues considering Pfeiffer’s position in Antichiliasmus. The main point in the discussion is the fact that Christ’s reign is not only a spiritual reign. For Pfeiffer’s position see particularly chapter VII of his Antichiliasmus: Daß das Gnadenreich Jesu Christi / von Daniel c.II v. 31 f. beschrieben / denen Chiliasten keinen Vorschub thue / sondern vielmehr zuwieder sey, where the theologian supports the idea of a spiritual reign which completely abolishes all other monarchies. 77 See 3 John: 9–10.

The millenarian expectation

57

excluded from the Christian brotherhood.78 In another treatise authored the year before, Offenbahrung der Warheit, Johann Wilhelm referred to those who opposed the millennium as the ancient Edomites that descended from Esau, the brother of Jacob, the founder of Israel. This epithet refers to those against Israel, in other words, those who want to obscure and reject the truth of the kingdom. In this text, Pfeiffer is again a polemical target, together with Georg Christian Eilmar, an Evangelical theologian, who first agreed with Spener, then criticized the idea of the kingdom, following Mayer, with Christoph Koch, pastor in Magdeburg, against whom Johann Wilhelm also wrote another text, Die Ausbreitung der Kirche in der letzen Zeit (1697), with Heinrich Matthias von Brocke, superintendent in Altenburg, and with Jacob Wächtler, pastor and superintendent in Belzig.79 78 The texts written by Mayer and Pfeiffer were numerous, in the previous pages they were partly quoted; here Petersen particularly refers to Spenerische Niederlage, i. e., two texts authored by G. F. Mayer in 1696: Herr D. Spener wo ist sein Sieg? Das ist Offenbahre Niederlage Hn. D.  Philipp Jacob Speners Welche er mit einen ruhmräthigen und grundlosen Titul Des Sieges bedecken wollen / Gründlich und deutlich gezeiget Von D. Johann Friedrich Mayern, Ihro Königl. Majest. in Schweden Ober-Kirchen-Rathe und der Heil. Schrifft Prof. Publ. (Hamburg, 1696) and Herr D. Spener wo ist sein Sieg? Das ist Dritter Monath Der Spenerischen Niederlage / In welchem Herrn D. Speners nichtigen Schutz … und Jacob Böhmens nichtige Vertheidigung fürstellet Auch Christophori Irenaei Pasquill  … nach Hause schicket D.  Johann Friedrich Mayer / Ihro Königl. Majest. in Schweden Ober-Kirchen-Rath und Prof. P. (Hamburg, 1696). As to Pfeiffer, Petersen quotes his Scepticismus Spenerianus Tripartitus, Oder Gründlicher Beweiß / Daß Hr. D. Phil. Jac. Spener in Außlegung der H. Schrifft Glaubens- und GewissensSachen / auff unterschiedliche Art ungewiß und zweiffelhafft verfahre: Womit seine so genannte Rettung der gerechten Sache künfftiger Hoffnung untersucht und wiederlegt / Der Spruch Luc. XVIII. 8  … erklärt und vindicirt; Zugleich D. J. W.  Petersen und die ungenannten Freunde Hn. D. Speners gebührend abgewiesen werden … / herausgegeben von Augusto Pfeiffern (Lübeck: Wiedemayer, 1696). 79 See J. W.  Petersen, Phanerōsis tēs Alētheias, Oder Offenbahrung der Warheit / Denen geistlichen Edomitern dieser Zeit / So sich in ihren neulich heraus gegebenen Schrifften gegen das Gesegnete Reich Jesu Christi vergeblich empöret (1696). On this text, and Spener’s and Petersen’s answers to Pfeiffer see also Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 183–94. The texts against which Petersen writes are: Die gäntzlich Zerscheiterte Hoffnung des Tausendjährigen Reichs / Christus werde nicht für dem Ende der Welt / ein solches auf Erden anrichten: an dem XIV. Trinit. Sonntage / dieses 1695. Jahres / aus dem ordentlichen Evangelio / des Apostel Tages Bartholomaei, In der Nachmittags-Predigt der Gemeine des Herrn / sie in der reinen Evangelischen Wahrheit zu befestigen also fürgetragen / Und auf fleißiges Anhalten zum Druck wie wohl erweitert / übergeben von M. Georg. Christ. Eilmar, 1695; Regnum chiliasticum funditùs deletum, Gründliche Wiederlegung des ungegründeten tausendtjährigen Reichs / außgefertigt von Christophoro Koch (1696); De Chiliasmo Hodierno Sensuque Dicti Apocal. Cap. 4.5.6.7. disserit Henricus Matthias de Brocke; Arcana Chiliasmi Moderni, Das ist Ein und zwanzig sonderbare Haupt-Gründe / Griffe und Reguln / bey jetziger Lehre vom zukünfftigen Tausendjährigen Reich Christi auf Erden: aus Schrifften Herrn D.  Philipp Jacob Speners  … und Hn. D.  Johann Wilhelm Petersens / entdeckt / und zu betrachten fürgestellt  / von Jacob Wächtlern (1696).

58

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

During these years, other treatises also appeared to defend the chiliastic posi­tion, yet without a specifically polemical intent: Anleitung zu gründlicher Verständniß der Heiligen Offenbahrung Jesu (Instructions for a thorough understanding of the Holy Revelation of Jesus Christ), authored by Johanna Eleonora, and Der Stimmen Aus Zion Zum Lobe Des Allmächtigen Im Geist gesungen (Voices from Zion to praise the Omnipotent, sung in Spirit), a collection of Psalms on the truth of Christ’s future Kingdom, authored by Johann Wilhelm Petersen.

The seven apocalyptical churches Over the years, the Petersens had not changed their thinking on the millennium significantly. Yet a new aspect came to be emphasized, especially after 1696, namely the Philadelphian church. Drawn from John’s Rev 3:7–13, it is also referred to as the sixth church, that kept God’s word and patiently endured. In Anleitung, Johanna Eleonora describes the seven apocalyptical churches and offers an explanation of the apocalyptical figures and signs.80 In summary, the sixth church foreruns Christ’s Kingdom, and is characterized by symbolical elements, such as David’s key, which opens a door that no longer will be closed. While Johanna Eleonora did not offer any precise historical reference that may have revealed the identity of the Philadelphian church, Johann Wilhelm offers some general temporal coordinates, explaining that in a mystical sense the seven apocalyptical churches corresponded to the seven church epochs. As he saw it, the first epoch, Ephesus, corresponds to Christ’s time, a time so full of grace that perpetuated the belief that the Christ’s Kingdom had already arrived; but this “first love” was too weak. The second church, Smyrna, developed during Constantin’s reign, when “external peace” had been achieved, notwithstanding political upheavals. During Pergamum, the third church, the troubles continued, until the fourth church, Thyatira, when papacy was also corrupted; several altars were erected and numerous sacrifices offered. During the fifth church of Sardis, monasticism and scholastic philosophy developed. Scholastic theologians developed theological knowledge, that had actually also put on the throne “the heathen Aristotle” and, using his metaphysical terms – through which theology appeared right and good – they made chaste theology obscure and mixed (verdunckelt und vermischet). It was in this way – Johann Wilhelm explains – that the word of the angel to the fifth community came to be fulfilled: “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead” (Rev 3:1). Those who preserved the true name of Christ then were very few; Johann Wilhelm recalls the Waldensians along with Petro Waldo, Savonarola, Wicleso, Hus, and Gerome of Prague.

80 See J. E. Petersen, Anleitung zu gründlicher Verständniß der Heiligen Offenbahrung Jesu, 39–40. On this text also see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 245–64.

The millenarian expectation

59

A new epoch of hope started with the sixth church, Philadelphia, during Luther’s time. As Johann Wilhelm put it, at that time, the believers’ hearths were close to each other and they wanted to learn God’s pure word. Babel had already fallen once (in reference to papacy), but it had to fall a second time, “everyone who has besmirched himself through the works of Babel will fall regardless of the sect to which he belongs, on the contrary, the clarity and truth of the Eternal Gospel will shine through the sky to every generation, language and community”. After the persecution of the false confessors, at the time of the seventh and the final church, Laodicea, God’s judgment would pave the way for the marriage of the Lamb.81

81 See J. W. Petersen, Phanerōsis tēs Alētheias, Oder Offenbahrung der Warheit, § 40, 164–7. The idea that the seven apocalyptical churches refer not only to the seven Asian communities, but, in a larger sense, to all church epochs is present in several millenarian authors. This idea can be found also in Eigentliche Erklärung über die Gesichter der Offenbarung S. Johannis … geschrieben durch Peganium, 1670, where Peganius is a pseudonym for the Kabbalist of Sulzbach Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, a text present also in Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s library catalogue in two editions (1670 and 1671), and a text that (as it will be discussed in the third chapter, strongly influenced the eschatological position of the Frankfurt circle in the 1670s); on this text see M. Battafarano (ed.), Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. Apokalypse-Kommentar (Bern: Peter Lang, 2004), see particularly 40: “Weil durch die sieben Leuchter unter welchen Christus wandelt / nicht nur die sieben Asiatischen / sondern alle Gemeinen zu allen Zeit ist. Weil durch die sieben Sternen nicht nur die sieben Asiatischen / sondern aller Vorsteher der Gemeinen zu allen Zeiten müssen verstanden werden. … Dadurch kann die Vermuthung daß etwas Prophetisches drunter verborgen sey / desto grösser wird / deßwegen wird dieselben unten auch nach beyderley / nemlich so wol dem Historischen und Lehrenden / als auch dem Prophetischen und Weissagenden Verstand erklären wollen”, and 45. Compare Petersen’s Phanerōsis tēs Alētheias, Oder Offenbahrung der Warheit, 163: “wie in denen Bildern so grosse Geheimnüsse dem Johanni vorgestellet worden / und nun würcklich bey dem Bilde der sieben güldenen Leuchter / unter welche der Sohn GOttes gewandelt / und bey den sieben Sternen / die er in seiner rechten hand hat / das Wort mysterion oder Geheimnüß / finde und antreffe. … so mercke ich zugleich daß viele hohe und tieffe Dinge in denen Sternen / und Leuchtern / das ist in denen 7. Bischöffen und 7. Gemeinen in Asia verborgen seyn müssen”. Moreover, although von Rosenroth’s and Petersen’s interpretation of the seven churches does not perfectly correspond, von Rosenroth thinks, indeed, that Smyrna is an epoch of persecution for Christians which ends during Constantin’s time, contrary to what Petersen claims, i. e., that Smyrna is the epoch which starts at Constantin’s time, the time in which also the fall of the church begins, both agreed that persecutions and idolatrousness continued after Constantin, see Battafarano, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. Apokalypse-Kommentar, 54 and 57. The idea that under Constantin the church falls because of its internal organization is, however, not present in Knorr von Rosenroth. Similarities can be found also for the interpretation of Thyatira, see Battafarano, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. Apokalypse-Kommentar, 63. Since the authors who spoke about the division of the history in the seven church epochs were several, in order to precisely individuate a particular source that influenced the Petersens on this point it would be necessary to analyze all these texts.

60

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

1.2 From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation: The Petersens’ apokatastasis doctrine 1.2.1 The Philadelphian Society and the discovery of universal redemption The Philadelphian Church was not purely a matter of exegesis for the Petersens. Around the same time, this apocalyptical figure also inspired some English authors to establish a group that derived its name from it: the Philadelphian Society. The Philadelphian Society was officially established in 1696 around an Anglican dissenter priest, John Pordage, and the visionary Jane Lead with the publication of Lead’s A Message to the Philadelphian Society, whithersoever dispersed over the whole Earth.82 Lead, who became the reference figure for the society, was later called the “spiritual mother” or “mother of love”. The ideas of the Philadelphians were shaped particularly through the influence of the German philosopher Jacob Böhme, whose writings were being translated and circulated in England since 1645.83 Especially the idea of the universal church as the gathering of God’s children, in preparing for the return of Christ – the main idea and expectation that sustained the foundation of the Philadelphian Society – could be directly attributed to Böhme.84 The foundation of the Philadelphians emerged at a particular moment, namely after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), the Glorious Revolution (1688–89), the Toleration Act (1689), and the Lapse of the Licensing Act (1695). The Philadelphians preferred to call themselves “society” rather than “church”, for at the core of their preaching was the idea of a universal church not linked to any particular confession or church. Besides universalism, some other emblematic aspects of this society included millenarianism, there was a strong emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecies and divine promises, including the conversion of the Jews, the Turks, and other 82 On the Philadelphian society and on Jane Lead see A. Hessayon, Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016); J. Hirst, Jane Leade: Biography of a Seventeenth-Century Mystic (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005). On this movement, his diffusion in Germany and its influence on Pietism see P. Vogt, ““Philadelphia”- Inhalt, Verbreitung und Einfluss eines radikal-pietistischen Schlüsselbegriffs”, in U.  Sträter (ed.), Interdisziplinäre Pietismusforschungen. Beiträge zum Ersten Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2001 (2 vol.; Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 2005), 837–48. 83 On the translation and circulation of Böhme’s writings in England see A. Hessayon, Ariel, “Jacob Boehme’s Writings During the English Revolution. Their Publication, Dissemination, and Influence”, in A. Hessayon / ​S. Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014), 77–97. On the influence of Böhme on the Philadelphian Society and particularly on Jane Lead see B. Dohm, “Böhme-Rezeption in England”. 84 See L.  Martin, “Jacob Böhme at University: The Historiographic Exile of a Seventeenth-Century Philosphers”, in Aries – Journal for the study of Western Esotericism 18 (2018), 3–20, here 13. 

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

61

so-called infidels, as well as a strong mystical sense of regeneration linked to charity works. Central to the Philadelphians were also visions and revelations, which represented the principal path to knowing God’s wisdom in acknowledgment of the inadequacy of human knowledge. Lead’s visions were published and disseminated through different treatises, such as The Heavenly Cloud now Breaking (1681), her first publication from her spiritual diary, The Revelations of Revelations (1683), and The Wonders of God’s Creation: Manifested in the variety of Eight Words (1695). Particularly this last treatise had a strong influence on the Petersens and marked their contacts with the English Philadelphian Society. They received a manuscript copy of The Wonders of God’s Creation in the early 1690s’ from Baron von Knyphausen, a German nobleman employed in the service of Brandenburg-Prussia during the reign of the electors Frederick Wilhelm and Frederick III as Chamber President. Baron von Knyphausen, who read Species Facti, sent the couple a letter convinced that young Rosamunde’s visions were true and offered them an annual pension, which allowed them to move to Niederndodeleben, in the vicinity of Magdeburg, after Johann Wilhelm’s removal from office.85 The main contribution from Lead’s Philadelphians to the Petersens’ thinking was the doctrine of universal salvation or apokatastasis. It is difficult to establish the precise year of this discovery, which first came to light in the Petersens’ writings in 1698.86 In his Lebens-Beschreibung, Johann Wilhelm recounts that, 85 The event is recounted both in Johanna Eleonora’s autobiography, see Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 91, and in Johann Wilhelm’s Lebens-Beschreibung, § 50, 219. Baron Dodo II, Reichsfreiherr zu Inn- und Knyphausen (1641–1698) was directly in contact with the Philadelphian Society in London, being one of his brothers a member of this society. He gave the Petersens a manuscript copy of Lead’s treatise. On von Knyphausen and his relationship to the Petersens see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 98–9; M.  Matthias,“‘Preußisches’ Beamtentum mit radikalpietistischer ‘Privat­ religion’: Dodo II von Innhausen und Knyphausen (1641–1698)”, in W.  Breul / ​M.  Meier / ​ L. Vogel (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 189–210; W. Treue, Eine Frau, drei Männer und eine Kunstfigur. Barocke Lebensläufe (München: Beck, 1992). 86 In a letter to an unknown addressee dated 26 July 1696 Johann Wilhelm already deals with the possibility that sin and the Devil are no more: “Wann die Sünde von allen Geschöpfen (creature) weg ist, so ist der Teüfell nicht mehr Teüfell: Alles was Godt geschaffen hat und ein Wesen hat von ihme, das wird von der Sünde endlich nach dem gewüssen perioden von Ewigkeite Los, und komt wider in den vorigen Stand, als er war, ohne noch die Sünde war. Dann wird in der Ewigkeit die [keine?] Sünde seÿn! Hallelujah!“, quoted in Bütikofer, Der frühe Zürcher Pietismus, 414. Ruth Albrecht dates the beginning of this new eschatological view around the year 1695 on the basis of some of Spener’s and Francke’s letters, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 277–8. Other interesting remarks on the beginning of the contacts between Lead and the Petersens can be found in L. Martin, “‘God’s Strange Providence’: Jane Lead in the Corrispondence of Johann Georg Gichtel”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 187–212. On the basis of Gichtel’s correspondence, Martin highlights that 1. Johanna Eleonora seems to have discussed the

62

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

at first, they had both been quite suspicious about the views of the English theosophist when they first read the manuscript and contemplated refusing it on the basis of Matt 25:31,46. This is also corroborated by Johanna Eleonora in her autobiography: In my mind I was quite opposed to the idea contained in the manuscript that the return of the fallen angels can be expected in eight thousand years, because from reading scripture I had learned that in the year eight thousand only the downfall of the fallen angels into a fiery pool would occur and that they would be tortured in it from eternity to eternity. For in seven thousand years, when the marriage of the lamb will take place, the fallen angel will be shut in and sealed in an abyss (Rev 20:3 etc.). And cast him into the bottomless pit. And shut him up, and set a seal upon him (Rev 20:2–3). And after these thousand years they must again be freed for a short while and perform their last evil deed on Earth and then be thrown into the fiery pit. Thus, this matter (the return of the fallen angels) appeared to me as being totally against scripture; and there were even more passages that would contradict this. … The other passage that was opposing my view was Matt 25:31,46, since I did not understand that it dealt with Christ in all eternity. Likewise, the devil’s firstborn will be tormented in the lake of fire in all eternity, and the lake of fire will last as long as Christ’s reign, and the last enemy that is the other death like the lake of fire (Rev 20:14) must be eliminated, before Christ can deliver the kingdom to his father (1 Cor 15:24). At this delivery there will be no more resistance and God will be all in all.87

Until that moment, Johanna Eleonora had thus been convinced that the millennium was the last event. The decision to accept Lead’s doctrine was not just their mere conviction about the argument, but more, a true discovery of this doctrine in the Scripture guided by divine help: Then I went into my chamber for prayer and sighed to my Lord to lend me grace and strength that I might complete this task. This person [scil. Jane Lead] was not to think I was setting myself above her talents but would learn that we should give preference to holy scripture over visions and should examine everything according to this divine rule. … Behold, I received courage in my prayer, as if all my senses waned and I was placed with my mind into the fulfillment of all things, hearing with John in my mind that after the end of time all creatures will praise God. Then God will be everything for everybody after he will have renewed and reconciled everything through Jesus Christ. Paul’s words became alive in my heart and I repeated these words after him with an ardent spirit: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God … For of him, and through him and to him issue of how a loving God could punish sinners with eternal damnation, and 2. the Petersens were familiar with Lead’s writings at least since 1694. Martin concludes, therefore, that “the published correspondence of Johann Georg Gichtel reveals that Jane Lead’s history on the continent began earlier and is more complex than is usually reflected in accounts that reduce her influence largely to one manuscript that fell into the Petersens’ hands in 1695. The notion of a one-way transfer of ideas from Lead to the Petersens is also overly simplistic”. 87 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 91–3.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

63

are all things’ (Rom 11:33, 36). I then understood many deep points: I learned that the Fall means that all of God’s qualities are included in revelations. God did not like the fall, nor sin, but he has also given the strength to guard oneself against it. But since he as an all-knowing God has already seen this beforehand, ha has also known the end, how he will best finish and reconcile everything through Christ. … All this came very much alive to me, and the biblical passages that appeared at first contradictory turned into testimony to this truth like: ‘A woman’s seed shall crush the head of the snake’. Then I understood that such a snake’s head had to be crushed likewise in the fallen angel. If not, fulfillment would be wanting, and sin that was to be eliminated by Christ the redeemer would remain as long as there is God. … This was likewise revealed to me: I thought earlier that after the elimination of the first death after one thousand years, Christ would deliver the realm to God, and I did not consider that one death still remained into which the first death would be thrown (Rev 20:14). But Christ will reign not only a thousand years but from eternity to eternity (Rev 2:15) until everything will have returned. Then he will deliver the realm to his father, that is to say the entire reborn creation. Then the last enemy, the other death will likewise be eliminated and thus, since a tormenter no longer exists, no creature will be tortured any longer. And it is remarkable that this other death has been called the “last” enemy (1 Cor 15:26). Since the fallen angel must first be rescued from his hostility and must be restored before this other death is finally eliminated, he has been called ‘the last enemy’ and will be eliminated after all restored beings so that God will be all in all.88

1.2.2 The apokatastasis doctrine in the Petersens’ initial works The Petersens’ first treatise on universal salvation is Das ewige Evangelium der allgemeinen Wiederbringung aller Creaturen, a 144-page work in 8’, which was authored by Johanna Eleonora and published in 1698 anonymously under the pseudonym “Member of the German Philadelphian Society” (D.Ph. G., Deutsche Philadelphische Gemeinschaft). Das ewige Evangelium is divided into different sections, including biblical passages and excerpts from Luther’s works.89 88 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 93–4. The same event is also narrated by Johann Wilhelm, see Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 61, 297–301. 89 J. E. Petersen, Das ewige Evangelium Der Allgemeinen Wiederbringung Aller Creaturen: Wie solche unter andern In rechter Erkäntniß Des Mittlern Zustandes der Seelen nach dem Tode tieff gegründet ist / Und nach Ausführung Der endlichen Gerichte Gottes dermaleins völlig erfolgen wird / Vorgestellet … Von einem Mit-Gliede D. Ph. G. [i. e. Johanna Eleonora Petersen] Zu Ende ist beygefüget ein kurtzer Anhang Von einigen harmonischen Schrifft-Stellen / und verschiedenen sonderbahren Zeugnüssen Lutheri ([s. l.], 1698). It is composed of the following parts: Vorbericht, Treuhertzige Warnung an den Leser, a central part of objections and answers, Anhang (composed by several biblical passages on apokatastasis and some clarifications), and Ein Send-Brieff Martin-Luthers. Several authors recognized immediately Johanna Eleonora Petersen as author of the treatise, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 279, also see my remarks on the authorship on this text in the introduction to this work.

64

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

The treatise immediately elicited several criticisms, in response to which Johann Wilhelm authored another treatise on apokatastasis two years later. Among those who expressed reservations about Johanna Eleonora’s position were Philipp Jakob Spener, Johann Fecht, the dean of the faculty of Rostock, Johann Joachim Wolf, deacon of St. Ulrich and Levin in Magdeburg, Christian Gottlieb Koch, assessor of the Faculty of Theology in Kiel, and Ferdinand Helffreich Liechtscheid, who studied in Halle and was closely associated with Pietism. Far from inhibiting the Petersens from disseminating their ideas, the harsh criticism directed against Das ewige Evangelium  – analyzed in greater detail below – proved to be an incentive and helped them to define and explain their doctrine with greater precision. In 1700, a second treatise on universal salvation – Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton – was anonymously published under the acronym D.PH.G and appeared in three completely different editions in 1700, 1703, and 1710.90 The 1710 edition bears the name of Johann Wilhelm Petersen as the author of the treatise, although he had already revealed his identity in the second volume.91 The first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, which ran to more than 600 pages in length, is divided into several sections: it begins with a hymn to the Philadelphian Society, a long preface (Vorrede), the entirety of Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium, three central parts (Gespräch) or staged dialogues between Philaletha and Agathophilo, in order to explain the doctrine. Each conversation is dedicated to a response to the criticisms of different theologians. In the first Gespräch, Johann Wilhelm responds to J. J. Wolf’s Kurtze Anmerckungen and to C. G. Koch’s Solida et Orthodoxa expositio using the voices of two interlocutors.92 90 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion Apokatastaseōs Pantōn, Das ist: Das Geheimniß Der Wiederbringung aller Dinge: Darinnen In einer Unterredung zwischen Philaletham und Agatho­philum gelehret wird / Wie das Böse und die Sünde  … wiederum gäntzlich solle auffgehoben / und vernichtet: Hergegen die Creaturen Gottes … durch Jesum Christum, Den Wiederbringer aller Dinge … sollen befreyet und errettet werden / auff daß da bleibe Das Gute / Und Gott sey Alles in Allen / Offenbahret durch Einen Zeugen Gottes und seiner Warheit (Pamphilia: Selbstverlag, 1700). (I will quote it as Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I). J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion Apokatastaseōs Pantōn, Oder Das Geheimniß Der Wiederbringung aller Dinge, Durch Jesum Christum / [Johann Wilhelm Petersen] Tomus Secundus: Worinnen auf verschiedene Schrifften, und Einwürffe gründlich und bescheidentlich geantwortet, und, was etwa im erstem Tomo undeutlich seyn möge, erläutert wird (Pamphilia: Selbstverlag, 1703). (I will quote it as Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II). Mystērion Apokatastaseōs Pantōn, Oder Das Geheimniß Der Wiederbringung aller Dinge, Durch Jesum Christum / [Johann Wilhelm Petersen] (Pamphilia, 1710). (I will quote it as Mysterion apokatastaseos panton III). 91 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, § 20, 10.  92 Johann Joachim Wolf (1656–1706), Kurtze Anmerckungen / über die Frage: Ob nach diesem Leben / eine Allgemeine Wiederbringung aller Creaturen In Warheit zuhoffen …: Nach Anleitung Des Ewigen Evangelii / Von einer Allgemeinen Wiederbringung aller Creaturen … / Durch Johann J.  Wolfium (Helmsted: Hamm, 1699). Christian Gottlieb Koch (?–1736),

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

65

The second Gespräch is an answer to Disputatio Theologica Inauguralis … sub Rubrica Das ewige Evangelium, a dissertation defended by Zacharius Grapius, a student of Johann Fecht, dean of the faculty of theology in Rostock.93 The third Gespräch reflects on F. H. Lichtscheid’s Christliche Gedancken über das Büchlein vom Ewigen Evangelio, a text that appeared during the writing of Mysterion.94 To this third part, three other shorter dissertations are linked: Einfältige Untersuchung des rechten Verstands der Apostolischen Worte, Anhang, which contains a response to Johann Georg Pertsch, superintendent in Wunsiedel and Gera, whose treatise Gründliche Abfertigung der alt- und neuen Holl- und Teuffels Patronen had never been published, and Eine kurtze Bekenntniss der Lehre von der Wiederbringung aller Dinge, where the doctrine of universal salvation is explained through questions and answers.95 The treatise closes with a work by Georg Paul Siegvolck, a pseudonym for Georg Klein-Nicolai, a Pietist and supporter of chiliasm, whose text was also translated into English and was the first universalist treatise to have influenced this strand of thought in America.96

Apokatasaseōs Act. III. 21. Solida & Orthodoxa Expositio, S. Scriptura corroborata, Patrum itidem, & Theologorum testimoniis confirmata: Fanaticis nostri temporis, & qui illis adstipulantur, inprimis verò, Dn. Petro Poireto, & Evangelii æterni Auctori, M. D. Ph. G. opposita, & ab eorum Strophis vindicata / Auctore Christiano Gottlieb Koch (Lipsiae / ​Francofurti / ​K iel: Richelius, 1699). 93 Disputatio Theologica Inauguralis, libellum recentissumum, sub rubrica Das ewige Evangelium der allgemeinen Wiederbringung aller Creaturen / examinans, quam jussu maxime Reverendi ordinis Theologicii, in illustri Universitate Rostochiensi, Praeside Dr. Johanne Fechtio (Rostochi: Wepplingius, 1699). Johann Fecht (1636–1716). 94 Lichtscheid, Ferdinand Helffreich (1661–1707), Christliche Gedancken über das Büchlein vom Ewigen Evangelio / der allgemeinen Wiederbringung Aller Creaturen  / aufgesetzet von Ferdinand Helfreich Lichtscheid / Evangel. Predigern in Zeitz (Zeitz: Hucho, 1700). 95 Johann Georg Pertschius (1651–1718). Petersen asserts that the author wanted to publish this treatise, but I could not find any publication; it was most likely never published. 96 Georg Paul Siegvolck, or Georg Klein-Nicolai (1671–1734), Das von Jesu Christo dem Richter der Lebendigen und der Todten, aller Creatur zu predigen befohlene ewige Evangelium, von der durch Ihn erfundenen ewigen Erlösung, wodurch alles, was da heisset, Teufel, Sünde, Hölle und Tod, ganz und gar vernichtiget: aus erbarmender Liebe verkündiget; an unzehlich vielen Orten durch diesen Druck verbessert, und nebst Hinzufügung eines neuen Capitels über Hebr. II. v. 16. vom Samen Abrahä handelnd, vermehret  / von Georg Paul Siegvolck, einem einfältigen Schüler der himmlischen Weisheit. The English version is entitled The Everlasting Gospel: commanded to be preached by Jesus Christ, judge of the living and dead, unto all creatures, Mark xvi. 15, concerning the eternal redemption found out by Him, whereby Devil, Sin, Hell, and Death, shall at Last be Abolished, and the Whole Creation Restored to its Primive Purity; Being a Testimony Against the Present Anti-Christian World. Written originally in German, by Paul Siegvolck, Translated, And first printed in the English language in Pennsylvania, in the year 1753. For the influence of this treatise in America see Art. Universalism / ​Universalists, in The Enciclopedia of Christianity, E.  Fahlbusch / ​G. W.  Bromiley / ​J. M.  Lochman / ​J.  Mbiti / ​ J. Pelikan Jaroslav (ed.) (5 vol.; Grand Rapids (Michigan)/Cambridge (U. K.)/Leiden / ​Boston: Eerdmans Publishing Company / ​Brill, 2008), 638.

66

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

The doctrine of apokatastasis will be analyzed below using Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium, and the first edition of Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton.97 The second and the third edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos do not essentially modify the position explained in the first edition. Rather, they specify and clarify it, sometimes adding new elements. The dialogic form of Mysterion, and the fact that its different sections represent a response to different authors, makes it difficult to describe it in a systematical way. For that reason, a description that follows the order of the treatise is not possible. The analysis will, instead, identify the main issues and present the main arguments used by the Petersens to support universal salvation. Five central points can be identified: I. The concept of apokatastasis; II. God, the Devil and fallen angels, and the essence of Evil; III. The figure of Christ as Erstgeborene or Wiederbringer; IV. The condition of the soul after death as a necessary condition to admit universal salvation and the order of restitution in several aeonen; V. The role of free will in salvation.

The concept of “apokatastasis” As Johanna Eleonora’s treatise suggests, apokatastasis is proclaimed by the apocalyptical angel in Rev 14:6 who brings an Eternal Gospel, Ewiges Evangelium, an image also closely associated by the Petersens with the millennium, as the harbinger of Christ’s Kingdom. “Apokatastasis”, in this new context, as indicated by the Petersens, is no longer the millennium, but, rather, universal salvation.98 Johann Wilhelm distinguishes the Eternal Gospel from the gospel of faith, i. e., the announcement of salvation after Christ’s ascension, and the gospel of the kingdom, that discloses Christ’s thousand-year Kingdom. In turn, the Eternal Gospel is the message that all beings will be restituted to a more superior condition at that juncture or in future eons, and this truth, derived primarily from the Scripture (Das ewige Evangelium mentions Matt 24:14 and Rev 16:6–7 as the scriptural sources) would be heralded to all in heaven, on Earth, and in every remaining region.99 97 Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium will be quoted from Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton. 98 Quoting Patricius Forbensius, Johann Wilhelm explains that “Eternal Gospel” means the announce of the eternal truth opposed to passing truths, see J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, c. LXVI, § 3, 38 “In genere est Evangelium aeternum, ipsa illa veritas, quae erat ab initio, quaequae coelo ac terra recedentibus manebit in Secula, semen immortale, & ad immortalitatem gignens, sic appelatur contra calumnias hostium a quibus novitatis insimulatur, & in opposizione ad doctrinam hominum”. 99 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 11: “so ist das ewige Evangelium eine fröhliche Bottschafft von der Wiederbingung aller Dinge / da verkündiget wird / wie daß alle Creaturen / sie seyn im himmel / auff Erden / und unter der Erden / im Meer / ​und in allen Tieffen / doch eine jegliche in ihrer von GOtt bestimten Zeit / und Ord-

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

67

The meaning attributed to the expression “Eternal Gospel” in Johanna Eleonora’s treatise received several criticisms. Spener, although he did not explicitly reject it, observed that the said biblical passages did not sufficiently support the doctrine of universal salvation.100 Johann Fecht accused the Petersens of being “new Evangelists”, whereas Johann Joachim Wolf criticized the interpretation of Rev 14:6, claiming that “Eternal Gospel” was simply Christ’s announcement, as explained in Matt 4 or in Deut 6: you must pray to God your Lord, and praise him alone.101 According to Wolf, Das ewige Evangelium not only misunderstood the expression “Eternal Gospel”, but also the Greek word apokatastasis, which could have different meanings and find different usages. It can mean “restitution”, “Wiederbringung”, or “complete fulfillment”. It could be used to mean physical restitution (e. g., returning to health), restitution to a pre-natural condition, through external intervention, or a supernatural restitution (Christ’s resurrection being a case in point), or also a moral and political restitution.102 In view of all these charges, Johann Wilhelm makes reference to several other biblical passages in Mysterion apokatastasoes panton that in his view directly deal with universal restoration. Moreover, in order to prove that he was not a new evangelist – as claimed by Fecht – he explains the doctrine of apokatastasis constructing a rich anthology of “witnesses of this truth” through the voices and texts of several authors. Among those who had written about Eternal Gospel, in the preface to Mysterion apokatastaseos Johann Wilhelm mentions the “Church Father Origen”, who expounded on this concept in Principles III, 6, and the German Philosopher nung / ​nach ergangener Läuterung hie in dieser Zeit / oder in den zukünfftigen oeönen nach rückstelligen Gerichten / auff die allergerechteste Art und Weise des gerechten / und gütigsten GOttes / durch JEsum Christum / den Anfang / und Ende der Creatur / den Wiederbinger aller Dinge / Versöhner und Friedenmacher / von der Sünde und Straffe der Sünden endlich solle errettet / und in den vorigen Zustand / darinnen sie waren / ehe die Sünde war / und noch in einen bessern / zum Preiß / Ehre und Herrlichkeit des allerheiligsten und allmächtigen Schöpffers versetzet / und wiedergebracht werden”. See also J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 16 and Das Ewige Evangelium, 8.  100 See Philipp Jakob Spener, Letze Theologische Bedencken und andere Brieffliche Antworten 1711, Teil 3, D. Blaufuss / ​P. Schicketanz (ed.) (Hildesheim: Olms, 1987), 665–9. Here Spener identifies Johanna Eleonora as author of the treatise, he speaks indeed about a female auhtor altough he does not directly name her. 101 See Disputatio theologica inauguralis … sub rubrica das ewige Evangelium, § 4.  Fecht recognizes the Petersens behind Das ewige Evangelium, anyway he does not know whether the author is Johanna Eleonora or Johann Wilhelm, moreover he perceives a connection with and influence from English authors, see Disputatio theologica inauguralis … sub rubrica das ewige Evangelium, Einleitung (no layout): “Prodiit nonita pridem liber quidam idiomate germanico scriptus, Auctore utrum viro, an muliere?, nescio, in quo stulta vereque atheistica non sine scandalo proponuntur, quaque; magnam convenientiam habent cum doctrina illa Mulierum Anglicanarum”. For Wolff’s criticism see Wolf Kurtze Anmerckungen, 15.  102 See Wolf, Kurtze Anmerckungen, 21–2.

68

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

Angelus Marianus, who in his treatise Offene Hertzens-Pforte states that the Eternal Gospel would be proclaimed to the heathens, Jews and Turks and those who are not Christians will convert.103 With regard to the expression “Apokatastasis panton” or “Wiederbringung aller Dinge” – an expression which derives from Acts 3:21 – it assumes a different meaning than in the context of the millennium, in that restitution is not limited only to “all those who are written about in the book of life” – as in the chiliastic texts. Here it means a restitution of all creatures, including fallen angels and the Devil. Responding to Wolf’s observation that the term “apokatastasis” can have different meanings, Johann Wilhelm explains that the Greek term apokatastasis has a threefold meaning: “First, a good condition, then a corrupted and fallen condition into which it got, finally a restored condition, so that what was at first good and then corrupted is made good again, or even better than before”.104 Drawing from several authors, Johann Wilhelm seeks to show that this term not only denotes the different meanings invoked by Wolf, but they also harmonize with each other. The Greeks used the physical sense of apokatastasis to describe the astronomical return of the Sun and of the Moon to their initial position after a year, or in an even deeper sense, they indicated the restitution of the Vault of Heaven to its original point, as it was created by God, as Plato and Cicero claim. The preternatural sense of apokatastasis was exemplified by Origen, for whom “restitution” implied return to an original condition: “Nemo quippe restitui potest, nisi in eum locum, unde ante discesserat”, as in the example of the broken limbs which must be restored to their original state by the doctor, or in that of an exile who must return to his homeland.105 The moral sense is, instead, explained by Paul Tarnow, Lutheran professor of theology in Rostock, in his Exercitationes Biblicae. Referring to a preface to Origen’s work by the Calvinist theologian Johann Jacob Grynaeaus, Tarnow explains that the Greek use of apokatastasis 103 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 3 and § 4. On the use of the expression “eternal gospel” by Origen see C.  Mazzucco, Art. Apocalisse, in A.  Monaci Castagno (ed.), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opera (Roma: Città Nuova, 2000), 22–4, here 23. Angelus Marianus (1581–1652) is one of the Pseudonym for Johann Angelius Werdenhagen, a German Philosopher and political commentator, strongly interested in politics, especially that regarding the north European regions. The treatise here quoted is Angeli Mariani, Offene Hertzens-Pforte Oder Getreue und freye Einleitung / Zu dem Wahren Reich Christi, 1632, 71–4. 104 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseon panton I, Gespräch I, II, § 7, 3: “Erstlich zwar einen guten Stand / darinnen ein Ding vorhin gewesen / zum andern / einen verdorbenen und verfallenen Stand / darinnen es gerathen / und drittens einen wieder auffgerichteten Stand / ​ darinnnen das jenige / was vorhin gut war / und verdorben war / wieder gut gemachet / ​und in den vorigen guten Stand / oder noch in einen bessern / der das vorige Gute zugleich mit einschliesset / wieder gebracht / und wieder hergestellt ist”. 105 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseon panton I, Gespräch I, II, § 10, 4; the quotation of Origen is from In Jeremiam Homilia, XIV, 18.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

69

refers to “a restitution of those things whose dignity (decus) was perverted”.106 Tarnow continues explaining that humans had marred the prospects of their happiness and were predisposed to vanity in the wake of Adam’s fall. The coming of Christ  – the second Adam  – had not restored everything to the original state, indeed, not everything in this world can be returned to its pristine state, for evildoers are not totally punished, and the pious are not perfectly blessed. Therefore, it is necessary to wait for the time of apokatastasis, when all creatures achieve a perfectly glorious state. While explaining the Greek meaning of apokatastasis, Johann Wilhelm continues searching for other biblical passages which corroborate his interpretation. Apostle Peter himself – who first brought “this truth to light” – had discovered it in the writings of the ancient prophets, asserting that God had spoken about such a truth through the voice of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21). Apostle Paul had also spoken about the promised day of rest for the Jews (Heb 4:3–9), a passage which indicates not only the day of Sabbath, but also the millennium itself. Reading Paul’s passage through the eyes of other authors, Johann Wilhelm explains that the meaning of such a passage is deeper than what the apostles expressed. In Harmonia Mundi, the kabbalist Francesco Zorzi recalls the sixth day of creation, when God contemplating what he had created, declared that everything he made was good. But such harmony and beauty – as the kabbalist continues – are present to a greater degree in the whole rather than in individual parts, as the body is more beautiful than the individual limbs that compose it. Such beauty and harmony depend upon the harmony and beauty that are in the summo Ens, God, and, therefore, in Christ. As a consequence, everything that partakes in Christ also partakes in the harmony.107 106 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseon panton I, Gespräch I, II, § 8, 3: “ejus rei restitutionem, quae jam olim decus suum misere deformata & destructa perdiderant, ac veluti simulacrum quoddam vanitatis & miseriae longo tempore exstitit”. Paul Tarnow (1562–1633) was an Orthodox-Lutheran theologian and dean at the university of Rostock. The work here quoted is Exercitationes Biblicae: In quibus verus & genuinus sensus Locorum Scripturae Difficilium … ex Verbo Dei, textuq[ue] authentico diligentius inquiritur ac defenditur: Et contra Vulgo receptae eorum versiones, allegationes & explicationes modeste examinantur ac refutantur (Leipzig, 1640), 1143. Johann Jacob Grynaeus’ (1540–1617) work here quoted is Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius Et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera quae quidem extant omnia. doctiß. virorum studio iam olim translata & recognita: Nunc Vero ulteriore cura, sincera fide, ab innumeris repurgata mendis. Cum Vita Auctoris & Indice copiosissimo (Basileae: Episcopius, 1571). 107 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseon panton I, Gespräch I, II, § 3, 5–6: “quia si unaquaequae res habet in genere suo mensuras proprias, numeros & ordines, quanto magis omnia simul, & universitas ipsa, quae istis singulis in unum collectis completur? Omnis enim pulchritudo multo laudabilior est in toto, quam in parte. Nam major pulchritudo est totius corporis, quam nasi aut oris, vel genarum: Et pulchrior est sermo compositus ex dictionibus & clausulis suis, quam sunt ipsa verba. Ideo Christo, qui praedestinatus est secundum Apostolum Filius Dei, in virtute producto, sexto die, primo omnium creaturarum, & collocato in

70

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

The “truth of universal salvation” testified in the Old Testament, as Johann Wilhelm explains, is exemplified in Moses, when he invokes the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25:8–10). Once again, this scriptural passage is read through the works of other authors, namely of the kabbalists Arcangelus Minorita (Dogma Cabalisticon Pici Mirandulae) and Pico della Mirandola (Apologia adversus Romanenses). Here, linking the number 50, which represents the Year of the Jubilee (Lev 25:10), to the 50 doors of intelligence in the Kabbalah, Pico explains that the mystery concealed in this number is about the descent of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins.108 Origen also foresees a big mystery behind the Jubel Year, as one can read in Principles, II, 12.109 Whereas in Moses the theme of universal salvation is represented implicitly through images, other passages in the Old Testament are more explicit on this issue. In Ps 145:8–9, by way of example: “The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works”, or in Isa 65:17: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new Earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind”. Already Christ’s incarnation transformed part of creation, nevertheless, such a transfiguration – promised already in the Psalm of King David – is even bigger with the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom in the millennium and must be accomplished with apokatastasis:

Capite aeterni voluminis, ut sapientes nonnulli docent, & reductis omnibus in ditionem ejus, recensitisque omnibus in eo, in quo complacuit summo Patri omnem plenitudinem inhabitare facere, tunc omnia meliori gradu pulchre facta, & meliora effecta sunt, frugiferaque in eo, cui Pater omnia dedit”. Francesco Zorzi (1460–1540) belonged to the Franciscan order. The work De armonia mundi cantica tria was first printed in Venice in 1525. It was translated into different languages and was put on the Index of Prohibited Books. Petersen quotes the edition of 1544 Francisci Georgii Veneti Minoritanae Familae, de harmonia Mundi totius Cantica tria. Cum indice eorum, quae inter legendum adnotatu digna visa fuere, nunc recens addito (Parisiis: Andream Berthelin, 1544), Cantico primo, tomo octavo, cap. XIII, fol. 176–7. In this work the author seeks to reconcile the Bible, Plato and the Kabbalah, and he refers to different philosophical traditions such as the Augustinian, the Origenian and the Scotist one. For bibliographical references on Zorzi see G.  Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura italiana, (7 vol., II; Florence: Molini, 1810), 446–8. 108 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, § 4, 6. He quotes from Arcangelo da Borgonovo, Cabalistarum selectiora obscurioraque dogmata a Ioanne Pico ex eorum commentationibus pridem excerpta et ab Achangelo Burgonovensi Minoritano nunc primum luculentissimis interpretationibus illustrata, Venedig, Senenses 1569. This text was also published in an edition which collected several Kabbalistic works: Johannes Pistorius, Ars Cabalistica (Basel, 1587), 731–868. Since Petersen does not give a page number it is difficult to establish which edition he viewed. On Arcangelo da Borgonovo (end of fifteenth century-1569) see W.  Schmidt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala (1 vol.; Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 2012), 477–509. From Pico della Mirandola he quotes his Apologia, 1487. On Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) see Schmidt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala, 1 vol., 70–130. 109 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, § 4, 6.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

71

the greater promise that God had made through the words of the Prophets is not yet accomplished with the millennium; such promised new Heaven and new Earth will be achieved when, through the apokatastasis panton, everything in every creature, which God has created to praise Him, is reformed.110

In this way, Petersen reads scriptural passages on God’s mercy and on the promise of a fulfillment as a typum (a sort of prefiguration) of something deeper – i. e., an antitypum – expanding their literal meaning: Israel symbolizes not only the Jews but also the heathens and the entire humankind; Christ’s sacrifice redeemed only a few, as evil still reigns over the world, the millennium is a triumph of Israel, but the Devil and the second death still prevail, requiring a more encompassing redemption that is to be expected.111 The new meaning attributed to Acts 3:21 derives not only from the possibility Johann Wilhelm sees of reading an “always deeper meaning” embedded in God’s word, but, as he explains, also from an exegetical misunderstanding in the translation of this passage from Greek. Among several other authors, Luther also interpreted this passage as a restitution (apokatastasis) of all beings “that God has spoken about”, referring the particle ὧν – a particle that, from a grammatical point of view, can be attributed to πάντων (everything) or to χρόνων (times) – to the word panton, and, in this way restricting the meaning of the word apokatastasis. Recalling Theodore Beza’s and Sebastian Castellio’s interpretations, Johann Wilhelm claims that such a pronoun, in fact, refers to χρόνων (times). He thus translates the apostle’s sentence as follow: “until the times of restitution of all things, times about which God has spoken through the mouth of all his holy prophets”. As a consequence, the word panton is in no way limited by the subordinate clause and indicates a restitution of all beings.112 110 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, X § 2, 9: “Mit dem [millenium] allen aber ist noch nicht die allergrösseste Verheissung in den Worten des grossen Gottes bey den Propheten vollendet / welches alsdenn erst geschehen soll / wenn durch die apokatastasin panton alles in allen Creaturen / die Gott je und je gemachet zu seinem Preiβ neu worden ist / da gehet erst der verheissene neue Himmel / und die neue Erde in ihre völlige Krafft”. 111 The concepts typum and antitypum are a heritage from the Dutch theologian Johannes Coccejus. The influence of this theologian and the use of these concepts will be further explained in the next chapter, see c.2, § 2.4: Johannes Coccejus: the “sensus vere mysticum”. 112 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch, XIV, 11. Theodore Beza (1519–1605) was a French Reformed theologian disciple of John Calvin and spent the most of his life in Geneva. Among his numerous works he also authored a Greek New Testament, to which he added the Vulgata, his own translation, and annotations. Petersen is very likely referring to this latter when he speaks about Beza’s Annotationes. See also Johann Wilhelm Petersen, Apostolischer Zusammenhang: Darinnen das Verklährte Evangelium So wol in der Apostel-Geschicht, Als in allen Episteln Paul, Petri, Johannis, Jacobi und Judä, In der Connexion Als dem Schlüssel der wahren Exegesis, und Erforschung des Sinnes und des Geistes, hervorleuchtet und gezeiget ist (Franckfurt am Mayn, 1722), 40 where he refers to the same passage referring to Beza’s text as Notae. In another passage, dealing with the same subject, he also

72

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

Another crucial passage that explains universal restitution is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, also used to explain the double resurrection and a return to God at the beginning and the end of the millennium. According to the Petersens’ chiliastic position, at the end of the one-thousand-year kingdom, all beings who did not convert, the Devil and fallen angels included, would experience a second death, and, although evil would no longer wield power, the difference between heaven and hell would not be abolished. The second death would be subjugated and annihilated, but not eliminated. The last enemy, about which Paul speaks in 1 Cor 15:26, is, therefore, the first death: Christ will deliver his Kingdom to the Father when the last enemy, i. e., the first death, would also be defeated and put through the second death at the end of the millennium. Johann Wilhelm’s eschatology remained dualistic in this manner: fallen angels and the Devil, together with those who are not saved, would not reunite with God, and although evil would no longer have the power to seduce, it would not be erased completely. In Mysterion apokatastaseos, Johann Wilhelm does not interpret the last enemy of Paul’s letter as the first death, but as the second death. The second death must also be purgued so that God could finally be “all in all”. The theologian explains this passage, observing that otherwise it would be necessary to believe that sin was bigger than Christ’s power to redeem.113 Despite this shift in meaning, the idea of the upcoming Kingdom of Christ does not disappear from the Petersen’s speculation, in fact, his Mysterion apokatastaseos makes a generous mention of it. The millennium is the beginning of the restitution, not its end. At the end of the millennium, Christ would still reign from eternity to eternity until the last enemy would be defeated and reunited with God.

God and the Devil The nodal point upon which the Petersen’s apokatastasis doctrine depends is love as God’s main attribute. Johann Wilhelm uses the expression allgemeine Liebe Gottes, God’s universal love, in several passages, stating that God’s love is upon all creatures, although this fundamental truth is not always recognized

quotes André Rivet (1572–1651), a French Huguenot theologian, who in his Theologicae et Scholasticae Exercitationes CXC in Genesim (Lucduni Batavorum, 1633) c. 8, Exerc. LVIII, 284 states the same, attributing the pronoun ὧν to chronon. 113 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, XXXVIII, § 3, 22: “Wer dieses nicht glauben will / derselbige muβ glauben / daβ die Sünde des Teuffels grösser sey / als daβ sie könne vergeben werde / und daβ das Verdienst Christi nicht zureichend sey / daβ ihre Sünde dadurch könten gehoben werden / welches sehr verkleinerlich von dem unendlichen Verdienst unsers Heylandes geredet wäre”. On the meaning of the “second death” also see Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 93.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

73

by theologians.114 Johann Wilhelm explains love as God’s main attribute in an unpublished manuscript from which he quotes a summary of the doctrine of apokatastasis in sixteen sentences.115 The first sentence deals with God’s attributes. The author explains that several characteristics can be attributed to God: God is Spirit, light without darkness, consuming fire; but, first of all, he is love. God and love are just one thing, and everything comes from him is nothing else than Liebes-Werk, love-work.116 The manuscript mentioned by Johann Wilhelm continues on the relationship between God’s love and punishment. As some biblical passages testify (Ezek 18:23/32 and 33:11; 1 Tim 2:4 and 4:10; 2 Pet 3:9) – and as Johann Wilhelm repeatedly claims – God does want to save everyone. This is bound to happen given that God’s will is earnest and he is omnipotent – he explains.117 In another passage of Mysterion, drawing from Georgius Hornius’ Historia Ecclesiastica and from Gottfried Arnold’s Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, Johann Wilhelm claims that eternal punishment is not consistent with God’s love.118 Such a statement gives rise to two issues: firstly, if 114 See e. g. J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos I, Vorrede: “Darumb ist dieses gar eine theure Warheit / die umb so viel desto weniger sol verborgen gehalten werden / weil dieselbe zur Erläuterung vieler andern Warheiten dienet / die man ohne diese nicht recht verstehen mag; unter welchen das Geheimnüs der allgemeinen Liebe Gottes nicht das geringste ist”; Gespräch I, LXVI, § 1, 37: “GOTT der HErr aus dem überfluß seiner Liebe / noch der Welt die Tieffe seiner Erbarmung kund thun lässet / was er für eine ewige Liebe habe gegen seine Creaturen”; CCXCVIII, § 1, 266: “Er liebe zwar alle Menschen / und habe vor sie alle seinen Sohn in den Todt gegeben / wenige aber würden dadurch selig werden”. Gespräch II, § 5, 113: “wenn man diese Warheit von der allgemeinen Liebe / und Wiederbringungen aller Dinge / die unter der Hand itzo auffgehet / so unvernünfftiger Weise bey der Gemeine als eine Kätzerey / und für Stanck und Unflath außruffet / und vermeinet / daß man durch die bißherige langgeprädigte Sachen ihm eine praescription zu wege gebracht hätte / die doch nicht gilt / ​weil die Warheit nicht kan praescribiret werden”; § 8, 115: “Das Gute aber / und GOTT / der das wesentliche Guth und die Liebe ist / bleibet / der da ist / und war / und seyn wird / der Er ist”, etc. 115 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, §§ XII–XXVIII, 14–25. Petersen gives no further information about this manuscript. In the Register at the end of the text, he refers to this writing as “eines Anonymi MSS”. Note that the topics and the argumentation of this manuscript are the same as those at the end of the Mysterion entitled Der Unendlich-ewigen Liebe / aus welcher / durch welche und zu welcher Alle Dinge sind; it is very probable that the author is the same. For this last text Petersen does not give the author’s name. 116 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, § XIII, 14: “Wie nun derselbige in der Heil. Schrifft zeuget / daß GOtt sey ein Geist ein Liecht ohne Finsternuß ein verzehrendes Feur also sagt er auch / daß GOtt die Liebe sey hierauß folget unwidersprechlich / daß alles / alles / nichts außgenommen / was GOtt thut / es sey auch so erschröcklich / als es immer wolle / von der Liebe herrühret. … weil GOtt und Liebe eins ist”. 117 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, § XV, 15.  118 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, IX, § 1, 5. He quotes from the Historia Ecclesiastica et politica by the German historian Georgius Hornius (1620–1670): “non consistere cum bonitate Dei, ut quisquam in aeternum damnetur, sed fore universalem resurrectionem & salute omnium”. Petersen indicates the 483 for this quotation,

74

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

everything that derives from God is good, what is the source of evil? And second: if God wanted to save everyone, what role does human free will play? As the following excerpt from the final pages of Mysterion apokatastaseos shows, these two issues – evil and free will – are tightly bound. At the beginning everything was created good by God, however, not everything was created according to the highest perfection, rather He ordered everything according to His wisdom, so that his creatures would freely praise him, and, because of their free will, could fall or not. Since the will of the angel, which should always be addressed to God, take its power and salvation from Him everyday, and praise its creator, went against God’s will and wanted to have something of his own, the creature became evil, and the angel became the Devil. By successively leading human beings away from God, the Devil overturned the entire creation in perdition and vanity. The origin of the sin and evil is thus in the will of the creatures that diverged from the One, and said a ‘no’ [to God] instead of a ‘yes’.119

As Johann Wilhelm saw it, evil was not created by God and did not derive its essence from God’s will. On the contrary, it originated in a voluntarily turning

in the editions that I could check (1671 and 1677) this page does not correspond to the quotation, which can be found instead in the edition of 1671, 312–13 or 323, where Hornius is dealing with erroneous and heretical positions and ideas in England. According to Petersen, Hornius would refuse this position since taught by women. Petersen quotes then the same concept from the German Radical Pietist Gottfried Arnold (1666–1714), who in his Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, dealing as well with English authors, declares: “Es könne bey der Gütigkeit Gottes nicht bestehen / daß seine Creaturen in Ewigkeit verdammet würden. Es werde eine allgemeine Erlösung seyn / in welcher alle würden mit Gott versohnet und selig werden” (section and number of page not given by Petersen). But, contrary to Hornius, Arnold rehabilitates in his book several authors considered heretic, as Petersen explains, justifying in this way such a position. 119 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Eine kurtze Bekäntniß, 13, 141: “GOTT hat zwar im Anfang alles gut geschaffen / aber es doch nicht in der allerhöchsten Vollenkommenheit geschaffen / sondern nach seiner heiligen Weißheit also geordnet / daß seine Creaturen Ihm williglich dieneten / und bey solchem Willen fallen / und nicht fallen können. Weil aber der Wille des Engels / den Er allezeit in GOtt richte und täglich Krafft und Heyl von Ihm nehmen / und seinen Schöpffer dafür ehren sollen / sich gegen den Willen Gottes erhoben und was eigenes hat seyn wollen / so ist in der Creatur ein Böses worden / und aus einem Engel ein Teuffel / der nachgehends den Menschen auch von GOtt abgeführet / und mit sich die ganze Schöpffung ins Verderben und in die Eitelkeit gestürtzet hat / also ist der Ursprung der Sünde und des Bösen in dem eigenen Willen / der in den Creaturen ist / zu finden / der sich von dem Einen gezweyet / un aus Ja ein Nein gemachet hat”. See also J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCC, 271: “Aber es kan wohl der Schöpfer also sein Geschöpffe schaffen / daß es nach dem Rath seines Willens und seiner Weisheit anfänglich in dem allervollenkommensten Grad … nicht gleich also vollenkommlich geschaffen werde / und dahero möglich sey / von demselbigen guten anerschaffenen Stande freywillig abzuweichen / und die Sünde / und das Böse / das vorhin noch nicht war / einzuführen / und durch den freyen Willen eine wahre Ursache zum Bösen werde durch den Nicht-Willen / mit welchem er sich den Willen Gottes entgegen gesetzet hat”.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

75

away from God’s will. To that end, it is an ens morale, insofar as it has its beginning in creatures’ will. It is called also perversa voluntas, i. e., a will that does not conform to God’s will: von Gott und dem Guten in sich selbst abgewandter Eigen-Wille, an own will which departs from that of God and from the good.120 As a consequence, since it does not belong to God’s essence, the roots of evil are not eternal. The concepts of evil / ​sin / ​fall, on one side, and restitution / ​apokatastasis, on the other, are also designated through the contraposition of the concepts Unordnung / ​ Missbrauch (disorder / ​misuse) and Ordnung / ​Harmonie (order / ​harmony). “Sin is nothing other than unquiet disorder and misuse, as it is also described in the Scripture through the concepts ataxia / ​avomia, i. e., disorder / ​falseness”.121 On the contrary, the return to the one and to unity is order and harmony: 120 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCCXX, 275: “Alles / ​ was durch den Willen GOttes das Wesen hat / das ist gut / und das ist von Ihm geschaffen: Die Sünde aber hat nicht durch den Willen GOttes das Wesen / darumb ist die Sünde von GOtt nicht geschaffen / sondern sie ist neben eingekommen / durch die freywillige Abkehr des Geschöpffes von dem allerheiligsten Willen des Schöpffers”; J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCLXXVI, § 1, 250: “weil aber die Sünde auf ewig nicht dauren kan / und der Mensch auf ewig den Schöpffer nicht hassen kan / indem das Böse / und die Sünde keine ewige Wurtzel hat / un dahero auch nicht ewig aufschiessen kan”.; J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, L, § 1, 26: “sondern es [das Böse] ist nur ein ens morale, und hat sein gantzes seyn und Wesen von dem bösen Willen des Engels und des Menschen bekommen”; J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, XVII, § 1, 17: “Die forma diabolica … nichts anders ist / als perversa ipsorum voluntas, oder ihr verkehrter von GOTT und dem Guten in sich selbst angewandter Eigen-Wille”. That the evil comes from creatures’ perverse will was also stated in the Confessio Augustana (see CA 19); however, the Confessio lets understand that the devil and the fallen angels also have an ontological status; this remains, nevertheless, unclarified, see L. Grane, Die Confessio Augustana. Einführung in die Hauptgedanken der lutherischen Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 142–4. In his Spruch-Catechismus, Petersen also seems to state that the devil and fallen angels have a proper nature, he claims, indeed, that these are “impure spirits” and that these have an effect on human beings, see J. W. Petersen, Spruch-Catechismus : Aus dem Catechismo des seel. Lutheri in Fragen vorgestellet, Die mit den unmittelbahren Sprüchen der Heiligen Schrifft beantwortet werden / Auff gnädigsten Befehl Des … August Friedrich, Erwehlten Bischoffs zu Lübeck … Der Kirchen Gottes zum besten herausgegeben von Johann Wilhelm Petersen, 1689, Das ander haubtstück des Cathechismi- Der erste Frage, fr. 13–15, 87 (the first edition of the Spruch-Catechismus, 1685 does not differ from the 1689 edition on this point). In the treatises on apokatastasis Petersen deals with the evil only as an ens morale, without giving any further ontological or metaphysical connotation to it. The position supported here seems thus to resemble more the position supported in the Kabbalah, where the evil only has a negative connotation as privation, see G. Scholem, Art. Kabbalah, in Encyclopedia Judaica² 10 (2007), 489–653, here 583–8 and 593. 121 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Unendlich-ewigen Liebe, V, 8: “Also bestehet die Sünde in nichts anders / als in lauter Unordnung / und Mißbrauch; Wie sie dann auch dahero in der Schrifft durch ataxian, avonian, das ist / Unordnung / Unrichtigkeit / beschrieben wird”.

76

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

after Christ has brought back everything to the most beautiful order, abolishing all contradictions and recalcitrant individual wills (bey Auffhebung alles Wiederspruchs / und wiederspenstigen eigenen Willens), he himself will be subordinated (untergeordnet) to the One that has subjected everything to him. … Every creature is released from contumacy and brought back to harmony and order.122

God is, therefore, characterized as Gott der Ordnung, God of order, and Christ represents the path to return every creature to order.123 Moreover, to state that evil is eternal would imply two other theses: first, that evil is an eternal principle, and, second, that it has as much power as Christ. On the one hand – Johann Wilhelm explains – it is not possible for evil to have existed since eternity, for it is not possible for two eternal principles to coexist: Duo infinita contraria, i. e., two eternal contrarious things, of which one is good and the other bad, cannot simultaneously coexist, as in the example of two real contrarious gods, one good and the other evil, or two contrarious creatures originating from God, of which one is created good by God, the other evil.124

On the other hand, to state that evil and death will last forever would mean claiming that the Devil’s power to seduce and to destroy is greater than Christ’s power to redeem, as Johann Wilhelm explains, quoting from the French ­Kabbalist Guillaume Postel, as well as from the English countess Anne Conway, the English theologian John Pordage, and the German Kabbalist Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont.125 122 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch III, § 2, 48: “nachdem er [Christus] alles in der schönsten Ordnung bey Auffhebung alles Wiederspruchs / und wiederspenstigen eigenen Willens / unter sein Haupt gebracht hat / er selbst upotassomenos untergeordnet werde dem / der Ihm alles unterthan hat.  … wenn alle Creaturen von der Wiederspenstigkeit loß geworden / und in der Harmonie und Ordnung gebracht sind”. 123 I will return to these concepts in the next chapter, showing in detail the constitution of order and harmony. 124 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, XVI, § 1: “Duo infinita contraria, das ist / zwey unendlich ewige widrige Dinge / deren eines gut und das andere böse ist / können eben so wenig / als zwey wahre widrige Götter / ein guter und böser Gott; oder als zwey wahre von GOtt herrührende widrige Geschöpffe / deren eines von GOtt gut / und das andere böse erschaffen worden beysammen stehen”. 125 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXXI, § 1, 137: “Maximam illi Tyrannidem in hunc mundum introducere fatagunt, qui nunquam hic fore RESTITUTIONEM OMNIUM sibi persuadent, ut plura videatur Sathanas destruxisse, quam poterit CHRISTUS restituere”, from Postel’s letter to D. C. S. 1553. In another passages he states the same quoting from Anne Conway, J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXII, § 2, 103: “quod impossibile sit in infinitum procedure ad malum, eo quod istius non detur exemplar in infinitum”, from John Pordage; § 4, 104: “Wenn aber unserm GOtt Zorn und Eyfer zugeeignet wird / alsdenn wird die Göttliche Natur betrachtet / wie sie mit den Eigenschafften der ewigen Natur bekleidet ist; Wir aber reden allhie von GOtt in seinem uhranfänglichen abstracten / oder übernatürlichen Wesen / welches anders nichts / als eine ewige unwandelbahre Liebe ist”, and from Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont; § 2, 103:

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

77

This last point, already supported in Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium, was judged as puerile by Wolf, who, in his Anmerckungen, highlighted two problems arising from this statement. First, the assertion that God created everything good does not mean that God will preserve everything good, making them, according to Wolf, two different issues. The first one is linked to God’s potentia & voluntas absolutae, whereas the second depends upon his voluntas & potentia ordinatae.126 Therefore, according to Wolf, the assertion that God would save everyone because of his love is tantamount to an indiscriminate use of these two different concepts. Moreover, Wolf argues that this position would lend authority to the conclusion that even chicken, geese, and pigs would be saved, or at least that the Scripture carried the promise of salvation for creatures that do not possess the faculty of reason. Furthermore, Wolf adds to the list of attributes belonging to God justice, according to which God saves or condemns, and which should be given as much consideration as love.127 Johann Wilhelm answers Wolf’s criticism, explaining that the apokatastasis doctrine does not counter any of God’s attributes, so that God’s rage and justice are not just based on his mercy but are also synonymous with his mercy and love: “Since God is the love, so all his other qualities, such as mercy, amiableness, patience, truth, holiness, etc. are nothing other than love. As a consequence, even his rage and punitive justice are essentially nothing other than love”.128 Johann Wilhelm distinguishes between two kinds of divine justice: a justitia vindicativa, through which God punishes sinners, which started with original sin, and a justitia essentialis, namely the justice proper to God’s essence, which will also remain when sin or sinners are no more.129 Since God’s punitive justice is nothing other than love, it is measured by and depends on love. For this reason – Johann Wilhelm concludes – God’s punishment cannot last eternally. According to Petersen, punishment is part of God’s economy of salvation, it is given so that each creature can get to know his love and mercy. “Auch hat Franciscus Mercurius von Helmond es gar wohl außgedrücket / wenn er schreibet / daß die Gottlosigkeit endlich ein Ende haben müsse / weil daselbst kein unendlicher und ewiger Wille seyn könne”. The figure of Pordage (1607–1681) was already mentioned to speak about the beginning of the Philadelphian Society. Anne Conway (1631–1679) was an English philosopher linked to the group of the “Cambridge Platonists”; she was strongly influenced by the Sulzbach Kabbalist Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont (1614–1698), who travelled several times to England. These authors’ biography, texts, and positions will be further analyzed in the third chapter. 126 See J. J. Wolf, Kurtze Anmerckungen, 96. 127 J. J. Wolf, Kurtze Anmerckungen, 75. 128 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, XIV, 15: “Nemlich / wie GOtt die Liebe ist; also sind auch alle seine Eigenschafften / als Z. E. die Barmhertzigkeit / ​ Güthigkeit / Langmuth / Warheit / Heiligkeit / ze. lauter Liebe / und folglich so ist sein Zorn und Straff-Gerechtigkeit im Grunde nichts als Liebe”. 129 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXII, § 1, 102.

78

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

Furthermore, countering Wolf’s criticism, Johann Wilhelm points out that the apokatastasis doctrine is neither against God’s attributes nor against any article of faith: Although universal salvation is not present in the Apostles’ Creed, this neither means that it is against this, nor against God’s attributes or the entire protestant church, which is based on the principle that mercy and blessedness are not gained by the means of good works or sufferance – as papists claim – but exclusively thanks to Jesus Christ, the victim of reconciliation; the apokatastasis panton is perfectly in agreement with all these points.130

Another fundamental point in the Petersens’ apokatstasis doctrine is, therefore, the figure of Jesus Christ, defined as Wiederbringer or Erlöser, insofar universal salvation happens through him.

Christ: the universal redeemer According to 1 Cor 15:21–22, Christ is the way to be justified and redeemed: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”. As Adam’s fall affected the whole humanity, so, too, Christ’s redemption must transform the entirety of humanity. For this reason, Christ is called the other or second Adam, and, in this sense, defined as Wiederbringer or Erloser. In the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos, answering Johann Winckler’s remarks on Paul’s passage, Johann Wilhelm observes that such a passage means not only a particular resurrection, i. e., a resurrection only of believers. Christ died for everyone; therefore, this passage indicates a universal resurrection. The main evidence proving that is that, otherwise, one should accept the idea that the “medicine” and the “doctor” are not strong enough, i. e., that sin and death are more potent than Christ’s mercy and sacrifice.131 Christ is not only the second Adam. Invoking Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14, Johann Wilhelm also defines Christ as “the first born” or “the beginning of God’s

130 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXL, § 1, 148: “Sondern das ist die Meinung der Worte / daß / gleichwie die Wiederbringung aller Dinge / ob sie gleich mit solchen Worten in dem Symbolo Apostolico nicht stehet / doch nicht gegen dasselbige sey / also auch eben solche Lehre nicht entgegen stehe der gesambten protestirenden Kirche / deren Grund und fundament gegen die Papisten / gegen welche sie protestiret / darinnen beruhe / daß die Gnade und Seligkeit nicht durch eigen Verdienst / oder durch Leiden der Menschen erlanget werde / noch der Gerechtigkeit Gottes damit ein Genügen geschehe / sondern allein durch das Versöhn-Opffer Christum JEsum / mit welchem allem diese Lehre von der apokatastasin panton auffs genaueste übereinstimmete”. 131 J. W. Petersen, Mytserion apokatastasteos panton II, I, c. 60–1, 34–5.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

79

creatures”. He is, therefore, the alpha and the omega.132 Christ’s true godly nature is explained referring to the beginning of John’s gospel: God’s Son is the Word, which was since the beginning, which was with God and which was God.133 In addition to his divinity, Christ also has a human nature, i. e., a carnal nature, being born from the virgin Mary. How is it possible to reconcile these two aspects, i. e., the human and the divine? Referring to 1 Cor 15:45–8 and interpreting Paul’s passage by quoting a long excerpt from Johann Arndt’s Das grosse Geheimniss der Menschwerdung des ewigen Worts, Johann Wilhelm explains Christ’s double nature through Arndt’s theory of the himmlische Fleisch, the heavenly flesh. Arndt argues that Christ was not only Adam’s descendent, he was, indeed, born to Mary, the creature conceived without sin, and by the action of Holy Spirit he received a spiritual nature. To that extent, he is not only an earthly but also a heavenly entity. The explanation of such a transformation from earthly and carnal being to a heavenly and spiritual being carries echoes of alchemical elements: the carnal nature is transformed into the spiritual in the same way as metals acquire new properties. The process is no different when man’s fallen nature is transformed, i. e., redeemed, thanks to Christ, and is born again, wiedergeboren. He took our sins and our weakness upon himself, he nailed our sin and the old man to the cross together with him, so that we can live in justice, dying out our sin; we revegetate in his vineyard, we receive from Him lifeblood and everything is necessary for a godly life and for changing our being according to the Spirit. He makes everyone alive through this life-giving Spirit or godly tincture and force, each according to a certain order; this means: Look! I make everything new.134 132 On this expression, see Knorr von Rosenroth’s comment in Battafarano, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. Apokalypse-Kommentar, 43: “Ich bin das A und das Ω, der Anfang und das Ende, spricht der Herr. Dieses ist eine jüdische Art zu reden / die in ihrer Sprach sagen: Vom Aleph biß zum Thau; welches so viel heisset als gantz und gar völlig / vom Anfang biß zum Ende. … Diese Redens-Art hat Johannes in Griechischer Sprach ausgesprochen und will dadurch anzeigen / daß Gott seiner Warheit nach gantz völliglich / derselbe an itzo sey / und immer biß ans Ende seyn werde / wie er von Anfang gewesen / deßwegen er seine Dräuungen und Verheissungen gewiß halten werde”. 133 See also J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos I, Gespräch I, c. CXXVIII, §§ 1–2, 128–9, here Petersen explains Christ’s godly nature referring to the German theologian Theodor Schemer and the English Philadelphian John Pordage. 134 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, CXXVIII, § 6, 132: “Mit solchen heiligen Schultern hat er unsere Sünde / und unsere Schwachheiten an seinem Leibe getragen / und unsere Sünden und alten Menschen mit sich ans Creutz nageln lassen / auff daß wir der Sünden abgestorben der Gerechtigkeit leben / und an seinem Weinstock hervorgrüneten / und allen Lebens-Safft / was zum Leben und Göttlichen Wandel / und zum neuen Wesen im Geist dienet / auß ihm empfingen! Mit welchem lebendig-machenden Geiste er endlich alles / doch ein jegliches in seiner Ordnung durch seine Göttliche Tinctur und Krafft wieder lebendig / und gut machen wird / daß es heisse: Siehe! ich mach es alles neu”. Note particularly the use of the word “Tinctur”, from an alchemical language, and also “hervorgrünen”, a term used for

80

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

Johann Wilhelm concludes describing Christ’s redemption and restauration as an alchemical transformation of sinners’ fallen nature.135 Christ’s figure as the origin of all creatures is explained also by comparing Christ with the Kabbalistic figure of Adam Cadmon. Referring to the scheme of the five worlds taken from Lurianic Kabbalah, Johann Wilhelm briefly explains how creation is recounted in this Jewish tradition until the figure of Adam Cadmon was formed. In the beginning there was infinite light that filled up everything. Owing to contractions, God revealed himself, creating concentric circles and empty spaces to form the figure of Adam Cadmon.136 Although Johann Wilhelm refers to the Kabbalistic cosmology, his main interest is in some of Adam Cadmon’s features, which he uses to explain and describe universal salvation. Adam Cadmon is not a creature, rather a transmutation of God’s substance. Adam Cadmon is not only an emanation and a manifestation of God; he also represents the connection between God and his creation. The creation is expressed in the Kabbalah by the Sephirots, which are a series of emanations not separated by Adam Cadmon, as this passage Johann Wilhelm quotes from the Kabbalah Denudata explains: “Every Sephira can be called Adam; nevertheless, the supreme Adam is the uppermost crown of everything, whose name is Adam Cadmon”.137 The figure of Adam Cadmon is explained also by referring to Anne vegetation, see H. P. Prell / ​M. Schebben-Schmidt, Die Verbableitung im Frühneuhochdeutschen (Berlin / ​Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), 286. 135 The alchemical metaphor is, most likely, a direct heritage from John Pordage and Jane Lead. According to Lead, the alchemical transmutation signified the purification and transformation of the soul. See Hirst, Jane Lead, 41–56, here 55 “Her belief in transmutation was expressed in alchemical terms to show that the outer dross of corporeality (flesh / ​sin) could be transformed into an inner realization of the divine”. On the mystical / ​alchemical transformation of the soul in Lead’s writings see also S. Salvadori, “The Restitution of ‘Adam’s Angelical and Padadisiacal Body’: Jane Lead’s Metaphor of Rebirth and Mystical Marriage”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy, 143–65. Pordage and Lead were, in turn, influenced on this point especially by Jacob Böhme, who, drawing from Paracelsus, made a large use of alchemical images. Especially thanks to Böhme’s influence, several authors in Germany adopted an alchemical language. Among these authors we remember Johann Arndt (1555–1621) in Vom wahren Christentum, Liber IV: Liber Naturae, Friedrich Breckling (1629–1711), or also figures linked to Pietism, such as Johann Konrad Dippel (1673–1734) and Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (1702–1782); see J. Telle, “Jacob Böhme unter deutschen Alchemikern der frühen Neuzeit”, in W.  Kühlmann / ​F.  Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur europäischen Wirkung Jakob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, 165–82. The Petersens were, thus, not the first to make use of this kind of language. Anyway, differently for example from Jane Lead, they did not explain how this alchemical transmutation works, at least in the treatises considered in this dissertation. 136 On the Kabbalistic figure of Adam Cadmon explained by Petersen see Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis, 192–202, particularly 197–8 where he explains his generation. 137 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 7, 135: “Nulla datur Sephira, quae non vocetur Adam; sed Adam Supremus omnium est corona summa: Huic nomen est Adam Cadmon”.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

81

Conway’s Principia philosophiae, where the English countess explains that Adam Cadmon, or the Messiah, is the medium between God and creatures: This son of God, the first born of all creatures, namely this celestial Adam and great priest, as the most learned Jews call him, is, properly speaking, the mediator between God and the creatures. The existence of such a mediator is as demonstrable as the existence of God, as long as such a being is understood to be of a lesser nature than God and yet of a greater and more excellent nature than all remaining creatures. … Besides, since he shares in the immutability of God and the mutability of the creatures, he is thus midway between that which is altogether immutable and that which is altogether mutable, participating in both. … Besides, if he were not present everywhere in all creatures, there would be an utter chasm and gap between God and creatures in which God would not exist. This is absurd.138

Referencing the Kabbalistic tradition, Johann Wilhelm reiterates that Christ precedes all creatures. That Christ has been with the Father since the beginning is shown by Johann Wilhelm, also drawing from Origen and (Pseudo-) Clemens Romanus, who commented on the prologue to John’s gospel so: “Christus etiam dicitur praeter haec Vir veniens post Johannem, ante ipsum existens”; “Christus ab initio semper erat.139 Referring to the Kabbalah and to Adam Cadmon, Johann Wilhelm gives Christ a cosmic meaning. As Schimdt-Biggemann argues: “This cosmic redemption, guaranteed by St. John’s Gospel, is possible if Christ can be interpreted as a figure of cosmic dimension, by means of a typological parallelism between Adam and Christ. For redemption is only imaginable if Christ corresponds exactly to Adam”.140 In this way, Johann Wilhelm also resolves the problem of the redemption of fallen angels. How can Christ – the second Adam – redeem their sin? Such a problem was raised by Wolf, who, criticizing the author of Das ewige Evangelium, 138 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 7, 135; the English translation is from A. P. Coudert / ​T. Corse (ed.), Anne Conway. The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), c. V, § 2, 24 and § 4–5, 26. Petersen is quoting from the Latin edition: Opuscula philosophica quibus continentur: Principia philosophiae antiquissimae et recentissimae (Amstelodami, 1690) 31, 36. In addition to Anne Conway, the French Kabbalist Guillaume Postel (1510–1581) is also quoted by Petersen on the cosmic meaning of Christ’soul, see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 8, 136. Particularly, Petersen quotes from Absconditorum a Constitutione Mundi Clavis, qua Mens humana tam in divinis quam in humanis pertinget ad Interiora Velaminis Aeternae Veritatis, Guilielmo Postello ex Divinis Decretis Exscriptore. Una cum Appendice Pro Pace Religionis Christianae, Amsterdam, apud Ioannem Ianssonium (Amsterodami: Ianssonius, 1646, c. VI, 15.  139 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 9, 136. The quotations are from Origen, In Evangelium Johannis, f. 267, and (Pseudo-) Clemens Romanus, Liber I Recognitiones, f. 21.  140 See Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis, 362–3.

82

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

affirmed that the conclusion he had drawn about universal salvation was too fast and easy. Christ – the second Adam – belonging to Abraham’s progeny, could redeem humankind, inasmuch as humans descend from the same seed; but what about the fallen angels who are not Abraham’s progeny? Posing this question, Wolf concluded that Christ’s resurrection can be applied only to human beings, since, according to Gen 1, only these are made according to God’s image.141 Petersen’s doctrine of cosmic Christ resolves this issue by positing the notion that Jesus is the medium through which God created everything, therefore, the medium in which the entire creation is contained. Such a doctrine is further explained in reference to the doctrine of microcosm and macrocosm. ­Drawing from the Dominican theologian Sixtus Senensis and from the English philosopher Anne Conway, Johann Wilhelm explains that human being is a microcosmus, meaning that he contains in himself the whole of creation: It is possible to find God’s vestigia or footprints in all creatures, which considered all together show God and His power, and, at the same time, are His image and shadow. For this reason, our God is called ta panta, or, according to the book of Sirach, to pan: He is everything in everything, in angels He is their power, in birds He is their force, in the Sun and in the Moon He is their energy. But the human being embraces everything and contains the whole creation in himself as a small world.142

Christ was not conceived in the image of the angels, for, coming from Abraham’s seed and taking on human nature, he embraced the whole creation as microcosm, and, in so doing, he established the way to universal restoration. Moreover, Johann Wilhelm also quotes some authors who discuss how God’s image is manifested in angels. The Lutheran theologian Jacob Heerbrand distinguished an imago Dei essentialis, i. e., of Jesus Christ vis-à-vis the Father, and an imago Dei accidentalis, i. e., of human beings and of angels, made for God’s justice, 141 J. J. Wolf, Kurtze Anmerckungen, 88–9. 142 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXIV, § 2, 123: “Nach solcher Außlegung muß man sagen / daß die vestigia und Fußstapffen Gottes in allen Creaturen zu sehen / welche / wann sie zusammen gefasset werden / von GOtt und seiner Krafft reden / und gleichsam sein Bild und Schatten seyn / und dahero mit recht unser Gott ta panta, oder / wie Syrach redet / to pan genandt werde / alles in allen / in dem Engel die Krafft des Engels / in dem Vogel die Krafft des Vogels / in der Sonnen / die Krafft der Sonnen / und also in allen Creaturen / wovon der Mensch alles in sich fasset / und das gantze universum in einer kleinen Welt in sich begreiffet”. Sixtus of Siena (1520–1569) was a Jew converted to Roman Catholicism. Petersen quotes from Bibliotheca sancta ex praecipuis Catholicae ecclesiae auctoribus collecta, Cholinus Peter (Köln, 1626), Annot. XXXII, 424. On Sixtus of Siena see J. W.  Montgomery, “Sixtus of Siena and Roman Catholic Biblical Scholarship in the Reformation Period”, in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte: international Zeitschrift zur Erforschung der Reformation und ihrer Weltwirkung, 54 (1963), 2, 214–34. On the concepts macrocosm and microcosm see C. Thiel, Art. Makrokosmos, in Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie (5 vol.; Weimar: Stuttgart, 2016), 186–9.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

83

holiness and truth, though they are not synonymous with justice, holiness and truth. Even the theologian Christian Kortholt from Kiel wrote on God’s image in angels, whereas the Neoplatonist Dionysius the Areopagite defines angels as a pure reflection of God.143 Since angels were also created in God’s image – Johann Wilhelm concludes – why should they not find this image again? Christ is, therefore, the core of the Petersens’ universal salvation doctrine.144 According to the Petersens, there is no possibility of salvation other than through Christ, the universal redeemer. This position raises a further question, namely how it is possible for everyone to get to know Christ, in particular for those who lived before Christ’s era. Such a problem was faced by the Petersens as they addressed two further issues: the first one is about the condition of the soul after death, the second is about the order of restitution, which, according to them, would happen over different epochs or aeonen.

143 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXII, 121–2. He quotes from Jacob Heerbrand (1521–1600), Compendium theologiae, quaestionibus methodi tractatum (Tübingen, 1573), De imagine Dei in homine; Christian Kortholt (1633–1694), Theses Theologicae De Omnibus Christianae Doctrinae Capitibus (Kiel: ap. Joh. Reumann, 1910), Disp. III–IV, 9–10 (Petersen indicates as publication year for this work 1686, I could find only publications since 1691); (Pseudo-)Dionysius the Areopagite (between the fifth and the sixth century C. E.)¸ Divini Nominibus, c IV, § 22, f. 578. 144 The Christology will be further developed by the Petersens in two treatises published in 1711: Johanna Eleonora Petersen, Das Geheimniß Des Erst-Gebornen Der von Anfang ist, und der da ist Gott das Wort Der Gott-Mensch Jesus Christus Gestern und Heute und Derselbe in Ewigkeit: Durch dessen seeliges Erkäntniß die strittige Partheyen in den unterschiedlichen Religionen unter sich könten vereiniget werden; Sammt einer Summarischen Erklärung Uber die Epistel an die Römer, wie auch über das 17. Cap. Johanniß, und über einige Schrifft-Oerter, so von dem obigen Geheimniß handlen, vorgetragen / Von Johanna Eleonora Petersen, Gebohrne von und zu Merlau (Franckfurt: Heyl & Liebezeit, 1711) and Johann Wilhelm Petersen, Das Geheimniß Des Erst-Gebohrnen aller Creaturen: Von Christo Jesu Dem Gott-Menschen, Der da ist Jesus Christus, Gestern und Heute und Derselbe in Ewigkeit / Für Christo und seine Gläubige bekant und auffgesetzet Von Joh. Wilhelm Petersen, D., (Franckfurt: Heyl & Liebezeit, 1711). Both texts develop the doctrine of Christ’s double nature. See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 301–22. Analyzing the two treatises, Ruth Albrecht explains that it was most likely Johanna Eleonora who had the first revelation of this truth, in her autobiography she does not mention the husband at all. Moreover, Albrecht takes stock of the possible sources of this doctrine. Beyond doubt, one of these was Schwenckfeld (1489–1561), whose idea of himmlisches Fleisch Christi was a central point in his theology. Besides him, Albrecht quotes Jacob Böhme, Valentin Weigel, Antoinette Bourignon and Pierre Poiret. Whereas the influence of these authors is only alleged (however, very probable since the Petersen knew the works of these authors, and sometimes also quoted them, as in the case of Pierre Poiret), the influence of Johann Arndt is sure since he is directly quoted in Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s Geheimniß des Esrt-Gebohrnen, 219. My work does not analyze the two treatises of the Petersens of 1711, we can, however, conclude, that such a doctrine is not only a discovery of those years, it was clearly present already in the first edition of Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s Mysterion apokatastaseos, as above shown.

84

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

The middle condition of the soul and the order of restitution Another central point in the Petersens’ apokatastasis doctrine is the so called “middle condition of souls after death”, a topic at the core of Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium, as the title itself suggests: The eternal Gospel of the Universal Return of All Creatures. How This is Deeply Rooted in the Right Understanding of the Middle Spehre [Mitlern Zustandes] of the Souls after Death. This topic is extensively discussed in Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos as well.145 To presuppose an intermediate condition of the soul is an essential point, in order to admit a final universal restitution, as the Petersens explain, rejecting the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory.146 According to the doctrine of purgatory, souls receive their final judgement immediately after death, being, in this way, eternally blessed or condemned. For this reason, it is not possible to wait for a final judgment and, consequently, for a final universal restitution. The purgatory doctrine is rejected as it is not consistent with the idea of apokatastasis, for prevents the possibility of converting to Christ also after death.147 Johann Wilhelm also specifies that, although the two doctrines – the middle condition of the soul and purgatory – are similar, they have substantive differences:

145 On the Lutheran position on the middle condition of the soul between the sixteenth and seventeenth century see E. Kunz, Protestantische Eschatologie. Von der Reformation bis zur Aufklärung (Freiburg: Herder, 1980), 49–55. Luther believed that souls, after the physical death, are asleep until the Judgment Day. Criticizing Luther’s idea, for such a sleep was seen as a sort of annihilation of souls, Lutheran theologians generally agreed in claiming that souls receive their final judgment immediately after death, yet without immediately reaching the final place in which they could fully enjoy blessedness or undergo eternal punishment. On this topic also see F. Stengel, “Seele, Unsterblichkeit, Auferstehung. Luther im Aufklärungsdiskurs”, in W.-F.  Schäufele / ​C.  Strohm (ed.), Das Bild der Reformation in der Aufklärung (Heidelberg: Gütersloher, 2017), 98–130, particularly 104–8. 146 Dealing with the purgatory doctrine, Petersen always generally speaks about “papist purgatory doctrine”, without naming any specific author or treatise. It is, therefore, difficult to establish the source used by him. As the article on purgatory in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (18 vol., 1936) reports, the Roman Catholic purgatory doctrine after the Council of Trent was shaped by Suarez’s and Bellarmino’s positions. The thesis according to which souls in purgatory have already received their final judgment and are destined for salvation is clearly asserted. In this sense, I think that it is right to claim that Petersen is following a common notion. Whereas it is not possible to identify with certainty the source used by Petersen, it is possible to assert that he was thereby trying to avert the suspicions of Crypto-Catholicism. In fact, this passage is an answer to Fecht’s criticisms (see Disputation theological inauguralis …, II, § VIII). The latter had criticized the thesis of the middle condition of the soul presented in Das ewige evangelium for it would have been very similar to the Catholic purgatory doctrine; this is a reason why, in Mysterion apokatastaseos, Johann Wilhelm takes the distance from this doctrine, explaining the differences. 147 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 7 and Gespräch I, CLVI, 162.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

85

This doctrine looks like the papist purgatory doctrine. It looks like it, but it is not the same; indeed, our opponents [scil. Roman Catholics] suppose that believers can expiate their remaining impurities in purgatory and that they can be released from this thanks to other superfluous actions. On the contrary, we claim that everyone who believes in God’s Son will not be judged, but will directly go from death to life, and will be saved and blessed thanks to the mercy of God’s Lamb.148

After rejecting the purgatory doctrine, Johann Wilhelm shows how the doctrine of the middle condition of the soul is not against the position supported by the Evangelical church. Although the most of theologians deny it – Johann Wilhelm explains – traces of this doctrine can be found in Luther, who defined his position on this point in opposition to the doctrine of purgatory, as well as in other Reformed authors. Commenting on Luther’s thinking on the condition of souls after death in a section of Das ewige Evangelium, Johanna Eleonora recounts that whereas Luther did not deny the purgatory doctrine at the beginning (1519), in the years that followed, he would distance himself from this doctrine, first denying that the condition of souls after death was as it had been described by the Catholics, thus also rejecting the existence of places called hell, limbo or purgatory. Invoking the notion of Seelen Grab, soul’s grave, Luther also claimed that it was not possible to establish the constitution or condition of this place. While he also explicitly rejected the purgatory doctrine in a later text, he was not rejecting the existence of a middle condition of the soul. Such a rejection – so the Petersens – should be read on the basis of his understanding of faith: faith 148 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch III (Eine Kurtze Bekäntniß), 35, 143: “Es scheinet / daß diese Lehre sehr nahe sey der Lehre des Papistischen FegeFeurs. Es scheinet / aber es ist deme nicht also: denn unsere Gegner glauben / daß Gläubige ihre übrige Unreinigkeiten im Feg-Feuer büssen müssen / und daß sie durch anderer Lebendigen überflüssigen Wercke konnen auß demselben herauß kommen: Wir aber glauben / daß niemand / der an den Sohn Gottes warhafftig glaubet / ins Gericht komme / sondern auß dem Tode ins Leben hindurch gedrungen / und auß Gnaden durch des Lammes Blut / als das Blut des Neuen Testamentes gerecht und von nun an selig werden. Joh. V. 24 Rom. III. 24.25 Apoc. XIV. 13”. Whereas Petersen rejects the “theorical meaning” of the Roman Catholic purgatory, on the other hand, he recognizes that this doctrine admitts a condition very similar to what he means with “middle condition of the soul”, see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, LXXXI, § 3, 78: “Wo nun die Catholischen etwas Warhafftiges in der Materie des Purgatorii haben / als zum Exempel die Erkäntnüß des mittlern Zustandes / darinnen haben sie mit uns und wir mit ihnen eine Sache / und ist und bleibet wahr / sie oder die Heyden mögen es sagen. … Wann sie aber (worinnen das Hertz des Päbstischen Purgatorii bestehet) solche von uns oben erwehnte Unwarheiten hinzu setzen/ […] und müssen gegen die Disputation [scil. Fecht’s treatise, to which Petersen is answering in the second Gespräch] protestiren / die da saget / unsere hypothesis sey wenig von der Päbstischen unterschieden”. Petersen rejects, therefore, the idea of purgatory as place in which souls are after having received their final judgment, but, on the other hand, he admits that the condition of the soul after death is something similar to the purgatory, yet without a previous definitive judgment on single souls.

86

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

alone makes blessed, believers cannot save their souls through good actions, akin to those who support the purgatory doctrine claim. In another comment, writing on evil spirits, Luther claimed that they are not yet condemned in hell, they are, instead, hoping for salvation. This passage is especially meaningful to the Petersens, since it proves that Luther also believed that evil spirits were not yet condemned, but, rather, they were in a loco & statu medio.149 According to the Petersens, Luther was not the only author in the Evangelical church who supported the doctrine of the middle condition of the soul. Johann Wilhelm quotes from the work of other reformed theologians such as Martin Chemnitz or Justus Gesenius, who claimed that after death souls did not reach the final condition yet, rather they had to wait for the final judgement.150 In addition to these Evangelical theologians, both in Das ewige Evangelium and in Mysterion apokatastaseos some authors from the first centuries are mentioned as important witnesses to this truth. Das ewige Evangelium remembers Bernard of Clairvaux and the “entire Greek church”. Fewer authors associated with the Latin church recognized it, among them Augustin, Ambrose, Crisostomo, Irenaeus, Haymonis, Smaragdus, Gersonis.151 Supporting the thesis of a middle condition of the soul, Johann Wilhelm also claimed that souls could undergo punishment after death. These two issues – the middle condition of the soul and punishment  – were strictly linked to one

149 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 27: “Indem nun Lutherus hin und wieder klärlich lehret / daß die Teuffel noch nicht in dem Ort ihrer endlichen Verdammnüs sich befinden / sondern in loco & statu medio zum Gericht gesparet werden; so ist es auch gewiß / daß krafft solcher zeugnusse Lutheri gleichfalls den Seelen der status und locus medius nicht könne abgesprochen werden / ob gleich solcher mitlere Ort und Zustand nach den Umbständen und Beschaffenheit ihrer Subjectorum unterschieden ist / und ein anderer seyn muß in Anschauung der vollkommenen Gerechten / ein anderer / in Ansehung der vollkommenen Gottlosen / und wiederumb ein anderer in Ansehung derselbige Geister / die weder zu diesen noch zu jenen gehören / sondern zwischen beyderley Sorten gleichsam mitten inne stehen / und ihre Reinigung noch zu vollenden haben / ehe sie würdig erfunden werden / unter die Zahl der Gerechten zu gelangen”. For all Luther’s passages quoted see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 26–30. 150 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch III, 32. He quotes from Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) Erklährungen über die Sonntags Evangelien Dom. I Trinit (Franckfurt am Mayn, 1593), 208: “Der reiche Mann war noch nicht in der rechten höllen / ​ dahin er allererst am jüngsten Tag kommen wird”; in this text Chemnitz actually denies the existence of a middle condition of the soul, stating that, on the contrary, there are only two places after death: heaven and hell. From Justus Gesenius (1601–1673) he quotes Dissertatio Theologica De Igne Purgatorio, Quem credit Ecclesia Romana, & orbi Christiano sub anathe­ mate credendum obtrudit (Helmestadii: Mullerus 1643) Thesis I, § VI: “Etsi animae neque intereant, neq; dormiant, non approbanda tamen est altera extrema sententia, quae animas separatas in plena & perfecta beatitudine aut supplicio collocat. … Ergo ante resurrectionem non possident vitam aeternam pii, nec impii jam tum detrusi sunt in infernale supplicium”. 151 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos I, Das ewige Evangelium, 1–2.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

87

another and indicated by Johann Wilhelm as Orte der Seele, or soul’s places. Several scriptural passages testify to the existence of these places, using different concepts that mean different degrees of punishment or holiness, e. g. “sea”, “death” (Rev 20; Jer 32:40), “hell” (Rev 20; Luke 16), “prison” (1 Pet 3; 2 Pet 2:4), “darkness” (Ps 88:7), etc. which indicate places of punishment, whereas “God’s womb” (Ps 74:11), ”Abraham’s womb” (Luke 16:23), “God’s temple” (Rev 7:15), “paradise” (Luke 23:43), “Mount Sion” (Rev 14:1), etc. indicate holy places.152 In the Scripture, these concepts indicate different kinds of places that souls could inhabit after death. Nevertheless, it is not possible to know what happens in these places and how they really are: “it is not possible to completely define how the economy of salvation after death will happen”, for it can be revealed only by God.153 What becomes clear about this line of thought is that God’s punishment does not have the aim of convicting sinners, rather of saving them, for the bigger the pain, the more forceful God’s mercy. Punishment is understood as a sort of purification of souls, it is a “cathartic” force, but it will not last eternally: “a punishment is over all those who do not believe for as long as they do not believe in Christ”.154 That God’s punishment is not eternal is also asserted by some other authors, consulted by Johann Wilhelm. Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont states that godlessness must and should have an end, since it is not possible that the will [of creatures] is eternally [against God]. For this reason, the punishment of those who do not believe should not be regarded as something through which creatures become always worst. Punishment lasts until the creatures change from evil to good. … We have to always keep in mind this essential principle: God has no other scope than to make His creatures better and to encourage its salvation.155 152 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch I, CXLVIII, 158. 153 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch I, CXXXIV, § 6, 141: “Wie und auff was Weise diese Oeconomia salutis nach dem Tode aber beschaffen sey / solches ist nicht wohl zu determiniren”. See also J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch II, LXV, § 2, 61. 154 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch I, Gespräch I, LV, § 3, 29: “Nachdem ich jetzo aber gefasset / daß zwar über alle Unglaubigen die nicht in Christo JESU seyn / und so lange sie in ihm nicht seyn / eine Verdamniß hänge / diese Verdammniß aber nicht Ewig Ewig wehre”. See also J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch II, XIV, § 2, 15: “Hierauß erhellet klärlich / daß die Eigenschafft Gottes / welche man seinen Zorn und Straff-Gerechtigkeit nennet / weil selbige in der Liebe gegründet / ja selbst die Liebe ist/ … nichts anders als dererselben endliche Erhaltung / Reinigung und Wiederzurechtbringung zum Zweck haben müsse”. 155 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch I, XCVI, § 2, 84: “Letz­ lich / weil die Gottlosigkeit ein Ende haben muß und soll / in dem daselbst kein ewiger und unendlicher Wille seyn kan. Derowegen muß die Straffe der Gottlosen nicht anzusehen seyn / als etwas / wodurch das Geschöpff immer ärtzer und ärger werden solte / sondern nur so fern sie gereichet zur Veränderung derselben vom Übel zum Guten. … Wir sollen allezeit diese Fundamental-Regel im Gedächtniß haben: daß Gott niemahls der Sünden halben anders

88

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

A similar standpoint can be found also in Anne Conway’s Principia Philosophiae Antiquissimae & Recentissimae, a text edited by Franciscus Mercurius van H ­ elmont himself. After quoting some excerpts from the work of the English countess, Johann Wilhelm comments on them, asserting that “all God’s punishments push towards improvement and are like salvific therapies whereby evil is uprooted and the bad will of creatures is broken up. … Neither sin can last eternally, nor sinners can commit a sin eternally, since they have no eternal paradigm and model”.156 As already seen, Johann Wilhelm offers an ontological explanation of the evil, claiming that it is an ens morale, i. e., it has a beginning and it expresses the perverse will of the creatures. In addition to this explanation, Johann Wilhelm also offers a second “semantical” clarification of the evil. The concept ewig  / ​ Ewigkeit (eternal / ​eternity) can mean different things based on the substance to which the quality is attributed: 1. Aeternitas absoluta, infinita, tam a parte ante, quam a parte post, this is an eternity with no beginning and no end. This can refer to God, who has an eternal essence, is without a beginning and without an end. 2. Aeternitas infinta a parte post, namely an eternity that has a beginning but not an end. The gospel uses this kind of eternity when it deals with the good that emanates from creatures. 3. Aeternitas periodica, namely a certain cycle of time that has a beginning and an end, as in several passages, in both the New and the Old Testament, dealing with punishment after death.157 Therefore, the straffe / als zu dem Ende / daß sein Geschöpff dadurch möge gebessert / und seine Seeligkeit befordert werden”. The quotation is from Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, Paradoxal Discourse, oder Ungemeine Meynüngen von dem Macrocosmo und Microcosmo, Das ist: Von der Grossen und kleinern Welt und derselben Vereinigung mit einander / Worinnen Von der Sonnen / Mond und Sternen / und ihrer Würckung und Einfluß … (Hamburg: Gottfried Lieber­ nickel, 1691), 286–8. 156 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch I, §§ 3–5, 85–6: “Alle Straffen Gottes giengen zur Besserung / und wären gleichsam heilsame Artzeneyen / dadurch das Böse außgefeget / und der eigene böse Wille gebrochen würde. … So könte auch die Sünde nicht in die unendliche / unauffhörliche Ewigkeit hindauren / noch die sündige Creatur so unendlich hinsündigen / weil sie kein unendlich Exemplar und Vorbild hätte”. Petersen quotes from Anne Conway, Opuscula philosophica quibus continentur: Principia philosophiae antiquissimae et recentissimae (Amstelodami, 1690), 39, 63–4, 66, 73–6. 157 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch II, XIX, 19: “Die erste Gattung der in der Schrifft gemeldten Ewigkeit kan genennet werden aeternitas absolute infinita, tam a parte ante, quam a parte post, und ist die jenige Wahrung so weder Anfang noch Ende hat. Diese Bedeutung hat das Wort Ewig und Ewigkeit allemal / wann es von Gott gebrauchet wird. Dann wie derselbige ein solch unendliches Wesen ist / das keinen Anfang hat / also kan auch er / sein Leben / seine Herrlichkeit und Seligkeit / nimmermehr ein Ende haben. Die andere Gattung der Ewigkeit kan heissen / aeternitas infinita kata ti oder secundum quid, nemlich a parte post, weil sie eine solche Währung bezeichnet / die zwar einen Anfang gehabt hat / aber doch nimmermehr ein Ende haben wird. Diese Bedeutung hat das Wort Ewig und Ewigkeit allezeit / wann es von der Seligkeit der mit Gott und Christo verein-

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

89

word “eternal” referred to sin, punishment, death, etc. cannot mean aeternitas absoluta, for unlike God death and sin have not existed since eternity. But it also cannot mean aeternitas infinita a parte post, since only the good has a beginning but it will never end. The word “eternity” in relationship to sin, death and punishment means, therefore, aeternitas periodica, something that has a beginning and also an end in time. Although the Scripture invokes “eternity” to describe death and punishment, this eternity should be interpreted as a “long period of time”, albeit a period that does not last forever. Johann Wilhelm clarifies this point when addressing the question of aeonen (periods, epochs). As 1 Cor 15:23 shows, restitution is a long process, which starts with Christ and all those who have believed in him during their lives, i. e., those who will resurrect at the beginning of the millennium: “But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; then at his coming those who belong to Christ”. Aeonen indicates circles of times or epochs. Specifically, Johann Wilhelm distinguishes between two big aeonen: the first one is before the fall caused by original sin, the second is the present world, which started after the fall and is characterized by Daniel’s four-beasts reigns.158 In addition to these two epochs, Johann Wilhelm identifies a third one, a future epoch which begins with Christ’s Kingdom and will end when the last enemy, i. e., the second death, will be overcome and Christ will deliver the kingdom to the Father.159 In the apokatastasis doctrine that the Petersens describe, particularly two aspects emerge, namely the emphasis on the original good image of God ­presents in every creature and God’s mercy linked to Christ’s universal power of redemption: His [scil. of God] imperishable Spirit is in all creatures, in human beings, in angels and in everything is or is called creature. This is so since eternity, remains for all eternity and cannot be unsettled. Indeed, who other than God can unsettle it? But He does not want that, rather He wants to save His creatures from sin.160 igten Creaturen / und / in Summa / von dem Guten / so von und auß Gott entsprungen / und daher auch in ihm unendlich ewig bestehen kan / gebraucht wird. Die dritte Gattung der Ewigkeit kan heissen aeternitas periodica, wodurch nichts anders verstanden wird / als ein gewisser Circkel oder gewisses Maaß der Zeit / so einen Anfang und auch ein Ende hat. … Da giebts Z. E. Ewigkeiten von 50. von 100.1000.4000.6000. 7000 und mehr Jahren. Und solche Bedeutung hat das Wort Ewig an sehr vielen Orten Heiliger Schrifft beydes in Alten und Neuen Testament”. 158 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch II, XXIII, § 1, 22. On Daniel’s four reigns see c.1, § 1.2: A future event. 159 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I¸ Gespräch II, XXIII, § 2, 22.  160 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch II, C, § 7, 115: “Sein un­vergänglicher Geist ist in allen Creaturen / in Menschen / und Engeln / und in allem / was irgend ein wesentliches Geschöpff ist und heisset / es ist auß der Ewigkeit / und bleibet in der Ewigkeit und mag nicht können verstöhret werden. Denn wer mag es verstöhren ausser GOTT? Aber Er will es nicht verstöhren / sondern vielmehr seine Creatur von der Sünde / und von dem Suefftzen erretten”.

90

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

One question still remains unresolved: given that at the end of time everyone will be undoubtedly saved, what about the creatures’ free will? Does the freedom of choice play a role in salvation?

Salvation and free will The issue on the relationship between free will and God’s mercy is linked to the problem of justification, namely to the explanation of how creatures are saved by God. Secondarily, it also entails the more practical aspect concerning the utility of spreading the apokatastasis doctrine. If there is also the possibility of being saved after death – Johanna Eleonora asks in Das ewige Evangelium – what benefit is there in knowing this truth?161 Quoting Phil 2:12, she remarks that to know that God’s love and mercy are upon everyone is neither useless nor does it make us proud and insolent, when, in fact, to know God’s love is an incentive to conform to God’s word; in other words, necessary for true faith and conversion.162. Already in her Glaubens-Gespräche, Johanna Eleonora had explained that true freedom comes from true faith, as proclaimed in the New Testament. In line with Luther’s position, Johanna Eleonora remarked in that treatise that justification could be obtained by faith alone; in turn, faith makes believers Wiedergeborene, “new-born”, and sets them free: “the law of faith (Glaubens-Gesetz) is opposed to the law of works (Gesetz der Wercke); the latter appertains to slavery, the first one to freedom”.163 The theologian continues arguing that, although several people believe in justification by faith, they do not want to walk this route: They disdain the sanctification of the Spirit, and disavow the power of the true faith.  … They want to believe that the Spirit saves them and has saved them through baptism, but they do not want to walk on this sanctification route; yes, they disdain the Spirit that sanctifies, as it could not sanctify. They partake in the salvation through Christ but, at the same time, oppose this power that operates in Christians.164 161 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, zwolffter Einwurff, 15.  162 Phil 2:12: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”. 163 J. E.  Petersen, Glaubens-Gespräche Mit Gott, I, 69: “Des Glaubens-Gesetz / ist dem Werck-Gesetz gantz entgegen / den dasselbe gebiehret zur Knechtschafft / und das Gesetz des Glaubens zur Freyheit”. 164 J. E.  Petersen, Glaubens-Gespräche Mit Gott, I, 92–3: “dieweil sie die Heiligung des Geistes verachten / und die Krafft des Glaubens der Warheit verleugnen. … Sie wollen gläuben / daß sie dein Geist heilige / und in der Tauffe geheiliget habe / und wollen doch nicht in der Heiligung wandlen / ja verschmähen den Geist der da heiliget / als ob er nicht heiligen könte: Sie theilen die Heiligung die in CHristo ist / und setzen sie entgegen der Krafft die in seinen Christen würcket”.

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

91

In emphasizing the role of free will in faith and salvation, Johanna Eleonora had taken one step further than Luther, albeit without rejecting or denying his position on justification.165 The issue regarding the freedom of will is further developed in Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos. The two passages – the one in GlaubensGespräche and the one in Mysterion apokatastaseos – while not directly linked, show two aspects of justification. The explanation in Mysterion apokatastaseos panton is that, possessing intelligent creatures freedom of will, although they were created as good by God, they had – and they still have – the possibility of departing from this original good, deviating from God’s will and originating sin and evil.166 Similarly as free will plays a role in determining creatures’ departure from God and, therefore, in their fall, it also has a role in their return to God. In response to Wolf’s criticism, Johann Wilhelm remarks that, especially in the last centuries, this issue is at the core of several disputes. As Wolf observed, several authors debated the role of free will in salvation, exemplified by the controversies between Dominicans and Jesuits, or the discussions between Molinists and Jansenists. The author of Das ewige Evangelium  – so Wolf  – had not taken into consideration these debates, which lack a solution and contradict the apo­ katastasis doctrine.167 At the core of all these disputes is the relationship between free will and God’s mercy. According to Molinists, tolle liberum Arbitrium, non erit unde damnaberis, without free will, there is no longer any reason for damnation; on the other end of the spectrum, the Jansenists claim tolle gratiam, non erit, unde salvaberis, without mercy there is no longer any possibility of

165 As some scholars claim, Johanna Eleonora seems to assert here something in the direction of the Catholic works-ethic. However, she immediately comes back to the Lutheran justification by faith claiming that believers can be saved per sola fide. See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 240; Bütikofer, Der frühe Zürcher Pietismus, 424. Luther claimed that creatures have got free will, but they are able to use it only when they have to choose among those things that pertain to social justice, but not when they have to choose the good established by God’s justice. In regard to salvation that comes from faith, Luther spoke only about a “passive stance” of the will, which is able to only receive God’s grace. This point was discussed already at Luther’s time with other theologians of Wittenberg, a discussion that also continued after Luther’s death. The article 18 of Confessio Augustana also highlights the inability of creatures’ will to practice the divine justice without the Holy Spirit. Asserting that several people “partake in the salvation through Christ but, at the same time, oppose this power that operates in Christians”, Johanna Eleonora seems to take a step further Luther, in that she gives not only a passive role to creatures’ free will in receiving the grace. She seems to state that God’s grace is resistible, a position which seems close to Arminianism. In Luther’s positions see M. Ruokanen, Trinitarian grace in Martin Luther’s The bondage of the will (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). 166 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCC, 271–2. 167 See J. J. Wolf, Kurtze Anmerckungen / über die Frage: Ob nach diesem Leben / eine All­ gemeine Wiederbringung aller Creaturen In Warheit zuhoffen, 119.

92

E schatological expectations according to J. W. and J. E. Petersen

salvation.168 Debates along these lines – as Johann Wilhelm continues – can also be found among several other authors, such as between Pelagius and Mani, or among Papists, Lutherans and Reformed. Referring to Wolf’s remarks, Johann Wilhelm recognizes that it is still an ongoing discussion.169 The standpoint of the theologian on this matter can be resumed in the following statement: “Pone gratiam & liberum arbitrium in gratia, & erit, unde salvaberis. Pone liberum arbitrium contra gratiam, & erit, unde damnaberis”, i. e., the possibility of salvation comes from mercy and free will in mercy; a free will that is not rooted in mercy is, in fact, the reason for damnation.170 Quoting Origen’s Peri archon, lib. III, cap. I in this context, Johann Wilhelm presents his position as the conciliatory standpoint for all disputes on mercy and free will: This dispute continues to this day among the Reformed, Papists and Lutherans, who debate on mercy and free will and cannot find the barycentre between these two parts, giving more weight to a part or to the other and, in so doing, making a mistake. [It is necessary] to harmonize these two truths, as especially Origen did, speaking about universal salvation.171

Commenting on Origen’s passage, Johann Wilhelm argues that God supports those who choose the good of their own free will and become a vessel of honor; on the other hand, by detaching one’s free will from the good, one becomes a vessel of dishonor. But God, who is good, through his mercy, assists those who on purpose turn away from the good and helps them through punishments and castigations.172 168 On these disputes, E. D. James, Pierre Nicole, Jansenist and Humanist. A Study of his Thought (Nijhoff: The Hague, 1972), particularly Part 1.  169 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXCVIII, §§ 1–3, 266–7. 170 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXCVIII, §§ 1–3, 266–7. 171 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXCVIII, §§ 1–3, 7: “Und das gehet noch biß auff den heutigen Tag so fort / welche unter den Reformirten / Papisten und Lutheranern de gratia & Libero arbitrio disputiren / und das Centrum zwischen beyden nicht treffen / damit man weder zu der einen noch zu der andern Seiten inclinire, und dahin falle / sondern beyde Warheiten in eine Harmonie bringe / welches sonderlich Origenes gethan / und herrlich bey eben derselbige Sache / da er von der Wiederbringung aller Dinge redet”. Petersen quotes from Origen’s On the first Principle, 3, 1 (on free will) the very last paragraph, where the theologian of Alexandria discusses two verses from Paul’s letters (2 Tim 2:21 “If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work”, and Rom 9:21 “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”) which seem contradictory. He finally harmonizes them claiming that neither our free will can operate without God, nor God can force us to become better despite our will of cooperating to the good. 172 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXCVIII, § 3, 268: “Wenn denn der Mensch auß der Krafft GOttes das Gute mit seinem Willen liebet / so wird er ein Gefäß zu Ehren / wo er aber seinem Willen von dem Guten abwendet / so wird er ein Gefäß

From Christ’s Kingdom to universal salvation

93

God’s ultimate scope – Johann Wilhelm concludes – is his glory and providing for the plenitude of the creatures.173 Johann Wilhelm’s position on the role of free will in Mysterion apokatastaseos panton certainly draws from Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s reflections in GlaubensGespräche, in particular the observation that man’s action, although not an essential or determining element, also plays a role in justification.174 How much Johann Wilhelm’s position remains within the bounds of the contemporary established Lutheran Orthodoxy, and how much crosses its borders (particularly of the principle sola fide), thus opening up the space for human action in God’s economy of salvation, remains an open question.175

zu Unehren; aber der HErr / der so gut ist / kommt durch seine Gnade dem jenigen / der sich so williglich vom Guten abgewandt / zu Hülffe mit der Straffe / und vielerley Züchtigungen”. 173 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXCVIII, § 4, 268. 174 The issue of the role of free will is maybe a heritage from the Frankfut time and it was, most likely, influenced by the contact with Antoinette Bourignon. In a text on Antoinette Bourignon published in Letzte Theologische Bedenken, Philipp Jakob Spener discusses this point, stating that, according to Bourignon, freedom of will plays an essential role in the process of salvation (see Philipp Jakob Spener, Letzte Theologische Bedenken 1711, Teil 1, sec. VII, 24–74, here 37–9). Antoinette Bourignon’s texts were known in the Frankfurt circle especially thanks to Johann Jakob Schütz’s contacts with Pierre Poiret, a disciple of Bourignon who contributed to disseminate her texts. The diffusion of her texts in the Frankfurt circle is, moreover, testified by another letter by Spener, in which the theologian, without directly condemning the writings of Bourignon, claims that he cannot find in them anything useful for the faith; see An Johann Wilhem Petersen [Frankfurt a. M., 8. Juni 1680], in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 4 vol., 439–48, here 446: “cum enim in virginis eius scriptis legerim, quae probo, parum tamen reperio de salvifica vi meriti Christi atque fidei, quae tamen salutis cardo sunt et ipsum cor”; on the diffusion of Bourignon’s texts in the Frankfurt circle thanks to Poiret and Schütz see Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 298–309. On Bourignon see M. de Baar, “Ik moet spreken”. Het spiritueel leiderschap van Antoinette Bourignon (1616–1680) (Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2004). 175 To claim that Johann Wilhelm is here taking the distance from Luther’s position is more than a conjecture; indeed, at this point, Johann Wilhelm clearly criticizes the position of Augustin and Luther – who, in De servo arbitrio, followed the theologian of Hippo on this point – because they tend towards predestination. Noteworthy is here the mention of Origen as “harmonious” position between those who incline towards the grace as essential element for salvation, and those who highlight the importance of free will. Petersen read the wok of Origen in the edition made by Erasmus, who was right the polemical target of Luther’s De servo arbitrio. It is, therefore, possible that Petersen’s position on free will and grace was influenced by that of Erasmus. Moreover, claiming that a sparkle of God is still present in every human, namely freedom of choice between good and evil, Petersen seems to suggest that human will is not totally depraved, a position which could be influenced by Böhme. Whether the Petersens’ position represents a novelty or, rather, follows a trend supported by other theologians of his time is a question that remains open since it requires a more careful investigation of the context, starting with Spener’s positions and that of other “Pietistic” authors on this point.

2. Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s eschatology in context

As the previous chapter has shown, the eschatological position of Johann ­Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen was shaped by two main doctrines: the expectation of the millenarian kingdom and universal salvation at the end of the times. Both doctrines are outlined in their publications that appeared between the last decades of the seventeenth and the very beginning of the eighteenth century. This chapter offers an analysis of the context in which these positions were framed. Do the Petersens share some commonalities with other authors with respect to the millenarian expectation and the universal salvation doctrine? How different is their position from other eschatological expectations expressed by their contemporaries? In the analysis of the role of the two eschatological positions on millenarian kingdom and universal salvation in the historical context, the problem of their reciprocal relationship will be discussed. As mentioned in the first chapter, the Petersens wrote about the millennium until 1697; after which their main preoccupation was with the apokatastasis doctrine, although they did not reject or downplay the idea of a millenarian future kingdom. In fact, the millenarian expectation remained highly relevant in their writings on universal salvation. How are these two doctrines linked? The first part of this chapter will be devoted to the Petersens’ eschatology, whereby these two specific ideas will be viewed in relation to the social-political context and the works of other authors who supported similar positions. The second part of the chapter will focus on the Petersens’ standpoint vis-à-vis orthodoxy. What points were emphasized in other theologians’ criticisms of the eschatological ideas of the couple? In light of the fact that both doctrines  – the expectation of Christ’s one-thousand-year Kingdom and the universal salvation – were explicitly rejected in the article 17 of the Confessio Augustana, how did Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm justify and defend their positions? As explained in the first chapter, Johann Wilhelm’s sermons on the first resurrec­tion aroused suspicions and elicited reactions from theologians not only in Lüneburg, where the Petersens were then residing, but also in Hamburg. One of the main points of criticism the Petersens faced on their chiliastic position and the apokatastasis doctrine was the contention that this doctrine was not based in the Scripture and went against the precepts of Confessio Augustana. Such positions were, therefore, deemed a product of enthusiasm, imagination, and fanaticism. The last part of the chapter will focus on the

E schatology, irenicism and progress

95

Petersens’ standpoint against the backdrop of specific discussions with other theologians. This chapter thus focuses first on situating the Petersens’ views on the millenarian kingdom and universal salvation in relation to the positions taken by other contemporary authors on these issues. The main aim is to delineate points of contact and novelties, as well as to better define the context in which their position arose. Secondly, the works of theologians who criticised the Petersens’ treatises and whose works directly influenced their writings, for instance, in how they preempted certain points of criticisms, will also be considered.

2.1 Eschatology, irenicism and progress 2.1.1 The irenic concern behind the Petersens’ eschatology Both Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium and Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos emphasize the irenic scope underlying the doctrine of universal salvation. According to Johanna Eleonora, acceptance of the Eternal Gospel was necessary to allow conflicting opinions of opposing sides to be harmonized. Lutherans would have to acknowledge not only that God gave his Son for the good of everyone and that he wanted to save everyone, but also that he could save everyone. The Reformed would have to recognize that God is not only omnipotent but also eternal love and truth – and thus the love of God extends to the entirety of all creation. They would have to acknowledge that God is able to and desires to save everyone.1 This position is reiterated in Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, where the Roman Catholic position is added to the Reformed and Lutheran positions: Thanks to this holy doctrine [scil. the apokatastasis doctrine] many conflictual issues among Christian sects can be discussed and dismissed. At the same time, the right foundation for the union of Christendom, which is split into numerous factions, can be made, since this doctrine clearly explains what God’s punitive justice is, about which some authors, who call themselves Orthodox, improperly speak, so that Socinians and other sects make a mockery of them. This doctrine shows the right reason of the predestination and of the eternal rejection, pinpointing to the Reformed and the Lutherans both points in which they are right and where they

1 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 22: “Siehe! dieses alles wird bey der Verkündigung des ewigen Evangelii / welches uns die allgemeine Wiederersetzung beydes in der Zeit und in den künfftigen Ewigkeiten zu verstehen giebt / herllich auffgelöset / und dadurch die streitige Meynung der Partheyen in eine solche harmonie gebracht / daß ein jeder mercken kan / woran es ihm gefehlet”.

96

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

are failing. This doctrine also corrects the papist purgatory doctrine and, in this way, all their superstitions, showing, on the contrary, the right motive of the purification of souls after death.2

Das ewige Evangelium briefly mentions the reconciliation of Christian confessions, whereby only disputes between the Reformed and the Lutherans on predestination and on God’s mercy are quoted. Mysterion apokatastaseos takes other discussions into consideration. In Vorrede, for example, Johann Wilhelm refers the debates between Jacobus Arminius and the Supralapsarians, among whom Theodore Beza and Franciscus Gomarus are mentioned, which split the Reformed church. Whereas the latter believed that God had decreed predestination to salvation or to damnation since the beginning, thus thrusting creatures into a specific direction, Arminius rejected some Calvinist tenets (unconditional election, the nature of the limitation of the atonement, and irresistible grace) and supported, instead, the idea of “sufficient grace”, according to which grace would

2 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Siegvolck, XIII, § IX, 32: “Durch diese heilige Lehre können viel wichtige Streit-Puncte unter denen itzigen Christlichen Secten erörtert und abgethan / und also der rechte Grund zur Vereinigung / der in so viel Partheyen zertrennten Christenheit geleget werden. Dann diese heiligste Warheit erkläret z. e. auffs allerdeutlichste / was die Göttliche Straff-Gerechtigkeit sey / wovon manche / die Orthodoxi heissen wollen / offt so ungeschickt reden / daß die Socinianer und andere Sectirer / nur ihr Gespötte damit treiben …  . Diese heilige Lehre zeiget den rechten Grund der Göttlichen Gnaden-Wahl und der ewigen Verwerffung / und weiset denen Reformirten und Lutheranern / so wol / worinnen sie beyderseits recht lehren / als auch das / was ihnen an der völligen Erkäntniß dieses wichtigen Puncts noch mangelt … . Ferner hilfft auch diese heilige Warheit denen Papisten in den Puncten ihres Fegefeuers aus dem Traum / stosset allen ihren Aberglauben / den sie damit treiben / auff einmahl über den Hauffen / und zeiget hingegen den rechten Grund der Reinigung derer Seelen nach dem Tode”. See an almost identical passage also J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch II, XXVII, 24: “Durch diese Lehre können viel wichtige Streit-Puncte unter denen Christlichen Religionen gehoben und geschlichtet werden. Hierauß kan recht vollkömmlich erörtert werden die Lehre von der Gnaden-Wahl / worüber die Lutheraner und Reformirten nun über 100. Jahr her gestritten haben. Denn diese heilige Warheit zeiget ihnen / worinnen jede Parthey von ihnen recht habe / und hingegen auch woran es noch beyden mangele.  … Hiedurch wird auch denen armen Papisten in dem Puncte ihres Fegfeuers auß dem Traume geholffen / da nehmlich die heilige Lehre von dem mitlern Zustande / oder der durch das Blut Christi NB. unter der Straffe geschehenden Reinigung der Seelen nach dem Tode  … zum Schrecken aller rohen Leute und lauhen Christen / welche die Reinigung ihrer Seelen in dieser Gnaden-Zeit so gering achten und versäumen / auffs deutlichste erkläret und vorgetragen”. Also in another treatise mentioned at the end of J. W. Petersen’s Lebens-beschreibung papists are mentioned together with Lutherans and Reformed: Thuscum jurgium, oder Vorstellung, wie die Reformirte, Lutherische und Papisten eine jede Religion verthàdigen, und endlich ein unpartheyischer Christ sich allein an Christo halte, und das beste erwehle. The treatise is mentioned among the works not published yet. I could not find any publication of this treatise.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

97

be granted to everyone, but it had to be accepted.3 A similar discussion arose between Samuel Huber and the theologians of Heidelberg. Huber supported universalism, according to which every creature – also those outside of the official church – would be called to salvation, although not everyone would accept it.4 The latter argued on the side of particularism and claimed that God determined who would be saved. Another controversy mentioned in Mysterion concerns the discussion around grace and free will (see chapter 1) that erupted between the Dominican and the Jesuits, the Molinists and the Jansenists, as well as among the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Papists, i. e., the Roman Catholics.5 In the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos, Johann Wilhelm clarifies that under the apokatastasis doctrine not every scholastic controversy, but only those controversies around God and his works which were enshrined in most of articles of faith would be resolved: This apokatastasis is to pan, or the whole, the A and the Ω of all of God’s works, their beginning and their completion. This truth is so broad that it encompasses the beginning and the end of everything. … All controversies about God and His works that have ever been in the Church of God and in the entire world will be removed [thanks to this truth]. Although each religion and sect has a piece of truth, everyone is failing in something, in different degrees, since they do not have the to pan or [cannot see] the whole truth. Therefore, no faction can totally confute the other, … this fight will continue until the depth of this sacred and abundant truth is understood.6

3 On the quoted authors: Theodore Beza (1519–1605), see A. Dufour, Art. Beza, Theodor, in: RGG⁴ 1 (1998), 1402. Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641), see A. de Groot, Art. Gomarus, Franciscus, in: RGG⁴ 3 (2000), 1083. Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), see T. Kaufmann, Art. Arminius, Jacobus, in: RGG⁴ 1 (1998), 778–9. 4 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXII, 206–9. On Samuel Huber (1547–1624) see G.  Adam, Art. Huber, Samuel in: RGG⁴ 3 (2000), 1919. On the dispute with the theologians of Heidelberg see N. K.  Lee, Die Prädestinationslehre der Heidelberger Theologen. 1583–1622 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), especially 39–42 and 148–53. 5 See c. 1, § 2.2: Salvation and free will. 6 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Aussgelösete Dubia an herrn Goniandrum, § 21, 63: “Ist diese apokatastasin das to pan, oder das gantze / und gleichsam das A und das Ω aller Wercke des HErrn / ihrer Anfänge / u. Vollendungen / das ist / eine solche weit um sich greiffende Warheit / die den Anfang / u. das Ende aller Dinge / in sich begreiffet. … auch alle Streitigkeiten / die jemals in der Kirchen GOttes / ja in der gantzen Welt / von GOtt und seinen Wercken gewesen / damit aufheben können. Dann / ob es zwar an dem / daß eine jede Religion und Secte noch etwas Warhafftiges in sich hat / so fehlet doch einer jeglichen noch etwas / der einen mehr / der andern weniger / woher es dann gekommen / daß / weil sie das to pan oder die gantze Zusammenfügung der Warheit nicht gehabt / dahero auch die eine Parthey die andere nicht völlig hat widerlegen können / sondern eine an der andern hat irr werden müssen / welcher Streit so lange währen wird / biß sie die Tieffe dieser heiligen und übergrossen Wiederbringung eingesehen”.

98

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Johann Wilhelm, furthermore, argued that once the truth of universal salvation or apokatastasis panton was accepted, all points of contention concerning God would be removed and harmony would be achieved.7 This concept – Harmo­nie – recurs numerous times, especially in the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton (see chapter 1). The concept of Harmonie – along with taxis (Greek) and Ordnung (German), two words meaning order – is widely used to describe the return of all creatures to God.8 This same concept is also employed to describe the reunification of confessions through the recognition of God’s universal love: “Through the Eternal Gospel the conflicting opinions of different sides will be brought back to a certain harmony, since everyone can notice its failings”.9 “Harmony” is also employed to speak about the disputes on mercy and free will: “they [the opposite factions] cannot find the barycenter between these two parts [mercy and free will], giving more weight to just one part or the other and, in so doing, making a mistake. [It is necessary] to harmonize these two truths”.10 This concept – harmony – is most likely borrowed from the Italian Kabbalist Francesco Zorzi – whose book Harmonia mundi is extensively quoted by Johann Wilhelm – as this passage from the Vorrede of Mysterion apokatstaseos seems to suggest: “It will be a harmony and music of heaven, when all voices praise God”.11 It is, therefore, possible to assume that an irenic scope underlies the apokatastasis doctrine, in other words, a tension with respect to an all-encompassing harmony that is larger than the individual parties involved, intended as a universal truth on which all confessions can agree. The question is: Does this also apply to the millenarian expectation? Although it is not as clearly expressed here as in the writings on apokatastasis, the chiliastic expectation also entails an irenic scope. A passage from Johann Wilhelm’s Justa Animadversio suggests that the same concern for unity and irenicism exists in the chiliastic expectation as in the apokatastasis doctrine:

7 As described in the first chapter, the doctrines linked to and entailed in the apokatastasis doctrine are God’s goodness and universal love, middle condition of the soul, the role of free will in salvation, that Christ is the alpha and the omega of creation and that he came not to judge but to save. 8 See c 1, § 2.2: God and the Devil. 9 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 22: “… und dadurch die streitige Meynung der Partheyen in eine solche harmonie gebracht / daß ein jeder mercken kan / woran es ihm gefehlet” 10 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXCVIII, § 3, 267: “und das Centrum zwischen beyden nicht treffen / damit man weder zu der einen noch zu der andern Seiten inclinire, und dahin falle / sondern beyde Warheiten in eine Harmonie bringe”. 11 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 15: “Das wird mir eine harmonie, und Music des Himmels seyn / wann alle Stimmen werden GOott loben”. In Zorzi’ work the concept of harmony is also linked to music, indeed the text is divided into “cantica” and “toni”.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

99

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity and peace, will gather and unify the well-prepared souls. This will give rise to a unified Church [una Ecclesia], whose tunic, which should be without seams, was shred by several sects. In this way, not only the big schism among Lutherans, Reformed and Papists, or among other sects in the Netherlands and in England, but also among Evangelicals themselves, between those from Wittenberg and from Helmstedt, between those from Helmstedt and Giessen, between those from Giessen and Würtemberg, and among Regiomontanos will have a common shepherd, and a unique sheepfold John 10:16. … This better Church will not only be a unified Church, but also in saintly unity and in a true catholic and universal holiness.12

This passage resonates with another excerpt from Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos, where the theologian asserts, quoting from the Italian Kabbalist Francesco Zorzi: And then men, that were dispersed due to the variety of rites and ceremonies, will be brought back to a unique cult. … All discords and disagreements will cease. … And then people could achieve that millennium about which John writes in his Revelation: they will live and reign with Christ one-thousand years, and everyone will be God’s and Christ’s priest.13

Irenic concerns and the issue of confessional reunion, therefore, represent the common ground between the two eschatological positions. Nevertheless, chiliasm and universal salvation propose two different eschatological views. According to the millenarian expectation there will be a dualistic eschatology at the end of the times, when not everyone will be saved and the Devil, although left with no power of seduction, will not be restored to his original angelic image. The apokatastasis doctrine, on the other hand, introduces a new perspective: The salvation of everyone, including the Devil and fallen angels, and their restoration 12 J. W.  Petersen, Justa Animadversio, § XXVII, 35: “Ibi Spiritus Sanctus, Spiritus unitatis & pacis animos jam jam bene praeparatos uniet ac copulabit. Sequetur ergo in ordine ipsius temporis una Ecclesia, cujus tunica, quae inconsutilis esse debebat, per tot sectas sectarum hactenus dissecta est, ut non solum schisma magnum inter Lutheranos, Reformatos & Papistas, & alias sectas in Hollandia & Anglia ortum fuerit, sed etiam inter ipsos Evangelicos tot scissura inter Wittenbergenses, & Helmstadienses, inter Helmstadienses & Gissenses, inter Gissenses & Würtenbergicos, inter Regiomontanos & alios cum dolore piorum, & gaudio adversariorum videantur, tunc vero unus Pastor, unum ovile erit Joh.10,16. … Ex hisce locis adductis satis patet, Ecclesiam illam meliorem non solum unam, sed etiam in unitate sanctam & in sanctitate vere Catholicam & universalem esse futuram”. 13 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos I, Gespräch I, XCIV, § 3, 81: “… & tunc homines a multiplicitatem rituum, & ceremoniarum, in qua multories confunduntur, ad unicum cultum reducentur, qui tunc clare secundum Dei beneplacitum explicabitur, cessante omnia Discordia et dissidio. Et cum dignabitur princeps habere de nobis tutelam immediatam, tunc forsitam deveniet gentes ad illud millenarium, de quo Johanni in Apocalypsi: Et vivent & regnabunt cum Christo mille annos, & omnes facti Sacerdotes Dei & Christi ”. On Zorzi see c. 1.1.2 The concept of “apokatastasis”.

100

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

to a previous form. Although the two doctrines disagree on this point, the millenarian expectation is still clearly present in the texts on universal salvation, to which the previous excerpt from Zorzi testifies.14 These similarities and differences between the millenarian expectation and the apokatastasis doctrine offer a point of departure to further analyze the link between these two positions. Since the Petersens only allow glimpses of some correlations without further explanations, further analyzing the context in which these doctrines arose could be useful. Whence does this tension toward confessional reunion and peace emerge? Who else supported such an expectation? Was it a widespread stance? Is the irenic tension linked to millenarianism or, more generally, to eschatological expectations by them and by other authors?

2.1.2 Irenic endeavors in Brandenburg-Prussia It is no accident that Johann Wilhelms invokes conflictual positions, especially with the mention of the Reformed authors and the particularistic doctrine, to which the universalism of Arminius or Huber are opposed. This stance should be regarded in the wider social context in which the Petersens lived. The reunification of confessions was a concern shared by several contemporary authors, but also not limited to them. After Johann Wilhelm’s removal from his office as superintendent of Lüneburg, the couple moved first to Magdeburg, and then to Niederndodeleben, a nearby village, with the financial help of Baron Dodo von Knyphausen, who also introduced them to Jane Lead. The baron, although married to a Catholic, was Reformed and a supporter of the Philadelphian Society. On his property, Lütetsburg, he allowed freedom of religion for some Catholics and outsiders, such as the group around Antoinette Bourignon.15 But the stance taken by von Knyphausen was not an exception in the social and political context of the electorate of Brandenburg-Prussia, where the Petersens resided and could largely enjoy support for their ideas.

14 Especially in the second edition of J. W. Petersen’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II the millennium is mentioned on several occasions. 15 See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 98. Despite Knyphausen’s transconfessional concerns, Markus Matthias argues that what moved the baron to financially help the Petersens was, in fact, his interest in Asseburg’s revelations, see Matthias, “‘Preußisches’ Beamtentum”, 195. Antoinette Bourignon was born into a Catholic family; she soon sought to establish her own community on the basis of the revelations she claimed to experience. She got into contact with several dissident groups, such as the Labadists and Anna Maria van Schurman in the Netherland, or the English Quakers with whom she corresponded. For more on Antoinette Bourignon (1616–1680) see de Baar, “Ik moet spreken”.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

101

The electors of Brandenburg-Prussia had converted to the Reformed confession at the beginning of the seventeenth century.16 As a result, a majority of Lutheran people lived in an electorate ruled by a Reformed house. The politics of the Hohenzollern in the seventeenth century was characterized by tolerance towards confessional minorities they had welcomed into their realm.17 In 1660, Elector Friedrich Wilhelm, the Große Kurfürst, had allowed the immigration of Socinians and in 1670 he accepted several Jews who had been forced to leave Vienna.18 In 1685, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, through which King Louis XIV of France had declared Protestantism illegal, thereby giving rise to widespread persecutions, Friedrich Wilhelm promulgated the Edict of Potsdam and welcomed several Huguenots into his territory. Johanna Eleonora recalls this episode when she describes her discovery of chiliasm. Some years later, shortly before his death, Friedrich Wilhelm permitted the settlement of the persecuted Waldensians.19 The same politics of tolerance was also adopted by 16 On the social-political situation of Brandenburg-Prussia, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 96–101; H. Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus. Gottesgnadentum und Kriegsnot (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980), 83–93. 17 According to some scholars, this should be interpreted as an attempt of political-confessional protection of a minority in a territory which was for the most part Lutheran, see A. Schunka, “Zwischen Kontingenz und Providenz. Frühe Englandkontakte der Halleschen Pietisten und protestantische Irenik um 1700”, in: PuN 34 (2008), 82–114, here 86; H. Hotson, “Irenicism in the Confessional Age. The Holy Roman Empire, 1563–1648”, in H. P. Louthan / ​ R. C. Zachman (ed.), Conciliation and Confession. The struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415–1648 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 228–85; M. Taatz-Jacobi, Erwünschte Harmonie. Die Gründung der Friedrichs-Universität Halle als Instrument brandenburg-preußischer Konfessionspolitik – Motive, Verfahren, Mythos (1680–1713) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), especially c. 1. 18 Between 1669–1670 Emperor Leopold I decreed the expulsion of Jews from the city and the country after a series of incidents were attributed to the Jewish community. On the expulsion of the Jews from Vienna and their settlement in Brandenburg-Prussia, see T. Schenk, Wegbereiter der Emanzipation? Studien zur Judenpolitik des “Aufgeklärten Absolutismus” in Preußen (1763–1812) (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2010), especially 66–71; M.  Schulte, Über die Bürgerlichen Verhältnisse der Juden in Preussen. Ziele und Motive der Reformzeit (1787–1812) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014). 19 The reason for the approval of Huguenot and Waldensian groups in Brandenburg-­ Prussia was first of all for reinforcing the population as well as the Calvinist confession in this territory. On the Huguenots, the Waldensians, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the settlement of these groups in Brandenburg-Prussia see A. Schunka, Die Hugenotten. Geschichte, Religion, Kultur (München: Beck, 2019); B. Dölemeyer, Die Hugenotten (Stuttgart: Kohlammer, 2006), especially 22–7 on the revocation of the edict of Nantes and 84–98 for their settlement in Brandenburg; R. A.  Mentzer / ​B.  Van Ruymbeke (ed.), A Companion to the Hugenots (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2016); H. Duchhard (ed.), Der Exodus der Hugenotten. Die Aufhebung des Edikts von Nantes 1685 als europäisches Ereignis (Köln / ​Wien: Böhlau, 1985); H. Schätz, Die Aufnahmeprivilegien für Waldenser und Hugenotten im Herzogtum Württemberg (Stuttgart: Kohlammer, 2010). Spener and Francke also took a position on these groups. E. g., Spener suggested a conversion to Lutheranism in order to admit them to the communion; see Schunka, Die Hugenotten, 83.

102

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

his son Friedrich III, who in 1701 had crowned himself King in Prussia and later became Friedrich I. Brandenburg-Prussia thus continued supporting both the Lutheran and the Reformed groups under his regime, for instance, by approving the dual use of some churches for both confessions.20 The Hohenzollerns also promoted a plan to unite the Calvinists and the Lutherans, a plan which envisaged the possibility of a unification on the liturgical level despite their theological differences and disputes.21 The Hohenzollern politics represented a concrete irenic effort. Irenicism was, however, also discussed and promoted by several other authors, some of whom were linked to this electorate and to its court. In this context, the Berlin court preacher Daniel Ernst Jablonski is particularly significant for showing how the elector sought to pursue not only a politics of tolerance but also of institutional unification of the Lutheran with the Reformed church. Jablonski’s plan of unification was theologically rooted in the common Protestant rejection of the Catholic belief that Christ was substantially present in the Eucharist, a point which he also discussed with Leibniz, who, interested in a confessional union as well, was more inclined to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.22 Daniel Jablonski was also an important interlocutor for some “Pietists”– especially in Halle – who were welcomed into the electorate

20 On the religious politics of Friiedrich III / ​I see F.  Göse, Friedrich I. (1657–1713). Ein König in Preussen (Regensburg: Pustet, 2012), particularly 314–20. 21 On the union plan of the Hohenzollern see B. Marschke, “Mish-Mash with the Enemy. Identity, Politics, Power, and the Threat of Forced Conversion in Frederick William I’s Prussia”, in D. M. Luebke / ​J. Poley / ​D. C. Ryan / ​D. Warren Sabean (ed.), Conversion and the Politics of Religion in Early Modern Germany (New York: Berghahn Books, 2012), 119–34, especially 119–22. 22 On Jablonski’s union plan and efforts see A. Schunka, “Daniel Ernst Jablonski, Pietism, and Ecclesiastical Union”, in F. van Lieburg / ​D.  Lindmark (ed.), Pietism, Revivalism and Modernity, 1650–1850 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), 23–41, here 29. The collaboration with Leibniz led also to the foundation of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. On Leibniz’s irenic efforts see D. Shantz, “Conversion and Revival in the Last Days: Hopes for Progress and Renewal in Radical Pietism and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”, in F. van Lieburg / ​D. Lindmark (ed.), Pietism, Revivalism and Modernity, 1650–1850, (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), 42–62, especially 55–7; W. Barner, “Traditionsverhalten als Element kultureller Orientierung. Mit Erläuterungen am Beispiel von Leibnizens Reunionsbemühungen”, in S. Huedecker / ​D. Niefanger / ​J. Wesche (ed.), Kulturelle Orientierung um 1700. Traditionen, Programme, konzeptionelle Vielfalt (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004), 182–97, M. R. Antognazza, Leibniz. An Intellectual Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 398–406; a collection of texts on this problem can be found in F. X.  Kiefl, Der Friedensplan des Leibniz zur Wiedervereinigung der getrennten christlichen Kirchen² (Hildesheim: Olms, 1997). Leibniz also was in direct contact with the Roman ­Catholic church, particularly with Cardinal Paolucci and with Bossuet, with whom he discussed this issue, however, without results.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

103

towards the end of the seventeenth century.23 In 1691, Spener was appointed provost and councilor of the consistory at the St. Nikolai church in Berlin, where he died in 1705, whereas August Hermann Francke found support for his project of an orphanage in Halle as professor of theology at the University of Halle. The possibility of a confessional reunion is also addressed by these theologians; yet their stance towards the realization of this possibility was negative. Spener dealt with the issue of unification with Reformed and Catholics on many occasions since the late 1680s, but especially in the 1690s. Whereas a union with the Roman Catholic church was considered impossible ipso principio, because Roman Catholics had come to consider Protestants as heretics since the Council of Trent, a union with the Reformed was not impossible as a matter of principle. According to Spener, the Lutheran and Reformed churches shared at least a common principle, in that they considered faith as based in the Scripture and not in relation to the ecclesiastical authorities. Whereas at first Spener had underlined that it was too early, albeit not impossible, to seek a reunion, only towards the end of the century, he seemed more hopeful in that regard, encouraging theologians to speak about this possibility and remarking the importance of this issue for the common fight against the advance of Rome. Nevertheless, he still considered the confessional unification impracticable, since that would “hurt” certain essential truths, especially in regard to particularism in predestination. On the other hand, distinguishing a fide quae creditur from a fide qua creditur, i. e., the dogmatic aspects of faith from the subjective act of faith, he claimed that the Reformed could be considered brothers and that a spiritual union of souls was possible: “I wish for an internal union that affects souls, rather than an external union based on words”.24 August Hermann Francke shared that 23 On the relationship between Jablonski and Halle Pietism, see Schunka, “Daniel Ernst Jablonski”, 23–41. On the Brandeburg-Prussia and the influence of Pietism on its development in general, see H. Lehmann, “Pietismus und soziale Reform in Brandenburg-Preußen”, in O.  Hauser (ed.), Preußen, Europa und das Reich (Köln / ​Wien: Böhlau, 1987), 87–102; R. L. Gawthrop, Pietism and the making of Eighteen-century Prussia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); H.  Zaunstöck / ​B. Klosterberg / ​C. Soboth / ​B. Marschke (ed.), Hallesches Weisenhaus und Berliner Hof (Halberstadt: Verlag der Franckesche Stiftungen Halle, 2017). On the relationship between Brandenburg-Prussia and Pietism see also Taatz-Jacobi, Erwünschte Harmonie. 24 On Spener’s position during the time in Berlin see J. Wallmann, “Philipp Jakob Spener in Berlin 1691–1705”, in J.  Wallmann, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 295–324. G.  Heinrich, “Spener in Berlin und Brandenburg. Pietismus und Staatsgesellschaft unter dem ersten König in Preußen”, in D.  Wendebourg (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener  – Leben, Werk, Bedeutung. Bilanz der Forschung nach 300 Jahren (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007), 71–88. The theologian expresses his standpoint on this issue in several short texts published in Letzte Theologische Bedencken, see D. Blaufuß / ​ P. Schicketanz (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Letzte Theologische Bedencken und andere Breiffliche Antworten 1711. Nebst einer Vorrede von Carl Hildebrand von Canstein, Teil 1, 2, 3, (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1987), c.1, sec. XII, 83–92; c.1, sec. XXI, 112–15; c.1, sec.

104

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

standpoint.25 The Halle theologian had numerous exchanges on this issue with the Prussian court, with Jablonski, and with other figures who travelled to promote Christian piety, such as Heinrich Wilhelm Ludolf and his disciple Anthon Wilhelm Böhme, who, for example, became a key figure in the foundation of the Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge in England.26 Jablonski was also in contact with some members of this Society and had sought to pursue with them a union plan that also encompassed the Anglican churches.27 Böhme showed, on the contrary, a more reluctant stance towards a confessional union. Similarly, Ludolf was also critical of the notion of an “external union”, which, according to him, would have remained a sterile attempt if not accompanied by a real conversion to “real Christianity”.28 He thus spoke about a “universal church”, “which – as Malena explains – did not mean neutrality between the different churches but a relationship between ‘real Christians’, beyond the confessional boundaries”.29 Being critical towards every particular church he considered a “sect” – as his correspondence with Leibniz shows – Ludolf’s transconfessional project was intended as a spiritual union among true Christians, or those reborn, rather than an institutional union. A position similar to Ludolf’s one was also supported by Spener and Francke, who expressed disapproval towards the union plans of the Hohenzollern.30 While they remarked on the confessional XXXIV, 201–5; c.1, sec. LI, 277–8; c. II, sec. XVII, 599–606; c. 6, art. III, sec. XLIX, 471–2; c. 6, art. III, sec. LII, 475–8; c. 6, art. III, sec. CXVIII, 645–8; here c. 6, art. III. Sec. XLIX, 471: “Ich wünsche die vereinigung / die aber innerlich die seelen berühren / und nicht in eusserlichen worten bestehen müßte / hertzlich / halte sie auch an sich selbs mit den Reformirten nicht so unmüglich / als einige gedencken / aber in jetzigen zustand und bey dieser bewandnüs der gemüther unmüglich”, the text is not dated, but it was written very probably after 1703 since this date is reported inside the text. 25 On Francke’s stance towards the Berlin court, see M. Brecht, “August Hermann Francke und der Hallischen Pietismus”, in M.  Brecht (ed.), Geschichte des Pietismus, vol. 1: Der Pietsismus vom siebzehnten bis zum frühen achtzehnten Jahrhundert, 498–502, here 499, and esepcially B. Marschke, Absolutely Pietist. Patronage, Factionalism, and State-Building in the Early Eighteenth-Century Prussian Army Chaplaincy (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2005). On the relationhsip between Spener and Francke during this period see U. Sträter, “Spener und August Hermann Francke”, in D.  Wendebourg (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener  – Leben, Werk, Bedeutung. Bilanz der Forschung nach 300 Jahren, (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007), 89–104. 26 See A. Schunka, “Zwischen Kontingenz und Providenz” 27 See Schunka, “Daniel Ernst Jablonski”. 28 On Ludolf’s irenicism see A.  Malena, “Promoting the Common Interest of Christ. H. W. Ludolf’s “impartial” Projects and the Beginning of the SPCK. British Protestant Missions and the Conversion of Europe, 1600–1900”, in Routledge Studies in Early Modern Religious Dissents and Radicalism (London: Routledge, in course of publication) (I thank Adelisa Malena for kindly letting me reading her article and for her advice). 29 See Malena, “Promoting the Common Interest of Christ”. 30 On the stance of pietists, and particularly of Francke and Halle Pietism, towards the union plan in Brandenburg-Prussia see Marschke, “Mish-Mash with the Enemy”, 122–8. Marschke concludes that “among Pietists, there was a clear sense that Frederick William’s

E schatology, irenicism and progress

105

differences among the Protestants and saw the union plan as a forced conversion, in the same spirit as Ludolf, they strove to promote a “union of hearts and spirits”. For the Petersens, this socio-political context and the discussions which found resonance not only in the electorate of the Hohenzollern, but also in other territories represented a starting point for their irenic reflections.31 Writing on chiliasm, they had this socio-political context in mind, which is also suggested by the fact that Johanna Eleonora links the discovery of the millenium directly to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. On the other hand, the different stances that emerged with respect to this problem, as well as the interests and purposes that underlie these reflections were very different. In the case of the Petersens, social worry was not the primary cause that triggered their irenic considerations. Their irenic concern was, rather, strictly linked to their eschatological visions. Before further facing the Petersens’ position, a broader overview of the landscape of eschatological positions of that time can offer a better understanding of the link between eschatological positions and irenic concerns.

irenicism was not about tolerance. On the contrary, being forced to lower confessional boundaries and move toward a confessional union would have been the opposite of religious tolerance”. On Spener’s stance see K. Deppermann, “Die politische Voraussetzungen für die Etablierung des Pietismus in Brandenburg-Preußen”, in: PuN 12 (1986), 38–53, particularly 44–8; this article offers also a good overview on the reasons that pushed the Hohenzollern to convert to Calvinism and on the consequences of this event. 31 A good overview on the main authors and texts – both Lutherans and Catholics – that shaped this debate can be found in Breuer’s article. A debate which, as Breuer shows, was present not only in the seventeenth century, but also since the beginning of the Reformation, e. g., by Erasmus. See D. Breuer, “Irenik – Bestrebungen zur Überwindung des Konfessionsstreits im Barockzeitalter”, in M. Battafarano (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (11 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 229–50. Irenic concerns can also be found in the Latitudinarian pastor from Geneva Jean Alphons Turrettini, see M. C. Pitassi, “‘Nonobstant ces petites differences’: enjeux et présupposés d’un projet d’union intra-protestante au début du XVIII siècle”, in G. Saupin / ​R . Fabre / ​M. Launay (ed.), La Tolérance. Colloque international de Nantes mai 1998. Quatrième centenaire de l’édit de Nantes (Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes, 1999), 419–26. The Catholic environment also was not totally extrange to this issue; the Sulzbach court represents in this sense one of the main examples in Germany, see M. Finke, “Toleranz und ‘Discrete’ Frömmigkeit nach 1650. Pfalzgraf Christian August von Sulzbach und Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels”, in D. Breuer (ed.), Frömmigkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Studien zur religiösen Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984), 193–212. On other single discussions in Germany and in England see H. Klueting (ed.), Irenik und Antikonfessionalismus im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Hildes­ heim: Olms, 2003); S. Barteleit, Toleranz und Irenik. Politisch-Religiöse Grenzsetzungen im England der 1650er Jahre (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003); H. J. Müller, Irenik als Kommunikationsreform. Das Colloquium Charitativum von Thorn 1645 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).

106

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

2.1.3 The wait for the end of the times in Protestant territories In Brandenburg-Prussia the Petersens found a favorable environment to support and spread their eschatology and to promote irenicism.32 The irenic concern, as already discussed, was shared by several authors, who did not perforce also support chiliastic expectations. Conversely, ecclesiastical union was a recurring element in all those authors who supported a millenarian position. The eschatological position of the Petersens was, indeed, not a novelty, for several authors supported this view. The Petersens’ eschatological position, taking the wider context into consideration, represents the summit of a widespread stance and the beginning – maybe unintentional – of a new paradigm.33 When the Petersens started writing on the millennium in the 1690s, they shared their concern for future times and destiny of the world with the theologian and friend Philipp Jakob Spener. Spener had already publicly expressed interest in eschatological issues in his Pia Desideria (1675), where he invoked a “hope for future better times in the church”. But Spener’s “hope for better times”, far from being a novelty, arose in a period which saw the flourishing of millenarian positions, expectations of a future glorious epoch of the church, or of a golden epoch in several territories, also in the Netherlands and especially in England. Cases of millenarianism were also documented in other countries, such as Spain or Italy, although played here a less important role. The expectation of a future golden age, of a future better condition, or of the chiliastic epoch before the end of the world introduced a new perspective in comparison to the eschatological perspective widely shared among Protestant authors in the first years of the Reformation. Whereas the chiliastic phenomenon became a real force starting with the seventeenth century, the beginning of the Reformation was characterized by the feeling that the last times were approach­ing, that Christ would have come and that the Last Judgment would have occurred. Luther saw his epoch as the last one before God’s Last Judgment. Particularly, the “disastrous situation” of the church and of the papacy, that was seen in these quarters as the antichrist, were for Luther clear signs that

32 That Brandenburg-Prussia practiced a politics of tolerance did not mean that people from all religions were indiscriminately accepted; as Ruth Albrecht remarks, also in Brandenburg-Prussia there were censorships. As for the Petersens, they did not run into problems because of their writings; Johann Wilhelm remarks that he was under the protection of the elector. This topic needs further research. See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 100–1. 33 In what follows, the spread of millenarian ideas in Protestant territories will be described in general without paying attention to the historical relationship between the Petersens’s eschatology and those of other authors; the influences of some specific authors on the Petersens will be dealt with in the third chapter.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

107

history was writing its last chapter.34 Lutheran authors rejected millenarianism for several reasons. First, following the principle of sola scriptura, this doctrine needed a strong basis in the Bible. The only passage that could support such an idea was Rev 20, which indicated with certainty a one-thousand-year kingdom, but  – according to most interpreters  – this kingdom had already occurred.35 Furthermore, the authenticity of the last book of the Scripture was being questioned between the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries. Erasmus of Rotterdam, Karlstadt and Luther doubted that John was the author of Revelation. Luther considered this book apocryphal, claiming that the text lacked the prophetic representation of the Old Testament and the doctrinal delineation.36 The question about the authenticity of this book also implied the issue of its canonical order. Luther, who deemed this book obscure, preferred not to express a definitive judgment on it. The Lutheran theology of the seventeenth century was characterized by Balduin’ position, according to which the Revelation should not be considered an apocryphal book; however, its contents always had to be referred to and proved on the basis of other canonical passages. Towards mid-century, Johann Gerhard disapproved the distinction between canonical and apocryphal books and spoke about libros canonicos primi ordinis and secondi ordinis. The latter were those books whose authorship was controversial. At the same time, he defended the authenticity of the Revelation, attributing its authorship to Apostle John. Gerhard’s position influenced the Lutheran theology between the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century, to the extent that several other theologians no longer doubted the authenticity of the last book of the Bible.37 Another controversial point that prevented Lutheran theologians from supporting millenarian ideas is the fact that, during Luther’s time, such ideas were ascribed to the followers of Thomas Müntzer, a group that was considered fanatic 34 On Luther’s eschatology see J. E. Strohl, “Luther’s Eschatology”, in R. Kolb / ​I. Dingel / ​ L’U.  Batka (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 353–62; U.  Gäbler, “Geschichte, Gegenwart, Zukunft”, in M.  Brecht / ​ K. Deppermann / ​U. Gäbler (ed.), Geschichte des Pietismus, 4 vol., 19–20; on the wait for the Judgment Day and the end of the world in Luther’s time see J. Schilling, “Der liebe Jüngste Tag. Endzeiterwartungen um 1500”, in M. Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​H.  Lehmann / ​J. Schilling / ​R . Staats (ed.), Jahrhundertwenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. Bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 15–26. See also G. Seebaß, Art. Apokaliptik / ​ Apokalypsen, in: TRE 3 (1978), 189–289, here 280–1. 35 See O. Böcher / ​G. G. Blum / ​R . Konrad / ​R . Bauckham, Art.  Chiliasmus, in: TRE 7 (1981), 723–45, here 738. 36 See F.  Stengel, Sola scriptura im Kontext. Behauptung und Bestreitung des reformatorischen Schriftprinzips (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016), 121–2; F. Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes oder Allgemeine Untersuchungen über die apokalyptische Litteratur überhaupt und die Apokalypse des Johannes insbesondere (Bonn: Weber, 1852), 493–4. 37 See Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung, 888–911.

108

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

and, for this reason, was condemned in article 17 of the Confessio Augustana, which also rejected millenarian and universal positions.38 The condemnation of the chiliastic position was also asserted in the 41st article of the 42 Articles of the Church of England, and in article 26 of Confessio Helvetica Posterior.39 The Lutheran feeling that they were experiencing the end of the times also pervaded the seventeenth century. Concepts such as afflictions, death, caducity, anguish, misery, evening, darkness, night frequently recur in Lutheran hymns, pamphlets and edification literature, as well as in poems and prayers.40 The real force of this expectation is also testified by the several efforts made to calculate the precise date of the end of the times or to interpret different signs, both natural, such as comets, and social, such as the religious situation of that time.41 An opposing trend also flourished in the seventeenth century when several groups or single authors thematized not only the imminence of God’s Judgment, but also the arrival of Christ. They waited for the instauration of Christ’s Kingdom, in other words, they awaited a better time and condition before the Last Judgment. As Lehmann has remarked, those who awaited the end of the times and those who believed in the upcoming Kingdom of Christ were unified by the hope for a near salvation upon Christ’s return.42 On the other hand, as Johannes Wallmann has pointed out, the perspective of an upcoming long glorious epoch and history of salvation before the end of the world meant a break with the historical view which, following the Augustinian tradition – followed by Luther – considered the present period as the last one before God’s Last Judgment.43 In 38 On the alleged apocalyptical positions of Müntzer and on Luther’s criticisms of him see H.-J. Goertz, “Apokalyptik in Thüringen. Thomas Müntzer- Bauernkrieg – Täufer”; in H.-J. Goertz (ed.) Radikalität der Reformation. Aufsätze und Abhandlungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 97–118; F. Stengel, “Omnia sunt communia. Gütergemeinschaft bei Thomas Müntzer?“, in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 102 (2011), 133–74, here 169; Stengel, Sola scriptura im Kontext, 77–81. 39 See Böcher / ​Blum / ​Konrad / ​Bauckham, Art.  Chiliasmus, 738. On Luther’s relationship to and criticisms of Thomas Müntzer, see Stengel, Sola scriptura im Kontext, 77–81. 40 H. Lehmann, “Endzeiterwartung im Luthertum im späten 16. und im frühen 17. Jahr­ hundert”, in H.-C. Rublack (ed.), Die lutherische Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland. Wissenschaftliches Symposion des Vereins für Reformationgeschichte 1988 (Gütersloher: Haus Mohn, 1992), 545–8, here 546; See Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 129. On the wait for the end of the times between sixteenth and seventeenth century see also Delumeau, Angst im Abendland, 309–57. 41 See Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 124–6; Bütikofer, Der frühe Zürcher Pietismus, 323–37; K.-D. Herbst, “Die großen Schreibkalendar als medialer Ort der Kontroverse um die Deutung der Sonnenfinsternis vom 2./12. August 1654 als Vorbote des Jüngsten Tages”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosneroth-Gesellschaft (21 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2011), 36–56. 42 See Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 124. 43 See J. Wallmann, Der Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 49. Some scholars indicate the crisis of the seventeenth century (climate conditions, religious war and its consequences, such as famine, poverty, halved population, damage of cities, economic crisis,

E schatology, irenicism and progress

109

this context, the prophecies contained in the book of Daniel, together with the apocalyptical visions of John, received attention anew. It is to the main authors who supported new eschatological positions that we want now to turn.

Different chiliastic views within a widespread network Whereas the official position of the church during the Middle Ages was influenced by the Augustinian position, according to which God’s promised Kingdom had already begun with the first coming of Christ, the millenarian expectation flourished again at the beginning of the thirtheen century, thanks to the Italian monk Joachim of Fiore, who divided history into three epochs corresponding with the three persons of the Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.44 Whereas he believed that he lived in the second epoch, started with Christ’s incarnation, he waited for a third epoch of the Spirit. This epoch would be marked by the realization of an ecclesia spiritualis or contemplativa, linked to a reign of peace in which all believers would recognize the truth.45 In the etc.) as the main factor which caused a wide-spread wait for the end of the times. See, for example, Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus. The entire book is about the crisis of the seventeenth century and describes different aspects linked to this phenomenon, see particularly 127: “Aus der Krise der Zeit entsprang somit die Beschäftigung mit den letzten Dingen”. Some years after, Lehmann rectified his position, specifying that it is necessary to distinguish different stages inside this long-lasting crisis; similar, it is necessary to distinguish causes and effects of these on the population, and, finally, to see the interest in astrology, comets, etc. as a way to react to the crisis; see H. Lehmann, “La crise religieuse du XVII siècle”, in A. Lagny (ed.), Les Piétismes à l’âge classique. Crise, Conversion, Institutions (Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2001), 57–67. In another monograph, Lehmann specifies that it would be better to speak about “crisis” in plural, H. Lehmann, Transformationen der Religion in der Neuzeit. Beispiele aus der Geschichte des Protestantismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), see especially the part I.1: Die Krisen des 17. Jahrhunderts als Problem der Forschung. Gawthrop also argues for a direct connection between crisis, on one side, and the circulation of devotional literature and the beginning of Pietism, on the other side, see Gawthrop, Pietism and the making of eighteenth-century Prussia, 104. The idea that a certain kind of piety and of devotional literature was a reaction to the crisis was questioned by U. Sträter, Meditation und Kirchenreform in der lutherischen Kirche des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), especially c. 2: Zum mentalitäts-, frömmigkeits- und kirchengeschichtlichen Hintergrund der Meditation in deutschen Luthertum des 17. Jahrhunderts. Markus Matthias is also critical towards the idea that the crisis shaped the religiousness of the seventeenth century, see M.  Matthias, “Gab es eine Frömmigkeitskrise um 1600?”, in H.  Otte / ​H.  Schneider (ed.), Frömmigkeit oder Theologie. Johann Arndt und die “vier Bücher vom wahren Christenthum” (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 27–44. 44 On Augustin’s position see A. Placanica, Millennio: realtà e illusioni dell’anno epocale (Roma: Donzelli, 1997) 59–69. 45 On Joachim of Fiore see Delumeau, Angst im Abendland, 314; Schimdt-Bigge­mann, Philosophia Perennis, 381–91; Böcher / ​Blum / ​Konrad / ​Bauckham, Art.  Chiliasmus, 734–7; R. E. Lerner, Art. Joachim von Fiore, in: TRE 17 (1988), 84–8; Lücke, Verusch einer vollständigen Einleitung, 1006–12.

110

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

wake of Joachim of Fiore, several other authors – usually dissociated from or marginalized by the official church – supported his chiliastic ideas. Delumeau distinguishes between two main tendencies. One is represented by those groups that, through chiliastic expectations, wanted to accelerate the beginning of a kingdom of bliss and equality. Among them, he mentions the Taborites from the fifteenth century, the fanatics who followed Thomas Müntzer in the sixteenth century, and the group of the Fifth Monarchy Men in England in the seventeenth century. The other group is a more moderate set of authors who, more in line with Joachim of Fiore, awaited a new Earth free from evil and sin, and thus a period of peace and sanctity.46 Joachim’s spirit became a relevant force, especially in the seventeenth century, when the sentiment in the first period of the Reformation that the disastrous condition of the church would end and the power of the antichrist would be destroyed with the Last Judgment, turned into a more optimistic view on the future, a view characterized by the wait for a “golden age” in the church.47 The chiliastic positions in this century are often distinguished on the basis of the categories “pre-millenarianism” and “post-millenarianism”. According to the “pre-millenarian” position, Christ’s Parousia occurs at the beginning of the millennium; on the contrary the “post-millenarian” standpoint places Christ’s second coming only at the end of the millennium and before the Last Judgment. Since the first position implies a break between the present and the millenarian epoch, it is more radical, and those who supported it had more difficulties in front of orthodoxy.48 Millenarian expectations were present especially in the Protestant environment in England and in Germany, although such positions were also documented in the more Catholic regions, such as in Italy and Spain.49 46 See Delumeau, Angst im Abendland, 316. He does not specify who these last authors are. 47 Not all positions can be labelled as “chiliastic”, I will, therefore, speak about “better condition” or “golden age” to indicate in general those positions which supported the idea of a better time before the end of the world. I will use the term “chiliasm” or “millenarianism” when the authors clearly define their position in this way. 48 See Böcher / ​Blum / ​Konrad / ​Bauckham, Art.  Chiliasmus, 739. 49 For example, in Italy Sebastian Castellione, Coelio Secundo Curione, Alfonso Corrado of Mantua, Jacopo Brocardo. However, along the 17th century, chiliastic expectations were not present in Catholic environments, see A. Holzem, “Zeit – Zeitenwende – Endzeit? Anfangsbeobachtungen zum deutschen katholischen Schrifftum um 1700”, in M. Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​ H.  Lehmann / ​J. Schilling / ​R . Staats, Jahrhundertwenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 213–32. An all-encompassing research on chiliastic expectations in the seventeenth century is missing, there are several articles or book chapters which deal with it, each considering this phenomenon in general and quoting the main names, but sometimes focusing on single authors or specific traditions. Referring to all these studies, in this paragraph I seek to bring them together, in order to give a general overview on this topic in the seventeenth century focusing on England and Germany. The main references used are: the article Böcher / ​Blum / ​Konrad / ​ Bauckham, Art. Chiliasmus; Delumeau, Angst im Abendland, 309–57; U. Gäbler, “Geschichte,

E schatology, irenicism and progress

111

The first prominent millenarian positions developed in England. After the downfall of the Spanish Armada in 1588, in a climate of renewed optimism for the future – not necessarily linked to chiliastic expectations – several English Protestants believed that England was the “chosen Nation” by God and that it had an important role in the defeat of the Antichrist and in the dissemination of the Gospel. The wait for a period of peace and renewal was often linked to the historical events of the time. This stance culminated with the figure of Oliver Cromwell who was seen as the apocalyptic hero. Apocalyptic renewals spread not only among some revolutionary groups, but they also touched ordinary men and women who considered themselves God’s instruments or prophets. The latter based their expectations not so much on the prophetical books, as on natural signs and events, such as comets or eclipses.50 The English chiliasm is characterized by three prominent figures, namely Thomas Brightman (1562–1607), Joseph Mede (1568–1638) and Henry More (1614–1687), and a group: the Fifth Monarchy. The puritan Thomas Brightman believed that Rev 20 foretold two millenarian epochs, the first one had developed from the era of Constantine until 1300, whereas the second one had begun in the fourteenth century. During these two epochs, it was believed, owing to the dissemination of the true gospel and the diffusion of the pure church, the world would be in a glorious condition that preceded Christ’s Parousia and the Last Judgement. The conversion of the Jews and the defeat of the Antichrist, i. e., the papacy in Rome and the Turks, were taken to be signs that preannounced this event.51 Gegenwart, Zukunft”, in H. Lehmann (ed.), Geschichte des Pietismus 4, 19–48; M. Brecht, “Die deutschen Spiritualisten des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in M. Brecht (ed.), Geschichte des Pietismus 1, 205–40; J. Wallmann, “Reich Gottes und Chiliasmus in der lutherischen Orthodoxie”, in J. Wallmann, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 105–23; Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 123–34; PuN, 14 (1988): Chiliasmus in Deutschland und England im 17. Jahrhundert. 50 On the English chiliasm in general see Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 132–3; B. S. Capp, “Radical Chiliasm in the English Revolution”, in: PuN 14 (1988), 125–33; K. von Greyerz, “Wissenschaft, Endzeiterwartung und Alchemie in England des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in A.-C. Trepp / ​H.  Lehmann (ed.), Antike Weisheit und kulturelle Praxis. Hermetismus in der Frühen Neuzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 205–18; R. H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650–1800 (Leiden: Brill, 1988); C. Hill, Antichrist in seventeenth-century England² (London / ​New York: Verso, 1990); K. von Greyerz, “Das Nachdenken über die Apokalypse im England des späteren 17. Jahrhunderts”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (21 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2011), 15–38. 51 Thomas Brightman wrote Apocalypsis Apocalypseos et Refutatio Rob. Bellarmini de Antichtisto Libro Tertio de Romano Pontífice, composed in 1600, but its first edition is in Frankfurt 1609; in Amsterdam 1615 was published the first edition in English. On Brightmann see A.  Crome, The restoration of the Jews: early modern hermeneutics, eschatology, and national identity in the works of Thomas Brightman (Cham: Springer, 2014); see also

112

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

The work of Brightman was almost eclipsed circa twenty years after, with the publication of Clavis Apocalyptica (1627), another millenarian text authored by the fellow of the Christ’s College in Cambridge Joseph Mede, a text which would have vast influence not only on the English chiliasm but also on chiliastic positions on the continent. In this text, Mede established a new method to interpret the prophecies contained in the prophetical books (Daniel and Revelation), claiming that the events described here should not be interpreted in a chronological order and that several different prophecies could be fulfilled simultaneously. Mede’s chiliastic views also strongly emphasized the role of Rome as Antichrist. In that regard he criticized Brightman’s chiliasm, since the latter supported the idea that the first millennium had already begun during the era of Constantin, which could weaken the resistance against papacy, born, according to Mede, precisely under Constantine.52 The chronological method adopted by Mede to interpret biblical prophecies strongly impressed Henry More, one of his students at Christ’s College.53 Also, More stressed papacy and Rome as Antichrist. He regarded the antichrist as not someone who would reveal himself at the end of the times. It was already present in the idolatry practiced by the Roman Church, an idolatry which had persisted since the barbarian invasions, when the Church introduced pagan rites such as invocation of the saints, the cult of images and the adoration of the Eucharist. On the contrary, he saw the Church of England as the clearest place where the restoration of the true church was visible, but he saw its epoch not yet as the beginning of the millennium. Rather, he waited for the coming of the Philadelphian church, i. e., the promise of a blessed future state, a kingdom of peace and love, the empire of the virtue of charity. According to Mede, the beginning of the Philadelphian epoch had both a religious and a political dimension. First, it had to overturn the Calvinistic representation of God as judge into a God whose essence is essentially Gäbler, “­Geschichte, Gegenwart, Zukunft”, in Geschichte des Pietismus 4, 21–2; Böcher / ​Blum / ​ Konrad / ​Bauckham, Art.  Chiliasmus, 740. 52 See J. Van den Berg, “Continuity within a changing context: Henry More’s millenarianism, seen against the background of the millenarian concepts of Joseph Mede”, in: PuN 14 (1988), 185–202; J. K.  Jue, Heaven upon Earth. Joseph Mede (1586–1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006). Through this method he freed the interpretation of prophecies from the idea that one prophetical event corresponded to a one precise historical event, on the contrary, prophecies could overlap. In this way the problem of the interpretation of prophetical books was no more the subject to the problem of the date of writing of the Apocalypse. 53 See Van den Berg, Continuity within a changing context. Among the most important chiliastic texts of More there are: An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness (1660), A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity (1664), An Exposition of the Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches (1669), Visionum Apocalypticarum Ratio Synchronistica (1674), Apocalypsis Apocalyseos (1680), A Plain and Continued Exposition of the several Prophecies od Divine Visions of the Prophet Daniel (1681), Paralipomena Prophetica (1685).

E schatology, irenicism and progress

113

love. Second, as Mede’s millenarianism also entailed a political dimension, the Politia Idolatrica would be replaced by a new Politia of divine institution that was inspired by God’s Spirit. Although he spoke highly of the Reformation, and particularly of the Church of England, he was not blind to the defects of the Reformed churches, which still awaited the realization of the purity of the first church: “Calvinism, Lutheranism, Popery, and whatever else savors of Sects and Discords of Minds and Opinions shall be melted down into one … both as to Life and Doctrine, truly Catholic and Apostolical Philadelphianism”.54 Henry More’s chiliastic position, particularly with regard to its political dimension, criticized, on the one hand, the Puritan position, which judged the English church as corrupt, on the other hand, the group of the Fifth Monarchy Men, who More considered fanatics. This group included simple London artisans. Several members had also been soldiers in Cromwell’s army, but after 1653 they saw Cromwell as the man who had betrayed Christ’s Kingdom. The Fifth Monarchy Men were a radical group in the sense that they not only waited for a second coming of Christ on Earth, but, in order to prepare for this return, they also published propaganda pamphlets, sought to subvert the army and navy and, in some cases, prepared assassinations and rebellions. The goal was to set up a New Jerusalem, first of all in England, then also in France, Germany, Spain, and even in Rome. Contrary to the Fifth Monarchy’s wait of an earthly kingdom, the Quakers saw Christ’s coming as internal, as an internal light in every man and woman. Nevertheless, their stance also had political and social implications, e. g., some early Quakers set out to convert the pope and the Emperor of China.55 On the continent, chiliastic positions could be found especially in the Reformed environment. Johann Heinrich Alsted’s (1588–1633) Diatribe de Mille Annis Apocalypticis (1627) became an important reference work for chiliastic positions in the seventeenth century.56 Another prominent author who foretold

54 Quoted in Van den Berg, Continuity within a changing context, 202. 55 On the Fifth Monarchy Men and on the Quakers see B. S. Capp, “Radical Chiliasm in the English Revolution”; Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 133. On the Philadelphian and millenarian stance in England and particularly using the example of William Penn, see B. Becker-Cantarino, “Das Neue Jerusalem. Jane Leade, die Philadelphian Society und ihre Visionen von religiöser Erneureung in den 1690er Jahren”, in U. Sträter (ed.), Alter Adam und Neue Kreatur. Pietismus und Anthropologie. Beiträge zum II. Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2005 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2009), 151–64, here 162–4. 56 Note that Alsted’s work was published in the same year as Mede’s work, yet without reciprocal knowledge. The year 1627 is, therefore, considered a crucial year, it is seen as the starting point for the diffusion of millenarianism in the seventeenth century. Nevertheless, millenarian positions can also be found before, not only among the authors who followed Thomas Müntzer or in the English Thomas Brightman, but also among several other authors, such as Johannes Piscator, a direct source for Alsted’s chiliasm. On the problem of the origin

114

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

the fulfillment of chiliastic expectations was Jean de Labadie (1610–1674), who converted from Catholicism to Calvinism and was afterward also expelled from the church in Geneva. Alsted’s work offers an answer to the question “whether there shall be any happiness of the Church here upon Earth before the last day”. The answer is positive, he claims, indeed, that the good state of the church derives from the resurrections of the martyrs and their kingdom on Earth, from the freedom of the church from the persecutions of the enemies of the Gospel, from a long-lasting peace, from the conversion of the Jews and some heathens, and from a reformation of the doctrine followed by a great glory of the Church linked to the defeat of the Antichrist. As suggested by the entire title – Diatribe de mille annis apocalypticis, non illis chiliastarum & phantastarum, sed BB. Danielis & Johannis – Alsted’s millenarian position seeks to not be mistaken for fanaticism and to identify a basis in biblical passages taken from Daniel’s book and from John’s Revelation. He also offers suggestions on how to read the Scripture: first, the light and mercy of the Holy Spirit (lumen & gratia Spiritus S.) would be indispensable; second, a careful reading, and, thirdly, experience, which was key to understanding prophecies.57 Alsted’s most famous student was Johann Amos Comenius (1592–1670), a Czech theologian who became a leading figure for the Unity of the Brethren. Famous for his pedagogical ideas, his efforts were driven by aspirations of peace and of bringing the “light of the truth” to the world. In Lux in tenebris (1657) – a text in which he reports the visions of Christopher Kotterus, Nikolaus Drabík and Christina Poniatowska on the Thirty-Years’ war – Comenius forecasts the beginning of the millennium. In the dedication to the rulers, the Roman Catholic church, together with the House of Austria, are depicted as Babylon, and their idolatry and political supremacy, as well as the division into several churches are denounced. The church, in contrast, aims to be one and unified as enshrined in the Scripture.58 Following the Bohemian defeat of the White Mountain in 1621, Comenius was forced into the exile, first to Poland, and then to the Netherlands, where he met several other millenarians, such as Petrus Serrarius and Jean de of millenarianism between the sixteenth and the seventeenth century, see H. Hotson, Paradise postponed. Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000). 57 On Alsted’s millenarian position, see W. Schmidt-Biggemann, “Apokalyptische Universalwissenschaft: Johann Heinrich Alsteds “Diatribe de mille annis apocalypticis””, in: PuN 14 (1988), 50–71; Hotson, Paradise postponed; H. Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588–1638. Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), particularly the last chapter: Apocalyptic changes: the origins of Alsted’s Millenarianism. 58 On Comenius’ millenarianism see W. Schimdt-Biggemann, “Apocalyptic political concepts: Comenius’ collection of prophecies Lux in Tenebris”, in P. Zemek / ​B. Jiři / ​B. Motel (ed.), Studien zu Comenius und zur Comeniusrezeption in Deutschland (Uherský Brod: Muzeum J. A. Komenského, 2008), 132–52; Groh, Göttliche Weltökonomie, 533–53.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

115

Labadie, and became acquainted with messianic movements of Jewish origins, such as those that arose around the figure of Sabbatai Sevi.59 Jean de Labadie (1610–1674) and Petrus Serrarius (1600–1669) are two other important figures in the chiliastic landscape of the seventeenth century. In Assertion du règne de mille ans (1657) Serrarius supports the expectation of Christ’s glorious Kingdom on Earth, describing it as the resurrection of the church linked to the decline of history. Serrarius’ millenarianism also has a particular connection to the Jewish messianic promises. If on the one hand, the conversion of the Jews and the return of the ten tribes to their fatherland are seen as signs of the upcoming reign, on the other, Serrarius saw complementarity in the position of the Jews on the coming of the Messiah and the Christian expectation of Christ’s Kingdom. Although he turns away from the rejected Jewish chiliasm, he claims that Christians make often a mistake of conceiving the kingdom only as a spiritual one.60 Ten years after the publication of Serrarius’ Assertion du règne de mille ans (1657), the Calvinist preacher Jean de Labadie, who was influenced by this work, published his own millenarian views in Le Héraut du Grand Roy Jesus, ou Eclaircissement de la doctrine de Jean de Labadie, pasteur, sur le Règne glorieux de Jésus-Christ et de ses saints en la terre aux derniers temps (1667). In this text, Labadie defends the truth of Christ’s Kingdom from the accusations of phantasy and the idea that this kingdom had only a spiritual character. The truth of Christ’s Kingdom is clearly supported by the Scripture, especially by John’s Revelation, and it is announced by the conversion of the Jewish people. Rejecting Cerinthus’ carnal chiliasm, he claimed that Christ’s coming would not be a carnal return at a specific place on Earth. He asserted that it would be a real presence without specifying how: Christ’s glory and his Kingdom would be manifested and spread all over the world. He called it regne de l’Evangile & de la Grace, the Kingdom of the Gospel and Mercy. This arrival of the kingdom would coincide with the reformation of the universal church, which he asserted was suffering both from the inside and from the outside. On the inside, it often lacked piety, faith and zeal, and on the outside, it was not respected and was mistreated by its enemies. The doctrine of Christ’s Kingdom entailed the universal restitution of beings and the defeat of Babylon, i. e., of the antichrist. Labadie invokes this issue in reference

59 On the movement generated by Sabbatai Sevi and its diffusion in Europe see E. G. E. van der Wall, “A Precursor of Christ or a Jewish Impostor? Petrus Serrarius and Jean de Labadie on the Jewish Messianic Movement around Sabbatai Sevi”, in: PuN 14 (1988), 109–24. 60 On Serrarius’s millenarianism see E. G. E. van der Wall, “Mystical Millenarianism in the Early Modern Dutch Republic”, in J. C. Laursen / ​R. H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture (4 vol.; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001), 37–46. On the relationship with Jewish Messianism see E. G. E. van der Wall, “A Precursor of Christ or a Jewish Impostor?”.

116

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

to scriptural passages, especially to the four beasts represented in the book of Daniel. Recalling the most widespread interpretation, he views the Antichrist as the fourth beast, i. e., the Roman empire. Although he claimed that the Protestant church was the most afflicted and persecuted, he did not further identify the Antichrist with any particular church or group, instead, he generally spoke about the “enemies of the church”. Before analyzing Spener’s position in more detail, to complete this portrayal of the chiliastic positions in the seventeenth century, two other groups deserve attention: the millenarian expectation inside the Lutheran orthodoxy and inside the so called theosophic-paracelsian tradition, also named the linke Fügel of the Reformation. The latter group represented a heterogeneous group of authors generally detached from the official church, and included Paracelsus (1493–1541), Valentin Weigel (1533–1589), Johann Valentin Andreae (1586–1654) and the Rosicrucian, and Jacob Böhme (1575–1624).61 For Paracelsus, the feeling that the world was experiencing its last stages was linked to the wait for a renewed world, for a better condition of the world, and for the perfection of the Christian community. He contrasted the Mauerkirche with the true church which resides in the believers’ heart, and is described as a Kingdom without distresses, diseases, wars, oppositions and conflicts between Christians, heathens, Turks and Jews. It would be a “golden epoch” in which God’s word would reign and rule. In the work of Paracelsus, too, there are references to Joachim of Fiore’s three world-epochs: the “golden age” is linked to the Spirit’s Kingdom – an idea shared by several millenarians in the seventeenth century.62 Paracelsus’ chiliastic expectation also had direct social and political consequences. With regard to the confessional division, he argued: “There will

61 The concept ‘theosophy’ generally means ‘wisdom of God’; in the early modern period (starting from the end of the fifteenth century) this term indicates authors and esoteric currents arisen inside Christianism that are very diversified, but that also share some common traits, such as the speculation on the triangle God / ​Human / ​Nature and on their reciprocal connections in the sense of macrocosm and microcosm, or the possibility to directly access the superior Worlds through a faculty present in human beings, which is none other than our imagination understood as a force of creation as well as perception. In addition to the authors quoted above, other authors usually linked to this tradition between the sixteenth and the early eighteenth centuries are Heinrich Khunrath (1560–1605), Johann Arndt (1555–1621), and later Johann Georg Gichtel (1638–1710), Quirinus Kuhlmann (1651–1689), Gottfried Arnold (1666–1714), John Pordage (1608–1681), Jane Lead (1623–1704), Pierre Poiret (1646–1719), Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (1702–1782). On this tradition, see F.  Stengel, Art. Theosophie, in Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit 13 (2011), 527–53. A. Faivre, Art. Christian Theosophy, in W. J. Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006), 258–67. 62 See S. Wollgast, “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Paracelsus im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert”, in P.  Dilg / ​H.  Rudolph (ed.), Resultate und Desiderate der Paracelsus-Forschung (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993), 113–44, here 116.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

117

be no reunification and peace until the last times, but then the day of the return of Christ will not be so far”.63 Traces of Paracelsus’ legacy can be found in the works of seventeenth century Germany authors such as Valentin Andreae and the Rosicrucian, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth (1636–1689), Christian Hoburg (1607–1675), Jacob Böhme, and Friedrich Breckling (1629–1711).64 Critical against war and confessional division, they all shared the idea of a glorious future era of the church that was opposed not only to worldly reigns, but also to official confessions. This glorious epoch was depicted as a new order, a new cosmic harmony, a new Earth and a new heaven in which the truth would shine and a confessional reunion would occur. The pope and the Jesuits were seen as the adversaries in this fight for the new order.65 Valentin Andreae’s utopic treatise Christianopolis (1619) was highly influential not only for the Moravian theologian and pedagogue Comenius, for it also inspired the strand of Pietism that emerged in Halle around the figure of August Hermann Francke.66 Another key figure in the millenarian landscape of the seventeenth century is Jacob Böhme. The wait for the end of the times played only a marginal role in the German philosopher’s eschatology. However, his work was received and transformed by several authors, who in turn built the foundation for a revival of apocalyptical and millenarian speculations in the second half of the seventeenth century. Böhme waited for the upcoming age of 63 Quoted in Bütikofer, Der frühe Zürcher Pietismus (1689–1721), 322: “es wird in der religion und in der kirchen kein vereinigung und frid werden, bis zu der guldinen und letzen zeit, aber hernach wird der tag des herrn nicht weit sein” (transl. E. B.). 64 For a short overview on Paracelsus’ reception in the seventeenth century see Wollgast, “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Paracelsus”. On the single authors see R.  Edighoffer, Art. Andreae, Johann Valentin, in W. J.  Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006), 72–5; R. Edighoffer, Art. Rosicrucianism I, in W. J. Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006), 1009–14; W. Sommer, Art. Hoburg, Christian, in: RGG² 3 (2000), 1798–9; A. Weeks, Art. Boehme, Jacob, in W. J. Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006), 185–92; G.  Zaepernick, Art. Breckling, Friedrich, in: RGG⁴ 1 (1998), 1743. 65 See Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 130; see also C.  McIntosh, The Rose Cross and the age of the reason. Eighteenth-century rosicrucianism in Central Europe and its relationship to the Enlightenment (Leiden: Brill, 1992). 66 On the relationship between Andreae and his circle in Tübingen (Tobias Heß and the Rosicrucian) on the one hand, and Comenius on the other hand see M.  Widmann, Wege aus der Krise. Frühneuzetliche Reformvision bei Johann Valentin Andreae und Johann Amos Comenius (Epfendorf / ​Neckar: bibliotheca academica Verlag, 2011); M.  Widmann, “Wege aus der Krise. Johann Valentin Andreae und Johann Amos Comenius”, in P. Zemek / ​B. Jiři / ​ B.  Motel (ed.), Studien zu Comenius und zur Comeniusrezeption in Deutschland (Uherský Brod: Muzeum J. A. Komenského, 2008), 93–113. On the influence of Andreae’s Utopia on Pietism, particularly on Halle Pietism see T. Baumann, Zwischen Weltveränderung und Weltflucht. Zum Wandel der pietistischen Utopie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Lahr-Dinglingen: St.-Johannis-Dr. Schweickhardt, 1991).

118

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

the Spirit, when the true church would be restored and believers from different confessions would come together and attain their perfection (Vollkommenheit). Being convinced that a period of great tribulation had begun, he denounced the Mauerkirche and predicted the fall of Babel, which he saw not only in the Roman Catholic church but also in Protestantism. He believed that the coming of the thousand-year-kingdom was close, however, according to him, the Scripture was unclear on the precise time of its beginning. He refused to offer any prevision on that, for only God would know this secret and only God would be able to decide when and to whom to reveal it.67 Böhme’s ideas were received and transformed by different authors. England was particularly significant for the reception and transformation of Böhme’s ideas in that regard, for it was there that the works of the German philosopher were translated into English between 1647–1672. Böhme’s influence is present in the Cambridge Platonist Henry More, and in his disciple Anne Conway. However, the most significant reception and transformation of Böhme’s thought was among the groups that formed around John Pordage and Jane Lead: The Philadelphian Society. Eschatological expectations were central to the Philadelphians. Their position became, in turn, an important channel to rediscover and to spread Böhme’s ideas in Germany at the end of the century.68 John Pordage and Jane Lead developed Böhme’s eschatological speculation in a chiliastic direction speaking about the inception of the Philadelphian church, i. e., the true church that is unbounded from any specific church and made up of all “God’s children” reunited from all confessions. They also emphasized the fulfillment of divine prophecies. Lead’s eschatological expectations were, in addition, related to the doctrine of mystical regeneration of human souls. Taking it a step further than Böhme, the Philadelphians also developed the doctrine of universal restoration or apokatastasis.69 The reception and diffusion of the Philadelphian texts and ideas at the end of the seventeenth 67 On Böhme’s eschatological position see D. H. Shantz, “Radical Pietist Eschatology as a Complex Phenomenon”, 104–7; A. Hessayon, “Boehme’s Life and Times”, in A. Hessayon / ​ S. Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of Thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014), 13–37, here 25–6; E. Benz, “Verheissung und Erfüllung”, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935), 484–546. 68 On the reception of Philadelphian ideas in Germany see e. g., D. Shantz, Between Sardis and Philadelphia. The Life and World of Pietists Court Preacher Conrad Bröske (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2008), 130–5 69 On the reception of Jacob Böhme in England see Dohm, “Böhme-Rezeption in England”; C. D. Ensign, Radical German Pietism (unpublished Dissertation, Boston University Graduate School 1955), 189–99; R. H. Popkin, The third Force in Seventeenth-Century Tought (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 90–119; Hessayon, Jane Lead and her Transnational Legacy, particularly the contributes n. 4 (Lead’s Life and Times (Part Three): The Philadelphian Society), n. 6 (Jane Lead and English Apocalyptic Thought in the Late Seventeenth Century), and n. 7 (The Restitution of ‘Adam’s Angelical and Paradisiacal Body’: Jane Lead’s Metaphor of Rebirth and Mystical Marriage).

E schatology, irenicism and progress

119

century in Germany directly influenced the Petersens’ eschatological position on universal salvation, as discussed below. Another important linking point between the continent and England are the Kabbalists of the Sulzbach court, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont and Knorr von Rosenroth. As they were in contact with people from several confessions (among them Catholics, Anabaptists, and Quakers) and were persuaded that bliss was not linked to a particular confession, they promoted an over-confessional religion linked to the beginning of the one-thousand-year kingdom. The Kabbalah was regarded as being instrumental in attaining this ecumenical reunion. As Allison Coudert writes: Both [van Helmont and von Rosenroth] were convinced that Kabbalah offered the key to an ecumenical Christian religion which was superior to all other because it alone had the capacity to 1) unite all men in a single belief; 2) offer a theodicy which truly justified the ways of God to man by fully explaining the existence of evil and sin; 3) answer the questions raised by the philosophers, particularly those posed by Descartes concerning the relationship between mind and body, spirit and matter; and 4) provide men with such an accurate understanding of the natural world that they would be able to repair damage done by the Fall and restore the Earth to its prelapsarian state. These are substantial claims with important scientific and millenarian implications.70

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, it is possible to delineate a development of millenarian ideas in Germany even within the more orthodox branches of Lutheranism. After the wait for Christ’s future earthly Kingdom on Earth was rejected in article 17 of Confessio Augustana, this condemnation was not repeated in the Formula of Concord. The chiliastic issue did not give rise to any dispute within the Lutheran church until the first decades of the seventeenth century, when Ägidius Hunnius, a theologian from Wittenberg, described the erroneous chiliastic thesis, claiming that the start of the millennium coincided with Constantine’s era. The debate on the wait for Christ’s earthly Kingdom had reached a climax in 1622, when Georg Rostius, a theologian of Rostock, had written 70 See A. P. Coudert, The impact of the Kabbalah in the seventeenth century. The life and thought of Francis Mercury van Helmont (1614–1698) (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 118. On the Kabbalists of Sulzbach see also R. Zeller, “Wissenschaft und Chiliasmus. Heterodoxe Strömungen am Hof von Sulzbach. Wissenschaft und Chiliasmus bei Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont and Henry More”, in H. Laufhütte / ​M. Titzmann (ed.), Heterodoxie in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006), 291–307. On the irenic and over-confessional ideas behind the Kabbalah see particularly Battafarano (ed.), Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. Apokaypse-Kommentar, 197–205. Also, the issue 21 of Morgen-Glantz is devoted to the topic of the millennium in seventeenth century, especially in Sulzbach but not only, see R. Zeller, Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (21 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2011), particularly 9–14.

120

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

against the “new heavenly prophets, Rosicrucian, Chiliasts, and Enthusiasts”.71 In the same year Johann Gerhard’s Loci Theologici was published, where he introduced the abstract concept of “chiliasmus” to indicate the hope for an earthly kingdom before the day of judgment.72 The millenarian issue generated interest in the Lutheran environment with the diffusion among spiritualists of the notion of aureum seculum, especially as propagated by Andreae and the Rosicrucian. In order to counter this position, the Lutheran orthodoxy attempted to redefine the millennium, perhaps creating a fertile soil for a further development of this issue starting with Philipp Jakob Spener. Daniel Cramer, a student of Ägidius Hunnius and friend of Johann Gerhard, published in 1614 his treatise De Regno Jesu Christi, in which he differentiated between two millenarian expectations. Besides the expectation of Christ’s earthly Kingdom – termed chiliasmus crassus – he recognized a new hope for a better condition of the church on Earth before the judgment Day – a position he called chiliasmus subtilis.73 Furthermore, he pointed out that this kind of hope was based not only on Rev 20, but also on the prophetic promises set out in the Old Testament, more specifically on the Sibyls’ promises, and on the tradition of the first church. Cramer also offered a new interpretation of the beginning of the millennium. In addition to Luther’s position, according to which the kingdom started during John’s time, and beyond the idea that the millennium had started under Constantin, he suggested that the millennium had begun with the Reformation movement of Luther and his contemporaries. Cramer’s interpretation of the millenarian kingdom appeared as an annotation to Luther’s Bible after 1620, so that this controversy around Rev 20 was broadly known and gave readers the possibility of encountering the notion of the millennium. The analysis of different possible chiliastic positions was further developed by Johann Affelmann, a theologian in Rostock, who distinguished five chiliastic expectations: in addition to Christ’s return on Earth and the future better condition of the church, he also included the return of the Jewish people to the promised Land, the beginning of a third epoch of the Spirit according to the vision of Joachim of Fiore, and the hope of the restoration of the paradisiacal condition. Affelmann’s position is quoted by other theologians, such as Matthias Hoe von Hoenegg and Abraham Calov.

71 Quoted in J. Wallmann, “Reich Gottes und Chiliasmus in der lutherischen Orthodoxie”, 107. I refer to Wallmann’s study to describe the position of the Lutheran theologians on the chiliastic issue. 72 Before using the concept “chiliasm” the concepts Chiliastae, Millenarii, Milliastae, Cerinthiani, etc. were used; see Wallmann, “Reich Gottes und Chiliasmus in der lutherischen Orthodoxie”, 108. 73 This distinction can be found also in the controversy on chiliasm around Spener, Petersen and the theologians of Lüneburg, Celle and Hamburg.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

121

Whereas these positions were generally critical towards chiliasm, positive orientations towards the millenarian expectation can be found among some of Johann Arndt’s followers. Paul Egard was the first among Lutheran theologians to interpret Rev 20 in the chiliastic sense. Following the tradition of Joachim of Fiore, he speaks about an epoch of the Spirit, in which there will be a new divine light and Christ’s Kingdom will occur in the heart of believers. In contrast to the spiritualists and the Rosicrucian, he asserts that the upcoming kingdom is not a new prophecy or fruit of visions, but a scriptural promise which, once obscure, was becoming clear for the time of its fulfillment was approaching (he believed this kingdom would have started in 1625). During this kingdom – which precedes the end of the world – Christ would gain widespread recognition and acceptance, the secrets of nature would be disclosed and there would be one God, ending all confessional conflicts. Egard’s position was never rejected or debated by other Lutheran theologians, contrary to what happened to Pastor Georg Lorenz Seidenbecher. In his Chiliasmus sanctus – published in 1660 in Amsterdam – Seidenbecher openly supported the millenarian position and, referring also to the Rosicrucian, he claimed that the one-thousand-year kingdom was a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit and meant a “more glorious condition of Christ’s church on the Earth”. Contrary to Egard who wanted to be no more than an exegete of the Bible, Seidenbecher’s position was shaped by other chiliasts in the Netherland, such as Petrus Serrarius, by Reformed millenarians, such as Johann Heinrich Alsted, Patrick Forbesius and Andreas Rallius, or by adherents of Böhme, such as Abraham von Franckenberg, Ludwig Friedrich Gifftheil, Joachim Betke and Friedrich Breckling. The latter, after being removed from office, was forced to take refuge in the tolerant Netherlands, where he published in 1663, in Amsterdam, a chiliastic text entitled Christus Judex.74 A different destiny was reserved for the pastor in Halberstadt Heinrich Ammersbach, who in 1665 anonymously published two treatises: Geheimnis der letzen Zeiten and Betrachtung der Gegenwärtigen und künfftigen Zeiten. Referring to Egard, to Breckling and to Seidenbecher, as well as to the spiritualistic tradition, he argued that the chiliastic position had been not yet refuted by the Lutheran orthodoxy and that it was not against the analogia fidei. Despite the criticism he had encountered from the universities of Helmstedt, Marburg and Rinteln, Ammersbach was not removed from office thanks to the politics of tolerance practiced in Brandenburg-Prussia, where he resided.

74 On Breckling’s and Seidenbecher’s chiliasm and on their relationship also see J. Strom, “Krisenbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung bei Friedrich Breckling”, in W. Breul / ​J. C. Schnurr (ed.) Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 84–102.

122

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Spener’s “Hoffnung künfftiger besserer Zeiten” Among the chiliastic positions that circulated in the seventeenth century the work of Philipp Jakob Spener assumes a significant place. Spener’s idea of a future better condition of the church is testified for the first time in a letter to Johanna Eleonora Petersen in December 1674.75 It is difficult to precisely establish when Spener began to support this position, it is, however, clear that until the 1670s he had rejected such an idea and had begun to develop his standpoint in the Frankfurt environment, influenced, most likely, by Johann Jakob Schütz.76 In the above mentioned letter to Johanna Eleonora, he writes about a “fulfillment of God’s promises”, without explaining what that meant. Was it the Last Judgment? The conversion of Jews? The better condition of the church? He only refers to the arrival of the “spring”, i. e., a condition which would forerun the “summer” of fulfillment.77 Spener’s first public statement on the future of the church can be found in his preface to Arndt’s Postille, a work later published as single text under the title Pia Desideria.78 The position presented in this text does not essentially change until 1690, namely until the beginning of the discussions around Johann Wilhelm Petersen. Spener’s position in these years is delineated by some clearly-identifiable features. First, he did not invoke chiliasm or Christ’s Kingdom. In fact, his standpoint was defined by the expression “Hoffnung kunfftiger besseren Zeiten”, i. e., “hopes of better times in the future”. Such a hope or wait for a better future condition of the church is based on the idea of the fulfilment of God’s promises. But Spener refrained from quoting any biblical passages in corroboration. As Krauter-Dierolf remarks, there is neither direct nor indirect reference to Rev 20, the classical passage usually linked to chiliasm.79 The theologian, however, identifies some events connected with this 75 Spener’s eschatology is presented in Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, on which this paragraph is based. 76 See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 10–24. I will deal with the chiliastic influences on Spener, Schütz and the Petersens in Frankfurt in the third chapter of this work. 77 The letter is also published in M.  Matthias (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Die Anfänge des Pietismus in seinen Briefen (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016), 144–50. Here the passage where he speaks about this condition: “Solte aber GOtt der gesamten kirche eine sonderbahre freude geben wollen, hätten wir nichts bessers zuwünschen, als ob seine weißheit allgemach die zeit kommen wolte lassen der erfüllung der jenigen dinge, die er noch zu trost seiner gläubigen hat verheissen und auffzeichnen lassen. Ach, solte dieses das jahr seyn, da Gott wolte lassen anfangen die jenigen frühlings tage anbrechen, welche wir noch vor den letzen trübsalen und darauff folgenden neuen sommer warten!“. 78 Pia Desideria was published in 1675. For Spener’s position in this period until the 1690s see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 29–81 79 See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 30. Even though in the first years Spener never mentioned Rev. 20 as the scriptural basis for his “hopes of better times”, in a letter, speaking about the future better condition of the church, he mentions the Apocalypse,

E schatology, irenicism and progress

123

better condition of the church: the conversion of the Jews, as promised in Rom 11:25–26, and the fall of Babylon as promised in Rev 18 and 19, whereby Babylon is clearly identified with the papacy in Rome, as Spener remembers, a perspective borrowed from Luther.80 However, whereas Luther had only seen the beginning of the fall of Rome, this event was much larger and had not yet been accomplished. When these two events happen – Spener remarks – there will be no more doubt that the church will be blessed with a more glorious condition.81 This better condition is characterized as a spiritual renewal, but what this situation entails is not specified in detail. In Pia Desideria, Spener presents his views on the future better condition of the church, which he will not publicly revisit until the 1690s. Between 1675 and the beginning of the 1690s, Spener occasionally addressed this topic, and particularly the meaning of Rev 20, in his letters, especially in his letters to Johann Wilhelm in the 1680s. Nevertheless, Spener remains consistent about rejecting the position of other authors of his time that were labelled as “chiliasm”, as that of Knorr von Rosenroth.82 Spener’s views on the future condition of the church received new impulses in the 1690s, when he was asked by some theologians from Hamburg to clarify his position on some issues, among them his position on chiliasm.83 Alongside the controversy around Petersen’s millenarianism in Lüneburg, another debate was sparked on the millenarian issue between Spener and some theologians of Hamburg, which lasted until 1696. In my opinion, a progressive development in Spener’s position can be charted out, which moves in the direction of chiliasm overtime, without contradicting his original position on the better future condition of the church.84 In the first text, Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken (18 August 1690), Spener defends the chiliastic position, claiming that there are see An [Elias Veiel] (Frankfurt am Main, Anfang 1675), in J. Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 10: “Si vero Apocalypsin intueor, in aliquam spem erigor”. 80 On these expressions see Philipp Jakob Spener. Pia Desideria. Deutsche-Lateinische Studienausgabe, 88: “Sehen wir die heilige Schrifft an / so haben wir nicht zu zweifflen / daß Gott noch einigen bessern zustand seiner Kirchen hier auff Erden versprochen habe”, and 90: “Erfolgen nun diese beyde stücke / so sihe ich nicht / wie gezweiffelt werden könne / daß nicht die gesamte wahre kirche werde in einen viel seligern und herrlichern stande gesetzt werden / als sie ist”. 81 See Köster (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Pia Desideria, 88. 82 See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 72–8. 83 On 14 March 1690 24 of 27 members of the Ministerium of Hamburg undersigned the so-called Revers, a document which Spener was obliged to answer. Among the pastors who did not sign it were Johann Winckler, Heinrich Horb and Abraham Hinckelmann. See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 85. 84 Krauter Dierolf remarks, on the contrary, on the fact that Spener never labelled his position as chiliastic and that this remained essentialy the same until the end.

124

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

several kinds of chiliasm; in addition to the so-called chiliasmus crassus and subtilis, there was also a chiliasmus subtilissimus. This latter concept embraces all positions on the betterment of the church, conversion of the Jews and the fall of Babel, while also entailing the wait for a one-thousand-year kingdom based on an interpretation of Rev 20. Spener seeks to thus differentiate between the chiliasm of Cerinthus and other kinds of chiliastic positions. Secondly, he argues that, although chiliasm does not belong to the main articles of faith, it is not against them and does not undermine the basis of the faith, which depends upon belief in Christ as savior.85 The distinction between different kinds of chiliasm is present also in Die Freyheit der Glaübigen (1691). Here Spener claims that not all kinds of chiliasm are rejected in CA 17, but just the chiliasmus crassus, i. e., the expectation of a second coming of Christ on Earth. Indeed, as already explained, this article explicitly rejects only the position of the Jews and the Anabaptists regarding an earthly kingdom. Therefore – Spener argues – it would not be correct to add to these words. At the same time, it would not be possible to deny that the Confessio at the very least allowed one kind of chiliasm, the kind promised in Rev 20, i. e., a one-thousand-year period during which the Devil would be enchained and can no longer seduce the heathens until the attainment of the kingdom.86 Moreover, referring to the fivefold distinction put forth by the theologian Johann Affelmann, Spener introduced a variation of chiliasm very similar to the chiliasm of the Petersens; he speaks, indeed, of millenarians who believe not only in a spiritual but also in a corporeal bliss.87 In this text, 85 See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 85–120. For the text of Spener see Philipp Jakob Speners Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken über den von einigen des E. Hamburgischen Ministerii publicirten Neuen Religions-Eid (Ploen: Gedruckt durch Tobias Schmidt, 1690), Die dritte Frage (not paginated). The text is also published in E. Beyreuther / ​ D. Blaufuß (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Schriften (5 vol.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2005), 97–132, here 112–13. The distinction chiliasmus crassus and chiliasmus subtilis comes from the Lutheran scholastic theologian Johann Gerhard (1582–1637) in Loci, De consummatione seculii, c. VII. According to Gerhard, chiliasmus subtilis indicates a condition of peace for the church, justice and unity in true faith, whereas chiliasmus crassus indicates all kinds of earthly pleasures, see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 109. To this distinction Spener adds a chliasmus subtilissimus, a denomination which does not come from him, he states indeed that “some other adds subtilissimus”, but he does say who these other authors are. Johann Friedrich Mayer, Spener’s main opponent, asserts that this distinction of three kinds of chiliasm is quite unknown, see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 110. 86 P. J. Spener, Die Freyheit der Glaubigen, von dem Ansehen der Menschen in Glaubens-­ Sachen / In gründlicher beantwortung der so genanndten Abgenöthigten Schutz-Schrifft / Welche im Namen Des Evangelischen hamburgischen Ministerii Von Herrn D.  Johann Friederich Meyern / außgefertiget worden / Gerettet von Philipp Jacob Spenern / D. (Franckfurt am Mäyn: Zunners, 1691). Also, this text is published in Beyreuther / ​Blaufuß (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Schriften, 5 vol., 133–260. The chiliastic issue is faced in chapter 5.  87 See P. J. Spener, Die Freyheit der Glaubigen, 74: “5. Welche alles solches zugleich geistlich und leiblich verstanden haben wollen / und eine solche grosse seligkeit vor dem jüngsten tag

E schatology, irenicism and progress

125

Spener defends all those who support a chiliasm that does not counter the CA, arguing that, since their position is neither against the main articles of faith nor undermines them, they must not be excluded from the Christian brotherhood.88 Finally, also addressing the theologians in Lüneburg, Spener urges a judgment on this issue based on the Scripture.89 In Behauptung der Hoffnung künfftiger besser Zeiten (1693), Spener expressed his position on chiliasm without addressing the criticism of other theologians.90 Unlike his previous publications, chiliasm was the only topic discussed, in particular through the interpretation of Luke 18:8: “when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the Earth?”. This excerpt was one of the main passages used by opponents of chiliasm to prove it wrong. According to Spener’s interpretation of Luke’s passage, it did not refer to Christ’s coming on the Day of Judgment, but, rather, to a judgment that had already been passed on the Jews, and to each saving intervention of Christ. Furthermore, Spener juxtapposed a verse from Dan 12:4 to this passage: “Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased”, claiming that God increasingly shines his light on the souls to progressively reveal his promises; the closer the last times approach, the more God offers men his light. This text does not present a different standpoint on the future condition of the church; nevertheless, in comparison to the other texts, Spener clearly bases this idea on Rev 20 for the first time. The subsequent years saw continued debates around Spener’s chiliastic position with the superintendent of Lübeck August Pfeiffer as the main protagonist. Pfeiffer was also involved in the discussion around Petersen’s millenarianism. Other theologians involved in the debate with Spener were the superintendent in Kirchhayn Johann Simon, the theologian of Wittenberg Georg Neumann, the Belziger superintendent Jacob Wächtler, and the preacher from Denmark Ernst Christian Boldig.91 In his response to these theologians, Spener’s standpoint

versprechen / als vor dem fall gewesen wäre”. Despite this passage, Spener does always reject a corporeal resurrection, and speaks, on the contrary, about a spiritual reign. Johann Affelmann (1588–1624) was a German Lutheran theologian. 88 See P. J. Spener, Die Freyheit der Glaubigen, 83. 89 See P. J. Spener, Die Freyheit der Glaubigen, 91, 93. 90 D.  Philipp Jakob Speners Behauptung Der Hoffnung künfftiger Besserer Zeiten / In Rettung Des ins gemein gegen dieselbe unrecht angeführten Spruchs Luc. XIIX, v. 8. Doch wan[n] des menschen Sohn kommen wird / meynest du / daß Er auch werde glauben finden auff erden? (Frankfurt am Mayn: Zunner, 1693). On this text see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 145–72; H. Krauter-Dierolf, “Hoffnung künftiger besserer Zeiten. Die Eschatologie Philipp Jacob Speners im Horizont der zeitgenössischen lutherischen Theologie”, in W. Breul / ​C. Schnurr (ed.), Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 56–68. 91 On the discussions with these authors see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 173–284.

126

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

did not present any substantial change; his idea of a future kingdom is, however, clarified in greater detail, especially the points regarding the conversion of the Jews and the fall of Babel. After this short overview on the development of Spener’s idea of a better future condition of the church, the question as to whether Spener’s position could be defined “chiliastic” is raised almost automatically. Although some theologians accused him of supporting a chiliastic opinion, Spener was always circumspect in labeling his position in this way.92 Krauter-Dierolf concludes that Spener’s position on a better future condition of the church did not undergo any substantial change and it cannot be labelled “chiliastic”.

Remarks on eschatological positions in the seventeenth century Before proceeding with the analysis of the Petersens’ eschatological position, we can briefly summarize some conclusions on the scenario described until now. The authors who supported chiliastic positions, or at least expectations of better future times for the church represent a minority in the seventeenth century. Despite the differences in their eschatological views  – which likely produced as many positions as authors – it is possible to identify some common features. In comparison to the Lutheran position on the end of the times, that the world was in its last stages, eschatological expectations for a better future condition of the church, for a golden age, or for the promised one-thousand-year Kingdom of Christ do not substantially change the idea that history developed in a circumscribed period of time and that this was clearly oriented towards God’s Kingdom and glory. On the other hand, the wait for an upcoming better condition, in several cases, encouraged action towards changing the socio-political conditions (the most emblematic and radical case in this sense being the Fifth Monarchy Men) or for improving the knowledge of the world (as in the case of the Rosicrucian, who aimed to attain the knowledge of all secrets of nature before Christ’s coming). Biblical promises and prophetical books (especially the book of Daniel and the Revelation of John) as well as the role of God’s Spirit to read and to comprehend them received renewed attention and importance. Such a wait for a better or more glorious condition entailed the wait for a new order, for a cosmic harmony, for the reunion and cooperation of all confessions in acknowledgment of the truth by the entire world.93 This awaited new order of things was, on the one hand, opposed to the idea of Babylon and the Antichrist, which were generally identified with papacy and with the hierarchical church order of bishops, even if other interpretations were possible. This new order was

92 See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 269. 93 See Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 130; PuN 14 (1988), 5. 

E schatology, irenicism and progress

127

linked to the overcoming of confessional boundaries and ecclesiastical order, which several authors expressed as an open criticism of the Mauerkirche.94 The new spirit brought by the hope for better times or for Christ’s Kingdom is also testified by a certain widespread stance at the turn of the seventeenth century. The turn of the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries saw the rise of great eschatological expectations. But, whereas in the sixteenth century, the general feeling was of being at the end of the times, at the turn of the seventeenth century a more optimistic prospect of a “new time” linked to renewal and peace could be observed.95 The writings of the Leipzig philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz are paradigmatic in that regard.

2.1.4 The Petersens’ eschatological view in context How can the eschatology of the Petersens, their millenarian expectation and their apokatastasis doctrine be situated within the eschatological landscape of the seventeenth century?96 The network of chiliastic authors described above indicates that the Petersens did not introduce new expectations or ideas, but, rather, inherited an already widespread stance and shared perspectives. Their understanding of the wait for Christ’s millenarian Kingdom shares the general widespread stance which viewed this period of time as just preceding the end of the world. The beginning 94 The Antichrist took on different connotations in the seventeenth century; generally, in Protestant environments, Babylon was interpreted as the papacy and the Roman Catholic church. In England it was identified also with a part of the church itself, see Hill, Antichrist in seventeenth-century England. For Spener, it was the Roman Catholic church, but also a part of the Lutheran church, see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, especially 54–61. The concept Mauerkirche comes from the theosophic-paracelsian tradition, it can be found particularly in Weigel, Andreae and Jacob Böhme; on this concept and its relationship to union attempts in German spiritualists, as well as their influences on Pietism see M. Schimdt, “Der Pietismus und die Einheit der Kirche”, in K.  Herbert (ed.), Um Evangelische Einheit. Beiträge zum Unionsproblem (Herborn: Oranien, 1967), 67–114. 95 On these two different stances, see T. Kaufmann, “1600 – Deutungen der Jahrhundertwende im deutschen Luthertum”, in M.  Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​H.  Lehmann / ​J.  Schilling / ​ R.  Staats (ed.), Jahrhundertwenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 73–128; M. Jakubowski-Tiessen, “Eine alte Welt und ein neuer Himmel. Zeitgenössische Reflexionen zur Jahrhundertwende 1700”, in M.  Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​H.  Lehmann / ​J.  Schilling / ​R .  Staats (ed.), Jahrhundert­ wenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vanden­hoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 165–86. 96 The role that the millennium and the apokatastasis play and the question on their relationship is also dealt with by Friedhelm Groth, who considers the Petersens’ apokatastasis doctrine a “radicalization” of the millenarian expectation, and Spener’s “Hoffnung künfftiger besserer Zeiten” the way that prepared it. He does not explain, however, the relationship between these two doctrines, see Groth, Die “Wiederbringung aller Dinge”, 35–51.

128

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

of Christ’s Kingdom meant the end of “this world” and, as a consequence, also the end of history and time: “the holy doctrine of the future blessed one-thousand years … is nothing other than the last times that mark the end of this present evil world and the beginning of the future holy and just world”.97 The expression “new Earth and new heaven” does not recur often in the writings of the Petersens, however, they discuss the transformation of the Earth: “in that time sweet wine will flow from mountains and milk from hills. … At that time the gold rose will come, the former sovereignty, the kingdom of the daughters of Jerusalem”.98 The continuity between the Petersens’ chiliastic expectation and the widespread conception of history and time among the contemporaries is also indicated by the shared belief that the world would last 6000 years, that these years had to be divided according to Daniel’s four beasts, and that the development of history was characterized by the succession of the seven apocalyptical churches.99 The idea of a 6000-year long history recurs, for instance when they invoke Matthias Wasmuth’s computations, which are based precisely on this belief.100 This period of time is, in turn, divided according to Daniel’s vision of the four beasts, which represent the four reigns, followed by Christ’s Kingdom, the fifth reign. The fourth beast is interpreted as the Roman empire, and it corresponds to the Antichrist: the four beasts are the four reigns of the world, and the fourth reign is the Roman Empire Dan 7:11–14/27; in addition to these reigns of the beast there is still a fifth reign, namely Christ’s Kingdom, which will not begin until all other reigns are destroyed and cease. … The mercy-reign, which started with the birth of Christ and which Christ brought into the hearth of human beings, cannot be the fifth reign, since it did not destroy the other reigns.101 97 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gegen-Anmerckungen, V: Gründliche Betrachtungen über Hänssler, § 58, 34–5: “die heilige Lehre von denen noch zukünfftigen gesegneten tausend Jahren (die im Grunde nichts anders sind/ … als die letze Zeit / welche dieser gegenwärtigen bösen Welt ein Ende und von der zukünfftigen heiligen und gerechten Welt den anfang machet”. 98 J. W. Petersen, Klarer Beweiß daß das Reich Christi noch fest stehe, § 30, 96: “Zur selbigen Zeit werden die Berge mit süssen Wein fliessen / und die Hügel mit Milch fliessen/ … Da wird kommen die güldene Rose / die vorige Herrschafft / das Königreich der Tochter Jerusalem!”. 99 See M. Pohlig, ““The greatest of all Events”: Zur Säkularisierung des Weltendes um 1700”, in M. Pohling (ed.), Säkularisierung in der Frühen Neuzeit. Methodische Probleme und empirische Fallstudien (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2012), 331–71, here 334. 100 See c. 1, § 1.2: The seventh trumpet, or the beginning of the Millenium. 101 J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung und Beweis, § XI, 19 and § XII, 21: “Damit aber diese Sache nun eigentlicher gesehen werde / so praesupponire ich als ein gewisses und ausgemachtes / daß die vier Thiere die 4. Reiche der Welt sind / und daß das 4te Reich das Römische Reich sey Dan. 7. 11,12,13,14, 27. seqq. über dieselbe Thierische Reiche ist noch ein 5tes Reich / als das Reich Christi / welches nicht ehe angehet / biß die vier ersten Reiche gantz aus sind / und zugleich alle andere Reiche und Thiere unter den gantzen Himmel auffgehoben / und zerstöhret liegen. Daraus nohtwendig folget / daß das 5te noch nicht ange-

E schatology, irenicism and progress

129

The interpretation of the fourth beast as the Roman Empire dates back to Jerome’s comment on Daniel’s book and it was used over the centuries to legitimize the transition from the Roman Empire to the Holy Roman Empire. This interpretation was quite ambiguous, for, given the negative character of the fourth reign preceding the Kingdom of Christ, the emperor could be interpreted as the antichrist and this would position the rulers under the feet of the clergy.102 Conceiving the fourth reign as the apocalyptical Babylon, the wait for the fifth everlasting Kingdom of Christ implies the defeat of all political powers and kingdoms and the instauration of God’s Kingdom.103 In the eschatology of the Petersens, the beginning of the millennium, in turn, correlates with the sixth apocalyptic church, i. e., the Philadelphian church.104 Also on this point, their eschatology is based on the traditional paradigm of history as divided into six or seven church-epochs and, therefore, as a period of time edging towards a last and final stage.105 What did the “Philadelphian age” entail for the Petersens? As Johann Wilhelm asserts When Christ and His Kingdom appear, He will merge the hearts of the fathers with those of their children, like the fraternal love appears in the Philadelphian Society now, and the children of the kingdom will find unity through the word of Truth made chaste, in the same way as the Father and the Son are one and the same.106 fangen / sondern allererst angehen sotle / wenn mit den itzigen Römischen auch alle andere Reiche unter dem gantzen Himmel auffgehoben/… XII. Wenn man auch die Umstände besiehet / so mag die Zeit / da Christus gebohren ist / nicht das 5te Reich Danielis mit sich gebracht haben / denn das Reich / welches das Gnaden-Reich genandt wird / daß Christus anfinge in den Hertzen der Menschen / verstöhret nicht die Königreiche (Evangelium non abolet Politias)”. See also J. W.  Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Anderer Theil, 13: “Wie nun die erste Welt von der Sündfluth ihren Jüngsten Tag / und ihre letze Stunde / und gewissen periodum hatte/ … also hat auch die jetzige Thier-Welt / in welcher die vier Thiere ihre gewisse bestimmte Zeit haben / ihren jüngsten Tag / ihre letze Stunde und ihren gewissen periodum / bey dessen Endigung nach dem Schwur des Apocalyptischen Engels keine Zeit mehr übrig ist. … denn das vierte letze Danielische Thier war schon da / nemlich das Römische Reich”. 102 See on this point Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis, 392–401. 103 See on this point also A. Klempt, Die Säkularisierung der universalhistorischen Auffassung. Zum Wandel des Geschichtsdenkens im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1960), 31.  104 See c. 1, § 1.2. 105 See Klempt, Die Säkularisierung der universalhistorischen Auffassung, 23. This paradigm was criticized by several authors, Melanchthon was already critical towards this conception, and especially in the seventeenth century some authors started dividing history into a more secular schema: historia vetus, medium aevum and historia nova. 106 J. W.  Petersen, Bekentnnüß von dem zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, not-paged (1): “Aber wann er nun kommen wird mit seiner Erscheinung / und mit seinem Reiche / so wird er die Hertzen der Väter mit den Kindern / vereinigen lassen / wie itzo in der Philadelphischen Gemeine die Bruderliebe mit Macht hervorkommt / und die Kinder des Reiches durch das Wort der Warheit keusch gemachet Eins seyn werden / gleich wie der Sohn und der Vater Eins ist”.

130

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

The Philadelphian church, therefore, represented an anticipation of the unity and peace promised during the one-thousand-year kingdom. As Peter Vogt concludes in defining the main features of the Philadelphian church (especially as developed by the English Philadelphian Society), it represents not only a spiritual unity and brotherhood detached from and opposed to any particular confession or church, but it also introduces the apocalyptical expectation of the return of Christ.107 Christ’s personal apparition – as described by Jane Lead – cannot be expected before the inception of the Philadelphian Church on Earth, which can receive him.108 This Philadelphian ideal represents the first clue for exploring the link between the millenarian expectation and the apokatastasis doctrine, for this element is present in both the chiliastic texts – where the Philadelphian church represents the last church preceding and preannouncing the coming of Christ’s Kingdom – and in the texts on universal salvation – that were published by the Petersens under the pseudonym “Member of the German Philadelphian Society”. The first edition of Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton also opens with a hymn to the Philadelphian community. The hymn concludes with the auspice that all enemies recognize God’s love upon them and his glory manifested in the coming of Christ’s Kingdom.109 In their writings on apokatastasis, the Petersens suggest that the apokatastasis doctrine facilitates the reconciliation of confessions – entailed in the Philadelphian church and the pre-condition for the beginning of the millennium. It is also the means for achieving confessional reunion – as explained at the begin-

107 See Vogt, ““Philadelphia”- Inhalt, Verbreitung und Einfluss eines radikal-pietistischen Schlüsselbegriffs”, 843–4: “Diese philadelphische Periode wird die Sammlung und Vereinigung aller wahren Kinder Gottes aus allen Kirchen in eine sichtbare Gemeischaft brüderlicher Liebe bringen und die endzeitliche Wiederkunft Christi einleiten”. 108 Quoted in Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 113. On the Philadelphian church as a reunion of confessions and premise for the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, also see M. Meier, “Der ‘neue Mensch’ nach Jane Lead. Anthropologie zwischen Böhme und Frühaufklärung”, in U. Sträter (ed.), Alter Adam und Neue Kreatur. Pietismus und Anthropologie. Beiträge zum II. Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2005 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2009), 136–49, here 145–9. At this point, a question on the political and social meaning of the millenarian expectation supported by the couple could be raised: Does it have political consequences? Considered from a theoretical point of view, the answer is positive, since the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom implies the end of all other reigns, as well as the triumph of the true church over the Mauerkirche. However, the Petersens were never political activists as in the case of the Fifth Monarchy Men; they mostly organized lectures, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 114. In relationship to the Philadelphian Society, they declared to be members of it, but they never actively organized groups; on the contrary – Albrecht states – they conducted an independent and uncommitted existence, see ibidem. 109 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Der gantzen Gemeine des lebendigen Gottes, not paged.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

131

ning of this chapter.110 To recognize the truth entailed in and announced by the apokatastasis doctrine, i. e., God’s universal love, is thus the essential postulate for generating agreement among confessions. Consequently, the apokatastasis doctrine is the condition to preparing for the arrival of Christ’s Kingdom. Whereas, from this point of view, the apokatastasis doctrine contributes to the realization of the chiliastic kingdom, the differences and novelties of the eschatological perspective implied in the apokatastasis doctrine must be not overlooked. As described in the first chapter, the millenarian expectation and the apokatastasis doctrine are based on and call for two different eschatological views: a dualistic eschatology which does not nullify the differences between the good and the evil on one side, and a universal restitution of all beings on the other side. In this sense, the apokatastasis doctrine builds on the chiliastic position and develops it even further. The one-thousand-year kingdom is the beginning of creatures’ return to God, but not the last event. It signals the end of the earthly evil world and the start of the new saintly and just world.111 Distinguishing the present time from the future time and from the “silent eternity”, Petersen asserts that the present time is composed of two time-cycles: the first one is from the creation until the deluge, the second from the deluge until the end of the four monarchies. As for the future time, it is constituted by the one-thousand-year kingdom, “which starts with the end of this evil world and with Christ’s [arrival], and develop until when the second death is also nullified, and Christ, having subjugated everything, will deliver the kingdom to the Father”.112 This future period is, in turn, divided into two time-cycles: the millennium and the eternity of eternities [Ewigkeit derer Ewigkeiten]. This last is the day of Christ’s marriage with his bride, during which heaven and Earth will be transfigured and renovated, Christ will reign with his owns, and the evil will be thrown in the fiery puddle. This second period of the future world, or eternities of eternities, will last until the final universal restitution or deliver of the kingdom.113 110 See c. 2, § 1.1. 111 The millenarian issue is quoted on several occasion in the treatises on apokatastasis, see J. E. Petersen, Das Ewige Evangelium, 22; J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, XVII, 11; Gespräch II, XXIII, 22–3; J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Vorrede, § 37; Gründliche Antwort auff Wincklers, § 57, 32 and § 63, 36; Gründliche Betrachtungen über Hänssler, § 58, 34; etc. 112 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, XXIII, 22: “welcher sich von dem Ende der gegenwärtigen argen Welt oder mit bemeldter Zukunfft Christi anfangen und biß an das Punctum hinan reichen wird / da aller / und also auch der andere Todt / welcher ist der feurige Pful / auffgehaben werden / und Christus / nachdem ihm absolute alles / nichts außgenommen / unterthan oder unterordnet seyn wird / das Reich […] seinem himmlischen Vatter überantworten”. 113 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, XXIII, 23: “die auff die gesegnete Tausend Jahre oder den Tag der Hochzeit Christi folgende aiones tov aionon, Ewigkeiten derer Ewigkeiten / die da mögen genennet werden die Tage der ewigen Ehe Christi

132

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

The millennium, therefore, signals the beginning of the new world, not its end. Christ will still reign for several other cycles of time, until the last creature is converted to God, and God will be all in all.114 The use of certain common concepts to describe the millennium and apokatastasis also suggests a strict interconnection between the two doctrines as well as a development. The apokatastasis, or Wiederbringug aller Dinge, is the very last event, when God will be finally alles in allem, everything in everything. These concepts – apokatastasis, Wiederbringung, alles in allem – were used by the Petersens to also describe their chiliastic position. Similarly, they called the announcement of both the millenarian kingdom and universal salvation Ewiges Evangelium or eternal gospel. The first two concepts – apokatastasis and alles in allem – indicate a restitution to God and his glory, though with a difference. According to chiliasm, evil will be not completely overcome as only a part of the creation will be restituted to God, but, importantly, the Devil will no longer have the power to seduce. In the case of the apokatastasis doctrine, restitution is of the entire creation, this means that every creature will return to God, everyone will be saved and restituted in the original uncorrupted image. The expression alles in allem indicates a return to Einigkeit, to unity. Even here a development in the meaning of this expression can be noted. Alles in allem within chiliasm indicates that God’s glory will be manifested all over the world, but in the context of universal restauration, it means a return of the entire fallen creation to unity, i. e., to God.115 As for the expression “ewiges Evangelium” or “eternal Gospel”, i. e., the last and everlasting proclamation of God, the Petersens use it to indicate both the millennium and the apokatastasis doctrine, where the eternal truth proclaimed by the apocalyptical angel will no longer be about Christ’s upcoming millenarian kingdom, but rather about the universal salvation, about God’s universal love for everyone. Calling for the reunion of confessions, the apokatastasis doctrine is strictly linked to the millenarian expectation and represents the premise for preparing

und seiner Braut / worinnen die Himmel und die Erden völlig werden verkläret und erneueret seyn / Christus mit denen Seinigen auff eine andere Gott-bekandte Weise regieren / und alles Böse in den feurigen Pfuhl gestürtzet seyn wird. Dieser andere Haupt-Theil der zukünfftigen Welt / oder diese Ewigkeiten derer Ewigkeiten reichen / wie oben gemeldet / hinan biß an das punctum der endlichen Wiederbringung aller Dinge / und der Überantwortung des Reichs”. 114 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 14; Gespräch I, LXXV, 50; Gespräch I, CCL, 240. 115 Such a return to unity and the fact that God will be “all in all” do not mean that everything will become of the same substance of God and will be nullified in God. On the contrary, such a restitution is described as a Wiederkehr and not as a Verderbung or Vernichtung: the individual essence will return to God but is not annihilated in God, see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, XLVI–XLVIII, 25–6.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

133

for Christ’s return and the beginning of his reign. On the other hand, this doctrine is also a step forward in relationship to the chiliastic truth: Christ’s Kingdom is no longer the last announcement, not the last event before the end of the times. Compared to the chiliastic position, the apokatastasis doctrine introduces two important novelties. The first novelty is about the time-conception. Although the millenarian expectation signaled a break with the traditional Lutheran idea of being at the end of the times, opening up the space for active and practical impulses to achieve the promised better condition, it was still inscribed in the Judaic vision, according to which the world would last 6000 years, and thus making it possible not only to calculate the end but also forecast the events leading to it.116 Contrary to that, the apokatastasis doctrine opens up the possibility of contemplating an indefinite and unknown future, in terms of events and time-calculations (Petersen postulates an undetermined number of time-­ cycles – the eternity of eternities – after the millennium). However, the world is not “endless”, for the direction and ultimate scope of history, i. e., the return of every creature to God and the splendor of his glory, is a clear and well-defined point.117 It is, instead, possible to speak about “progress” or “betterment”, for tension towards perfection, fulfillment, and achievement of the original perfect whole condition become the ineluctable goal of the entire creation.118 In the second place, the eschatological position that postulates the return of all creatures to their original image that was upright and godly defines a new anthropological paradigm in comparison to the Lutheran view that emphasizes the fallen nature of creatures. Apokatastasis does not reject the notion of original

116 On the practical impulses brought by the chiliastic doctrine see D.  Fulda, “Wann begann die ‘offene Zukunft’? Ein Versuch, die koselleck’sche Fixierung auf die ‘Sattelzeit’ zu lösen”, in W.  Breul / ​C.  Schnurr (ed.), Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 141–72, here 167. 117 The position supported by the Petersens is, in this sense, different from, in example, that of Leibniz. Leibniz also will deal with the “apokatastasis” concept in several essays or letters, as we will see. However, for him “apokatastasis” indicates the cyclical cosmology borrowed from the Stoic, a view to which he adds the possibility of progress. See on this point D. Forman, “The Apokatastasis Essays in Context: Leibniz and Thomas Burnet on the Kingdom of Grace and the Stoic / Platonic Revolutions”, in W. Li, “Für unser Glück oder das Glück anderer”. Vorträge des X.  Internationalen Leibniz-Kongresses. Hannover, 18–23 Juli 2016 (Hildesheim: Olms, 2016), 125–37. 118 See on this point also U. Gäbler, “Geschichte, Gegenwart, Zukunft”, in H. Lehmann (ed.), Geschichte des Pietismus 4, 19–48, here 28: “Sie [die Zeit] bringt Wandel und Veränderung, präziser, Entwicklung zum Besseren. Diese Entwicklung dient der Perfektionierung”. On the concept of progress see H. Cancik, Art. Fortschritt, in: RGG⁴ 3 (2000), 202–3: “Das dt. Wort F., im 18. Jh. aus dem Franz. (progrès) als Lehnwort übernommen, geht auf das lat. pro-gressus … und dessen grich. Vorlagen … mit der Grundbedeutung ‘vorwärts gehen’ und der metaphorischen ‘(durch Menschen bewirkte) Veränderung zum Besseren’ zurück”.

134

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

sin and the fall of creatures, nor the Lutheran position according to which salvation is attained only through Christ’s grace, as Petersen remarks: This doctrine [scil. the apokatastasis doctrine] is not against the entire Protestant church, which is based on the principle that mercy and blessedness are not gained by the means of good works or sufferance – as Papists claim – but exclusively thanks to Jesus Christ, the victim of reconciliation.119

However, contrary to the Lutheran paradigm, through the apokatastasis doctrine, the good original image presents in all creatures and God’s traces in his entire creation are emphasized: “His [scil. of God] imperishable Spirit is in all creatures, in human beings, in angels and in everything that is or is called an essential creation. This is so since eternity, remains for all eternity and cannot be unsettled”.120 Such an anthropological paradigm shift is also defined by the fact that, besides God’s mercy as the sine qua non for salvation, the role of creatures’ will is also remarked as another indispensable factor in the process of salvation: without Christ’s redemptive intervention nobody can be saved, but such an intervention does not work apart from a free assent of creatures’ will to God’s mercy.121 The new perspectives introduced by the Petersens’ eschatological paradigm are also corroborated by Lebniz, who corresponded with several authors and participated in numerous debates, and was also interested in the Petersens’ positions as well as in several others who entertained similar eschatological expectations. Although he was critical of the millenarian expectation and the apokatastasis doctrine, his standpoint, notably, throws light on the novelties that such an eschatological paradigm can generate.

119 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXL, § 1, 148: “also auch eben solche Lehre [die Wiederbringung aller Dinge] nicht entgegen stehe der gesambten protestirenden Kirche / deren Grund und fundament gegen die Papisten / gegen welche sie protestiret / darinnen beruhe / daß die Gnade und Seligkeit nicht durch eigen Verdienst / ​ oder durch Leiden der Menschen erlanget werde / noch der Gerechtigkeit Gottes damit ein Genügen geschehe / sondern allein durch das Versöhn-Opffer Christum JEsum”. For Luther’s anthropological position see N.  Slenczka, “Luther’s Anthropology”, in R.  Kolb / ​I.  Dingel / ​ L’U. Batka (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 212–32. 120 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, C, § 7, 115: “Sein un­ver­ gänglicher Geist ist in allen Creaturen / in Menschen / und Engeln / und in allem / was irgend ein wesentliches Geschöpff ist und heisset / es ist auß der Ewigkeit / und bleibet in der Ewigkeit und mag nicht können verstöhret werden”. 121 See c.1, § 2.2: Salvation and free will.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

135

2.1.5 “Animos movendos spe meliorum”. Leibniz on the Petersens’ eschatology Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s positions on millenarianism and apokatastis were also discussed by the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.122 He got to know Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s position through Duchess Sophie of Hannover, who wrote to him about the revelations of the young visionary Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg. However, Petersen’s chiliasm is not the only position discussed by Leibniz; even other millenarians, such as Antoinette Bourignon, Pierre Jurieu, and Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, are included in Leibniz’s discussion on the millennium.123 Leibniz was never directly involved in discussions on the orthodoxy of millenarianism, indeed, he does not directly discuss the position held by Petersen; rather, he was interested on the epistemological basis on which millenarians grounded their positions. In his Extrait d’un journal du voyage que William Penn a fait he discusses the millenarian positions of the Quaker leader and several other authors such as Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, Knorr von Rosenroth, Henry More, Pierre Poiret, as well as the Weigelians, Bohemists, Quiestists, or Labadists. Commenting on their way of preaching, which was rooted in the interior illumination of God’s Spirit, he called them “nouvelle predicateurs”, new preachers. According to him, the light they claim to have was not the true light deriving from the eternal truths.124 Nevertheless, Leibniz’s stance towards these authors is not only polemic, for he finds them useful in that they are able to awaken spirits and turn them towards reason. He explains, indeed, that passions are a good way to detach men from vanities of the world, to awaken their reason, and urge the contemplation of eternal truths.125 Imaginations and 122 On Leibniz’s debates on millenarians and on apokatastasis see Antognazza / ​Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz. On God, the magistrate and the Millennium, 125–214; A. P. Coudert, L ­ eibniz and the Kabbalah (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995); E. Bellucci, “Wait for better times. Eschatological expectations in Philipp Jakob Spener, Johann Wilhelm Petersen and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”, in course of publication. 123 Leibniz’s position on these authors is analyzed in Antognazza / ​Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, 158–92. 124 See Extrait d’un journal du voyage que William Penn a fait, in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Politische Schriften, Sechster Band, n. 51, 339–60, here 359. According to Leibniz, the position supported by these authors is not fruit of true knowledge, which is based on the presence of eternal truths in minds, on the contrary, the supposed “light” that these authors claim to have is fruit of imagination and passions. On his critique to this point see Remarques sur le journal du voyage que William Penn a fait, in Politische Schriften, Sechster Band, n. 52, 360–5. 125 See Extrait d’un journal du voyage que William Penn a fait, 358–9, here 359: “les seul raisons ne suffisent point pour les faire rentrer en eux-mêmes, il faut quelque chose qui touche les passions et qui ravisent les ames, comme fait la musique et la poësie … et generalement en tous ceux dont l’imagination est vive, dominante, et contagieuse, comme me paroist estre aussi celle de ces nouveaux predicateurs”

136

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

passions are not true knowledge, they are trigger to gain knowledge of eternal truths and thereby also knowledge of God. This kind of knowledge, in turn, stimulate conforming to God’s order and progressively achieving happiness.126 In a similar vein, Leibniz presents different opinions on the different kinds of chiliasm. Recalling Spener’s standpoint, he does not condemn millenarians as a matter of principle, but he criticizes the kinds of chiliasm that are based on a pessimistic vision of the world (as propagated by Antoinette Bourignon) and on the idea that only Christ’s coming can rejuvenate the heart, a position which could result in sects rather than cooperation.127 On the contrary, he appreciated the position of the German Kabbalist Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, who believed that human initiative had an important role to play in preparing for the millennium.128 Leibniz’s interest in the chiliastic issue did not stop here. Some years later, in connection with the publication of Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s texts on apokatastasis he returned to this problem. Johann Wilhelm is mentioned in his correspondence with the Lutheran theologian of Helmstedt Johann Fabricius. The latter, indicating to Leibniz some authors who had written on the middle

126 G. F. Leibniz, Remarques sur le journal du voyage que William Penn a fait, in Politische Schriften, Sechster Band, n. 52, 364. 127 Leibniz claims that the Confessio Augustana condemns only those authors who cause public disorders, but “l’erreur de ceux qui attendant en patience le Royaume de Jesu Christ paroist tres innocente”, see Lebniz an Herzogin Sophie (Hannover, 13. Oktober 1691), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel, siebenter Band, n. 31, 33–7. For Leibniz’s position on Spener see also Leibniz an Herzog Rudolf August (Wolfenbüttel (?) I.  Hälfte September 1692), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel, Siebter Band, n. 52, 75: “es hat sonsten H. Spenerus auf begehren der Churfürstin zu Brandeburg Durchl einen außführl. Brief an höchstgedachte Churfürstin geschrieben, über die 3 puncta, 1) jungfrau Rosimunda, 2) den Chiliasmus des Superintendenten Petersen, und 3) den Pietismus zu Leipzig”; Leibniz an Landgraf Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels (Hannover, Anfang Main 1692), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel, Siebenter Band, n. 156, 324: “On distinguera tousjours entre Mr. Spener, et des gens pieux, sages, et sçavans comme Luy, et entre quelque malaviséz qui abusent de ces Principes, et qui donnent dans les visions, ou dans le Chiliasme grossier”; Leibniz an Heinrich Avemann (Hannover, 29. Dec. 1691 (8. Jan. 1692)), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel, Siebenter Band, n. 276, 502: “Spenerus multo circumspectius in literis quas ad Serenissimam Electricem Brandeburgicam impulsu matris interrogantem dedit, judicium suum interponere nondum audet, defectu Notitiae, et ut mihi videtur potius ad vim imaginationis inclinat, quae mea quoque sententia est”; Leibniz an Joh. Freidrich Leibniz (Wolfenbüttel (?), Hälfte September 1692), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel, Achter Band, n. 386, 614: “Seckendorfum ego mirifice colo, Spenerum maximi facio, ambobus amicis utor, vellemque consilia eorum in Republica et Ecclesia plurimum possent”. For Leibniz’s position on Anotinette Bourignon see Antognazza / ​Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, 167–70. 128 See Antognazza / ​Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, 189.

E schatology, irenicism and progress

137

condition of the soul, also make a mention of Johann Wilhelm Petersen.129 The millenarian theologian is also mentioned in several other letters Leibniz wrote in these years, e. g., those to the English theologian Thomas Burnet. As Antognazza has also remarked, from these letters it is clear that Leibniz not only read Petersen’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, but he also appreciated the great erudition of Petersen: “ce livre est fait avec beaucoup d’erudition et de jugement;  … Je l’ay parcouru avec plaisir. Et quoyque je n’aye garde de la suivre, je ne laisse pas de reconnoistre son merite”130 ; and also : “I gladly read Petersen’s verses and I have examined his erudition. … I have always extraordinarily appreciated his writings, even though I am not totally convinced about their truth”131. As in the case of the millennium, Leibniz seems to appreciate Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s work Mysterion apoakatasteos panton but, at the same time, expressed reservations. Despite his doubts on Petersen’s ideas, Leibniz considered his text interesting and suggested him to write a poem in Virgilian verses – Urania – where the theologian should describe the development of the cosmos from the creation of the world up to universal salvation, including the millenarian kingdom.132 Should one conclude that Leibniz had changed his position and became a supporter of the millennium and of universal salvation  – as some

129 Johann Fabricius an Leibniz, (Helmstedt, [Mitte] Februar 1700), in Gottfried Wilhlelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel, Achtzenter Band, n. 224, 406–9. 130 Leibniz an Thomas Burnett of Kemney, (Hannover, 27 Februar 1702), in Gottfried Wilhlelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und historischer Briefwechsel, Achtzenter Band, n. 224, 808–18. 131 Leibnitii Epistolae Ad Diversos, 1734, Epistola LXXXIII (ad Io. Fabricius, Hannover, 14 Oct. 1706), 116–7: “Petersianos Versus magna cum voluptate legi: explorata mihi erat eruditio Viri. … Mihi semper omnia eius scripta mirifice placuere, etiam ubi non plane de veritate sententiae sum persuasus”. 132 Leibnitii Epistolae Ad Diversos, 1734, Epistola CVI (ad Io. Fabricius, Brunswigae 3 Sept. 1711), 148–9: “Saepe mecum cogitavi, a nemine melius, quam ab ipso Carmen Uranium vel potius titulo Uraniados condi posse, quod iusto opera, ad Virgilianam mensuram, civitatem Dei et vitam aeternam celebraret. Incipiendum esset a Cosmogonia et Paradiso, quae librum primum vel primum et secudum complecterentur. Tertius, quartus, quintus, si ita videretur, darent lapsum Adami et redemptionem generis humani per Christum, et Historiam Ecclesiae perstringerent. Inde poetae ego certe facile permitterem libro sexto descriptionem regni mil­ lenarii, et septimo irruentem cum Gogo Magogoque, eursumque tandem divini oris spiritu, Antichristum. Tum octavo haberemus diem iudicii, poenasque damnatorum; nono autem, decimo et undecimo felicitatem Beatorum magnitudinemque et pulchritudinem Civitatis Dei et felicium habitationis discursationesque per immense universi spatial ad lustranda mirifica opera Dei; accederet et descriptio ipsius Regiae coelestis. Duodecimus concluderet omnia per apokatastasin panton, malis ipsis emendates et ad felicitatem Deumque reductis, Deo iam omnia in omnibus sine exceptione agente”. Leibniz followed the composition of the text and corrected it several time, however without never seeing it completed, the poem was indeed published in 1720. For the development of this issue see Antognazza / ​Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, 192–9.

138

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

scholars argue?133 Whereas, in his correspondence, Leibniz always displayed an ambiguous standpoint, his position on this topic appears to be clear in some treatises. In System of theology, most likely written between 1682 and 1689, Leibniz denies the possibility of an eternal salvation.134 Although this text was written before discussions on chiliasm and on apokatasatsis – so that one could argue that Leibniz’s idea changed in the interim – the same standpoint is re-asserted in Theodicy, published in 1710 – the same year he corresponded with Fabricius. On the question of why God permitted evil, Leibniz considered the possibility of universal salvation. He explained that some had taken to reviving Origen’s opinion, among them Johann Wilhelm Petersen, who, in his Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, created an astronomical system with Kabbalistic connotations: There is a man of wit who, pushing my principle of harmony even to arbitrary suppositions that I in no wise approve, has created for himself a theology well-nigh astronomical. … The vision seemed to me pleasing, and worthy of a follower of Origen: but we have no need of such hypothesis or fictions, where Wit plays a greater part than Revelation, and which even Reason cannot turn to account. For it does not appear that there is one principal place in the known universe deserving in preference to the rest to be the seat of the eldest of created beings; and the sun of our system at least is not it.135

Leibniz’s interest in and enthusiasm for the apokatastasis doctrine was no different than his support for the millennium. He did not embrace universal salvation, considering it fruit of imagination, and not a truth based on Revelation or supported by a principle of sufficient reason. However, he encouraged this kind of thinking for the imagination expressed through the metaphorical language of poetry has the effect of arousing passions and encouraging men to hope for better things, as Leibniz had already stated commenting on William Penn’s journey and in the conclusion to the letter to Johann Fabricius on Petersen’s poem Urania:

133 Allison Coudert strongly supports this position, see Coudert, Leibniz and the Kabbalah. Coudert’s position is refuted by Antognazza and Hotson, whose conclusions I share, see Antognazza / ​Hotson, Alsted and Leibniz, 197–9. 134 G. W. Leibniz, A system of theology, C. W. Russell (transl. and ed.), London 1850, 161: “nor is there any necessity to recur to the merciful theory devised by Origen, who, affixing his own capricious interpretation to that mysterious passage of Paul, in which it is said that all Israel should be saved, extend the divine mercy eventually to every creature”. 135 G. W. Leibniz, Tentaminum Theodicaeae, de bonitate Dei, libertate homines, et origine mali (Francofurti & Lipsiae: Berger, 1739), §§ 17–18. The Alexandrian Origen (185–254) was at that time considered one of the first and main supporter of universal salvation, his name was therefore usually associated with this doctrine. His position will be further analyzed in the third chapter.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

139

What cannot be accepted from the point of view of the orthodoxy, can be expressed by the metaphorical language of poetry. Such an immortal work [scil. the composition of the poem Urania] would be of great help to move human beings’ spirit to hope for something better and to inspire a truer piety.136

Awakening human passions and encouraging men to act, both millenarian ideas and apokatasatsis represented progress and betterment, and poets became the new prophets of such an undefined better future and unending progress. Leibniz’s position on millenarian and universal eschatological position shows, therefore, a strict conection between the rational-philosophical dimension, in which truth resides, and the emotional-poetical dimension, based on imagination. Antognazza writes in this regard: poetry had always figured high in Leibniz’s estimation as a powerful means which, through the employment of concrete, vivid, and imaginative language, could move and motivate men far beyond the nonemotive, rational language of philosophy or the abstract formalism of mathematics. Indeed, the primary object of natural language in his view was the affectus, that is the expression of our apprehension of the world via the emotional and sensitive aspects of human nature.137

Imagination and passions expressed by poetry are a way to detach men from vanities of the world, to awake their reason, to push the latter to contemplate the truth of reasons, and to encourage spirits to true piety.

2.2 Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s eschatology reflects a stance shared by several authors in the seventeenth century. In the first part of this chapter, we have traced a widespread network of chiliastic positions, a network which overcomes the boundaries of German territories of which the Petersens were part. To what extent these authors influenced the Petersens’ position? This will be analyzed in the next chapter. In what follows the eschatological position of the couple will be discussed in relation with other contemporaneous theologians. How was their position received and considered? Where do they place their position with respect to the so- called orthodoxy? Millenarian expectations, as already explained, were forbidden in CA 17. Although not reiterated in the Formula of Concord, the wait for the one-thousand-year kingdom was always 136 Leibnitii Epistolae Ad Diversos, 1734, Epistola CVI (ad Io. Fabricius, Brunswigae 3 Sept. 1711), 148–9: “et poetae indulgerentur, quae difficilius ferrentur in dogmatista. Tale opus immortalem praestaret auctorem et mirifici usus esse posset ad animos hominum movendos spe meliorum, et verioris pietatis igniculos suscitandos”. 137 See Antognazza, Leibniz. An intellectual biography.

140

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

regarded suspiciously by the orthodoxy, and, on different occasions, directly condemned.138 Their support for the chiliastic standpoint had cost Johann Wilhelm his position as superintendent; whereas Spener’s eschatological position had given rise to suspicions among other theologians, without him, however, being formally condemned. CA 17 was the main authority theologians cited to criticize millenarian positions. How do the Petersens justify their standpoint in regard to this article? According to the Petersens, both the millennium and the apokatastasis doctrine are clearly grounded in the Scripture. Among the scriptural references cited, Revelation seems most significant, which gave rise to other questions. First, although the last book of the Bible was generally considered canonical, it could not represent the main source for supporting a theological truth in the eyes of Petersens’ contemporaries, for whom its canonical character was an open debate. Secondly, interpreting the contents of this book posed another set of problems. The promised future kingdom was usually interpreted as a kingdom that had already occurred in history and not as a future event. How could the Petersens claim with certainty that Rev 20 entailed the promise of a future kingdom and the universal salvation was concealed in Rev 21? In what follows, the Petersens’ stance with respect to the “supposed Lutheran orthodoxy” will be discussed.139 A central aspect needing to be understood at this point is the hermeneutical method adopted by the Petersens to justify their eschatological standpoint and thus their interpretation of the last book of the Bible. Several issues emerge when analyzing the discussion in concert with the works of other theologians, such as the role of dreams and special revelations, the use of the Scripture, and the relationship between Word and Spirit.

2.2.1 The Petersens’ eschatology and Confessio Augustana 17 Based on article 17 of the Confessio Augustana, which condemned the chiliastic expectation as well as the doctrine of universal salvation, several theologians came forward to voice their criticism of the Petersens’ eschatological position. The famous theologian and superintendent of Lübeck, August Pfeiffer, explains in Antichiliasmus that chiliasm was rejected in CA 17 as a doctrine against the articles of faith on Christ’s Kingdom, on the future Last Judgment, and on the resurrection of death. Although concluding that this position did not directly undermine the main articles of faith on Jesus Christ, he claimed it was a serious 138 See c. 2.1.3. 139 I employ the term “supposed” for two reasons: first, because it is not aim of this work to establish what is orthodox and what is not, second, because both the Petersens and his adversaries claimed to support an “orthodox” position.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

141

mistake which indirectly touched on the fundaments of faith.140 In regard to the authors of the first- centuries church who also believed in Christ’s future earthly Kingdom, he recalled Jerome’s tolerant position towards them: “Although we do not follow this position, we cannot condemn it, since several church men and martyrs supported it. We leave each to his own position, reserving for God the last judgment”.141 In quoting Jerome’s standpoint, Pfeiffer’s idea was not to underline his tolerance towards the chiliastic position of some church fathers. Rather, it was to remark on the differences he observed between the ecclesiastical situation of his time and of the first centuries, when support for the millenarian position was marginal, and the fact that such a position was against faith was not totally clear yet. Pfeiffer, Spener and Johann Wilhelm have used, however differently, Jerome’s passage in the discussions around chiliasm. Already in the 1670’s, Spener quoted Jerome’s position, without, however, explicitly declaring his support for chiliasm.142 His stance is cautious and circumspect. On the other hand, his reference to Jerome, also in Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken – the first text in Hamburger Streitigkeiten – in noting that several authors in the first church supported a future earthly Kingdom of Christ, demonstrates that he did not reject chiliasm. Jerome’s passage appears here at the end of a text where Spener distinguishes between different kinds of chiliasm and defends it against its condemnation in CA 17. Reading Jerome’s quotation in light of the entire text and the context – namely the suspicions of other theologians on chiliasm –, this reference seems to suggest Spener’s willingness to support chiliasm, without explicitly promoting this idea.143 Johann Wilhelm also mentions Jerome’s passage in his first chiliastic treatise, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, referring to it as a positive example, for although 140 See A. Pfeiffer, Antichiliasmus, c. III, §§ 20–21, 139–42. The quotation of Jerome is taken from In Hieremiam, IV, 15,3. 141 See A.  Pfeiffer, Antichiliasmus, c. III, § 16, 130: “Quae licet non sequamur, tamen damnare non possumus, quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum & Martyres ista dixerunt. Unusquisque suo sensu abundet, & Domini cuncta reserventur judicio”. 142 See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Lübeck (Frankfurt a. M., 13. August 1677), in J. Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686 (3 Vol.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 253–76, here 272–3; An Caspar Hermann Sandhagen in Lüneburg (Frankfurt a. M., 8. Oktober 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit, 3 vol.; 374–85, here 383; An [Christoph Wölfflin in Stuttgart?] (Dresden, 28. August 1686), in J. Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit. 1686–1691 (1 vol.; Göttingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003–2017), 78–80, here 80; An [Heinrich Wilhelm Scharff in Lüneburg?] (Dresden, 29.07.1689) in J. Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit. 1686–1691, 366–9, here 368: “Also kan ich mich in die gantze sache nicht recht finden, und nachdem gleichwol fast alle Väter von einem tausendjährigen Reich ihre hoffnung bezeuget, gefällt mir vor andern des Hieronymi urtheil”. 143 See P. J. Spener, Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken / Uber den Von Einigen des E. Hamburgischen Ministerii publicirten Neuen Religions-Eyd (Ploen, 1690) Die Dritte Frage.

142

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Jerome had not “recognized” the truth on the millennium, he had at least claimed that this doctrine could not be rejected. In Johann Wilhelm’s text, thus, the reference to Jerome appears as an invitation to other theologians to desist from condemning chiliasm.144 If Jerome represented only an extreme defense of the chiliastic position, its rejection in CA 17 rendered any support for it controversial. Any support for the millennium could therefore be interpreted as an attack against the Bekenntnisschriften and, thus, against the orthodoxy.145 Johann Wilhelm takes a clear position with regard to CA 17, explaining why his position does not contradict it. His line of argument on chiliasm is similar to Spener’s approach on many levels; whereas references to the work of this latter are directly mentioned in the treatises on the apokatastasis doctrine. The first argument for defending the chiliastic position brings this doctrine in relation with the main articles of faith. Already in Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken, Spener provided a clear defense of the chiliastic position, claiming that to believe in it neither undermined the faith nor did it automatically prevent one from being part of the Christian brotherhood. To belong to the Christian community, as he argued, it is, indeed, necessary to only believe that Christ is the fundament of believer’s wisdom, justice, sanctification, and salvation.146 Petersen, in agreement with Spener’s standpoint, underlines that believing in the millennium is not an essential point for faith or a necessary point for one’s own bliss. This carried an acknowledgement that the chiliastic expectation did not belong to the main articles of faith, i. e., to those articles that constitute the main tenets of faith and therefore cannot be contradicted.147 On the other hand, according to Petersen, such a position does not undermine these articles, for to believe in Christ’s future Kingdom is not against the clear tenet that a day will come when everyone will resurrect; rather, the question is whether all will resurrect at the same time in clear reference to the first resurrection, that Petersen argued was supported by Rev 20 and by 1 Cor 15:23.148

144 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § IV, 8. 145 This point is remarked particularly by the theologians who write against Spener, see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 115–20 and 276–8. Anyway, also Petersen takes a clear position on this point. 146 See P. J. Spener, Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken, Die Dritte Frage. Spener’s position was criticized by Johann Friedrich Mayer, who stated that, although chiliasm does not directly touch the main tenets of faith, anyway any mistake in faith is enough to be distanced from the Christian brotherhood, since all doctrinal points are linked with each other. See on this debate Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 111–14. 147 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § V, 9. For Spener’s standpoint see above c. 2, § 1.3, Spener’s “Hoffnung künfftiger besserer Zeiten”. 148 See J. W.  Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § IV, 8. See also J. W.  Petersen, Justa Animadversio, § XL, 50.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

143

A second defense of the chiliastic position shared by the two theologians is based on the distinction between several kinds of chiliasm – the awareness already presented by other theologians several years before.149 In Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken, Spener remarks that not all chiliastic positions are the same and that it is necessary to distinguish between at least three kinds of chiliasm: chiliasmus crassus, chiliasmus subtilis, and chiliasmus subtilissimus. The first kind of chiliasm, i. e., crassus, refers to the positions of those who believe in Christ’s second coming on Earth and in the establishment of an earthly kingdom, with the first heretic Cerinthus serving as a case point. As to the chiliasmus subtilis and subtilissimus, Spener does not define them with as much rigor. He indicates the position of the church fathers through subtilis – a position that he clearly differentiates from that of Cerinthus. It remains unclear, however, whether subtilissimus refers to those positions that wait for a betterment of the church-condition and a period of peace – as his own position.150 In Freyheit der Gläubigen (1691), this threefold distinction is further divided into five kinds of chiliastic expectations. The fourth one seems to correspond to his position, he speaks, indeed, about a spiritual blessedness linked to the obliteration of the antichrist, the fall of the Turks, the ceasing of persecutions and the diffusion of the evangelical church all over the world. The last expectation, dealing with a spiritual and corporeal resurrection, could be a reference to Petersen’s standpoint.151 Based on this distinction, Spener claims that CA 17 does not reject all kinds of chiliasm and that it is necessary to refer to the literal meaning of the words of the Confessio that condemn only the Judaic and Anabaptist positions, namely the expectation of Christ’s second coming and of an earthly kingdom: “Nothing is more rejected than what the words subsume”.152 On the other hand, he remarks that at least one kind of chiliasm is not rejected in the Confessio, namely the one revealed by the Spirt in Rev 20, i. e., a condition of the church during which Satan will be imprisoned and hurled into the abyss, losing the power to persecute the heathens until the end of the one-thousand years.153 149 See c. 2.1.3. This distinction can be found also in Johann Gerhard’s Loci Theologici, authored between 1610 and 1622. See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 109. 150 See P. J. Spener, Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken, Die Dritte Frage. On this point see also Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 108–11. 151 See P. J.  Spener, Die Freyheit der Gläubigen, c. 5, § 3: “4. Welche diese glückseligkeit geistlich verstehen / und es darauff ziehen / daß der Antichrist vertilget / der Türck gestürzt / ​ die Ketzer unterdrückt / die verfolgungen auffgehoben / und die Evangelische Kirche aller orten außgebreitet werden solle. 5. Welche alles solches zugleich gesitlich und leiblich verstanden haben wollen / und eine solche grosse seligkeit vor dem jüngsten tag versprechen / als vor dem fall gewesen wäre”. 152 See P. J. Spener, Die Freyheit der Gläubigen, c. 5, § 4.  153 See P. J. Spener, Die Freyheit der Gläubigen, c. 5, § 3. 

144

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Similarly, Johann Wilhelm – already in his Schrifftmässige Erklährung – distinguishes his position from those of Cerinthus and the Jews, which, according to him, are rejected not only in CA 17, but also by Christ in his assertion “My reign is not of this world” (John 18:36). At the same time, he grounds his position in Rev 20.154 Particularly a treatise published in 1695, Oeffentliche Bezeugung, deals with the millennium and CA 17. Pointing out the differences between his position and those of Cerinthus and the Jews, he moves on to describe three kinds of chiliasm: crassus, subtilis, and subtilissimus by referring to Friderich Ulrich Calixt, a professor from Helmstedt, and to Johann Georg Neumann, a professor of theology in Wittenberg who also wrote against Spener.155 Neumann had used the expression chiliasmus crassus to characterize Cernithus’ position, whereas chiliasmus subtilis referred to the standpoint of the church fathers, and chiliasmus subtilisissimus to Johann Wilhelm’s opinion. Petersen, on the other hand, proclaimed support for chiliasmus sanctus, i. e., the promise of Christ’s Kingdom enshrined in Rev 20.156 This strand of chiliasm – he continues – is not condemned in CA 17, which rejects only the notion of a future earthly kingdom supported by the Jews and Anabaptists. To strengthen his thesis, he also offers a short historical excursus on the composition of this article in Confessio: After the first period of the Reformation, during which the Gospel was re-established against the tyranny of the papal yoke, new tumults arose following the agitations in Münster, when the domination of Rome was challenged with the use of material weapons, under the presumption that the Gospel proclaimed by Luther represented nothing short of rebellion, homicide and death. For this reason, their doctrine of the upcoming kingdom was also condemned, in order to ensure that ideas that could lead to insurgence would no longer nourish believers’ hearth.157 Petersen concludes his defense of chiliasm with a rhetorical question: Now I ask an impartial truth lover, which one better defends the Confessio of Augsburg, the one who states and proves that the Confessio Augustana does not reject the chiliasmum sanctum apocalypticum, which I teach on the basis of the chapter 20 of John’s Revelation? – … or the one who claims that the Confessio of Augsburg rejects what is grounded in the Holy Scripture (both in the New and in the Old Testament), in the same way as the priests from Hamburg who agree with 154 J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § I, 3. 155 Petersen quotes a disputation publicly defended by Calixt in the year 1690 in Helmstedt: Disputation, in centuria Thesium Theologicarum, Haereses Schismata &c. proponente, which was never published. He quotes then from J. G. Neumann, De chiliasmo (1694), a disputation contained in Chiliasmus Subtilissimus, Qui Hodie Ecclesiam Infestare Coepit, Disputationibus Aliquot Academicis Excussus, Et Confutatus Tractatus Elenchtico-Apologeticus, D.  Ph. Jac. Spenero  … Potissimus Oppositus, Wittenberg 1696. For the dispute between Spener and Neumann see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 199–215. 156 See J. W. Petersen, Oeffentliche Bezeugung, § IV, 10–11. 157 See J. W. Petersen, Oeffentliche Bezeugung, § VII, 19–24.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

145

one another are doing, considering the chiliasmum subtilem a mistake, i. e., the hope for future better times? Which one of these positions maintains the honor of the Confessio?158

Defending his eschatology, Petersen chooses to invite deeper reflections on this issue in relation to the Scripture, rather than exploit this opportunity to attack his adversaries. In this context, Petersen’s use of the adjective “impartial” (unaprteiisch) is noteworthy. In another treatise, he uses it to appeal, akin to Spener’s use, an “impartial” reconsideration of his reading of Rev 20, i. e., on the basis of the Scripture, and an interpretation in conformity with the meaning laid out by the Holy Spirit.159 For both Spener and Johann Wilhelm, the Scripture represents a non-partisan measure, i. e., an objective basis for comparison on theological issues.160 Whereas Spener’s position also entails a subtle polemic 158 See J. W.  Petersen, Oeffentliche Bezeugung, § VIII, 29: “Hie frage ich nun einen unpartheyischen Liebhaber der Warheit / Welcher von uns beyden ein besserer Verthädiger der Augspurgischen Confession sey? Derjenige / welcher saget und beweiset / daß die Augustana Confessio den Chiliasmum Sanctum Apocalypticum, welchen ich aus dem 20. Capitel der heiligen Offenbahrung lehre und behaupte / nicht verworffen habe / und auch nicht / weil sie eben davon eigentlich nicht gewußt / hat verwerffen können? oder der da saget / daß die Augspurgische Confession dasjenige verworffen / welches doch in der heligen Schrifft altes und neues Testaments gegründet ist / wie die Hamburgische Priester mit Verbindung eines wider GOtt auffgerichteten Eydes solches verworffen / und den so genannten Chiliasmum subtilem von der Hoffnung besserer Zeit als einen Irrthum erkläret / und noch dazu gelehret haben / daß eben derselbige in der Augspurgischen Confession zugleich mit verworffen oder verdammet sey? Welcher unter den Beyden / sage ich / mainteniret und verthädiget mehr die Ehre solcher Confession? Ich oder meine Widersprecher?“. 159 See J. W. Petersen, Der veste Grund, Das neunte Send-Schreiben, § VI, 89. Also Spener suggests to solve this issue by referring to the Scripture and not to the arguments of the single parties, see P. J.  Spener, Die Freyheit der Gläubigen, c. 5, § 44: “daß die gantze sache von dem tausend-jährigen reich Christi durch öffentliche schrifften von beyden seiten vor dem angesicht der gantzen kirchen gehandelt / freundlich von jedem theil dem andern auff seine argumenta geantwortet / und allein auß der h. Schrifft / beyseit gesetzt die autoritet der menschen / alles gründlich untersuchet / mit solcher disputation auch so lang angehalten würde / biß nichts mehr von scrupeln übrig bliebe”. 160 The concept “unparteiisch” is used also at the end of the seventeenth century by the famous theologian and church-historian Gottfried Arnold to connote his monumental work on church history Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie. For Arnold unparteiisch means on the one hand “transcending factions and confessions”, i. e., a description of history which seeks to be free from any confessional point of view; on the other hand, it means a description of events that seeks to recount them in the most objective manner possible, without highlighting or downplaying some particular moments; see D. Fleischer, Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt: Der Strukturwandel der protestantischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im deutschsprachigen Diskurs der Aufklärung (Waltrop: Spenner, 2006) 1, 61–2. Fleischer also describes the two traditions to which Arnold refers: the one dates back to the historian Lucian of Samosata, who makes use of this concept to indicate how historians’ stance should be, namely objective; the other one comes from spiritualist authors (such as Sebastian Franck, Christian Hoburg, Caspar Schwenckfeld) who used this concept to circumscribe their position in opposition to that of the “parties”, namely of the followers of Luther, on the one hand, and

146

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

on the use of the Symbolical books, whose contents – he argues – are sometimes considered in the same manner as God’s Word, Johann Wilhelm refers directly to the Bekentnnisschriften, recalling the beginning of the Formula of Concord, which stipulates the Scripture as the sole judge, norm and rule in controversial issues involving the letters of the Bible with respect to all other texts.161 The entire defense of the millennium in light of CA 17 is reiterated in the treatises on the apokatastasis doctrine. In the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos, quoting from Spener’s Die Freyheit der Gläubigen, Johann Wilhelm asserts that faith derives from God’s revelation in his Word, recognized as the true Word of God thanks to the Holy Spirit, and not from authorial authority.162 In this way, the reference to Scripture is the ultimate bench test also for the doctrine of universal salvation. Petersen acknowledges that this doctrine was rejected in CA 17 where is written that “impios autem homines ac diabolos condemnabit, ut sine fine crucientur”, i. e., impious men and the Devil will be condemned, so that they will be tormented forever.163 He argues that the problem lay in the Latin translation. Whereas the German version of this article reads “ewige Straffe” – a formulation with which Johann Wilhelm is in agreement – the Latin translation by Philipp Melanchthon expresses this concept as a torment without end, sine fine, however, an interpretation most theologians accepted.164 He concludes that, although the fathers who authored the Confessio Augustana were enlightened on matters concerning the papacy and the Roman church, they were in the dark on the issue of universal salvation.165 The reference to the Scripture as the supreme judge implies, for Petersen, that every other text authored by men can entail mistakes  – as in the case of the article 17 of the the followers of the Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand. As for Petersen and Spener, inviting to judge the chiliastic issue on the basis of the Scripture, they do not want to distance themselves from any confessional position. Whether they also had an intent to circumscribe their position in comparison to the Lutheran confession, and to, therefore, transcend factions will be better analyzed in the following pages. 161 For Spener’s position P. J. Spener, Die Freyheit der Gläubigen, c. 5, § 36: “Daß die libri symbolici in allen und jeden stücken mit der h. Schrifft übereinkommen und nichts darinnen zu finden als Gottes wahres wort. In diesen worten werden die symbolische bücher allerdings dem göttlichen wort gleich gemacht”. For Petersen’s position see P. J. Spener, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Vorrede, § 30. Petersen quotes from the Formula of Concord, Epitome articolorum, de quibus controversiae, see Dingel, Die Bekenntnisschriften, 1217. 162 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, c. VII, 4.  163 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Vorrede, § 30.  164 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Vorrede, § 30. Petersen does not further explain why he is in agreement with the German version of CA 17; one can, however, suppose that behind this statement there is the threefold distinction of the meaning of the concept “Ewigkeit”, eternity, as explained in c. 1, § 2.2: The middle condition of the soul and the order of the restitution. 165 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastasos panton II, Vorrede, § 30. See also J. W. Pe­tersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, § 3, 3. 

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

147

Confessio – and that what was not recognized in a certain time, can become clear subsequently – as in the case of the millennium and universal salvation. Already in the first chiliastic treatises Johann Wilhelm “excused” those who did not believe in the promised kingdom, hoping that his position would not encounter their opposition: I do not punish anyone who does not yet believe in it, and I also do not impose this on him, since I know that nobody can grasp the secret of the kingdom if it is not given from above. On the other hand, I hope that [those who do not believe in it] do not oppose the gift given to me by God’s mercy.166

That was wishful thinking, for on 3 February 1692 Johann Wilhelm was removed from office as superintendent of Lüneburg and charged on the account of supporting an enthusiastic position against the Symbolical books, to which he had subscribed.167 Some years later, in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, he expresses his intention to improve the knowledge of Confessio on issues where other theologians were not enlightened.168 Petersen assumes a critical stance towards the books of the Lutheran confession, however, without rejecting them as a matter of principle. He invites, rather, to judge his eschatology on the basis of the Scripture. The Petersens’ stance towards the established Lutheran orthodoxy raises more questions. In what sense had their eschatology been “given” to them by God? How was it possible to gain ever newer insights on God’s revelation and to understand a truth which hitherto had not been understood? On what basis did the Petersen read the promises contained in Rev 20 as indicative of the kingdom as a future event? These questions require an analysis of the hermeneutics adopted for the reading of the Scripture.

166 J. W.  Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § VI, 8–9: “Ich strafe auch deswegen niemand / der solches noch nicht fasset / vielweniger dringe ich ihm es sub necessitate credendi auf / weil ich weiß / daß das Geheimniß des Reichs niemand fasset / ohne dem es von oben herab gegeben ist; aber ich hoffe dagegen / man werde sich auch nicht gegen die Gabe / so mir aus der Barmhertzigkeit GOttes gegeben ist / setzen / noch den Geist dämpffen / und die Weissagung verachten / sondern gedencken / daß einer die / der ander jene Gabe empfangen habe zur Erbauung”. 167 On the removeal of Petersen from his office and on this particular point, see Matthias, Petersen, 321–30, here 328. 168 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Vorrede, § 30: “und mir es auch in so weit zu meinem Zweck dienet / daß man mirs nicht verdencken kan / wann ich in diesem Punct / darüber der Streit ist / die Heil. Schrifft und deren Warheit dem Spruch des XVII. Artickels A. C. vorziehe / und alles andere / worinnen die Confession noch kein Liecht gehabt / darnach verbessere”.

148

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

2.2.2 Godly revelations The separate autobiographical accounts of the Petersens present the “discovery” of certain ideas as a progressive revelation guided by God. Johanna Eleonora Petersen, for instance, describes the discovery of chiliasm, of apokatastasis, and other truths, as a progressive discovery of secrets guided “by God’s hand”: “God’s leading hand had directed me”, or as a chain of revelations: “the true Lord has revealed [aufgeschlossen] his secrets to me one after another”.169 All secrets revealed to her had been a “progressive” understanding of God’s love and universal redemption, the understanding of which had challenged her for a long time: “Since my early youth – Johanna Eleonora tells –, the faithful Lord has let me get into a great struggle when I could not grasp how God, who is essentially love, would condemn so many to eternal condemnation, as was believed in those days everywhere”.170 The first revelation regards 1 Pet 3:18–19 on Christ’s preaching unto the spirits in prison, namely on the fact that Christ’s sacrifice extended also to those who had died before his arrival on Earth, through his sermons during his visits to these spirits before his resurrection. It is this revelation that allows Johanna Eleonora to conclude that salvation is also possible after death: “I was clearly assured that there would also a redemption from hell and that Christ’s blood would also have its validity after death, and that everyone will again be redeemed from hell”.171 The possibility of redemption also after death nevertheless does not yet mean a return of all things. Indeed, according to Matt 12:31–2, sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come. The second secret revealed to her is about the conversion of the Jews and some heathens attested to in Rom 2:25 and 4:13: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith”. Such a problem is strictly linked to the justification, the third secret revealed to her. In the wake of Luther’s position, she claims that justification is attained only through God’s pure grace, but remarks that with this article of justification, one could get lost to the right or to the left of it and could miss the divine truth: to the right, if one pursues works and tries to bring a saint to Christ before one has attained one’s justification through faith; to the left, if one claims vindication through one’s old sinful life, receives grace in vain, and puts one’s trust in wantonness.172

169 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 31, 86. 170 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 32, 86. 171 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 32, 87. 172 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 34, 89.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

149

But she adds that “when we seek his [scil. God’s] grace in Jesus Christ and follow him, God accepts us as godless but does not leave us godless; rather he makes us just and holy”.173 Whereas these secrets had been revealed to her before her marriage, the following ones she discloses were received after 1680. The first was about Christ’s one-thousand-year Kingdom. “While I was married, the following secrets were revealed to me. In the year 1685 I received for the first time a revelation concerning the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ”. This book – John’s Revelation – had always been obscure to her, and, for this reason, she had always avoided it. But she continues: “When I once retired to my room and opened the Bible to find a passage, I chanced on the words in Rev 1:3: `Blessed is he who readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the times is at the end’”. Realizing that this book contained great prophecies, she prayed to God to open her eyes to understand the truths in this book: When I arose from my prayer, I intended to read the blessed book. But I did not have any idea that immediately something was to be revealed to me. When I started reading, it appeared to me as if my heart was totally filled with the light of God. And I understood everything, whatever I read. … I was very much moved by this and humble before God that he had shown me, his lovely maid, such grace.

Communicating immediately this discovery to the husband, she found out that he had had the very same revelation in the very same moment: “He [scil. Johann Wilhelm] said to me: The Lord has truly revealed this to you as he has to me”.174 Johann Wilhelm also recounts in his Lebens-Beschreibung how God let him discover a series of secrets. The first one is about the future fall of Babel, which, he claims, was not fully accomplished during Luther’s time. While not Babel itself, the Lutheran church, according to him bears the spirit of babel. The second secret, about the conversion of the Jews in the last times, is based mainly on Rom 11, where it is said that entire Israel will be saved, an event that Paul refers to as “secret”, interpreted to mean that it has not yet happened. Another “secret” is about the condition of the soul after death and about the possibility of salvation also to those who lived before Christ’s incarnation, as 1 Pet 3:19–20 and 4:6 indicates. He then mentions the secret about Christ’s Kingdom and about universal return. The main biblical reference for chiliasm is Rev 20, but also other passages testifying to the same truth: 2 Thess 2:8, 2 Tim 4:1, 2 Thess 2:1 and 4:17–18. The secret of universal redemption is, instead, based on Rev 21:5 and 5:13.175

173 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 34, 89. 174 For this quotation and the former see Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 35, 89–90. 175 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, §§ 68, 343.

150

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Describing the discovery of these secrets, both Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora make use of the verbs “aufschließen”, “eröffnen”, “entdecken”, “offen­ baren” (to open, to disclose, to discover, to reveal). These verbs suggest a passive stance of the theologian, whereas the main protagonist of the action is God or his Spirit.176 Such a passive stance is exemplified by several passages. In Schrifftmässige Erklährung, Johann Wilhelm claims that “nobody can grasp the secret of the kingdom if it is not given from above”.177 In another treatise he asserts: “In the second part [of the treatise] I also support such promise that the Lord has revealed to me through His words”.178 This position is reiterated in Johann Wilhelm’s description of the discovery of different truths in his autobiography: “Now I want to confess to the dear reader how God, the Lord, has revealed to me a secret after another in His word according to his wisdom and at different times”.179 For Johanna Eleonora, the different truths, as recounted in her autobiographical account, were discovered in a trajectory delineated by “God’s leading hand”: “Now I wanted to add to it how the true Lord has revealed his secrets to me one after another and how he has nourished me with them so that I was drawn away from the love of the world and toward God’s love”.180 The position presented by the couple opens up several issues on the hermeneutics. What is suggested by God “revealing” certain secrets? What are those “revelations”? Special revelations, akin to mystical visions? Does the Scripture play a role in relation to “divine revelations”?

A prophet of chiliasm: Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg Before further analyzing the Petersens’ hermeneutical approach in order to better understand the meaning of their “godly revelations”, especially in the discussions between Johann Wilhelm and the other theologians, it is important to consider how chiliasm was defended on the basis of the special visions of Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg. Johann Wilhelm’s anonymous 1691 publication, Send-Schreiben An einige Theologos und Gottes-Gelehrte (Species facti), reported, notably at the same time 176 See on this point also the comments by Prisca Guglielmetti: P.  Guglielmetti (ed.), Johanna Eleonora Petersen geb. von und zu Merlau. Leben, von ihr selbst mit eigener Hand aufgesetzet (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2003), 50 and 61. 177 J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § VI, 8.  178 J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, Ander Theil, Vorrede, not-paginated: “Und solche Weissagung / die der HErr durch seinen Geist in seinem Wort auch in mir eröffnet hat / trage ich nicht allein in dem ersten / sondern auch in dem anderen Theil”. 179 J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 68, 343: “Jetzo aber will ich nur dem geliebten Leser kund thun, wie GOtt der HErr nach seiner Liebes-Weißheit nach und nach, von Zeit zu Zeit ein Geheimniß nach dem andern … aus seinem Wort mir entdecket habe”. 180 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 31, 86.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

151

as he was hosting Asseburg, some of her interior dialogues with Christ, which he, reporting Rosamunde’s words directly, describes as internal spiritual locutions: So I speak with you, like a friend speaks to another friend, I speak through my mouth of Truth, which can be heard, but not with physical hearing, rather with internal hearing, which is thousand times more acute than the natural hearing. So I speak with you, as true God and true man, and I let you see me, not with the eyes of the body, rather with internal eyes, with the eyes of the spirit, a tuned spirit, which is perfectly wedded to me.181

The extraordinary experiences of the young noblewoman are credible to the Petersens. Claiming that God’s revelations did not stop during the era of the apostles, they go on to explain their divine origin. On the first point, namely on the possibility that God continues to reveal his secrets by the means of special revelations, Johann Wilhelm asserts that several promises are still concealed in God’s Word, and that God wants to reveal them through apparitions and revelations, which must be regarded not as an ordinarium rather an extraordinarium donum, a special gift.182 To corroborate his assertion, he refers to Probatione Visionum, a text published in 1642 by the Lutheran theologian and preacher in Stettin Jacob Fabricius.183 In this text the theologian develops some criteria on how to distinguish godly visions from Devil’s deceptions. Firstly, Fabricius refers to some biblical passages, like Joel 2, where, dealing with the events which 181 J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 19: “so rede ich nun mit euch / wie ein Freund mit einem andern redet / ich rede nun aus meinem Munde der Wahrheit / daß mans höret / doch nicht mit dem leiblichen Gehör / sondern mit dem innerlichen Gehör / welches tausendmahl schärffer ist / wie das erschaffene Gehör. So rede ich nun auch selbsten mit euch / als wahrer GOTT und Mensch / und lasse mich sehen / doch nicht mit den Augen des Leiber / sondern mit den innerlichen Augen / mit des Geistes Auge / mit dem vereinbahrten Geist / der sich mit mir vermählet hat auffs genaueste”. Petersen’s account of Asseburg’s visions is not supported by a systematic philosophical description of the soul, of its powers, and of its relationship to the body. Presumabily, the paradigm which lies behind Petersen’s position is the so called Rheinald-Flemisch paradigm, according to which the soul is divided in three parts: to the sensitive level and the rational level (present also in the Aristotelian-Thomist paradigm) a third level was added: the essence of soul, which was also the part through which God could establish a contact with creatures apart from sensation. This can be found, e. g., in Eckart, Tauler and Arndt, that spoke about an “internal eye”. Another important point which must be taken into consideration reading Asseburg’s affair is that in the early modern time the discourse around special visions was characterized no more through the concept “miracle” or “prodigy” (Wunder), as in the Middle Ages, but through the concept “vision” (Gesicht, Vision). See C. Gantet, Der Traum in der Frühen Neuzeit. Ansätze zu einer kulturellen Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 205–8. 182 See J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 35. 183 On Fabricius, on his interest in special visions and revelations and on the publication of this text see J. Strom, “Jacob Fabricius, Friedrich Breckling und die Debatte um Visionen”, in W. Breul / ​M. Meier / ​L . Vogel, Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 249–69.

152

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

precede God’s coming, the prophet writes: “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young ones shall see visions”. Having established the possibility of new revelations, Fabricius lists the criteria to recognize the divine origin of visions. First, the contents themselves must be in agreement and harmonize with the Word and with the Lutheran symbolical books. Second, the person experiencing visions must be pious, but not requiring a theological background. Following Fabricius, Johann Wilhelm quotes Joel 2, insisting that the prophesies in this chapter are yet to be realized. Moreover, he adds 12 additional points in support of his position. For instance, he quotes Dan 12:4 and Rev 10:4, to underscore that several other promises need to be fulfilled, that the prophets did not fully comprehend everything, and that, the last times approaching, the understanding of prophecies would be revealed to several people. Elsewhere, he wonders why God could not give his Spirit to women and why he could not also reveal his secrets through them.184 With respect to Asseburg herself, Petersen defends the divine origin of her visions in four points. The first two points are based on Rosamunde’s piety: she could not show this kind of religiousness and attachment to Christ if she were to have been affected by evil apparitions. Moreover, the Devil could not call himself Jehovah, the Trinitarian God who created heaven and Earth. Finally, Rosamunde has been experiencing such visions since when she was 7 years old, when she could not grasp the theological truths contained in the revelations, which, therefore, cannot derive from her imagination.185

Suspicions around Asseburg’s revelations Asseburg’s case was not an isolated one. As Ruth Albrecht’s recent publication on Begeisterte Mägde shows, especially in the last quarter of the 17th century, several young women claimed to experience supernatural phenomena like internal spiritual locutions or revelations, events that are usually reported in texts authored by men, as in the case of Asseburg.186 Even though supernatural revelations are documented in the history of Christianity, starting with the Bible itself, Asseburg’s case can be considered a forerunner for other young women among her contemporaries who, claiming their own encounters with similar phenomena, became essential promoters of a chiliastic eschatology.187 184 See J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 40. 185 See J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 41. See also J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, 326. 186 See R. Albrecht, Begeisterte Mägde. Träume, Visionen und Offenbarungen von Frauen des frühen Pietismus (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt), 2018. 187 On Asseburg’s case and the influence of the Petersens’ position on other authors see M.  Matthias, “Der Geist auf den Mägden. Zum Zusammenhang von Enthusiasmus und Geschichtsauffassung im mitteldeutschen Pietismus”, in: PuN 43 (2017), 71–99. A general

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

153

Supporting for such special revelations entailed not only attempts to establish their divine or evil origin, but also the risk of contradicting or disregarding church authority by believing in such revelations.188 However, on the other hand, theologians were not, as a matter of principle, against the possibility of new revelations. Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburger Confessio, quotes the Franciscan monk Johann Hilten who had prophesied in 1516 Luther’s arrival on the scene on the basis of a vision, as a case in point.189 Petersen refers to this passage from Melanchthon, among others, in his Species facti.190 Fabricius, who supported the possibility of new revelations, yet conditional upon their conformity to the Scripture demonstrating their truthfulness, is yet another example.191 For all these reasons, to refer to such events as godly could give rise to debates and controversies, as the publication of Johann Wilhelm’s Species facti did. Several theologians expressed doubts about the position presented therein, but were careful not to immediately condemn Petersen. Heinrich Christoph Erdmann, pastor in Lüneburg, charged the Petersens’ of being akin to the Socinians and Quakers, i. e., to claim that only those who have a divine revelation could understand the Scripture, or akin to the papists, overview on this phenomenon at the end of the 17th century in German territories is offered also by C. Wustmann, Die ‘begeisterten Mägde’. Mitteldeutsche Prophetinnen im Radikalpietismus am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig / ​Berlin: Kirchhof & Franke, 2008). On feminine mystical experiences in Christendom in general see M.  Delgado / ​V.  Leppin, ‘Dir hat vor den Frauen nicht gegraut’. Mystikerinnen und Theologinnen in der Christentumsgeschichte (Stuttgart / ​Fribourg: Kohlhammer GmbH / ​Academic Press Fribourg, 2015). 188 Particularly starting from the Reformation, one of the main issues regarding dreams or visions was to establish their godly or evil origin. Therefore, starting in the 16th century, the focus was not only on the meaning but also on their nature. Medicine on the one hand and soul powers on the other hand were the two main fields of inquiry in this kind of debate. See Gantet, Der Traum in der Frühen Neuzeit. 189 Quoted in Strom, Jacob Fabricius, Friedrich Breckling und die Debatte um Visionen, 267. 190 See J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 40. 191 See Strom, Jacob Fabricius, Friedrich Breckling und die Debatte um Visionen, 266: “Nach allem, was wir über Fabricius wissen, war dieser kein radikaler Spiritualist vom Schlage Valentin Weigels oder Paul Felgenhauers, sondern ein eifriger Geistlicher, der weder von den lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften noch den theologischen Anschauungen Luthers abweichen wollte”. The so called “spiritualist” tradition, or “paracelsian-theosophic” tradition (Paracelsus, Sebastian Franck, Weigel, etc.) supported the possibility of special revelations through which God reveals the secrets and the treasures contained in the Scripture, highlighting the difference between “dead letter” and “spiritual illumination”. Their position was opposed to that of the most of theologians who believed, on the contrary, that godly visions stopped in the 6th century, when the canon of the church was definitively established. In the seventeenth century Fabricius was the first theologian who, apart from the spiritualist tradition, established the possibility of godly revelations also at the present time, referring particularly to the visions of three young women: Christina Poniatowski, Margarita Heidewetter, and Benigna König. See Gantet, Der Traum in der Frühen Neuzeit, 258. On the spiritualist tradition see Gantet, Der Traum in der Frühen Neuzeit, 214–53.

154

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

in the belief that some events are godly and miraculous. Drawing from Pfeiffer’s Antichiliasmus, Erdmann did not deny the possibility of new revelations, which could also be received by women, but he stated that their veracity had to always be proven on the basis of the Scripture: Paul also cautions us that our worship must be rational. This does not mean that it must be based on proofs deriving from the depraved reason, on the contrary, it must have a spiritual basis. Such matters [scil. extraordinary visions] must be established on the basis of the Scripture, so that an illuminated mind can also recognize it [scil. the biblical argumentation which supports the alleged vision] and can draw a reasonable conclusion.192

Thus, Erdmann suspected that the position the Petersens had developed had been the fruit of impressions, phantasy and melancholy.193 Johann Winckler, pastor at the St. Michaelis Church in Hamburg, also followed the same line of argument as Pfeiffer and Erdmann. According to him, it was possible that “God reveals Himself to some believers even after the Apostles’ time”, and sought to prove this point by making a list of several authors from the first centuries who experienced special revelations.194 They, according to Winckler, had been prudent in recognizing the veracity of the revelations and in assessing their divine origin before they defined the revelation as godly on the basis of 1. the Scripture; 2. the fulfillment of the contents of the revelation; and 3. the faith of the person who received the revelation. The main idea was to determine if this could constitute heresy or lead to a schism in the church.195 Winckler claimed, for this reason, that “if God reveals something, this must be similar to faith”, i. e., revelations must be interpreted according to the Scripture,

192 Heinrich Christoph Erdmann, Probe Der heutigen neuen Offenbahr- und Bezeugungen: Worinnen nicht allein Das Send-Schreiben An einige Theologos und Gottesgelehrte / nebenst den vornehmsten darin enthaltenen Offenbahrungen und Fragen / sondern auch andere Umstände der Sachen / so in der Specie facti nicht enthalten / erörtert werden/ … / Nach der neuen auff ­Schreib-Papier numerirten und autensirten edition in 8vo. dem Leser zur Nachricht / eingerichtet von Henrich Christopff Erdmann / Pastorem beym Kalckverge und der Fürstlichen Guarnison in Lüneburg, 17 Martii 1692, 23: “Worauff auch Paulus siehte / wenn er vermahnet: daß unser Gottes Dienst soll vernünfftig seyn; Das ist / nicht zwar auff Beweißthümer der verderbten Natur gegründet / denn es muß geistlich gerichtet seyn / sondern / daß unsere Sachen auff solchen Fundamenten und mit solchen rationibus der h. Schrifft gegründet seyn / daß auch ein erleuchteter Verstand dieselben vor Recht erkennen / und einen guten vernünfftigen Schluß daraus machen könne”. 193 See H. C. Erdmann, Probe Der heutigen neuen Offenbahr- und Bezeugungen, 24.  194 See Johann Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken über das Send-Schreiben an einige Theologos, betreffend die Frage: ob Gott nach der Auffahrt Christi nicht mehre heutiges Tages durch Göttliche Erscheinung den Menschen-Kindern sich offenbahren wolle? (1692), § 5, 9.  195 See J. Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken, § 6, 10–11.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

155

according to the principle of analogia fidei, else it could not be considered a godly revelation. Highlighting the importance of the Scripture on many occasions, he criticized those that sought to establish their faith apart from the sacred text or in adding something to it, referring to such positions as “enthusiastic”. He counts “papists” among those who overreach in going beyond the Scripture to add councils to it, and Quakers as those who add to God’s Word revelations which cannot be proven through the Scripture itself and which, for this reason, remain obscure. He remarks on the principle of sola scriptura, stating that God’s Spirit and mercy are never given except on the basis of his Word: “It is certain that God does not give anyone his Spirit or mercy apart from His previous external Word, so that we consider enthusiasts those who claim to have the Spirit without having the Word”.196 Based on this criterion, Winckler asserts that such special revelations are usually not a result of God’s wisdom, rather they are based on “Pythagorean, Platonic, Kabbalistic, Paracelsian wisdom” and they are caused by melancholic complexions.197 Whereas the most theologians were rather critical of Asseburg’s revelations and, as a consequence, of the Petersens’ position, a more positive, or at least moderate, stance with respect to the revelations of the young woman is shown by Spener, whose position was praised and partly also followed by Leibniz. Spener expressed his position on Rosamunde’s visions in a short text published in 1692, but completed a year earlier. Here Spener shows caution, stating that he does not know Rosamunde personally, although he had been hearing of her over the past two years. Even though he does not deny the possibility that believers experience godly revelations, he does not take any definitive position on the nature of these visions. Moreover, he remarks on the possibility that these originated from the deceit of the Devil or are the fruit of imagination. He suggests, therefore, to suspend judgment on this issue and to wait: “If it comes from human nature, then it will slowly disappear; if it originates from God, then it cannot be attenuated”.198 On the other hand, Spener takes a clear position on Johann Wilhelm himself, remarking on his sincere faith. He also defends Petersen’s millenarian standpoint, asserting that, although he does not totally

196 See J. Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken, § 18, 52: “Es ist fest darauff zu bleiben / daß Gott niemand seinen Geist oder Gnade giebt / ohne durch oder mit dem vorhergehenden eusserlichen Wort / damit wir uns bewahren für den Enthusiasten / das ist / Geistern / so sich rühmen / ohne und vor dem Wort den Geist zu haben”. 197 See J.  Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken, § 40, 91 and § 42, 103. Winckler’s criticism and reference to the Platonic-Hermetic wisdom recalls Colberg’s position in Das Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthums. 198 See P. J. Spener, Theologische Bedencken über einige Puncten / als I. Von der gerühmten Offenbahrungen eines Adelichen Fräuleins. II Von D. Petersen, und das von ihm behauptete tausend-jährige Reich Christi. Und dann III Von denen so genannten Pietisten (1692), I.

156

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

agree with his view, such a position neither undermines any article of faith nor produces any dangerous consequence for faith.199 Spener’s Theologische Bedencken on Asseburg was also quoted by Leibniz, who praised the theologian’s cautious stance.200 Spener was, however, not the only source for Leibniz on the events around Asseburg. The philosopher learned about Asseburg through Duchess Sophie of Hannover, who, before the publication of Petersen’s Species facti, did not resist “to communicate this secret to such a curious man”.201 Partly following Spener’s hypothesis, Leibniz expressed a clear judgment on the natural origin of the revelations. According to him, such revelations are clearly fruit of imagination, an imagination which is often reinforced by certain events or readings. In Leibniz’s opinion, it was clear that Asseburg’s mother had played a decisive role through her example as devout woman and through her education endowed the young Rosamunde with certain proclivities. Certain events, as he explained, that happen in the first years of a person’s life could leave their mark on the brain and influence the imagination: a child who had an accident with an insect that elicited fear preserves this impression lifelong, even without remembering the cause of it.202

199 On Spener’s position about special revelations see also a letter in which he states that he does not deny the possibility of special revelations; to deny this possibility would mean to restrict God’s freedom, however, these are not a principle for faith. Moreover, he invites moderation and admonishes discussion arising from that, see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 22. August 1676), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit, 2, 460–4, here 462: “Quod quidem attinet quaestionem ipsam controversam [scil. special revelations], si isti simpliciter omnem omnino revelationem immediatam his temporibus negant et divinam in hoc libertatem constringunt, nollem ipiscum facere, qui in scriptura contrarium nullibi invenio. … Ubi vero de eo question sit, an revelations immediate hodie sint principium fidei et in rebus ad salute spectantibus tales vel expectandae vel sequendae pro negative stare ne dubito quidem. … In omnibus vero etiam hisce controversiis vellem moderationem servari et doceri errantes, non exagitari vel conviciis praescindi”. 200 See Leibniz an Herzog Rudolf August (Hannover, 29. December 1691), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Erste Reihe, Siebenter Band, n. 51, 72–5; Leibniz an Kurfürstin Sophie Charlotte (Hannover, 10. (20.) Februar 1692), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Erste Reihe, Siebenter Band, n. 69, 101–104; Leibniz an Heinrich Avemann (Hannover, 29. Dezember 1691), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Erste Reihe, Siebenter Band, n. 276, 502. 201 The Asseburg’s affair is first mentioned in Herzogin Sophie an Leibniz (Ebsdorf, 5./15. Oktober [1691]), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Erste Reihe, Siebenter Band, n. 26.  202 See Leibniz an Herzogin Sophie (Hannover, 23. Oktober 1691), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Erste Reihe, Siebenter Band, n. 38, 44–52; and also Leibniz an Herzogin Sophie (Hannover, 13. Oktober 1691), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Erste Reihe, Siebenter Band, n.31, 33–7.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

157

Despite his clear statement on the nature of Asseburg’s revelations, Leibniz also made some positive comments on this phenomenon. Such events are useful not only in that they disclose the nature of human mind, of which we do not know all resources, but they can also be considered a grace by God, as Asseburg’s case shows. The ardent love for Christ – so Leibniz – caused by sermons and readings, gave her the grace of seeing Christ’s image or appearance. … This brings to her something good, she is happy and she has good sentiments. Her devotion is continuously fired up. … One should not imagine that every grace from God must be miraculous. When He [scil. God] employs our natural dispositions and what surround us in order to give some light to our understanding or to act good, I think this is a grace.203

As a consequence of his system, that envisages a cosmos made by God according to certain rules and, therefore, a certain order, Leibniz considers special revelations or particular miracles as unintelligible events against such an order. Nevertheless, the philosopher does not totally condemn Asseburg as having succumbed to phantasy or enthusiasm, rather he considers it a gift of God’s mercy, useful to the moral personal improvement.204

Suspicions of Schwärmerei Asseburg’s case sharpened the theologians’ suspicion towards the Petersens. Already on 8 January 1690 – just after Johann Wilhelm started preaching on the first resurrection and on the upcoming Kingdom of Christ – the five main pastors of Lüneburg delivered to Georg Meier, senior of the church of the city, a list of eighteen questions asking for a clarification on Petersen’s chiliastic position.205 Among the issues raised were the role of the Word as an unavoidable medium of faith, and the relationship between the Scripture and the special revelations (unmittelbare Offenbarungen), underlying which suspicions of “enthusiastic” orientation lurked. Particularly, the fourth question on the difference between the external and internal Word (äusserliches and innerliches Wort), and the last two questions about Petersen’s standpoint on Böhme, Weigel and “Consorten”, 203 Leibniz an Herzogin Sophie (Hannover, 13. Oktober 1691), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel, Erste Reihe, Siebenter Band, n.31, 33–7. 204 Leibniz did not totally refuse the possibility and existence of miracles. He minimized them, and inscribed them into a “broader order” in comparison to the order that governs the evolution of the sequence of events in the world, an order which is not intelligible, but that is not exempt from the principle of sufficient reason. On Leibniz’s position on miracles see G. Brown, “Miracles in the best of All Possible Worlds: Leibniz’s Dilemma and Leibniz’s Razor”, in History of Philosophy Quarterly, 12 vol., n. 1 (1995), 19–39. 205 See Achtzehen Theologische Fragen / Die Wegen der neuen und unmittelbahren Offenbahrungen Und Erscheinungen / In Statu Controversiae Zu beantworten vorgekommen ([s. l.], 1692. See on this point also Matthias, Petersen, 233–8.

158

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

and about the necessity of the “sana Philosophia” for a preacher, demonstrate an allegation of enthusiasm or fanaticism. This position was also reiterated by the superintendent of Lübeck August Pfeiffer in his Antichiliasmus (1691), where the theologian describes the millenarian authors in the following way: Chiliasm, or the supposed one-thousand-year kingdom is a dream 1. which the laying Jews has fabricated; 2. through which the first heretic Cerinthus deceived Christianism; 3. which enthusiasts and fanatic visionaries have embellished and brought to people again in the former and present century; 4. which suspected preceptors have approved.206

The concept used to describe Petersen’s position in particular, and the chiliastic position in general – “Schwärmerei” (“enthusiasm”) – was coined by Luther to negatively connote certain authors (particularly the Zwickauer prophets and Thomas Müntzer) who, highlighting the importance of the Holy Spirit’s illumination, supported a certain strand of spiritualism that upheld a consequent relativization of scriptural authority.207 At Petersen’s time, the term “enthusiasm” was being used by the Greifswald theologian Daniel Colberg, whose voluminous work Das Platonisch- Hermetische Christenthum (1690–1691) criticized the Christian schwärmerische tradition, to describe its origins and its main mistakes. With the term Schwärmer, Colberg meant a series of authors from his century, such as “Stofelianer, Methodisten, Hoburgianer, Böhmisten, A ­ nabaptists, L ­ abadists, Quackers, Bourignonisten, Quietist, Septenisten”. According to Colberg, the philosophical / ​t heological position of these authors was deeply rooted in the pagan Platonic-Hermetic philosophy, which certain writings had imported into early Christianity in the first centuries. This had gone on to shape a “mystical theology” based not only on the notion of an internal image of God imprinted in creatures but also on the idea of Christus in nobis (Christ in us), and of the consequent internal illumination necessary for self-knowledge and to know Christ and God: Enthusiasm is based on Plato’s erroneous doctrine, according to which human being’s soul originates from the same substance as God’s essence and possesses in itself the entire knowledge of everything. As the soul is linked to the body, this 206 A.  Pfeiffer, Antichiliasmus, c. 2, § 8: “Es ist der Chiliasmus oder das vermeinte tausendjährige reich ein Traum / welchen 1. Die verlogene Jüden erdichtet; 2. Der Ert-Kätzer Cerinthus übertünckt und der Christenheit erstmahls angeschmiert; 3. Die Enthusiasten und schwärmerische Phantasten im vorigen und jetzigen Seculo wieder auffgeputz und auffs neue unter die Leute gebracht / und 4. Falsche verdächtige Lehrer gebilligt und scheinbar gemacht haben”. 207 This concept was later used also to connote radical Pieitists, Quakers, Rosicrucian, or other authors who, in general, supported a “spiritualistic” hermeneutical stance. The term – together with the definition “link wing of Protestantism” – was, however, usually employed with a polemic intent. See R. Stroh, Art. Schwärmertum, in: RGG⁴ 7 (2004), 1047–9; on the use of this term in Luther see Stengel, Sola Scriptura im Kontext, 82–9.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

159

knowledge is quite obscure, but not totally effaced, so that human being, abandoning all external senses and contemplating himself, can see this internal light and attain the original wisdom. The Platonic tenet, according to which every art and science are inscribed in the human being, is the basis of the internal revelation. […] These fanatics call this Idea or Mundus intellegibilis of Plato internal light, word, and seed, and the knowledge of the internal science is called self-knowledge or internal revelation or illumination.208

Colberg identifies some authors responsible for the “incursion” of mystical theology into Christianity. Origen was considered the main figure in this context, which prompted Colberg to speak about “Origenism”, also as a way to indicate certain spiritualist positions in the more recent centuries. Origen’s work was, however, anticipated by his teacher Clemens of Alexandria. Moreover, the broad reading of the Corpus Dionysiacum in the Middle Ages – thanks especially to the monastic culture – would have been crucial for the diffusion of mystical theology. Whereas Platonic philosophy constituted the theoretical basis, the hermetic wisdom of Hermes Trismegistos, which can be found in the heterodox traditions of Kabbalah, Alchemy, Astrology and Magic, provided the means to attain such internal wisdom. Colberg’s main aim was not to describe the historical evolution of the mystical theology in precise detail; rather, he sought to underline the common origin of all Schwärmer authors in the Platonic-Hermetic tradition, remarking on the heretical implications of these positions. For instance, he associated Böhme’s dual principle of light and obscurity with Manicheism. Colberg considered the integration of the Platonic philosophy into Christianity not only as a potential starting point for heresies, but also as a way of dealing with theological issues in contrast to the principle of sola scriptura: “Where is the divine authority of God’s Word here? … They refer to their own dreams and to the heathen Platonic blindness”.209 208 D. Colberg, Das Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum, Ander Theil, c.1, III, 8–12: “Das Fundament des Enthusiasmi beruhet auff der irrigen Lehr des Platonis, daß die Seele des Menschen sey aus GOttes Wesen erschaffen / und in ihr die vollkommene Erkäntniß aller Dinge besitze / welche zwar / indem sie mit dem Leibe vereiniget werden / sehr verdunckelt / aber nicht gar ausgelöschet sey daß / so der Mensch nur in sich kehret / alle äußerliche Sinnen verläst / und auch dieses innere Licht mercket / wieder zur vorigen Weißheit gelange. Muß demnach der Platonische Satz / daß alle Künste und Wissenschafften im Menschen liegen / ​ den Grund geben der inneren Offenbarung. … Diese Ideae oder mundus intellegibilis Platonis, heissen denen Fanaticis das inwendige Licht / Wort / Same / und die Erkäntniß der inwendigen Wissenschaft / Erkäntniß unser selbst / oder inwendige Offenbarung und Erleuchtung”. 209 D. Colberg, Das Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum, Erster Theil, c. 3, V, 171: “Wo bleibet hier die göttliche Autorität des Worts GOttes? … sie / nach eigenen Träumen / vom inwendigen Licht / und nach Heydnischer Platonischer Blindheit richten”. On this point and on Colberg’s Das Platonisch- hermetischen Christenthum see S. Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte. Philosophiegeschichte zwischen Barock und Aufklärung (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004), 112–86.

160

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Colberg’s treatise most likely constituted a conceptual reference point for the most theologians who, criticizing Johann Wilhelm’s chiliastic standpoint and his defense of Asseburg, compared his position to the Platonic, Kabbalistic, Quaker, and other philosophies, where Scripture was not the essential focal point in sacred exegesis. Johann Winckler asserted, for instance, that “Holy Scripture should have the preminence when judging in matters concerning faith or conscience”.210 Similarly, the theologian Heinrich Christoph Erdmann highlighted that “a new doctrine must be proved on the basis of the Scripture”.211 Such criticism addressed not only the chiliastic expectation, but also the apokatastasis doctrine. After the publication of Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium, Johann Fecht, dean of the faculty of theology in Rostock, charged the Petersens of being new evangelists, new prophets, and of spreading an atheistic doctrine.212 Spener himself, although without explicitly rejecting the doctrine of universal salvation, remarked that this should be better proved on the basis of the Scripture and not just by quoting some passages in an obscure way.213 The centrality of God’s external Word was a typical Lutheran tenet. According to Luther, the Scripture constituted God’s pronounced word and established the relationship between the believers and God in the achievement of faith. Luther highlighted the importance of hearing God’s “living word” in order to access an understanding that is strictly linked to the action of the Holy Spirit. He condemned those who gave voice to the Holy Spirit on the basis of their own 210 J. Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken über das Send-Schreiben an einige Theologos, betreffend die Frage: ob Gott nach der Auffahrt Christi nicht mehre heutiges Tages durch Göttliche Erscheinung den Menschen-Kindern sich offenbahren wolle?, 1692, § 12, 32: “die H. Schrifft solte die Ehre des Gerichts in Glaubens- und Gewissens-Sachen haben. … deswegen weiset uns der h. Geist in seinem Wort nicht auff einen Papst / Concilia, oder Gesichte und Offenbahrung / sondern auff die Schrifft selbst”. 211 H. C. Erdmann, Probe der heutigen neuen Offenbahr- und Bezeugungen: Worinnen nicht allein das Send-Schreiben An einige Theologos und Gottesgelehrte / nebenst den vornehmsten darin enthaltenen Offenbahrungen und Fragen / sondern auch andere Umstände der Sachen / so in der Specie facti nicht enthalten / erörtet werden/…/ nach der neuen auff Schreib-Papier numerirten und autensirten edition in 8vo. dem Leser zur Nachricht / eingerichtet von Henrich Christopff Erdmann / Pastorem beym Kalckverge und der Fürtlichen Guarnison in Lüneburg, 17 Martii 1692, 46: “Also muß auch neue Lehre nach der h. Schrifft probiret werden”. 212 Johann Fecht (1636–1716) had launched this accusation in the dissertation supported by his student Zacharias Grapius: Disputatio Theologica Inauguralis Libellum Recentissimum Sub Rubrica: Das Ewige Evangelium der allgemeine[n] wiederbringung Aller Creaturen etc: Examinans / Qvam … Præside … Dn. Joanne Fechtio … Publico Eruditorvm Examini Submittit M: Zacharias Grapius, Rostoch. SS. Theol. Baccal. … Ad Diem XVI. Maji Ann. MDCXCIX. 213 See Philipp Jakob Spener. Letzte Theologische Bedencken und andere Brieffliche Antworten 1711, Blaufuß, Dietrich / ​Schicketanz (ed.), Teil 3, CXXVI, 665–9, here 667: “da ich doch göttlicher weisheit und güte billich zutraue / daß sie eine solche wichtige warheit / wie diese seyn müßte / auch mit gnugsamer deutlichkeit / wie andere stücke / die zu dem glauben gehören / in der schrifft geoffenbaret / und nicht nur auf eine dunckele art hier und dort darauf allein alludiret haben würde”.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

161

imaginations rather than ground the Holy Spirit in the concrete external form of the Word, “as if the Spirit could not come through the Scriptures or to the spoken word of the apostles, but the Spirit must come through their own writings and words”.214 The Word, according to Luther, initiates the approach of God’s grace. God is “present” in his Word through the Holy Spirit, which dictated God’s Word. The Word not only comes from the Holy Spirit, but it also requires the Spirit to be read and understood: “Scripture is the kind of book that requires not only reading and preaching but also the true exegete, namely, the revelation of the Holy Spirit”.215 According to Robert Kolb: “The oral proclamation or confession of God’s Word must proceed from the biblical text, Luther believed, and that oral event depended on the Holy Spirit’s presence and activity in contemporary hearing, reading, and proclaiming of the Bible”.216 While admitting that the Scripture also contains obscure passages, which must remain so, Luther claimed that the Scripture is totally clear when it is illuminated by the Holy Spirit. In contrast to Sebastian Franck, according to Luther, such a clarity was not a special mystical understanding of the Scripture in addition to the reading of it; clarity is a quality of the Word itself.217 The Scripture is therefore not only the beginning of theological truths, but also the final determinant. Heresies arise when a certain thesis does not conform to or is proved through the Scripture. God’s Word, as the center of faith and theology, also was a crucial point for Luther’s followers. Melanchthon, for example, rejected any form of illumination apart from that emanating from the Word.218 Although without rejecting Luther’s hermeneutical principles, the following generations also concentrated on the problem of how to communicate God’s Word and what “tools” were required for that (e. g., adequate grammar and history for understanding the sacred text and dialectic and rhetoric for its exposition). In addition, what method should be used to approach biblical exegesis (e. g., conceptual definition of some key-terms or loci theologici) was discussed.219 For this reason, it is important to analyze the significance the Scripture bears in the eschatological treatises of the Petersens to gain a better understanding of their hermeneutical approach and their stance on the Lutheran understanding of the sacred text.

214 See R. Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God. The Wittenberg School and Its Scripture-Centered Proclamation (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2016), 59–60. On the meaning of this position in Luther and on the way how Luther developed this “principle” against the Roman Catholic position and the Müntzeraner’s one see Stengel, Sola Scriptura im Kontext. 215 Quoted in Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God, 81. 216 Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God, 83. 217 See Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God, 92–4. 218 See Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God, 255. 219 See Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God, c. 11. 

162

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

2.2.3 The role of the Scripture Johann Wilhelm authored several other texts in response to the numerous reactions to Species facti and his chiliastic position. He continued to write on the chiliastic expectation even after his removal from public office as superintendent of Lüneburg. The discussion around the millennium continued until 1698, when the Petersens started writing on apokatastasis. The texts authored during these years are not only a further explanation of chiliasm, but also the opportunity to better define his hermeneutical position, and to clarify, in this way, his standpoint before the other theologians. Already in Species facti, Johann Wilhelm explains that Asseburg’s revelations were not the ultimate reason to accept the millenarian truth: “[God] did not let us understand the secrets of His kingdom by the means of such great extraordinary revelations, rather through the Spirit in His Word”.220 To the accusation of having learned this truth from other authors, particularly from the Platonic-­ Hermetic tradition, he responded “I read not so much about it [scil. the Platonic texts and Mose, from which the Platonic philosophy is also supposed to derive], rather, I learned the truth that God let me recognize from the Holy Scripture”.221 And also: “I have not based this certainty on ancient witnesses, rather I learned this Truth only from the Holy Scripture thanks to God’s Spirit. I do not need to use the church fathers’ testimony against my opponents. I want to stop at the Holy Scripture, which they must accept as principium fidei, principle of faith”.222 Whereas Johann Wilhelm describes his discovery of chiliasm as divine “revelation” through his reading of the Scripture, Johanna Eleonora also links the discovery of some truths to visions in dreams. However, she hastens to add that such visions were never the ultimate reason to accept these truths, rather “true instruction with which God the Lord has guided my investigation in holy scripture”.223 220 J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 20: “nicht zwar durch solche hohe extraordinaire Offenbahrung / sondern durch seinen Geiste in seinem Wort / die grosse Verheissungen in der Schrifft dem Israel geschehen / und das Geheimniß seines Reichs hat erkennen lassen”. 221 J. W. Petersen, Ablehnung der schändlichen Aufflagen, § 14, 31: “So habe ich doch das wenigste von ihm selbst gelesen / sondern die Warheit / die mir GOTT zu erkennen gegeben hat / aus der Heiligen Schrifft gelernet”. 222 J. W. Petersen, Eine Öffentliche Stimme, not paged: “doch habe ich meine Gewißheit auff die testimonia antiquitatis nicht gegründet / sondern diese Warheit allein aus der H. Schrifft durch Gottes Geist gelernet; habe auch also nicht nöthig / die testimonia Patrum gegen meine Widersacher zu gebrauchen; sondern will nur bey der Schrifft bleiben / die sie selbst pro principio fidei annehmen müssen”. 223 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 92. On the use of dreams in Johanna Eleonora Petersen see R. Albrecht, “Pietismus und Mystik. Verknüpfung von Bibellektüre und visionärem Erleben bei Johanna Eleonora Petersen”, in M.  Delgado / ​

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

163

The role that special revelations or the works of other authors played for the Petersens is exemplified by the account about the discovery of the apokatastasis doctrine in the reading of Jane Lead’s treatises. Initially, Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora were both suspicious of Lead’s statements, since the English theosophist’s position was based on visions she had experienced. The couple sought, therefore, to refute her position by referring to several biblical passages which state that Christ’s Kingdom is not for everyone (Matt 25 and Mark 9). They changed their mind on Lead’s position when they “discovered” other passages in the gospel (Rev 21:5 and 5:13) that allowed them to re-evaluate her ideas through the authority of the Scripture.224 He concludes: “We did not believe in it [scil. the apokatastasis doctrine] because Jane Lead, an enlightened person whom we highly appreciate, received it through a vision from God, rather because we found it in the Holy Scripture and God, the Lord, has sealed it in our hearth by the means of the Scripture”.225 Scripture is also a way to overcome disbeliefs and doubts, as Johann Wilhelm declares: “Knowing my weakness and knowing that without the Scripture I would not accept something without persistent doubts, God revealed this truth to me by means of the Holy Scripture”.226 V. Leppin (ed.), ‘Dir hat vor den Frauen nicht gegraut’. Mystikerinnen und Theologinnen in der Christentumsgeschichte (Stuttgart / ​Fribourg: Kohlhammer GmbH / ​Academic Press Fribourg, 2015), 196–216. Starting from mystical influences on the Pietistic movement and from a certain scholarship which, influenced by Albrecht Ritschl, viewed the entire Pietist movement as a return to medieval mysticism, in this article, Albrecht wonders whether Johanna Eleonora’s stance can also be defined as “mystical”. Albrecht underlines certain aspects present in Johanna Eleonora’s work, such as prayer and internal processes; these are, however, linked also to the reading of the Bible and to its interpretation. Albrecht concludes, therefore, that Johanna Eleonora cannot be characterized as a “mystic”, a conclusion I share. These elements (internal experience and praxis) are highlighted also by Markus Matthias, who, following the line of Alrecht Ritschl, concludes that Johanna Eleonora’s hermeneutic – particularly as it is presented in her work Hertzensgespräche – can be defined enthusiastic; see M. Matthias, “‘Enthusiastische’ Hermeneutik des Pietismus”. On the role and use of dreams in general in the seventeenth century and particularly in Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s autobiography see also Gantet, Der Traum in der Frühen Neuzeit, epsecially 396–401. 224 J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 61, 297–9. 225 J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 61, 299: “wir nicht darum glaubten, weil es die erleuchtete Leade, davon wir viel hielten, in einer Vision von GOtt bekommen zu haben, geschrieben hatte, sondern weil wir sie in der H. Schrifft gegründet funden, und GOtt der HErr solche aus der Schrifft in unserem Hertzen versiegelt hatte”. 226 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Bewährung des Ewige Evangelii, 30: “in dem er meine Schwachheit weiß / daß ich ohne die H. Schrifft eine Sache ohne zurückbleibenden Zweiffel nicht leicht annehmen kan / darum schliesset er mir dieselbe Warheit die er mir ins Gemüth fallen läst durch Auffschliessung des Verständnüsses in H. Schrifft also auff”. On this point see also ibi, Vorrede, § 13: “Bißher ist erwiesen / daß die Wiederbringung aller Dinge selbst nach der äusserlichen Außsprache in der H. Schrifft gegründet”; ibi, Vorrede, § 14: “ja selbst wol zu erst dieser Warheit nicht habe beypflichten wollen / biß ich auß der Heil. Schrifft Grund gefunden / und darauff denen andern / die diese Warheit erkant / nicht darum geglaubet / weil sie es gesaget / sondern weil es GOTT in seinem Wort mir solches eröffnet / ​

164

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Johanna Eleonora’s autobiographical account also highlights the role of the Scripture in accepting the secret of universal redemption: “when I had thoroughly understood this truth, I responded afterward and have proven from scripture what that person [scil. Jane Lead] had seen and heard in a vision”.227 Moreover, Johanna Eleonora’s narrative also accentuates prayer as a way to gain a real understanding of the Scripture: Behold, I received courage in my prayer, as if all my senses waned and I was placed with my mind into the fulfilment of all things, hearing with John on my mind that after the end of time all creatures will praise God. Then God will be everything for everybody after he will have renewed and reconciled everything through Jesus Christ. Paul’s word became alive in my heart and I repeated these words after him with an ardent spirit: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God … For of him, and through him, and to him are all things …’ (Rom 11:33, 36).228

The Word comes alive thanks to a divine illumination obtained through prayer. The Petersens thus ascribe a central role to the Scripture in their discovery of the eschatological truths, as the sine qua non for their acceptance. If for the Petersens the Scripture remained the primary source for establishing their eschatological position, the interpretation of the sacred text was regulated by the principle of the analogia fidei, according to which all parts of the Scripture had to harmonize and it was not possible to establish a new theological truth starting with a passage that was obscure and controversial, as John’s Revelation was considered.229 The Petersens made use of the last book of the Bible as the main scriptural reference, whereby particularly Rev 20, 21 and 5 are the passages on which chiliasm and apokatastasis doctrine are grounded. The problem in using this book as the main reference point for establishing a theological truth was not only is obscurity but also its canonical character, an open issue for Petersens’ contemporaries.230

und in mir befestiget / und tieff gegründet hat”; ibi, Bewährung des Ewige Evangelii, 12: “so ist zwar wahr / daß durch dero Schrifften solche theure Warheit in den Hertzen der Menschen auffgewecket worden”; ibi, Kurtze Untersuchung des Jenigen, § 11, 49: “Der HErr hat mir seinen Sohn / und die vielerley Oeconomien in seinem grossen Reiche entdecket / und zwar in der H. Schrifft / und hat mir darinnen das Ende aller Dinge einsehen lassen”. 227 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 93. 228 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 92. 229 See e. g., A. Pfeiffer, Antichiliasmus, 1691, c. 4, 155–78. 230 The question of the authenticity of the Revelation in Luther and in Lutheran authors was mentioned in the first part of this chapter, see c. 2.1.3.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

165

On the canonical character of the Revelation In awareness of this problem, Petersen confronted this issue on many occasions. In Justa Animadversio (1692), answering to Gerahard Theodor Mayer’s criticism, Johann Wilhelm criticizes the division of the scriptural books in libri canonici primi ordini and secondi ordini.231 He wonders according to what criterion the Revelation is considered a canonical book of second order, arguing (without mentioning any specific name) that several authors recognized the authenticity of this book, especially authors in the church of the first centuries. The criteria by which the authenticity of this book could be judged – as Petersen explains – are, first, the style of this book, which is similar to that of John’s gospel and, second, its contents that not only harmonize with and confirm what is written in the prophetical books, but also shade more light on them. According to Petersen, the distinction among canonical books of the first and second order seems meaningless, for a canonical book is a book with an intrinsic truth and order, based on which all other truths can and must be measured. Therefore – he continues – the Revelation either belongs to the canon or not. Several theological truths (the image of the dragon which throws a third of stars on the Earth, or the two-horned beast which is the false prophet, or Babylon, or the second death which is a lake of fire, etc.) are founded in this book, he thus concludes that the Revelation belongs to the canon.232 In another text, directly addressing August Pfeiffer’s Antichiliasmus, Petersen reiterates his position and underlines the conformity of the contents of this book with the prophets in the Old Testament and with evangelists or apostles in the New Testament.233 Even if the canonical character of the Revelation was established, the question of the right interpretation of this book remained open. To read Rev 20 in the chiliastic sense was, indeed, not only a matter of establishing the authenticity of this passage, but also a matter of the right interpretation. Most theologians believed that the promised kingdom, not only in Rev 20 but also in several other biblical passages, was an event that had already occurred in history. Particularly, several held the belief that it started during Constantine’s time and it was just a spiritual kingdom.234 How could the Petersens establish with certainty that their interpretation was the right one?

231 This division was suggested by the theologian Johann Gerhard, see Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung, 908. Libri canonici primi ordinis are those books whose authorship and belonging to the canon were indisputable; secondi ordini were those books whose authorship was controversial. 232 See J. W. Petersen, Justa Animadversio, 1692, §§ XIV–XVII, 15–21. 233 See J. W. Petersen, Ablehnung der schändlichen Aufflagen, 1692, § 10, 16–19, here 19.  234 As Johann Wilhelm Petersen also remarks, see c. 1, § 1.2, A future event. On this point, see also Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung, 1012–29.

166

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

2.2.4 The role of the Holy Spirit The relationship between Scripture and Spirit and their respective functions in sacred hermeneutics is further explained by Johann Wilhelm in the following way: Even though the Spirit is not separated from God’s Word, first, men are enlightened by the Holy Spirit; this spiritual illumination is necessary so that the Scripture, which is spiritual, can be understood. Theology is thus not ‘knowledge of faith’ (peritia fidei), rather a habitus given by God (habitus theodidaktos), for which not the fanatical light is necessary, which is a devious light, rather the true internal light, so that the splendor of the theological truth can be known.235

This statement rehearses the core of the hermeneutical discussions in seventeenth century protestant environments. Even though the principle sola scriptura was never called into question, the problem of what the right “tools” were to approach the sacred text and the right process to understand it was an open issue.236 It is difficult to identify precise categories or traditions. In order to briefly exemplify this debate and to gain a general idea of the directions which characterize this discourse, Johannes Wallmann’s categorization needs to be revisited. Wallmann sets out two main genealogies that shape the Lutheran hermeneutical approach until Schleiermacher’s time. The first is represented by Luther himself and by Johann Gerhard, until Spener and Pietism. Here, theology refers to a “habitus theosdos”, an attitude taught by God. The other genealogy starts with Melanchthon and continues with Calixtus and Semler. Here theology and faith are seen as two different entities and the theological concepts are rationalized.237 Significant for the hermeneutics of the seventeenth century is that this no longer focused only on the scriptural side, but also on the role of the reader. In this regard, Johansson speaks about “anthropological aspect” and remarks on the

235 J. W. Petersen, Justa Animadversio, §§ XLIX-L, 61: “Unde licet Spiritum a verbo divino non separemus, hominem tamen prius per Spiritum S. illuminatum esse, adeoq; Spiritualem esse debere requirimus, antequam scripturam, quae Spiritus est, intelligere possit. § L. Unde Theologia non est peritia fidei, sed habitus theodidaktos, ad quam, non fanaticum, quod subdulum lumen est, sed verum internum lumen requiritur, ut veritatis ejus in suo pulcherrimo lumine noscatur”. 236 In this sense, some scholars claim that the hermeneutical science started with Protestantism, see F. Günter / ​S. Meier-Oeser, “Einleitung: Hermeneutik, Methodenlehre, Exegese. Zur Theorie der Interpretation in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in F.  Günter / ​S. Meier-Oeser (ed.), Hermeneutik, Methodenlehre, Exegese. Zur Theorie der Interpretation in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart / ​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzbook, 2011), 9–14, here 12.  237 See J. Wallmann, Der Theologiebegriff bei Johann Gerhard und Georg Calixt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961), 2. 

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

167

use of the concept of “illumination” (Erleuchtung) or “irradiation” (Einstrahlung) to explain the necessity of the Spirit in the interpretative process. Particularly meaningful on this point is the relationship between spiritual revelation and natural reason.238 Already Melanchthon had distinguished how reason (and philosophy) and divine revelation influenced the hermeneutic process, underlining the necessity of the light of God’s revelation to understand the Bible, and, at the same time, remarking on the role of some philosophical / ​rational principles in order to approach the sacred text.239 During the course of the seventeenth century, the relationship and the role of these two factors – natural reason and spiritual revelation – was questioned. Some theologians put the accent on the weakness of the natural reason, highlighting the role of Holy Spirit. Particular significant in this context are Johann Arndt, Johann Gerhard and Philipp Jakob Spener. Against this backdrop, the Petersens’ hermeneutical approach and the role they ascribe to the Spirit in their works can be better understood by analyzing the relationship between Spirit and natural reason according to their works.

Spirit and reason, godly wisdom and human wisdom The role of the Spirit is further connoted in Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, in answering Winckler’s charge of enthusiasm. Spirit is here opposed to natural reason. Interpreting the Scripture based just on natural reason might lead to the conclusion that God’s Word is contradictory or that not enough tools are available to prove or reject some statements: Reason and preconceived opinions could mislead us, so that we come across contradictions in God’s indisputable Word, contradictions that we cannot overcome so long as we stick to our hypothesis. … Therefore, natural reason could find so many justifications to defend and to support this truth [scil. chiliasm] as many motives to reject and discredit it. … Oh! There are so many nooks in the natural reason that is not yet submissive to faith and to Christ’s light, through which it can be illuminated! Reason has the same power as phantasy in comparison to reason, in that phantasy receives its power from reason.240 238 See T. Johansson, “Die Vernunft vor den Mysterien der Heilige Schrift. Anthropologische Erwägungen zur Bibelhermeneutik der evangelisch-lutherischen Theologie des 17. Jahrhunderts und der Bibelhermeneutik Spinozas”, in C. Bultmann / ​L. Danneberg (ed.), Hebraistik  – Hermeneutik  – Homiletik. Die ‘Philologia Sacra’ im Frühneuzeitlichen Bibelstudium, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 413–39, here 413. 239 See Johansson, Die Vernunft vor den Mysterien der Heilige Schrift, 416. 240 J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, §§ VIII–IX, 9–11: “Ja es kan die Vernunfft / und die vorgefaste Meynungen uns dahin verleiten / daß wir selbst in dem undisputirlichen heiligen Worte Gottes solche contradictoria antreffen / die wir / ​ so lang unsere Hypotheses bey uns feste stehen / nicht heben können. … so hätte der natürliche Verstand eben so wol rationes gefunden / daß er solche hypothesin mit starcken Vorstellungen

168

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Referring to 1 Cor 1:23: “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”, Petersen distinguishes human wisdom from God’s wisdom. The latter – divine wisdom – cannot be grasped by natural light: nobody believes that one can grasp God’s wisdom through his natural wisdom. Another light and illumination from above are necessary, through which we recognize the truth as truth and the lies as lies. … A natural human being decorated by his glorious worldly-wisdom grasps nothing of God’s Spirit. He grasps neither everything nor something, rather nothing.241

God’s wisdom is described as a mystery, that natural “carnal” reason (fleischliche Vernunft) cannot grasp: “Flesh, blood, and reason cannot grasp [the truth about] Jesus Christ, God’s son, if [this truth] is not transfigured by Christ’s Spirit”.242 Such a contraposition between natural reason and God’s Spirit is reflected in the distinction between Unwiedergeboren and Wiedergeboren. To be a Wiedergeboren, re-born or regenerated, is the distinguishing mark of those who have gained God’s Spirit, who are also called Kinder des Lichtes, children of the light.243 The Petersens use the light as a recurring metaphor in their writings to indicate the spiritual knowledge given by God.244 This equivalence between verthädiget / und entschuldiget hätte / als man sie nun verworffen und angeklaget hat. § XI. O! es sind viele Winckel in dem natürlichen Verstande / der noch nicht unter dem Gehorsam des Glaubens / und des Lichtes Christi gesetzet / und dadurch erleuchtet ist! es ist auch die eigene Vernunfft nicht weniger kräfftig / als die Kräffte der phantasie, die durch die Vernunfft erst die rechte Höhe bekömt”. 241 J. W.  Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, § XV, 15–16: “Hie glaube nun niemand / daß einer die göttliche Weißheit / mit seiner natürlichen Weißheit und Vernunfft begreiffen könne. Es gehöret hiezu warlich ein ander Licht und Erleuchtung von oben / dadurch wir die Warheit als Warheit / und die Lügen als Lügen eigentlich erkennen. … Denn der natürliche Mensch mit aller seiner Welt-Weisheit aufs herrlichste gezieret / vernimmt nichts vom Geiste Gottes / er vernimmt weder alles / noch etwas / sondern gar nichts”. 242 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, § XXX, 27: “Denn wo der Geist Jesu Christi / Christum den Sohn Gottes nicht verklähret / so kan ihn warlich Fleisch und Blut / und die Vernunfft nicht erreichen”. 243 See e. g. J. W.  Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, § XVIII, 20: “GOTT aber sey Danck / daß die Kinder des Lichts in die Finsterniß der fleischlich-Gelehrten hinein sehen / welche GOtt gelehrter gemacht hat / als alle ihre Lehrer / ob sie gleich nicht solche äusserliche erudition haben / welche manchem hinderlich ist”. 244 See e. g. J. W. Petersen, Klarer Beweiß, § 6, 13; J. W. Petersen, Nubes Testium Veritatis, Liber Primus, 1: “Spiritu Sancto, Spiritu omnis Veritatis oculos meos illuminante”; Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, § XXX, 27; J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Bewährung des Ewigen Evangelii, 2: “Wenn nun der treue Vater durch einige Anfechtung oder Einstrahlung in das hertzt ein anders bekandt machet / dann heben sie an zu forschen / und sehen das Licht in seinem Licht”, and 29; J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, § 7, 4; Gründliche Betrachtungen, § 5, 7. 

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

169

spiritual illumination and Wiedergeburt takes on a circular form: Spirit is revealed in those re-born, re-born are those who are illuminated by God’s Spirit. But it is not without a “subjective” connotation, subjective in the sense that it is manifested in the “mathematical” certainty (Gewissheit) through which those who are re-born can consent to a theological truth.245 In the same way as it is not possible for certain basic truths or clear principles (such as that two times two is four, one must believe that, it is an immediate and intuitive knowledge) to be taught or instilled by reasoning, so, too, for a child of God who recounts the truth he has discovered with joy and certainty. Like the first apostles who supported certain truths against heathen philosophers, which they could not demonstrate with certainty, they waited for reason and philosophers’ opinions to recognize such truths.246 The certainty offered by God’s Spirit is a certainty for the subject, who cannot prove or support it with further reasoning. Only those who possess the same certainty can see the same truth, understand and consent to it. To that extent, God’s truth and illumination can only be grasped by the heart and not by the intellect. The Petersens do not systematically explain the relationship and the distinction between natural reason and spiritual illumination, between heart and intellect, or the meaning of Wiedergeburt in the hermeneutic process; nevertheless, they refer explicitly to some sources. To shed more light on the meaning of these concepts it is, therefore, useful to look at the sources they mention.

245 Also Markus Matthias speaks about a “subjective” tendency, in the sense that it is linked to the personal experience, see Matthias, Petersen: 74, 246 J. W.  Petersen, Die Warheit der herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Ander Theil, 150–1: “Gleich wie wir auch in andern klaren principiis und Grund-Warheiten einen nicht lange zu bitten pflegen / er möchte uns doch zugefallen glauben / daß 2 mahl 2 vier seyn / alldie weil wir solches mit allem Rechte von einem jeglichen Verständigen fordern können / daß ers glauben müsse; Ja gleich wie wir sehr würden ausgelachet werden / wenn wir mit vielen niedrigen Bitts-Worten einen ersucheten / er möchte es doch so mit glauben / daß 2 mahl 2 viere wären; eben also gehet es auch offt einem Kinde GOttes bey einer vollenkömmlich durchgeschaueten Warheit / davon es nicht kleine / geringe und niedrige Worte machen kan / sondern redet solche mit grosser Freudigkeit und Gewißheit aus. … wie es denen Aposteln selbst also von den Feinden der Warheit wiederfahren ist / welche doch mit allen ihren Einwürffen / und eingestreuetem Zweiffel und Verdrehung nicht vermogt haben / daß sie von den Göttlichen Uberzeugungen der Warheit hätten sollen abwendig gemachet worden seyn.  … Aber sie sind wegen solcher Reden nicht ungewisser geworden / sondern haben es bedauret / daß die vorgefasseten Meinungen und die Vernunfft solche grosse philosophos haben dahin bringen können”.

170

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Johannes Coccejus: the “sensus vere mysticus” In Nubes Testium Veritatis Petersen wonders: Why should only theology and its mysteries always remain buried, and why is it not possible that an always ampler light and clarity is manifested, considering that all other disciplines, both mechanical and mathematical, progress continuously, so that they rise to the highest point? Why should one assume that [the meaning of the] Holy Scripture, which is like a big ocean, is thoroughly understood, and there is nothing more to investigate?247

Petersen’s question is clearly a rhetorical question. Referring to some biblical passages, particularly from prophetical books (Dan 12:4; Isa 11:9; Rev 10:7), he claims that knowledge will be increased the last time approaching. God’s Word is described as a mysterium (mystery), an abyss of God’s wisdom (solche Abyssos und Abgründe göttlicher Weißheit), something which cannot be grasped by a human being by force of nature (der natürliche Mensch nichts begreiffet / was der Geist Gottes ist / sondern nur allein der geistliche Mensch), so that Petersen comments ad absurdum that if no more mystery would be left in the Scripture, than everyone could understand it based just on the literal meaning without the illumination of the Spirit.248 Underlying the literal meaning of the scriptural Word is a deeper, more mysterious meaning, a sensu vere mysticus. This hermeneutical method is borrowed from the Dutch Reformed theologian Johannes Coccejus: This [scil. that those who are illuminated by the Holy Spirt can grasp the deepest sense of God’s Word] was understood by the famous Dutch professor Coccejus, to whom we owe a lot in sacred exegesis. In this regard, he established this rule: the more a passage can be understood and interpreted in its richest and widest sense, the more it is truthfully.249 247 J. W. Petersen, Nubes Testium Veritatis, Introdcution, not paged: “Unde cum in reliquis artibus & disciplinis, seu mechanicas, seu mathematicas consideres, tanti quotidie progressus fiant, ut ad summum quasi fastigium arte; hodiernae ascendisse videantur: num credibile est, solam Theologiam ipsiusque Mysteria in profunda Arcanorum abysso semper manere sepulta, & numquam majori luce & claritate esse manifestanda? Aut nun putandum est, Scirpturam Sacram, magnum illum rerum profundissimarum oceanum, ita esse exhaustam, ut nihil amplius sit reliqumum, quod investigemus?“. 248 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, introduction, not paged: “Es ist auch gewiß / daß / wenn nicht mehr in der heiligen Schrifft / und deren inwendigsten Grunde verborgen wäre / als die ausserlichen Worte lauten / und die einen äusserlichen wahren Verstand nach den Buchstaben mit sich führen / so könte auch die heilige Schrifft von allen und jeden ohne sonderbare Erleuchtung des heiligen Geistes vertsanden werden”. 249 J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, introduction, not paged: “Es hat dieses der berühmte Holländische Professor Coccejus, welchen wir

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

171

It was most likely Spener himself who made Petersen so receptive to Coccejus’ hermeneutical position. The exegetical method of the Dutch theologian is, indeed, praised on several occasions by Spener.250 According to Coccejus, the Scripture is a spiritual product, it is dictated by the Holy Spirit and it must be read and investigated within its realm of influence.251 The contents of the Scripture are mysteries which cannot be explained through reason, for reason cannot grasp or explain God’s mysteries, only Spirit can reveal them: the theological knowledge is a cognitio veritatis secundum pietatem or kat’eusebeian. Holy Spirit gives an immediate certainty to the reader’s conscience.252 In the hermeneutical process, God’s Word must have primacy over the authority or doctrines of other authors.253 In turn, Coccejus argues, the Scripture must be regarded as a whole in which Old and New Testament are strictly linked to each other. Although the New Testament, i. e., Christ’s Word, has a supremacy over the Old Testament, Christ’s doctrine is definitely contained in the latter, so that one becomes key to understanding the other. In order to clarify the relationship between Old and New Testament, Coccejus introduced the concept of typus or analogy. With typus he meant a relationship between events described in the Old Testament and events that were subsequently narrated in the New

gewiß in exegesi Sacra viel schuldig seyn / gar wohl eingesehen / welcher des wegen eine Regel gegeben / daß / jemehr und mehr der und der Spruch in seinem reichesten und weitesten Verstande könne verstanden und ausgeleget werden / je warhafftiger er sey”. 250 See An [einen Unbekannten] (Frankfurt a. M., 17. März 1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 62: “Sunt tamen aliqui, quos aliis anteferendos crediderim. In his imprimis Coccejum pono, si ex Reformatis aliquos nostris usibus vindicare lubeat. Vir ille saepe oculos vidit, ubi alii caligant aut dormitant”; An [Abraham Hinckelmann in Lübeck] (Frankfurt a. M., 24. April 1679), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 4 vol., 136: “Von Coccejus werden alle unpartaheyische bekennen müssen, daß er eine ungemeine gabe gehabt habe, in vielen stücken die Schrifft zu erklähren … und nicht nur doctos, sondern pios studiosos haben wollen”; De Cartesiana & Coccejana Theologia (Die 6. Junii anno 1684), in Philipp Jakob Spener. Consilia et Iudicia Theologica Latina, Pars 3 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1989), 454–5: “Cocceji in explicatione Scripturae diligentiam a multis annis in retio habui. Invenio enim judicium rectum, studium in textum non aliorum opiniones inferendi, sed ex eo sensum eruendi sincerum”. 251 On Coccejus’ theology and hermeneutical position see W. J. Van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 106–38. 252 See G.  Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus vornehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus² (Gissel: Brunnen, 1985), 15.  253 On the role of the Scripture see also H. Faulenbach, Weg und Ziel der Erkenntnis Christi. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Johannes Coccejus (Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973), 45–65. Faulenbach highlights the interconnection between Scripture-Spirit-Faith. Scripture in itself has everything needed to be understood, its understanding is, in turn, always mediated by the Spirit, which, giving faith, allows the Scripture to be read as God’s revelation. Scripture is the living Word; it mediates Christ’s knowledge.

172

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Testament, so that what is described in the Old Testament is a sort of prophecy for what will happen in the New Testament, such as in the case of Melchizedek and Christ (Ps 110:4 and Heb 4:21–7). Van Asselt explains the concept of typus in the following way: When things that have occurred exhibit similarity (similitude) to things that occur later in the future, then one is justified in speaking of typology. When the Scripture say that things to come will occur in the same way as they have occurred in the past, then the Scripture provides us with a window into the future through such events. … Typology belongs to the literal sense of Scripture and assumes the unity of the Old and New Testament. Typology does not add a totally new dimension to the testimony of the Old Testament, rather, it accentuates the actual meaning of the Old Testament. The Old and New Testament are like two eyes, neither of which is dispensable.254

The relationship of the Old to the New Testament is also explained through the distinction between the literal and historical sense. Refusing an allegorical interpretation of the Scripture and the idea that the Word has multiple senses, Coccejus claims that in the exegetical process the interpreter must take into consideration not only God’s Word, comparing one passage to another (i. e., using the method of the analogia fidei), but also present historical events, that shed an always increasing light on biblical prophecies. As a result, the interpretation of the Scripture is not completed and it is always possible to delve deeper. God’s revelation can be understood through the Word of God, but only progressively: Prophecy explains history in a manner that is very tangible and demonstrable, but never definitive. Future generations will receive more light than those that have come before. … His prophetic interpretation presupposes an understanding of time that is eschatologically oriented and pneumatologically guided.  … The typological line runs not only from the Old to the New Testament, but also from Word to history.255

Faulenbach remarks that such a “progressive historical” comprehension of God’s Word and of his promises is neither an evolution of human spirit or human genre, nor a general historical evolution-process, rather God’s will of revealing the eternal Testament in time and of putting it in effect through Christ. It is a progress in the history of salvation, so that the entire history (both profane and sacred) is oriented towards the apocalyptical eschaton: God’s Kingdom.256

254 Van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669), 113, 122–3. 255 Van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669), 128, 134. 256 See Faulenbach, Weg und Ziel der Erkenntnis Christi, 166; see especially 161–78 on the link between God’s revelation and history in Coccejus.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

173

Following Coccejus, Petersen criticizes those exegetical interpretations according to which all prophecies were completely fulfilled in the New Testament or those positions that interpret the Scripture according to an allegorical sense.257 On the contrary, a central feature in Coccejus’ method is the relationship not only between the literal and the spiritual sense – a point highlighted by several exegetes – but also between these two levels of understanding and history as the place where God’s promises in his Word are fulfilled. The link between typus and antitypus can be exemplified by the comparison established by Petersen between the seventh day of creation in Genesis, the Sabbath day and the Jubel Year in Lev 25:1–10 and in Heb 4:3–9: the typus of the seventh day of creation indicates the accomplishment of God’s work, but also the Sabbath day for Jews, which, in turn, becomes in the antitypus a promise of rest and peace for everyone in Paul’s epistle.258 The exegesis of these passages does not stop here. According to Petersen, the Sabbath day and the Jubel Year mean, in turn, God’s promises of the millennium and of universal restitution. That the rest day is a promise for every creature and not only for those few elected and that God wants to save all his creatures is, indeed, clearly confirmed in other scriptural passages, not only in Rev 21:4–6, but also in Acts 3:21 or 2 Cor 5:17, as well as in several other Old Testament passages that deal with God’s mercy and love upon everyone, such as in Isa 65:17 and in 66:22. All these passages are read as a promise of universal restitution. Millennium and apokatastasis are, therefore, both contained in God’s Word; prophets and apostles had already forecasted them  – or better “prophesied” them  – yet without thoroughly grasping the meaning of these prophecies. Referring to Coccejus, Petersen claims that, reading the Scripture, it is necessary to take its meaning in its widest possible sense.259 In this way, following Coccejus’ method, he links the understanding of Scripture to history, claiming that God’s revelation did not stop at the apostles’ time.260 Biblical understanding deepens and develops over the course of time:

257 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, introduction, not paged. 258 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, c. IV, 5–7. 259 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Erörterung einer Gradual Disputation, § 21, 37: “Dann da ist zu wissen / und in acht zu nehmen / welches auch der gehlerte Coccejus in diesem Stücke wol in acht genommen hat / daß man die Worte Gottes in dem allerweitesten Sinn nehmen müsse / in welche sie immer können genommne werden”. 260 Several passages in Petersen’s texts deal with the progress in the understanding of the Scripture, see e. g. J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 35: “daß GOTT sich nicht nach der Auffarth Christi begeben habe einige Erscheinungen und Offenbahrungen ergehen zu lassen / sondern daß vielmehr in seinem Worte Verheissungen da liegen / daß er / ehe da komme der grosse und erschreckliche Tag des HERRN / seine Schrifftgelehrte zum Himmelreich gelehret / seine Weisen und Propheten zur Warnung der Welt / und zum Trost seiner Gläubigen senden wolle”.

174

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

The universal restitution is proclaimed in several scriptural passages, but it has not yet been accepted by the heart, although some people had a glimpse of it and testified to it …, so it was not considered or, at least, it was not payed attention to it, since the time to announce it to every people was not yet mature enough, as now it is.261

In this way, legitimizing their eschatological position as a gradual revelation from God, Petersen defends himself from the charges of being a new prophet. He argues that the fact that this truth was not recognized by other authors in past times is justified, for the times were not ripe enough to understand it; on the contrary, God wants to reveal it in the present times: “An illuminated Christian will recognize that God, the Lord, reveals something in this time that was not revealed in past times, … and he will praise God, who reveals a profundity after another in His Word at this time”.262 Scriptural support for the possibility of a progressive understanding of the Word was also sought in Dan 12:4, where it is stated that the knowledge will be increased in the last time before the end of the world. In this way, the hermeneutical progress offers a further proof that the last times are approaching: “It is testified in the Holy Scripture that several will recall Daniel and the Prophets in the last times (it is possible to hear from every pulpit that these are the last times, but this will be better understood by the children of the peace and the kingdom) and gain a large understanding [of the prophetical books]”.263 261 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatasatseos panton II, Abgefaste Antwort auff einige Einwürffe, 37: “Dann da ist an so vielen Orten in h. Schrifft die Wiederbringung aller Dinge verkündiget / aber es ist nicht zu hertzen genommen worden / ob gleich einige einen Blick davon gehabt / und davon gezeuget/ … so ist es doch nicht betrachtet / oder zum wenigsten wieder auß der Acht geschlagen worden / dann die Zeit war noch nicht da / daß es unter allen Völckern solte verkündiget werden / gleichwie jetzt die Zeiten anbrechen”. See also J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatasatseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort auff Wincklers, § 50, 28: “Ich habe auch droben schon gesaget / wie Gott der Herr pflege in seiner Weißheit mit dem Auffgang seiner Warheit / ​ nach seiner heiligen Oeconomie, immer höher / und höher kommen / und daß die nachfolgende Zeit-Alter das verstanden / was die vorigen Jahre nicht begriffen. … die mannifaltige Weißheit Gottes den Fürstenthümern und herrschafften in den himmel zur Zeit des Apostels Pauli erst kund geworden sey / also daß der Apostel Petrus / nach Außgiessung des heil. Geistes über ihn / dennoch solche Geheimnis nicht gewust”; Bewährung des Ewige Evangelii,  2: “Denn obgleich diese Warheit von der allgemeinen Wiederbringung auch den Glaubigen in vorigen Zeiten verborgen geblieben / so ist es nun daher / weil das Alter der Zeit noch nicht da geweset”. 262 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, c. VI, § 2, 3: “solches mag kein wahrer erleuchteter Christ billigen / sondern wird vielmehr bekennen daß GOTT der HERR itzo in seinem Worte was entdecket / welches er zur andern Zeit noch nicht entdecket hat / er wird auch … vielmehr GOTT in ihnen preisen / der zu dieser Zeit eine Tieffe nach der andern in seinem Wort geoffenbahret”. See also J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Bewährung des Ewigen Evangelii, 2: “Denn obgleich diese Warheit von der allgemeinen Wiederbringung auch den Glaubigen in vorigen Zeiten verborgen geblieben / so ist nur daher / weil das Alter der Zeit noch nicht da gewest”. 263 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort auff Wincklers, § 50, 29: “Weil denn in der heil. Schrifft gezeuget worden / daß in den letzen Zeiten (davon man

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

175

The progressive deepening of the meaning of the Word is presented by Petersen not only as a macro phenomenon over the centuries; it is reflected also in his personal experience: Now I want to explain to the dear reader how God, the Lord, has revealed to me one secret after another from time to time according to His wisdom. … For, had it not have happened progressively, and if I had to understand the universal restitution first, then I would have rejected this point, following the position of the fathers [the authors of the Bekenntnisschrifften?] and of the supposed orthodoxy and considering it a mistake.264

If the progressive understanding of God’s Word represents a defense against other theologians’ criticism, it also entails a direct reproach: “The proud spirits from the universities presume to know everything”, “God has revealed it [scil. universal salvation] and disclosed the deep meaning of His Words in this time, which the professors of nowadays and those learned in the Scripture have not recognized, rather, they have rejected it as a mistake contrary to the Scripture”.265 Departing from the point on which the theologians had built their charges to the Petersens – i. e., pretending to have an interior illumination, which would actually be nothing other than the fruit of human wisdom – Johann Wilhelm uses it to his advantage, explaining that he does not have a structurae luminis Prophetici (a prophetical illumination), rather those who do not have God’s Spirit, namely those who are not re-born, cannot understand this truth: A carnal person, who is not reborn, does not have Christ’s Spirit as guide, the Spirit which is key to understanding the Word and to open the heart. … God’s wisdom is a foolishness to him. … If Jesus Christ’s Spirit, the Son of God, does not transfigure [God’s Word], flesh, blood and reason cannot grasp it.266 auff allen Canzeln höret / daß es die Letzten seyn / aber von deren Kindern des Friedens / und des Reichs am eigentlichsten verstanden wird)  viele über den Daniel / und die Propheten kommen / und grossen Verstand finden werden”. 264 J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 68, 343: “Jetzo aber will ich nur dem geliebten Leser kund thun, wie GOtt der HErr nach seiner Liebes-Weißheit nach und nach, von Zeit zu Zeit ein Geheimniß nach dem andern … aus seinem Wort mir entdecket habe. Denn wenn es nicht nach und nach geschehen wäre, und die Wiederbringung zuerst hätte sollen von mir gefasset werden, so würde ich sie, nach den väterlichen Lehr-Sätzen und vermeynten Orthodoxie, was diesen Punct betrifft, verworffen, und für irrig gehalten haben”. 265 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, c. VI, § 3, 3: “Aber nun wollen die stoltze Geister auff Universitäten / und anderswo alles gewusst haben”; Gespräch II, c. XXVII, § 3, 26: “und hat es in diesen Zeiten offenbahret / und auch den tieffen Sinn seines Wortes eröffnet / welchen die heutigen Professores, und Schrifftgelährten nicht erkandt / und ihn als eine Irrung / die gegen das Wort wäre / verworffen haben”. 266 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, c. XXIX, § 4 and c. XXX, § 2, 26–7: “Nun ist ein unwiedergebohrner fleischlicher Mensch nicht durch Christum eingangen / hat auch seinen Geist nicht zum Führer / der Ihm auffschliesse das grosse Wort / und die Hertzen der Mernschen/ … Ein solcher natürlicher fleischlicher Mensch vernimmt nichts

176

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Petersen’s argumentation is, therefore, centered on the distinction between those re-born – who, having God’s Spirit, can understand God’s wisdom – and those not-reborn – who lack Spirit and, therefore, cannot grasp what God reveals. To grasp the concealed wisdom in God’s Word, its sensus vere mysticus, Spirit is necessary. Spirit is, for this reason, the principium veritatis Theologicae, the principle of theology. In this way, Petersen establishes a parallel and, at the same time, a distinction between theology and other sciences: as all other sciences are guided by reason, theology is guided by God’s Spirit. Referring to 1 Cor 2, the theologian remarks that those who do not have the Spirit cannot grasp God’s wisdom: Those who do not have God’s Spirit, the Spirit of the Truth, … cannot speak or learn about God’s wisdom. … On the contrary, a person who is not reborn can have science in other disciplines based on natural reason (as it is described by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 2), since this spirit-of-the-reason is not missing in him.267

Such a distinction between theology and other sciences is directly inherited from Philipp Jakob Spener, whose position is quoted not only here, but also in several other passages.268

Philipp Jakob Spener: theology of the heart Defending himself from the charge of enthusiasm and dealing with the hermeneutical method, Petersen also mentions a text authored by Spener, Die allgemeine Gottesgelehrteit (1680). Commenting on it, he asserts that the Scripture is like the sun, but the eyes of the reader can see its splendor only because they are illuminated by God.269 von dem Geiste Gottes / es ist ihm die Göttliche sophia en mysterio eine Thorheit/ … Denn wo der Geist Jesu Christi / Christum den Sohn Gottes nicht verklähret / so kan ihn warlich Fleisch und Blut / und die Vernunfft nicht erreichen”. 267 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, c. XXX, § 2, 27: “Wer den Geist Gottes / den Geist der Warheit nicht hat / derselbige kan auch auß dem Geist Gottes die Warheit / und heimlichen verborgenen Weißheit Gottes / die von einem Haußhalter über die Geheimnisse erfordert wird / nicht reden / noch lehren. … Aber von andern disciplinen, die mit der natürlichen Vernunfft / die von dem Apsotel Paulo in der 1 Cor. II beschrieben ist / kan ein Unwiedergebohrner wohl eine Wissenschafft haben / weil Ihm solcher Vernunffts-Geist nicht fehlet”. 268 Both Petersen and Spener do not speak often about “science”, they use more the term “disciplines”, or they list these disciplines, speaking about mathematics, jurisprudence, philosophy etc. as opposed to theology. 269 See J. W. Petersen, Justa Animadversio, § XLIX, 60: “quod Dominus Spenerus plurimus tam Patrum, quam aliorum gravissimorum nostratium Theologorum exemplis in libro, quem inscripsit Die Gottes Gelehrteit / demonstravit. Sol quidem Scripturam est & lucet, at oculos non sit coecus, sed illuminatus a Deo per Spiritum ejus, ut splendor ille sanctissimus videry possit”.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

177

The relationship between the Scripture and the Holy Spirit in scriptural exegesis is, actually, one of the first point that sparked Petersen’s interest in Spener, as he refers in his autobiography speaking about his first contact with the Frankfurt theologian: Through Spener, I became aware of what is necessary for a right understanding of the meaning of the Spirit in the Holy Scripture, of the external literal knowledge [of the Scripture], and of the fact that sciences, whose propositions can be understood thanks to mere natural efforts and according to the logical relationship between subject and predicate, are different from the epignwsis ths alhqeias, h kat’ eusebeian [acknowledgment of the Truth through piety].270

The shared interest between the two theologians on hermeneutical issues and the affinity between their positions is confirmed by both authors on many occasions. At the end of Die allgemeine Gottesgelehrteit Spener mentions a sermon by Petersen to show their conformity on this point.271 In turn, Petersen writes in his autobiography: I defend what Spener wrote [in Die allgemeine Gottesgelehrteit] and I derive from it that the Holy Spirit must be key to understanding the Holy Scripture, and that we understand it [scil. the Scripture] according to the understanding given by the Spirit. … If he [scil. a preacher] did not have the Holy Spirit, he could neither speak according to the Holy Spirit nor understand the Scripture, which is spiritual, or interpret it. Moreover, he would interpolate his spirit, from which all heresies arise, and he would bring into the Holy Scripture his carnal approach to understanding it and, so doing, distort it. … Otherwise, even the Devil could be a theologian, that, like a carnal teacher, knows the letters of the Scripture [scil. the literal meaning of the Scripture] but he could neither truly teach it, nor understand the secrets in the Holy Scripture.272 270 J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 5, 18–19: “Ich ward aber bey dem Herrn D. Spener gewahr, was darzu gehöret, daß man den Sinn des Geistes in der Heil. Schrifft recht verstehen könte, und was für ein grosser Unterscheid wäre, zwischen einer äusserlichen buchstäblichen Erkänntnüß, und daß an der Wissenschaft nicht viel daran wäre, die man durch blossen natürlichen Fleiß ihm erworben, und die Propositiones nach dem Subjecto und Praedicato Logice verstehen könte, und daß hergegen die epignosis tes aletheias, e kat’eusebeian eine gantz andere Sache wäre”. A couple of letters from Spener to Petersen also testify their agreement on this point see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Gießen (Frankfurt a. M., 17. Oktober 1674), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 1 vol., 827–31; An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Gießen (Frankfurt a.M, 8. Dezember 1674), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 1 vol., 849–52. 271 See Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners. Studienausgabe, K. Aland / ​B. Köster (ed.) (1 vol., 2 part., Gießen: Brunnen, 1996–2006), 339. 272 J. W.  Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 31, 120–1: “Ich vertädigte das, was der Herr D.  Spener geschrieben, und bewiese es daraus, daß notorie der heilige Geist müste der Auffschlüsser der heiligen Schrifft seyn, daß wir sie verstünden, wie sie nach dem Sinn des Geistes solte verstanden werden. … Hätte nun ein solcher den heiligen Geist nicht, so könte er

178

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Spener’s Die allgemeine Gottesgelehrteit represents, therefore, a further key to understanding Petersen’s position. Answering some criticisms addressed to him by Georg Konrad Dilfeld – which included accusations that he supported enthusiastic positions – Spener, in this treatise, delineates the main features of theology as compared to other ­sciences.273 Spener’s standpoint is articulated in eight questions centered on the role of the Holy Spirit in theological exegesis. The theologian wonders whether a godly illumination is necessary to understand problems concerning the Scripture or, on the contrary, natural faculties are sufficient, and, therefore, whether theology is a natural science, similar to other sciences, or, on the contrary, one that requires an extraordinary illumination from God. Distinguishing the Wiedergeborene from the Unwiedergeborene, Spener explains that, although the latter can understand the literal meaning of the Scripture thanks to their natural faculties  – for instance, that God is omnipotent, good, right, that Christ is his Son, that he suffered, that he died and that he resurrected – this kind of knowledge is not true theology. This kind of knowledge based only on natural faculties is logically true, but it is not true knowledge of God. “True theology or Christianity is not a pure science, a discourse, or an external avowal of Christ’s name and doctrine, rather it consists in power, Spirit, true praxis, lively experience, Christ-likeness, and life full of virtues”.274 Spener distinguishes the theologia from the philosophia de rebus sacris, which is a habitus obtained through personal effort, a series of ideas (concept, Gedanken) that can be discussed and debated. Theology, on the other hand, derives from the light of the Holy Spirit, and as habitus theosdos it is given by God. True theology is not separated from faith, for this reason non-believers, those not-reborn, or the Devil itself cannot produce a true theology. Referring to the Formula of Concord, Spener underlines how the same Spirit, received firstly through baptism, is the light through which one can grasp the meaning of auch nicht aus dem heiligen Geist reden, noch die Schrifft, die Geist wäre, verstehen, noch so auslegen, … wenn dem nicht so wäre, so wäre der Teuffel auch ein Theologus, der zwar auch wohl, wie ein fleischlicher Lehrer, den Buchstaben der Schrifft wüste, aber nichts wahrhafftiges lehren, noch die Geheimnisse in der heiligen Schrifft verstehen könte”. For Spener’s text see Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners, Aland / ​Köster (ed.), 1 vol., 2 part. For an introduction to this text see also Matthias, Petersen, 60–74. 273 See J. Wallmann, “Spener und Dilfeld. Der Hintergrund des ersten pietistischen Streites”, in J. Wallmann (ed.), Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 197–219. As Wallmann underlines, Spener’s concern is first of all not to outline biblical exegesis, rather to explain what is true theology. The biblical exegesis is, however, strictly connected to this concept of theology. 274 P. J. Spener, Die allgemeine Gottesgelehrteit, in Aland / ​Köster (eds.), Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners. Studienausgabe, 1 vol., 2 part., 58: “Die wahre Theologia oder Christenthum bestehet nicht in der blossen wissenschaft / nicht allein in worten / nicht in der äusserlichen bakanntnüß der lehre und namens Christi / nicht in subtilen fragen und reden / nicht im ruhm von Christo / sondern in der krafft / im Geist / in wahrer praxi, in lebendiger erfahrung / in der gleichförmigkeit mit Christo und tugendreichen leben”.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

179

God’s Word and, thus, enhance one’s faith. In this way, Spener defends himself from the charge of spreading a new form of Weigelianism or Donatism, and of supporting an enthusiastic position. Defending himself against the first charge, he highlights the necessity of the sacraments and of God’s Word as the means to access Spirit. As to the accusation of being an “enthusiast”, he explains that the concept of “enthusiasm” not only has a negative connotation, as in the case of the Formula of Concord, where this term alludes to those who claim that it is possible to know God apart from the sacraments and without hearing the Word, and are condemned for that reason; it also has a positive meaning. Especially in the primitive church, it was used to indicate divine force (Göttlichen Trieb) and a divine light and power. Following Spener, Petersen will again use this argument to defend himself from the charge of enthusiasm and explain that enthusiasmos means properly a divine illumination.275 Spener’s position, in turn, plunges its roots into the works of other authors (among the sources mentioned in Die allegemine Gottesgehlertheit, for instance, Johann Arndt and Johann Gerhard) who emphasized the “affective” and “practical” character of theology as opposed to the purely theoretical and speculative side: This relationship to God is not pure speculation and science, rather it is active and powerful, it changes the hearth and the entire human being. God’s image in human’s hearth is not renewed through pure speculation and science, but, rather, owing to the lively powerful internal spiritual knowledge of God, which is present only in true believers.276 275 See J. W. Petersen, Kurtzer und gründlicher Beweißthumdes Chiliasmi, 7: “der Enthusiasmus ist dieser / wenn eine Seele gantz und gar von Gott erleuchtet wird. … Darnach so sollen wir uns den Nahmens des Enthusiasten nicht schämen / sondern ihn als ein theuer Geschenck der Liebe Christi annehmen”. Petersen refers here to the definition of enthusiasmos from Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. 276 See J. W. Petersen, Kurtzer und gründlicher Beweißthumdes Chiliasmi, 103–4: “Solche gemeinschafft mit GOTT bestehet nicht im blossen speculiren / und in einer ledigen wissenschafft / sondern sie ist thätig und kräfftig / sie ändert das hertz und den gantzen menschen. Durch blosses speculiren / und durch die ledige wissenschafft wird das Bild Gottes nicht im hertzen erneuert / sondern durch die lebendige kräfftige innerliche geistliche erkanntnüß Gottes / welche allein ist bey den wahren glaubigen”. Johann Arndt massively influenced the Lutheran theology of the seventeenth century. His work Four Book of True Christianity circulated during this century even more then Luther’s texts. Another important treatise authored by him was the Postilla, which had an influence on Lutheran theology as well. The diffusion of this book was also promoted by Johann Gerhard, who recognized in Arndt his “spiritual father”, and by Philipp Jakob Spener, who edited it in 1675 with his introduction, the Postillenvorrede, published the following year as single work under the title Pia Desideria. Spener saw in Arndt a Lutheran theologian; Arndt’s position as faithful Lutheran follower was, however, a debated question. Scripture and Spirit were also for Arndt hermeneutical principles; nevertheless, Arndt’s interpretation of the Scripture opened a controversy on the relationship between Word and Spirit. Particularly in True Christianity some theologians saw spiritualistic influences, for example, from Johannes Tauler, Caspar Schwenckfeld, and

180

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

As Spener will also claim, the Holy Spirit gives certainty to believers to be God’s creatures and to have faith: “The Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we have its power. Such a testimony let us feeling the power of the Holy Spirit and let us agree with God. If this testimony is right, then you have and you feel the Holy Spirit in your heart”.277 For Spener, as well as for Petersen, true theology is based on a spiritual illumination from God, illumination which convinces the heart (and not the intellect) about truth. As Markus Matthias has noted, this is a strictly modern problem analogous to the Cartesian certainty of the cogito: the latter is not a syllogism, rather an evidence internal to the subject.278 Commenting on Johanna Eleonora’s Gespräche des Hertzens mit Gott, Matthias also speaks about the “experience in the heart” as sine qua non to understand the Scripture.279 The affinity between the approaches of both theologians does not stop here. The accent on piety, or on the “experience” of the heart and on the felt certainty represents a direct criticism of a certain stance that characterized scholastic

Valentin Weigel. His emphasis on Spirit and internal illumination to get a living Word in the believer’s heart (opposed to the dead letter) also pushed several scholars to connote his position as spiritualistic-hermetic. This connotation arose mainly from his interpretation of the Scripture and the Word. Yet without denying the importance of the written Word, Arndt emphasized the role of the Holy Spirit that revives God’s Word. Commenting on the limits of natural understanding – a point emphasized also by Luther – Arndt remarked that only those who are illuminated by the Holy Spirit can grasp God’s work and life, otherwise the Scripture is just a death letter that mortifies. Arndt’s standpoint on the relationship between Scripture and Spirit is difficult to outline; it opened a debate not only during Arndt’s time, but also the scholarship is partly inclined to see him as a follower of Luther or to remark on the spiritualist tendencies. The weakness of natural human reason and its impossibility to grasp the “mysteries of faith” is a central tenet also in Johann Gerhard’s hermeneutic. According to Gerhard, Scripture is clearly a hermeneutical principle, it has in itself an internal power that can penetrate the darkness of human’s heart owing to the supernatural light contained in it. He also highlights the role of the Spirit as a theological principle. Theology is defined by him as habitus theosdos (habitus taught by God), which – as for Luther – is acquired through oratio, meditatio and tentatio. On these authors see E. Lund, “Modus docendi mysticus. The interpretation of the Bible in Johann Arndt’s Postilla”, in T. Johansson / ​R . Kolb / ​J. Steiger (ed.), Hermeneutica Sacra. Studien zur Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Berlin / ​New York: De Gruyter, 2010), 223–45; Johansson, “Die Vernunft vor den Mysterien der Heilige Schrift”, 418–22; Wallmann, Der Theologiebegriff bei Johann Gerhard und Georg Calixt, 73–5. See also Matthias, Petersen, 69–71. 277 P. J. Spener, Die allgemeine Gottesgelehrteit, in Aland / ​Köster (ed.), Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners. Studienausgabe, 1 vol., 2 part., 98: “Der Heilige Geist gibt zeugnüß unserem Geist / daß wir Gottes kinder sind. Solch zeugnüß gehet also zu / daß wir die krafft deß Heiligen Geistes / so Er durchs wort in uns würcket / auch empfinden / und wahrhafftig mit Ihm übereinstimmen. Ist diß zeugnüß recht / so hast du und fühlest auch wahrhafftig den Heiligen Geist in deinem hertzen”. 278 See Matthias, Petersen, 66. 279 See Matthias, “‘Enthusiastische’ Hermeneutik des Pietismus”, 45.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

181

theology, namely rationalism.280 Scholastic theology would focus more on discussions and disputes around the true doctrine than on the meaning of true piety. Spener’s position is not against disputes, and certainly not against the orthodox doctrine itself. As he explains in a letter to Johann Wilhelm, disputes are like the wall that protects a city from external enemies; nevertheless, a city also needs to be cared from within.281 Although disputes are not considered negative in and of themselves, they often have the negative effect of contaminating the heart and, in this way, of deviating from the truth: “The truth is lost not because of the doctrine, rather due to quarrels and disputes. Quarrels and disputes bring troubles to the heart, which is in this way contaminated because it is focused on the problem of how to counter the opponent and confute his false doctrine”.282 A teacher lacking in Sprit does not have the power to reach the heart of the students with the doctrine and to let them progress towards their bliss, the goal of theology. Following Spener, Petersen also criticizes those who seek to understand theological truth through concepts, a stance which leads only to discussions: “If unbelievers wanted to open their heart to God, so that He could let them taste in their souls the force of His promises, they would not discuss a lot”.283 Complexity of theology is opposed to the immediate subjective illumination of the heart: “Because they [scil. women, kids and laypersons] have more divine light and true knowledge in their simplicity, than those who carefully studied all theological systems and disputed around them”.284 As a consequence, even not-learned believers, children, and women, if illuminated by the Spirit, can grasp more about God than an erudite theologian. Petersen concludes: 280 Commenting on Spener’s, text Wallmann states that “Der Kampf, den er [Spener] führt, ist eine vorsorglicher Kampf gegen einen Gegner, der zu dieser Zeit in Deutschland noch keine öffentliche Bastionen errungen hat. Der erste pietistische Streit ist gar kein Streit zwischen Pietismus und Orthodoxie. Er ist, wenn man schärfer zusieht, gleich jenen Streitigkeiten zwischen Labadie und Wolzogen ein Kampf, in dem der Pietismus seinen eigentlichen Gegner anvisiert: den Rationalismus”, see Wallmann, Spener und Dilfeld, 218. Also Petersen mentions the problem of scholastic discussions in his autobiography, see Lebens-Beschreibung, § 5, 18.  281 See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Gießen (Frankfurt a. M., 17. Oktober 1674), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 1 vol., 828. 282 Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners. Studienausgabe, Aland / ​Köster (ed.), 1 vol., 2 part., 159: “Man verliehret die warheit nicht durch das lehren / sondern durch das zancken und disputiren. Solch unglück aber bringet das zancken und disputiren mit sich / daß das hertz dardurch gleich schier verunreiniget wird. Dann weil man mit den gedancken sich tragen und umgehen muß / wie man den widersachern begegne / und ihre falsche lehre widerlege / so läßt man mitlerzeit diese lehre ligen / woran am meisten gelegen ist”. 283 J. W. Petersen, Eine öffentliche Stimme, not paged: “Möchten die ungläubigen Menschen GOtt ihr Hertze auffthun / daß er ihnen die Krafft seiner theuren Verheissungen in ihrer Seele könte zu schmecken geben / so würden sie darüber nicht so viel disputirens machen”. 284 J. W. Petersen, Eine öffentliche Stimme, not paged: “da sie doch in ihrer Einfalt mehr göttliches Licht und wahres Erkäntnüß haben / als solche / die wohl alle Systemata Theologica durch-studiret / und durch-disputiret”.

182

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

Nobody should feel ashamed to learn the Truth from a child, since God often operates in the most incisive way, taking advantage of the smallest instruments; furthermore, vainglorious erudites of the Scripture are wrecked through children’s and infants’ mouth. Unfortunately, the fact that something is accepted when it is proclaimed by a big and famous scholar or professor, and rejected when it comes from a woman or from a simple layperson is not good and shows – unfortunately! – a big blindness, as if God’s Spirit would be linked to the theological erudition, where usually God is present in small part.285

Jacob Böhme and the böhemistic tradition: The Sophia-doctrine While sharing several positions with Spener, Johann Wilhelm’s stance also shows some important divergences, for instance, with regard to the sacraments. Contrary to Spener, for whom the importance of baptism (and of the Word) cannot be overestimated as a means to receiving God’s Spirit, Petersen does not stress the role of the sacraments, although he does not explicitly reject their role as a means to access Spirit and faith. However, the fact that he does not openly remark on their importance – as he does, for example, on the indispensability of the Scripture for learning God’s secrets – can already be read as a sign that he was distancing himself from Spener on this point. Petersen was directly asked about this matter on several occasions. Among others, the reformed personal physician of Herzog Georg Wilhelm in Celle, Robert Schott, was interested in the events around Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg and had asked the young visionary four questions. One had been about the relationship between baptism and predestination: “If in the Sacrament of the Baptism all those who are baptised are promiscuously marked and sealed or only the Elected”.286 In Rosamunde’s answer to Schott, as reported by Johann Wilhelm, the problem of the sacraments is not directly touched upon. On the contrary, as Matthias states, Rosamunde’s prophetical answer clearly rejects the idea of predestination in salvation, showing that God wants to save everyone: “How could I, Christ, the eternal compassion make a choice? … The love-fire 285 J. W. Petersen, Eine öffentliche Stimme, not paged: “Indessen soll sich niemand schämen / ​ auch von einem Kinde die Warheit zu lernen / weil GOtt in den geringsten Werckzeugen offtmals am kräfftigsten würcket / und noch ferner die auffgeblasenen Schrifft-Gelehrten durch den Mund der Kinder und Säuglinge zu Schanden machen wird. Es ist leider! nicht gut / und zeuget eine grosse Blindheit an / daß man alles annimmt / wenn es nur ein grosser berühmter Doctor oder Professor sagt / und alles verwirrft / wenn es eine Weibes-Person / oder sonst ein einfältiger Laye sagt / gleich als wäre Gottes Geist an die Gelehrsamkeit gebunden / da Er gemeiniglich am wenigsten zu finden ist”. 286 Quoted in Matthias, Petersen, 283. Schott wrote the four questions in English and sealed them in an envelope. Rosamunde answered to them in German without opening the envelop. Asseburg’s answer is reported in J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 28. On Robert Schott and his relationship to Asseburg see Matthias, Petersen, 281–5.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

183

overflowed and went to all humans who fell with Adam; there was no choice, since I have borne them all in my mother, namely in my compassion”.287 A few paragraphs later, reporting another of Rosamunde’s prophetical statements, although he does not directly deal with baptism, Johann Wilhelm writes about external services opposed to the true quest for Christ in hearth and spirit: “Those who love me [scil. Christ] and look for godly sanctification through me do not attain it by the means of external faith, which has no basis, or external services, rather they seek for me in Spirit and Truth through their heart, and in all races and religions they receive mercy from me”.288 Schott’s case was not the only one in which the issue of the role of sacraments emerged. The theologian Johann Winckler, writing on Petersen’s Species facti, also remarked on the importance of the Scripture and the sacraments in obtaining faith. He concluded that whatever does not derive from the Scripture or from the sacraments results from enthusiasm or under the influence of the Devil: Enthusiasm is the origin and power of every heresy, also of papacy and of Mohammedism. Therefore, it is necessary to insist upon the fact that God does not want to act with men other than through His external Word and sacraments; everything is praised by the spirit without the Word and the sacraments comes from the Devil.289 287 J. W. Petersen, Species facti, § 28: “wie solte ich Christus / der ich die ewige Erbarmung bin / eine Außwehlung machen? … da das Feuer der Liebe ausbrach / gieng es zugleich auff alle in Adam gefallene Menschen / und war da keine Außwehlung / denn ich trug sie alle in meiner Mutter / nemlich in meiner Erbarmung”. 288 J. W.  Petersen, Species facti, § 32: “Die aber mich lieben / und suchen ihre Heiligung rechtschaffen durch mich / lassen es nicht auff das äusserliche Glauben / welches keinen Grund hat / auch nicht auff äusserliche Gottesdienste / wie es genant wird / ankommen / sondern suchen im Grunde des Hertzens mich im Geist und in der Wahrheit / die haben Gnade vor und bey mir in allen Geschlechten und Religionen”. The answer given in Species facti can be compared with Petersen’s standpoint on baptism in his Spruch-Catechismus. Here he remarks the importance of baptism for rebirth, i. e., to live according to the Spirit and not according to the carnal desire. Although he states that batpism is not necessary to be saved, remarking, instead, the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ (similar to Luther), in addition to the fact that children who have not been baptized can be saved (contrary to CA 9), Petersen stresses the importance of this sacrament distinguishing two aspects in it: an internal aspect, linked to the faith given by Christ through this sacrament and, accordingly, to the new spiritual life, and an external aspect, namely the water through which a person is baptised. See J. W. Petersen, Spruch-Catechismus: Aus dem Catechismo des seel. Lutheri in Fragen vorgestellet, 1689, Das vierdte Hauptstück, 211–25; on Luther’s position and the position supported in CA 9 on baptisme see Grane, Die Confessio Augustana, 72–80. 289 J.  Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken über das Send-Schreiben an einige Theologos, § 18, 40: “Der Enthusiasmus  … ist aller Ketzerey / auch deß Pabsthums und Mahomets Ursprung / Krafft und Macht. Darum sollen und müssen wir darauff beharren / daß GOtt nicht will mit uns Menschen handeln / dann durch sein ässerlich Wort und Sacrament / alles aber / was ohne solch Wort und Sacrament vom Geist gerühmet wird / das ist der Teuffel”. See also § 41, 101 on the necessity of sacraments, sermons and Church for obtaining faith (according to CA 5 and against Anabaptists and Quakers).

184

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

In another passage, commenting on the above-quoted passage from Species facti, in which Petersen writes that true religion resides in the heart rather than in external services, Winckler revisits the issue of the importance of the sacraments and observes that, according to CA 5, external services, sermons, and sacraments are necessary to gain faith.290 The issue of sacraments emerges on several occasions, also in the treatises on universal salvation, where it is better outlined. Referring to Abbot Joachim of Fiore, Petersen asserts that sacraments will no longer exist upon the arrival of the third epoch of the Spirit, i. e., at the start of the millennium. Christ will then be visible to everyone, and sacraments will no longer be necessary: “The Lord comes short before the apocalyptical thousand year, defeating the Antichrist. Therefore, after the Lord has arrived, there will no longer be sacraments in the course of one-thousand years, and something higher will appear”.291 A new epoch would start with the millennium, an epoch during which Christ would be present in Spirit and no longer need to be present through sacraments. The epoch announced in the Gospel would finish and, with that, the Eucharistic sacrament under both kinds would no longer be necessary. Therefore, Petersen speaks of the Lord’s Supper as the Abendmahl der Hochzeit des Lammes, Supper of the Lamb’s marriage.292 The metaphor of marriage to describe Christ’s millenarian Kingdom hints at Petersen’s radical turn. Petersen uses marriage as a metaphor in his chiliastic texts as a way to describe Christ’s reunion with his church at the beginning of the 290 See J. Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken, § 41, 79: “Diese ist nicht einerley Rede mit der Schrifft und den Recht-Gläubigen / wie der 5. Articul der Augspurg. Confession klar anzeiget. … so müssen doch die eusserliche Gottesdienste / die Predigt und Gehör deß Evangelli / der Gebrauch der H. Sacramenten / und der Grund des Hertzens nicht einander opponirt, sondern dieser jenen unterworffen werden / denn wer durch Christum wil die Heiligung vor Gott suchen / der muß es nicht allein auf den Grund des Hertzens / sondern zuförderst auf die äusserliche Gottesdienste lassen ankommen / denn diese sind der Weg Christi zu uns”. 291 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, c. XXXVI, § 22, 42: “Der Herr aber kommt mit der Erscheinung seiner Zukunfft / mit welchen er den Anti-Christen umbbringet / und sein ein Ende machet / kurz von denen Apocalyptischen Tausend Jahren / wie droben bewiesen ist / darumb so werden in dem Lauff der gesegnete Tausend Jahren / nach dem der Herr schon gekommen ist / die Sacramenta auffhören / und was höheres gesehen werden”; Gespräch I, c. CCX, § 12, 206: “Wer wollte denn nicht glauben / daß er in den nachfolgenden aiosi, und Seculis nach seiner heiligen Oeconomie und Anordnung das vorige abgeschaffen / und was neues auffrichten werde / bevorab / wenn wir die Testaments-Worte / die der HErr bey Einsetzung des Abendmahls hinzugesetzet / und nicht davon zu separiren / und abzusondern seyn / bey uns erwegen..”; Gespräch III, § 5, 51: “Wenn er aber nun gekommen / und der Geist GOttes über alles Fleisch ausgegossen werden wird / so wird man solcher Symbolorum nicht mehr von nöthen haben / sondern eine neue Oeconomiam sehen in der Stadt / die da heissen wird / hie ist der HErr Ezech. 48”. 292 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Gespräch I, c. CCXXII, § 4, 216; Gespräch II, c. LXIII, 53. J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Kurtze Untersuchung … gegen die Wiederbringung aller Dinge, § 12, 17, § 17, 52–3.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

185

one-thousand-year kingdom. Referring to Rev 21:2–3, Johann Wilhelm depicts the beginning of the millenarian kingdom as the marriage of the bride, i. e., the earthly Jerusalem, with Christ, its bridegroom.293 Petersen’s use of this image is not a novelty. On the contrary, the celestial marriage is a recurring metaphor both in literature and in art since the Middle Ages, influenced particularly by Bernard’s comment on the Song of Songs.294 Spener used this image in his nuptial sermon for the Petersens’ marriage, where the union of the couple was compared to the mystical union of Christ with its church.295 In the text on apokatastasis it is again used to describe the beginning of the millenarian kingdom, but with a difference. The bride, in this case, is described not only as the earthly Jerusalem, as Christ’s church, for, particularly in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, it assumes a new connotation: it is the heavenly Sophia, God’s wisdom: “This is the believers’ mother, the godly bride, the wisdom, which is virgin and mother at the same time, […] this is the only true mother, from whom Christ has come every time; from her seed all true holy births of God’s children originate, are propagated, and inherit the hostility against the Devil”.296 The reference to the heavenly Sophia is clearly inherited from the German philosopher Jacob Böhme. The influence of the sophiology of Jacob Böhme can be observed particularly starting from the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton. In the first edition of this treatise Petersen uses the term sophia to indicate God’s wisdom, referring, in this case, to the Greek term used by Paul in 1 Cor 2:6–8. In the second edition of Mysterion, however, Sophia is written in Latin letters. Jacob Böhme had built an entire cosmological system in which “Sophia” played a central role.297 In developing his cosmological system, the German 293 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit der herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Erster Theil, 153–4; Ander Theil, introduction, not paged. 294 In Petersen’s library catalogue several comments on the Song of Song by Cistercian authors are present. 295 Spener’s Traupredigt is reported in Breul / ​Salvadori (ed.), Geschlechtlichkeit und Ehe im Pietismus, 7–42. 296 JW. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort an Winckler, § 24, 14: “Das ist die einige Mutter der Glaubigen / die holdselige Braut / die Weißheit / die zugleich eine Jungfer / und Mutter ist/ … das ist / sage ich / die einige wahre Mutter ist / davon JEsus Christus gestern / und heute / und derselbige in Ewigkeit / der Anfang und der Erst­gebohrne der Creatur GOttes / herkommt / und in und durch welchen Saamen dieses Weibes / als durch den Einen / alle wahre heilige Geburten der Kinder GOttes fortstammen / und fortgepflantzet werden / und die Feindschaft gegen die Schlange ererbet haben”. 297 See W. Schimdt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala (2 vol., Stuttgart Frommann-Holzboog, 2013), 204–6; C. Brink / ​L. Martin (ed.), Grund und Ungrund. Der Kosmos der mystischen Philosphen Jacob Böhme (Dresden: Sandstein Verlag, 2017); R. Heinze, Das Verhältnis von Mystik und Spekulation bei Jacob Böhme (Dissertation in der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster, 1972).

186

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

philosopher borrowed the twofold Neo-Platonic creation-plan (God’s plan or primordial world and materialization of God’s ideas) and linked it to the Paracelsian distinction of five alchemical elements. According to Böhme, Sophia was God’s wisdom, and represented the seminal archetype of the entire creation. In that sense, it was taken to be the creation-word, the macrocosm, which contained within it the image and the internal power of God, as the medium between God and creation, that Böhme also called “Gottes Werkzeug zur Schöpfung und Offenbarung” (God’s instrument for creation and manifestation). The figure of Sophia is linked to the figure of Adam in order to form an androgynous figure at the beginning. Due to original sin – as a renunciation of God’s will – Adam lost Sophia and, with that, its godly image. Another central point in Böhme’s cosmology is the restoration of the godly image, or the Wiedergeburt. The process of restoration is depicted through the image of the light, and it is possible since a sparkle of God is still present in every human, namely freedom of choice between good and evil. The restoration is made possible by Christ, who is historically represented by the figure of Jesus born of Maria. The philosopher of Görlitz establishes a parallel between his cosmological system and the biblical account. Sophia and the primordial Adam are represented in the Scripture through the figures of Adam and Eve: the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib indicates the detachment of the primordial Adam from Sophia. In turn, the birth of Jesus from Maria indicates the incarnation of God’s Word, namely of the primordial wisdom, thanks to which the fallen human kind can be restored. Such a restoration is described by Böhme as the marriage between Christ, the bridegroom, and his bride, God’s wisdom. Through Christ – the macrocosm – the fallen human kind – the microcosm – can find its lost godly image again. Böhme’s Sophia-doctrine did not directly influence the Petersens, for Böhme’s writings had already been long forgotten in Germany or were only surreptitiously circulated among authors. Böhme’s position found a large resonance, first of all in England, where some authors – most of them linked to the group of the Cambridge Platonists – translated the work of the German philosopher, linking his Sophiology to other traditions, such as Origenism. These works, in turn, represent the main channel through which Böhme’s thought was rediscovered in Germany.298 Petersen’s Sophiology presented in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton is primarily influenced by two of Böhme’s followers: The English doctor and theologian John Pordage and the German radical Pietist Gottfried Arnold.299 “Sophia” plays a central role in both authors. 298 For the historical development and reception of the böhemistic tradition see A. Hessayon / ​S.  Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme; W.  Kühlmann / ​F.  Vollhardt (ed.), Offenabrung und Episteme. Zur Europäischen Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012). 299 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort an Winckler, § 14, 9. He quotes John Pordage, Sophia: das ist / die Holdselige ewige Jungfrau der Gött­

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

187

At the core of Pordage’s treatise is the issue of Wiedergeburt, made possible by God’s Wisdom. This process is described as a passive stance. Starting from the observation that penitence and worship are not enough for renewal, Pordage describes regeneration through Sophia as a passive stance in which a new unknown power is felt in the soul that transforms the old Adam into new Adam, namely into a new creation. The German theologian and church-historian Gottfried Arnold also describes Sophia as a woman, a virgin, a bride, a mother, whose function is to lead fallen creatures back to God. He also regards the soul as a passive receptacle of divine Sophia. Sophia touches the believer’s hearth in a way not grasped by reason, rather the soul lets itself be touched by God’s wisdom. As Schmidt-Biggemann highlights, in Arnold’s thought the Sophia-doctrine and Christ’s mediating word are strictly connected and almost indiscernible: 1. Wisdom is conceived as the “revealing, glorifying and announcing force of the entire High-Holy Trinity”, and 2. this power is seen as being very close to the second and third persons of the Trinity. Christ’s grace is no longer distinguished from wisdom.300 Following Pordage and Arnold, Johann Wilhelm underlines the function of Sophia in the economy of salvation. For him, Sophia is also a feminine figure and is described as the new Eve, the pure and chaste Jerusalem-bride, the mother of believers. Using Coccejus’ method of typus and antitypus, Petersen claims that Sophia is the antitypus of Eve as the feminine seed which will crash the snake’s head. All women represented in the Scripture (Sara, Rebecca, Debora, the virgin Mary) are just figures and archetypes of it, although it manifests itself in creatures: “We do not have to imagine that the eternal wisdom against the astute snake resides outside the human beings, rather it is present in human

lichen Weisheit, Amsterdam 1698, and Gottfried Arnold, Das Gehimnis der göttlichen Sophia (Leipzig, 1700). He also states that he discovered this “old Wisdom” three years before, see J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort an Winckler, § 15, 10.  Böhme’s reception in these authors and their influence on the Petersens is widely researched and known, however, a more detailed analysis on the positions of these authors and on their influence on the Petersens is missing. Pordage’s and Arnold’s positions are shortly analyzed in B.  Dohm, ““Götter der Erden”: Alchemistische Erlösungsvisionen in radikalpietistischer Poesie”, in A.-C. Trepp / ​H. Lehmann (ed.), Antike Weisheit und kulturelle Praxis. Hermetismus in der Frühen Neuzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 189–204; Dohm, Böhme-Rezeption in England; E. Benz, “Gottfried Arnold “Geheimniss der göttliche Sophia” und seine Stellung in der christlichen Sophienlehre”, in: JHKGV 18 (1967), 51–82; W. Temme, Krise der Leiblickeit. Die Sozietät der Mutter Eva (Buttlarsche Rotte) und der radikale Pietismus um 1700 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 311–24; Breul  / ​ Salvadori (ed.), Geschlechtlichkeit und Ehe im Pietismus. 300 See Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis, 202–7. On the use of Sophia in Pordage’s and Arnold’s texts see B. Dohm, Poetische Alchimie. Öffnung zur Sinnlichkeit in der Hohelied- und Bibeldichtung von der protestantischen Barockmystik bis zum Pietismus (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000).

188

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

beings who believe and who have chosen this holy Sophia as the Jerusalembride”.301 Contrary to Jacob Böhme, Petersen neither builds a cosmological system around this figure, nor conceptualizes it. It is, therefore, difficult to systematically analyze this figure as presented in Mysterion apokatastaseos. Nevertheless, it is clear that, for Petersen, Sophia assumes a central role in the process of restoration of fallen creatures. Thanks to Sophia, the old God’s likeness (Gottes Ebenbild), originally present in every creature, can be restored.302 In this way, Sophia makes Wiedergeburt possible and old creatures descended from the natural Adam and Eve and, therefore, still inclined towards the evil, are transformed into new creatures born with the higher eternal wisdom and hostile to the old snake.303 In contrast to other authors who referred to Sophia’s androgynous nature and spoke about Wiedergeburt as a transformation of the natural body (characterized by the distinction in feminine and masculine part) into a spiritual body (namely the original androgynous body), Johann Wilhelm does not touch on the problem of the spiritual transformation of the body.304 For Petersen, Wiedergeburt means to be transformed into a new creature that is hostile to the Devil. Another distinctive trait of Petersen’s Sophiology is its Christo-centrism. Being born 301 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort an Winckler, § 12, 9: “Wir müssen uns aber nicht allhie concipiren und einbilden / als wenn nur die ewige Weißheit ausser den Menschen gegen die alte Schlange des listigen Teuffels also entgegen stehe / sondern sie stehet / wie itztgesagt / in dem Menschen / der glaubig ist / und diese heilige Sophiam zur Jerusalems-Braut erkohren hat. … Und in diesem Begriff wird nicht die Holde ewige Weißheit betrachtet / wie sie in GOtt mit GOtt eins ist / und ausser Natur / und Creatur / in der ewigen / und unendlichen Gottheit sich findet / sondern wie sie sich in der Zeit zu denen Menschen herunter lässet / und sich ihnen mittheilet / in und durch Christum / in welchen die Glaubige seyn”. 302 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort an Winckler, § 15, 10: “sondern sich zu uns drenget / und immer darüber auß ist / daß das vorige verlohrne jungfräuliche Bild / und Schönheit des Ebenbildes GOttes durch Verführung des teufflischen Bildes / und Schlangen-Saamens / in uns wieder möge auffgerichtet werden”. 303 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Zweyer in Einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, 33: “so haben wir als natürliche Adams- und Evae Kinder mehr Gemeinschafft als Feindschaft mit der alten Schlangen / aber so bald wir von Oben gebohren sind / so ist der Haß und die vollkommene Feindschafft in uns gegen die alte Schlange”. 304 The spiritual transformation of the body was at the center of the speculation of some groups such as the Eva von Buttler’s society. Such a position was linked to some practices, such as physical intervention on the body (removal of the womb in women or of other parts of the body); marriage between a woman and a man was also often rejected, waiting for the heavenly marriage with Christ. See Temme, Krise der Leiblichkeit. On the reception and use of Sophia in pietist authors see L. Martin, “Jacob Böhmes ‘göttliche Sophia’ und Emanzipationsansätze bei pietistischen Autorinnen”, in W. Kühlmann / ​F. Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur europäischen Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin / ​Boston: De Gruyter, 2012), 241–57.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

189

of Virgin Mary, the antitypus of the natural Eve, Christ brings the seed of the heavenly wisdom. In turn, being in Christ, believers also participate in Sophia. Similar to Arnold’s position, Christ’s grace and Sophia-doctrine are almost indistinguishable.305 In Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s autobiography, Sophia is linked to the Holy Spirit. She does not speak directly about Sophia, but notes that in Hebrew the word for “Holy Spirit” takes the feminine gender “like a fruit-bearing mother and a hatching dove”.306 Also for Johanna Eleonora, Sophia and Christ’s revealing Word are strictly connected. She claims that through it “the intermediate power-being and the invisibility of God has become visible”.307 Sophia, therefore, is a medium through which the concealed God is revealed.308 Whereas it is difficult to outline a systematic profile of the Petersens’ Sophia as it appears in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, it is possible to observe some clear implications for the use of this concept.309 As the godly image present in every creature, Sophia can be found in everyone. For this reason, every creature, not excluding heathens or the Mohammedaner, can have a glimpse of the truth. Johann Wilhelm claims that God’s wisdom is adiakritos or unparteiisch, i. e., impartial.310 Those who partake in Sophia are the Wiedergeborene, and, for that reason, they can grasp the mysteries of God’s 305 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort an Winckler, § 12, 9: “Und in diesem Begriff wird nicht die Holde ewige Weißheit betrachtet / wie sie in GOtt mit GOtt eins ist/ … sondern wie sie sich in der Zeit zu denen Menschen herunter lässet / und sich ihnen mittheilet / in und durch Christum / in welchen die Glaubigen seyn”. 306 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 38, 98. 307 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 38, 98. 308 Lucinda Martin remarks on the strict relationship between Spirit and Word in Petersen’s thought: the feminine Spirit reveals the masculine Word. Martin also states that in some old languages (such as in Hebrew) the word “Spirit” has a feminine connotation, an aspect which was lost with the Latin or Greek tradition of this term. See Martin, “Jacob Böhmes ‘göttliche Sophia’”, 251. For the feminine connotation of this term in old languages see G.  Winkler, “Überlegungen zum Gottesgeist als mütterlichem Prinzip und zur Bedeutung der Androgynie in einigen frühchristlichen Quellen”, in T. Berger / ​A. Gerhards (ed.), Liturgie und Frauenfrage. Ein Beitrag zur Frauenforschung aus liturgiewissenschaftlicher Sicht (St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1990), 7–29. 309 In the following years, Johann Wilhelm Petersen wrote two other treatises entailing speculations on Sophia, which could better clarify the use of this concept in Petersen’s thought: Das Gehimnis des Erstgebornen aller Creaturen (1771) and Die Hochzeit des Lammes und der Braut (1709, maybe written before). See for a general introduction on them Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 301–16; Temme, Krise der Leiblichkeit, 324–35. 310 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Kurtze Untersuchung des Jenigen Was ein gewisser Fürstlicher Rath, § 11, 59: “Jacobus, der Apostel / zeuget/  … die Weißheit / die von oben ist / sey adiakritos, und unpartheyisch / welches unter andern auch darinnen vornemlich bestehet / daß ein Zeuge der Warheit / dieselbige bekenne / er mag sie auch finden / wo er wolle / und sie bey allen als eine Warheit bekenne / wann sie auch von einem Heyden wäre außgesprochen”.

190

J. W. and J. E. Petersen’s eschatology in context 

wisdom. A second aspects that Johann Wilhelm highlights is the passivity of believers towards God’s wisdom: “A so deep wisdom is concealed in the Scripture, that it is better to be silent and not to seek to grasp it through reason, … but to arrest ourselves to the Spirit-of-revelation, to wait with a silent heart, in this way what was obscure to us, will become clear”.311 God’s wisdom revealed by the Holy Spirit cannot be grasped by reason. Following Böhme, Johann Wilhelm considers human reason a corrupted faculty: “It is a trick of the Devil to let men imagine that their own [thinking] … is a godly inspiration and an eternal truth, and, on the contrary, to let them mistrust what is godly and what cannot be derived from a blind unenlightened reason”.312 On the other hand, a spirit and a reason illuminated by God can recognize godly things and the eternal truths. For Johann Wilhelm, reason is not purely negative, for when illuminated it can recognize a godly truth, but this does not mean that reason alone can help to understand godly wisdom; reason, however, can concede that a certain truth emanates from a superior light.313 God’s wisdom is not a ratiocinium (reasoning) rather a mysterium (mystery).314 Petersen concludes, therefore, that when God will be “all in all”, reason will be no more.315 Finally, Petersen’s understanding of 311 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Bewährung des Ewige Evangelii, 11: “Es ist eine solche Tieffe der Weißheit in H. Schrifft verborgen / darum ist gut / daß wir stille seyn und nicht mit der Vernufft darin zufahren / noch diß oder das darauß zu folgern suchen / sondern um den Geist der Offenbarung anhalten / und darauff mit stillem Hertzen warten / so wird uns klar gemacht werden / was uns sonsten dunckel war / und werden fest gemacht / darinen wir zuvor gewancket / der HErr ist treu / der wird es thun”. 312 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, § 23, 11: “Es ist wol eine rechte List des Teuffels / daß er den Menschen einbilden kan / ihre eigene gemachte / und durch die dialogismes, und Schlüsse del blinden Vernunfft und Liebe gegen ihre einmal gefaßte / und fest gesezte Lehr-Sätze / für Göttliche Eingebungen / und ewige Warheiten zu halten / und hergegen das / was Göttlich ist / und auß der blinden unerleuchteten Vernunfft nicht herrühret / noch herrühren kan / dannoch mit dem Namen der in H. Schrifft so übel beschriebenen / und verworffenen Vernunfft zu belegen / und verdächtig zu machen”. 313 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, 12: “hätten sie aber eine erleuchtete Vernunfft / nach welcher ihnen diese Warheit so starck einschien / so solten sie gedencken / es könte solches kein Irrlicht seyn / sondern es käme von einem höhern Licht her”. 314 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, § 27, 13. 315 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, § 28, 13: “Alsdann wird auch die blinde närrische Vernunfft auffhören / und kein Verbannetes / noch Verdammetes übrig seyn / sondern an statt der kleinen Vernunfft wird der Göttliche Verstand regieren”. The distinction between Vernunft and Verstand can be found also in Böhme. According to the German philosopher, Verstand is the understanding that sees the unified nature of things, Vernunft indicates reason about discrete particulars, see B. B. Janz, “Conclusion: Why Boehme Matters Today”, in A. Hessayon / ​S. Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of Thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014), 279–93, here 291.

Hermeneutical principles behind the Petersens’ eschatology

191

God’s wisdom offers an open criticism of the supposed orthodox position. Each confession, according to him, defines an own analogia fidei, through which Scripture and other confessions or groups are measured and judged, exacerbating conflicts. Spirit’s light, on the other hand, overcomes the analogia fidei and makes God’s Word clear.316 In comparison to Wallmann’s twofold distinction of the Lutheran hermeneutical tradition (the “spiritualistic” way and the “rationalistic” way), Jacob Böhme’s Sophia-doctrine represents a “third way”. Böhme’s cosmology explains this godly figure, linking it to the Holy Trinity, without, however, identifying it with one of the three persons. It is thus not possible to identify or compare this doctrine with the spiritual illumination about which Luther or Spener spoke. The Petersens did not develop any cosmological system deriving from Sophia. Rather, Johanna Eleonora directly linked the Sophia-doctrine to the figure of the Holy Spirit. In turn, Sophia, for the Petersens, is strictly linked to the Word, as Lucinda Martin remarks: the feminine Spirit (scil. Sophia) reveals the masculine Word.317 Through this figure, the Petersens no longer require sacraments, since Sophia is like a light which makes God and the truth of His Word accessible to everyone. This position clearly emerges in the treatises on universal salvation; however, some statements in the chiliastic tratises (as reported at the beginning of this paragraph) already seem to hint at this position. In this way, the Petersens’ hermeneutical position appears to be strictly rooted in Spener’s standpoint. With him they share not only the notion that spiritual illumination is necessary, but also the critique on a certain strand of erudition in theology. At the same time, they also take a step farther than Spener, and refer directly to the controversial Sophia-doctrine of Böhme  – from which Spener always distanced himself  – without, however, accepting all that this doctrine implies, such as the the necessity of an androgynous transformation, as other authors did.

316 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Erörterung einer Gradual Disputation, §§ 7–10, 76–80, see especially § 9, 80: “Wo bleibet nun des Hn. Pastoris Analogia fidei? Sie ist auß / und muß sich durch das grosse Liecht belehren lassen / auf daß sie zum Gesicht der Warheit komme / und sich über alle Worte Gottes / die dann so deutlich sind / erfreuen / und darinnen erquicken”. 317 See Martin, “Jacob Böhmes ‘göttliche Sophia’”, 251.

3. The sources of eschatology

Responding to criticism from various sides that they were supporting a position akin to enthusiasm, both Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm pointed to the Scripture as the main and ultimate source of reference. Johann Wilhelm insisted on several occasions that his ideas on chiliasm and universal salvation derived neither from special revelations nor from the treatises of other authors. The only source for such truths lay in the sacrswed text. In Mysterion apokatastaseos, he asserts that universal salvation is clearly taught in Acts 3:21, it can be accepted as truth not least because of the authority of the text on which it is grounded. Rejecting it would be appropriate if it were based on proclamations made by a heathen text, which were obscure.1 Johann Wilhelm’s stance, outlined in chapter 2, shows attempts as much to defend his standpoint as to present it in accordance with faith and God’s Word, in order to ultimately establish the orthodox character of his position. Presenting himself and his wife as God’s instruments and witnesses to the truth (Werckzeuge Gottes and Zeuge der Warheit), he declares: If our God decide to use humble and miserable tools to announce His truth, the author [of the observations against the apokatastasis] must not disapprove that He has also chosen us among other people, and first in Germany, to give account of this testimony, which we have learned not from books or from other men, rather from God himself and from His son Jesus Christ, and which we have found in His revealed Holy Word.2

Since these truths were, however, revealed in the Scripture – and not only by the means of special revelations – they could be recognized through an “impartial” reading of the Word. For this reason, Johann Wilhelm refers to several authors who, throughout the centuries, recognized, or at least had a glimpse of chiliasm or universal redemption. This chapter focuses on the works of the authors mentioned by the Petersens as “witnesses” of chiliasm and of apokatastasis, in order to analyze the main sources that influenced their eschatology, as well as to understand how and to 1 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, II, § 11, 4.  2 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, § 3, 3: “Wann dann unserm GOTT frey stehet / geringe und elende Werckzeuge zu Verkündiger seiner Warheit zu gebrauchen / so muß der Autor nicht darüber scheel sehen / daß er unter andern auch uns darzu erwählet / und zwar zu den Ersten allhie in Teutschland dazu gebrauchet hat / das Zeugnüß davon abzulegen / die wir nicht auß Buchern / oder von Menschen / sondern von ihm selbst / und seinem Sohn / Christo JEsu / es erlernet / und in seinem heiligen geoffenbahrten Wort gefunden haben”.

Sources of the millenarian expectation

193

what extent the Petersens made use of different traditions and sources to defend their standpoint. To this end, particularly two treatises are meaningful: Nubes Testium Veritatis for the chiliastic expectation, and the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton for the apokatastasis doctrine. These texts not only demonstrate the richness of the texts read and used by Johann Wilhelm, but also represent an important starting point for investigating the sources of the Petersens’ eschatology.

3.1 Sources of the millenarian expectation 3.1.1 The witnesses of chiliasm in Nubes Testium Veritatis In 1696, when chiliasm was being passionately debated, Johann Wilhelm published another text in defense of the millenarian expectation: Nubes Testium Veritatis de Regno Christi Glorioso, an anthology of authors who before and after Christ had testified to the truth of Christ’s future Kingdom.3 This text is a response to numerous theologians who had written against the chiliastic expectation in the former years.4 At the beginning of the treatise, he writes that discovering this truth in the Word, as testified by prophets and apostles, led him to investigate the position of the church fathers in this regard.5 In this way, he further reinforces his position according to which he has learned the chiliastic truth through the Scripture, the definitive reason to accept chiliasm. The truth of the chiliastic kingdom, as Johann Wilhelm argues in the first part, can be testified to through several biblical passages of the Old Testament. In the second part of the treatise, he presents the first witnesses of chiliasm in 3 The title and the structure of Petersen’s Nubes Testium Veritatis could be a reference to Matthias Flacius Illyricus’ Catalogus Testium Veritatis, see W.-F.  Schäufele, “Matthias Flacius Illyricus und die Konzeption der Zeugenschaft im Catalogus testium veritatis”, in I. Dingel / ​J. Hund / ​L . Ilić (ed.), Matthias Flacius Illirycus. Biographische Kontexte, theologische Wirkungen, historische Rezeption (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 159–74. Spener had also written a similar “catalogue of truth-witnesses” that he had attached as Anhang to his Pia Desideria. The theologian quotes in Anhang from the first church and from the time of the Reformation a series of author who, commenting on Rom 11, believed in a future conversion of entire Israel. Nevertheless, only few authors quoted are the same; among them Ambrose and Augustin, Luther, and Calixt (the most of the other authors mentioned by Spener are Lutheran theologians, such as Aegidius Hunnius, Johann Gerhard, Matthias Flacius Illyricus). Spener’s work could, therefore, represent at least a model for Petersen’s composition of Nubes Testium, but not a source for to the authors quoted. For Spener’s text, see Aland / ​Koster (ed.), Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners. Studienausgabe, Theil 1, 352–95. 4 See J. W. Petersen, Nubes Testium Veritatis, Liber Primus, § 2, 3–5. At the beginning of the text, he remembers Mejer, Sandhagen, Winckler, Carpzov, Neumann, and Pfeiffer. On these authors see c. 1, § 1.1. 5 See J. W. Petersen, Nubes Testium Veritatis, Liber Primus, § 2, 5. 

194

T he sources of eschatology

the New Testament, as well as a series of theologians from the first centuries who recognized chiliasm. In the third and last part of Nubes Testium Veritatis, the writer refers to authors since the Reformation, a time during which not only the true gospel, but also the Eternal Gospel of the kingdom was “brought back to light”. In the first book, Petersen presents a series of prophets or biblical figures, who did not directly recognize the truth of the millenarian kingdom, but prophesied this event or other events linked to this, such as the coming of the Antichrist, the conversion of the Jews, a period of peace or a better future condition. One of the main witnesses is Daniel, who, speaking about the four beasts, predicted that the four reigns would be subverted by the coming of the fifth beast, interpreted by Petersen as the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.6 Daniel’s book is a classical reference text for those who supported the upcoming Kingdom of Christ. But Petersen also quotes several other figures not commonly associated with the millenarian expectation. The list starts with the figure of Adam, considered by Petersen not a testis verbalis, quam realis, i. e., someone who testified to the truth of the millennium through his person and not by the way of words. Although Adam himself did not acknowledge this truth, his fall resulting from original sin represents the typum for the new Adam. The figure of Adam symbolizes the necessity of restoring through the new Adam, as testified in Acts 3:21. In searching for Old Testament testimonies to Christ’s Kingdom, Petersen had also found them in some antediluvian figures such as Henoch and Noah. Henoch, the sixth of Adam’s sons (Gen 5:18), is mentioned in the New Testament, in Judg 14, the source to which Petersen refers. Here the apostle writes: Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him’.

According to Petersen, Henoch’s words represent a prophecy of the judgment upon the beast before the beginning of the millennium. Such judgment is enshrined in Rev 20:4 and 19:20, passages which, in turn, harmonize with 2 Thess 1:7–10 and with Daniel’s vision. As for Noah, he refers to the dove which brings an olive branch after the deluge as the sign of the peace and of God’s eternal alliance with his people. Similar to Adam’s figure, the figure of the dove is also considered a typum, a prefiguration of future events, namely of the peace that will follow the beginning of the kingdom, an event Johann Wilhelm finds affirmed not only in the Old Testament, such as in Cant 2:10–12, in Gen 9:20, or in the writings of the prophets, but also in the New Testament in Matt 24:36.



6 See J. W. Petersen, Nubes Testium Veritatis, Liber Primus, § 16, 88–94.

Sources of the millenarian expectation

195

The list continues with Abraham, Job, Moses, Balaam, Joshua, Salomon, Abednego, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachia, Ezra, and Tobit. None of these figures recognized the truth of the millennium, but prefigured or prophesied it, or an event connected with it. Reading these biblical passages through Coccejus’ method of typum and antitypum, Petersen shows the harmony between what is stated by these figures, or what these figures represent, and other passages both in the Old and in the New Testament, in order to demonstrate that God had revealed this truth since the very beginning, although it was disclosed by him and acknowledged by believers over the centuries, and especially in his century. In conclusion to this first part, Petersen adds the testimony of the Sybils, without, however, analyzing these figures more in detail, instead referring to his Warheit des herrlichen Reiche.7 The second part of the treatise opens with New Testament witnesses of the millennium, who, according to Johann Wilhelm, first recognized or directly testified to this truth. Noteworthy among them is the figure of the Holy Spirit. Whereas the glory of the father was already manifested through his Son, and the glory of the Son largely manifested over the centuries, the Spirit’s glory would be manifested in the future kingdom, also called seculum spiritus sancti. The three epochs recall the writings of Abbot Joachim of Fiore, while not directly quoted here.8 Other biblical witnesses of Christ’s Kingdom are the apostles, who clearly recognized the truth of Christ’s Kingdom, although they miscalculated the time of its beginning. In addition to the apostles, Petersen also mentions Paul, and refers to the passage in which he states that all of Israel will be saved (Rom 11:26). Whereas until this point of the treatise Petersen refers only to scriptural passages, in the following pages, he brings forth other theologians who, over the centuries, preannounced Christ’s millenarian Kingdom. In this second part of the book, the author reports several theologians from the first centuries: 7 Responding to Winckler’s criticism, Johann Wilhelm also dealt with Sybils and claimed that in their oracles the announce of the Messiah is contained. Winckler had reproached Petersen about resorting to a pagan tradition; Petersen, on the other hand, drawing from Sebastian Castellio as well as from several theologians from the first centuries, saw such oracles as a positive proof for the coming of the Messiah and his reign. See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi, Ander Theil, 124–34. The testimony of Sybils was used also by Agostino Steuco in his De perenni philosophia, a possibile source for Petersen on this point. Also, the Augustinian monk defended the veracity of these texts drawing from several authors from whose works Petersen also quotes (e. g., Plato, Plotin, Virgil, Cicero, Plutarch, Lactantius), see M. Mucillo, La “prisca theologia” nel “De perenni philosophia” di Agostino Steuco, in Rinascimento, 28 (1988), 41–111, here 69–72. 8 Petersen himself states that he had read Joachim of Fiore’s works, which he found at the beginning of the 1690s in Jena, see J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 56, 264: “Ich reisete auch nach Jena, und fand in derselben Bibliothec allerhand schöne rare Bücher, nemlich des Joachimi Abbatis Schrifften, und noch eines, wornach ich lange gestrebet”.

196

T he sources of eschatology

Philo Judeo, Dionysius the Areopagite, Ignatius, Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, Irenaeus, Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian, Hippolitus, Nepos, Cyprian, Victorinus, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Lactantius, Ambros, Apollinaris Junior, Severus Sulpicius, and Augustin. In a treatise published the year before, Johann Wilhelm explains that by referring to these authors he intends to show, on the one hand, the harmony between their position and his own standpoint, and on the other that the chiliastic expectation supported by these authors was different from how Cerinthus saw it, and was based directly on the gospel: I have already completed a Latin treatise entitled Nubes Testium Veritatis, where I prove the harmony between the position of the church fathers (both from the Greek and from the Latin church, and from different centuries) and my position, and where I defend their reputation. I also show that, dealing with the Kingdom of Christ, they do not refer to Cerinthus, rather to Evangelist John, to Peter, to Thomas, to Jacob, to Matthew, to Philipp, and to other Apostles or apostolic men.9

Johann Wilhelm goes to great lengths to prove the existence of various strands of chiliasm and that the chiliastic position of the church fathers did not originate from Cerinthus, but, rather, was derived from their reading of the Scripture or from the Apostles themselves. In this way, he adds a further proof in defense of his position and against those theologians who accused him of supporting a heretic doctrine. Sources of quotation for these witnesses are, in the most of the case, other authors who wrote on them, particularly the writings of Jerome. Jerome’s Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum represents a precious reference point for Johann Wilhelm for identifying those authors from the first centuries who believed in Christ’s millenarian Kingdom, although Jerome himself did not accept the chiliastic doctrine. Indeed, according to Jerome’s treatise, Papias, Justin M ­ artyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Victorinus of Pettau, Apollinaris, and L ­ actantius supported millenarianism.10 For Petersen, Jerome’s text represents not only an 9 J. W. Petersen, Oeffentliche Bezeugung, § 4, 9: “Ich habe schon einen Lateinischen Tractat / de nube testium veritatis, fertig; darinnen ich von einem seculo zum andern die Harmonie sowol der Griechischen als Lateinischen Väter / die sie mit mir und der göttlichen Wahrheit haben / weitläufftig erwiesen / und ihre Ehre gerettet; und habe gezeiget / daß sie in der Sache von dem Reich Christi sich nicht auff den Cerinthum / sondern auff Johannem den Evangelisten / auff Petrum / auff Thomam  / auff Jacobum / auff Matthäum / auff Philippum / und andere Apostel und Apostolische Männer / beruffen”. 10 For a short history of the interpretation of the Revelation in these authors see Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung, 952–82. Jerome considered Justinus Martyr and Irenaeus millenarians, although he did not have any written testimony from these authors that could testify to it. To investigate whether Jerome’s position is right or not exceeds the scope of this work, on this issue see Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen, 558. Important for the purposes of this work is, instead, to remember that Jerome’s position was also appropriated by other authors, such as Erasmus, who edited Jerome’s works and also the Catalogue of Christian

Sources of the millenarian expectation

197

important source of chiliastic authors from the first church, but also, describing the historical connection among these authors, for showing that they had a reciprocal influence on the interpretation of the Revelation in the millenarian sense. In addition to Jerome, other sources used by Petersen to demonstrate the chiliastic position include Sixtus Senensis’ Bibliothecae Sanctae, Franciscus Fevardentius’ Sancti Irenaei Lugudensis Episcopi adversus Valentini, Robertus Baillius’ Opus historicum et Chronologicum, as well as other Jerome’s treatises.11 As in the first book, in this case, too, not all theologians quoted by Petersen dealt directly with chiliasm, some believed only in some ideas directly linked to the beginning of the kingdom. For instance, Ambrose or Augustin did not refer to Christ’s millenarian Kingdom, but believed in the conversion of the Jews or in the first resurrection. In this regard, Johann Wilhelm quotes de Vocatione omnium gentium, erroneously attributed to Ambrose, and several chapters from Augustin’s De Civitate Dei, lib. 20, c.7, 23, 29–30. To that extent Johann Wilhelm is interested not only in authors who clearly acknowledged the truth of the kingdom, but also in detecting positions linked to this truth or pointing to it.12 The last part of the book is devoted to the analysis of some authors from the Middle Ages: Philippus Presbyterus – a disciple of Jerome – who wrote about the first resurrection; Bishop Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who wrote a commentary on the Revelation used by Arethas to invoke the wait for a better condition in the church; Beda, who spoke about a renovation of creatures, about the conversion of the Jews and about the persecution of the Antichrist; and also Rabanus Maurus, Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, Cyrillus, Joachim of Fiore, Hildegard of Bingen, Theleosphorus from Cosenza – a disciple of Joachim of Writers. Erasmus could, therefore, be an intermediate fo Petersen on this point; see Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung, 894, see also M.  Vessey, “‘Vera et Aeterna Monumenta’: Jerome’s Catalogue of Christian Writers and the Premises of Erasmian Humanism”, in G. Frank / ​T.  Leinkauf / ​M. Wriedt (ed.), Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit. Die Relekture der Kirchenväter in den Wissenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog, 2006), 351–76. 11 Sixtus of Siena (1520–1569), Bibliotheca sancta ex praecipuis Catholicae Ecclesiae auctoribus collecta (Venice, 1566); François Feuardent (1539–1610), S. Irenaei Lugd. episcopi adversus Velantini  … haereses libri quinque, Paris 1576; Robert Baillie (1602–1662), Opus historicum et chronologicum (Amsterdam, 1663). 12 Attributed by several authors to Ambrose of Milan, De vocatione omnium gentium was authored by Prosper Aquitanus (390–463), see M. A. Barbàra (ed. and transl.), Prospero di Aquitania. La vocazione dei popoli (Roma: Città nuova, 1998). As to Augustin (354–430), he refused a chiliastic interpretation of the Revelation. On Augustin’s position on Christ’s Kingdom, his stance towards Jews and Judaism, see B. Lohse, “Zur Eschatologie des älteren Augustin (De civ. Dei 20,9)”, in Vigiliae Christianae, 21 (1967), 221–40; J.  Van Oort,  “The end is now: Augustine on History and Eschatology”, in Herv. teol. stud.  [online] 2012, 68 vol., n.1, 1–7, HTTPS: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S025994222012000100034&lng=en&nrm=iso; P. Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews. A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday 2008).

198

T he sources of eschatology

Fiore – and Divus Alredus. Except for Joachim of Fiore, these authors also did not openly acknowledge the millenarian truth, while still predicting a better condition of the church, or believing in the conversion of the Jews. As to the reception of these authors, Petersen sometimes quotes their works directly, as in the case of Beda, Anselm and Bernard; in other cases, the reception is mediated by other treatises, such as Guilielmus Cave’s Chartophylace Ecclesiasticum, or Jacobus Brocardus’ Mystica et prophetica libri Geneseos interpretatio.13 In the third and last part of Nubes Testium, the focus moves towards the Reformation period, extending to Petersen’s contemporaries. Even here, not all authors mentioned supported a chiliastic position directly, however, the most of them spoke about a better condition of the church, about a “golden age”, and about a period of peace and reunion of believers. This book opens with some authors considered by Petersen forerunners of the Reformation: the Waldensian Church, the monk Ubertino of Casale (a follower of Joachim of Fiore), John Wyclif, Jan Hus, Savonarola, and Nicola of Cusa.14 All these authors were critical of the church and testified to a period of wait for a better condition, a wait which was put into effect only during Luther’s time. Luther is also considered an “ally” in Petersen’s writings. Even though he wrote on several occasions on the fact that the Jews disbelieved in Christ, Johann Wilhelm recalls his comment on Rom 11:26 in die Stephani, where Luther had written on the conversion of the Jews at the end of the times. This passage – Johann Wilhelm explains – was modified in the following years by those who, editing this work, changed Luther’s words and interpreted Rom 11:26 as an event that had already occurred at Christ’s ascension. But, following the 1525 Wittenberg edition, one can clearly read that Luther believed that the conversion of Israel had not yet occurred.15 13 William Cave (1637–1713), Chartophylax Ecclesiasticus: quo Prope MD. Scriptores Ecclesiastici, tam Minores, quam Majores, tum Catholici, tum Haeretici, eorumq; Patria, Ordo, Secta, Munera, Aetas & Obitus; Editiones operum praestantiores; Opuscula, quin & ipsa Fragmenta breviter indicatur, London 1685. Jacobus Brocardus (1515–1594), Mystica et prophetica libri Genesis interpretation (Lugduni, 1584). 14 On these authors considered as forerunners of the Reformation see H. A. Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation. The Shape of Late Medieval Thought (London: Lutterworth, 1967). 15 The difference between the first edition of Luther and the following editions is reported by Petersen in Die Warheit der herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Theil I, 139–40. The same quotation and the same remark on the difference between the Wittenberg edition and the followings ones is also reported by Spener in the Anhang added some years after to his Pia Desideria, that represents most likely a direct source for Petersen on this point; see Aland / ​ Koster (ed.), Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners. Studienausgabe, Theil 1., 352–95, here 362–4; and in a letter to J. W. Petersen dated 1677, see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M, 13. August 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 253–82, here 273. On Luther’s position on the Jews see G. Miller, “Luther’s

Sources of the millenarian expectation

199

Petersen moves on reviewing a series of authors that drew his attention, most likely, through the anti-chiliastic treatises of August Pfeiffer and of Johann Wilhelm Beier, who, in their writings, had mentioned a number of millenarian authors from the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries.16 Their treatises represented an important point of departure for Johann Wilhelm to individuate witnesses of Christ’s upcoming Kingdom in these centuries. Nevertheless, in Nubes Testium Veritatis, Petersen mentions not just the authors he found in these treatises. The fact that he quotes long excerpts from these authors’ works, citing the respective page numbers – which the two said anti-chiliastic treatises rarely do – leads us to suppose he had read the mentioned texts.17 Among the numerous authors quoted are Luther’s contemporaries who transitioned from the Catholic to the Reformed positions, on the basis of their tolerant positions linked to the expectation of a better time of peace or a better condition of the church. Bertold Pürstinger, bishop of Chiemsee and Salzburg, criticized the church in his Onus Ecclesiae (1524) on the basis of Joachim of Fiore’s position. In this work – from which Johann Wilhelm quotes several passages – the fall of the church, the transition from the fifth to the sixth church-epoch, and a period of peace linked to the seventh church-epoch are forecasted.18 Petersen documents other treatises that herald a future time of peace and restitution of the fallen nature: an anonymous treatise published in 1535, Von der herrlichen und Göttlichen Ordnung der wunderbaren Wirckungen Gottes; a comment on the Apocalypse published in 1582 by Francis Lambert (a Franciscan monk close to Reformed figures); Sebastian Castellio’s De calumnia (1557), where the expected period of peace is also linked to a certain tolerance towards heretic; Coelio Secundo Curione’s De Amplitudine regni coelestis (1554), where the author criticizes the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, contending that the heavenly kingdom was open to a great number of people, and also addressed the issue of the conversion of Jews and universal reform; Guillaume Postel’s La doctrine du view of the Jews and Turks”, in R. Kolb / ​I. Dingel / ​L’U. Batka (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Martin Luther’s theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 427–34. 16 We have already largely spoken about Pfeiffer’s Antichiliasmus (1691). The other treatise is a dissertation defended in 1678 by Ludolph Sattler under the dean of the faculty in Jena Johann Wilhelm Beier entitled Dissertatio Historico-Theologica, Errori Chiliastarum Et Praecipue Tractatui Scriptoris Anonymi De Regno Ecclesiae Glorioso, Per Christum In His Terris Erigendo, Quem Ille Belgice Primum, Postea Latine Edidit, Opposita / Quam … In Incluta Propter Salam Academia Praeside Dn. Johan. Guilielmo Baiero … Publico Eruditorum Examini submittit M. Melchior Ludolph. Sattler / Hannoveranus In Acroaterio Theologorum ad d. Iun. … MDCLXXV (Jena: Gollnerianis, 1678). 17 Both in Pfeiffer’s and in Baier’s works, only the names of the authors and the titles of the treatises that deal with the millennium are mentioned. Some short passages are sometimes quoted. Petersen could not have found the quoations reported in his treatise directly in these texts. 18 See V. Leppin, Art. Pürstinger, Berthold, in: TRE 28 (2006), 1–2.

200

T he sources of eschatology

siècle Dore, ou de L’Evangeliste Regne de Jesus de Roys (1553), which describes a period of peace characterized by the elimination of every power, and, as a consequence, the destruction of Babylon and of every mundane aspect, substituted by Christ’s Kingdom over a single and united church comprising all confessions.19 The list of witnesses also comprehends some heterodox figures, belonging to the so-called linker Flügel of the Reformation (or paracelsian-theosopic tradition) or suspected of supporting condemned positions. For example, the Prodromus Evangelii Aeternii seu chilias Sancta heralds a new chiliastic epoch linked to the sixth Philadelphian church; similarly, some fragments from Theoprastus Paracelsus forecast the fall of the papacy and an upcoming golden age.20 The overview of witnesses of chiliasm also includes Martinus Borrhaus, a theologian whose strong inclination towards Anabaptist positions was criticized by Luther and Melanchthon. Petersen defends his position, quoting a letter by Fabricius Capito (Argenorati, 12 July 1527) where Cellarius his praised.21 A follower of Cellarius was Jacobus Brocardus, who, following Joachim’s tradition, wrote on the beginning of the sixth epoch of the church linked to the beginning of the Reformation and followed by the millenarian kingdom.22 The list of these authors includes Valentin Weigel, Jacob Böhme and his followers Quirinus Kuhlmann, Johann Georg Gichtel, and Jane Lead. In addition to these authors, several other theologians, commonly linked to chiliasm, are mentioned, such as Johann Heinrich Alsted, Petrus Serrarius, Johann Amos Comenius, Joseph Mede, Antoinette Bourignon, Jean de Labadie and his spiritual disciple Anna Maria van Schurman.23 19 On these authors see G. Müller, Art. Lambert von Avignon, Franz, in: TRE 20 (2000), 415–18; H. R. Guggisberg, Art. Castellio, Sebastian, in: TRE 7 (1993), 663–5; E. Campi, Art. Curione, Celio Secundo in: RGG⁴ 2 (1999), 506–7; I. Dingel, Art. Postel, Guillaume, in: RGG⁴ 6 (2003), 1514. 20 The Prodromus appeared in 1624 and it was authored by Paul Felgenhauer, as also Pfeiffer states (see A. Pfeiffer, Antichiliasmus, c. II, § 27, 68–9). Felgenhauer was a Schwenckfeld’s and Weigel’s adherent, and a supporter of tolerance and of a religion free from dogmas, in addition to chiliastic positions. See G.  Zaepernick, Art. Felgenhauer, Paul, in: RGG⁴ 3 (2000), 63. As for Paracelsus, here Petersen is quoting from Opera. Bücher und Schrifften / so viel deren zur hand gebracht: und vor wenig Jahren / miit und auß ihren glaubwürdigen eygner handgeschriebenen Originalien collationiert / verglichen / und verbessert. Ander Theyl (Strassburg, 1616). See U. Gause, Art. Paracelsus, in: RGG⁴ 6 (2003), 907. 21 Martinus Borrhaus, alias Cellarius (1499–1564), associated with the advocate of tolerance Sebastiano Castellio and Coelio Secundo Curione. His work De operibus Dei (1527) – quoted also by Petersen – is among the first explicitly millenarian writings within the circle of Lutheran reformers, see H. Hotson, “Arianism and Millenarianism: The Link Between Two Heresies from Servetus to Socinus”, in J. C. Laursen / ​R. H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern Culture (4 vol.; Dodrecht: Kluwer, 2001), 9–36, here 11.  22 Brocardus’ eschatology was influenced by Joachim of Fiore and by Cellarius, and, in turn, he influenced Alsted. He also read Kabbalistic literature. 23 About these authors, see c. 2.1.3.

Sources of the millenarian expectation

201

At the end of the treatise, a long paragraph is devoted to Philipp Jakob Spener. Since the publication of Pia Desideria, Spener expressed a hope for a better condition in contraposition to the depraved situation of Christendom, a position criticized by some theologians in the following years, also because of Petersen’s position. He also includes his own works and the works of his wife, Johanna Eleonora, in the list of witnesses of chiliasm at the end of the text, and establishes with that a continuity between their position and that of the old authors.24 Nubes Testium Veritatis can, in a sense, be regarded as Johann Wilhelm’s personal “history of chiliasm”. His wide knowledge of authors and their works are on display, most of which dealt directly with the expectation of a future golden age or of the millennium. In addition to scriptural references that represent not only the first sources of chiliasm for the Petersens but also the direct sources for some theologians in the first centuries, references are made to typical millenarian positions, such as that of Joachim of Fiore. However, authors not commonly directly linked to chiliastic positions, such as some prophets or biblical figures from the Old Testament, or some authors considered forerunners of the Reformation, are also included. These authors, together with Luther, anticipated a new epoch, the Philadelphian epoch, which the Petersens considered the preparatory time before the beginning of the millennium. Finally, other authors (such as Paracelsus, Weigel, Böhme, Labadists, Bourignonists) directly criticized by the adversaries of chiliasm for their positions were deemed to have been derived from enthusiasm and fanaticism are mentioned.25 Including these authors in his list of the teste veritatis, Johann Wilhelm inducts them into a tradition which, as for the church fathers, claims its origins in the Scripture. In this way, he draws a line linking the Scripture to the works of Spener, his own writings, and those of his wife Johanna Eleonora. Nubes Testium Veritatis shows, on the one hand, an attempt to remain anchored in the Word and in the works of some important figures of the Reformation, on the other hand, it opens up the boundaries of the established

24 The text closes with a list of Johann Wilhelm’s texts on chiliasm published until that moment. 25 Particularly among Petersen’s contemporaries, the Lutheran theologian Ehregott Daniel Colberg had listed these authors as the heirs to what he called the Hermetic-Platonic Christendom, a tradition which, according to him, building on the influence of the Platonic philosophy in theology, particularly traceable in ancient authors such as Origen, Dionysius the Areopagite, or in more recent authors, such as those quoted here. Colberg criticized not only the theoretical premises on which the theological position of these authors was based (i. e., internal illumination and tripartition of the soul), but also the erroneous consequences of such standpoints, among which he mentioned also the chiliastic expectation. See D. Colberg, Das Platonisch-Hermetische Christenthum (1690–1). On Colberg’s position see Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte, 112–86.

202

T he sources of eschatology

orthodoxy, to embrace authors that found themselves condemned or considered heterodox. The analysis, however, makes it difficult to determine which authors played a decisive role in determining the chiliastic expectation of the Petersens, and which texts most contributed to shape their position. To define this issue more precisely, it is necessary to take into consideration other sources as well.

The use of patristic testimonies Johann Wilhelm’s chiliastic treatises rely on patristic testimonies, so that, beyond the Scripture, the chiliastic position supported by theologians from the first centuries represents the mainstay of his argument in defense of his chiliastic position. Referring to the patristic tradition, Petersen follows a tradition generally upheld by Protestant authors. Even though the Roman Catholic doctrinal justification through tradition was rejected both by the Lutherans and the Reformed, who, on the contrary, invoked the Scripture as unique doctrinal principle, the use of patristic sources to support certain doctrinal points or to criticize scholastic theology was not uncommon. Just as Luther considered Augustin the most reliable interpreter of San Paul’s letters, on a number of occasions Melanchthon also resorted to the use of Cappadocian fathers as further proof to show that the Evangelical understanding of the Catholic faith was more valid than that of his Roman Catholic opponents. Melanchthon defined these fathers as scriptores puriores, the purest teachers.26 Johann Wilhelm, in the same way, also invokes the church fathers to serve as pure witnesses against his opponents. In Nubes Testium Veritatis, Johann Wilhelm outlines two different traditions on chiliasm. One he dates back to Cerinthus, which is condemned by the church. The other tradition is opposed to the position linked to Cerinthus and constituted by some church fathers, with which he aligns himself, given that, as he puts it, it is supported by the Apostles themselves and, therefore, truthful. In so doing, he proves that there are different kinds of chiliasm and also justifies his position in response to the criticism voiced by theologians. Indeed, tracing back the origin of the fathers’ position, Petersen builds up a reliable tradition as testimony to support his position: I consider those witnesses of the truth great and worthy [scil. the church fathers] …, and benefit more from their testimony that comes from a purer church, rather than from the testimony of the doctors of nowadays, who are used against me, and 26 On the use of the patristic tradition in Protestantism, see G.  Frank, T. Leinkauf, M. Wriedt (ed.), Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit. Die Relekture der Kirchenväter in den Wissenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog, 2006); I. Backus, “Reformed Orthodoxy and Patristic Tradition”, in H. J.  Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2013), 91–117; P. Frankel, Testimonia Patrum. The function of the patristic argument in the theology of Philipp Melanchthon (Geneve: Doz, 1961).

Sources of the millenarian expectation

203

who cannot enjoy a so great consideration as the holy martyrs and fathers from the primitive church; the latter, indeed, partly listened directly to the apostles themselves, partly were taught by those who had met the apostles.27

Linking his chiliastic position to that of the fathers serves not only to defend his standpoint, but is also a strategy to shield criticisms from other theologians. As he had already remarked in Schrifftmässige Erklährung, referring to Jerome’s position, rejecting chiliasm would mean condemning the position held by s­ everal church fathers.28 This argument is also used by Johann Wilhelm on other occasions. For example, in Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Johann Wilhelm brings attention to the fact that to refuse the millenarian expectation would mean to criticize the fathers: “Monsieur Winckler does not have so much respect for the holy fathers, and he mistreats Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who certainly had more wisdom on matters concerning God than one can imagine”.29 Winckler, in his response to Species facti, criticized the chiliastic position, highlighting that Papias had been among the first authors to have believed in this. Referring to Eusebius, Winckler had also judged Papias to be “of bad intelligence” and to have supported several fanciful ideas, such as this on chiliasm.30 Countering Winckler, Johann Wilhelm first remarks that a man of “bad intelligence” should not be elected bishop, supporting his assertion with Jerome’s words, who, remarking on Papias in the Catalogus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, declares he followed no other dictates than those of the apostles.31 Johann Wilhelm’s use of patristic authors for defending his own position becomes even more explicit in other two treatises. Commenting on Vake’s criticism, in Kurtzer und gründlicher Beweißthum des chiliasmi, he declares: “Referring to them as holy fathers, is not he [scil. Vake] recognizing that they are his brothers? Otherwise, how can he call them holy? He respects them and recognizes that they are the pillars of the church; then, why does he condemn me?”.32 27 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, 134: “aber halte doch dabey diejenige Zeugen der Warheit hoch und wert/ … und bringe darum so vielmehr auff ihr Zeugnüß purioris Ecclesiae / wenn man so sehr bemühet ist / die Autorität der heutigen DD. mir entgegen zu werffen / welche gewiß bey uns in solchem grossen Credit nicht kommen können / als die Zeugnüssen der heiligen Märtyrer und Väter der ersten Kirchen / die theils die Aposteln gehöret / theils von denen es empfangen / die es von denen Apostel gehöret haben”. 28 See J. W. Petersen, Schrifftmässige Erklährung, § IV, 7, see also c. 2.2.1. 29 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, Ander Theil, 134: “Der Herr Winckler aber hält wenigen respect für den heil. Vätern / und tractiret den Papiam  / ​ den Hieropolitanischen Bischoff gar übel / welcher gewiß mehr göttlicher Weißheit mag gehabt haben / als etwa einander ihm einbilden mag”. 30 See J. Winckler, Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken, § 45, 113–15. 31 See J. W. Petersen, Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi, 135–6. 32 See J. W. Petersen, Kurtzer und gründlicher Beweißthum des chiliasmi, 10: “Indem er sie heilige Väter nennet / bekennet er denn nicht damit / daß sie seine Brüder seyn? Oder / so sie

204

T he sources of eschatology

This same statement can be found in Freymüthige Anrede: “I took into consideration the authority of the church fathers against those who condemn me as a heretic, and, in so doing, they should also reject the fathers. I thus had recourse to them as witnesses of a purer church against the authority of the doctors of nowadays”.33 The fathers’ authority not only connotes doctrinal continuity, but also alludes to biographical parallels. In Ablehnung der schändlichen Aufflagen, a text authored just after his removal, Johann Wilhelm compares the oppressions he experienced in his life with the persecutions of the first Christians by the Jews and heathens.34 Towards the end of the treatise against Mayer, the significance of such parallel becomes particularly clear, especially when Johann Wilhelm draws an enlightening comparison between the charge of being “Pietist” with the first believers accused by heathens of being “Christians”: “Naming us Pietist, you think of proving something great against us just for using this name, just as heathens justified their persecutions against Christians on the basis of the epithet “Christians”. … But, in the same way as the name christianos, … is a sweet name, …, so also the epithet Pietist is sweet”.35 At the beginning of Nubes Testium Veritatis, Johann Wilhelm remarks that references to the church fathers do not contradict the position that posits the Scripture as the essential and ultimate tool to uncover the chiliastic doctrine: When [the authority of the doctors of nowadays] is no longer used against me, then I will also no longer bring into play the fathers, whom I consider true witnesses in this regard, rather, I will refer to the Holy Scripture, which is for me the only foundation and from which I have learned the saint apocalyptic chiliasm before any lesson of the church fathers.36 nach seinem gegen den Hrn. Horbium formirten Argument und Schluß seine Brüder nicht seyn / wie kan er sie heilig nennen? Hat man sie aber in Ehren / und erkennet sie für Säulen der Kirchen: warum verdammet man denn mich?“. 33 See J. W.  Petersen, Freymüthige Anrede, not paged: “Ich habe aber die Autoritatem Patrum billig urgiret gegen diejenigen / welche / so sie mich als einen haereticum verwerffen  / ​ auch die Patres also verwerffen müssen. So habe ich sie auch / als purioris Ecclesiae testimonia gegen die Autoritates hodiernorum DD. angeführet”. 34 See J. W. Petersen, Ablehnung der schändliche Aufflagen, § 1, 3: “Ich habe solches von der Hand meines GOttes in Demuth meines Hertzens angenommen / und dabey / wofür ich seinem Nahmen ewiglich dancke / grosse überschwengliche Freude genossen / also daß ich mich auch habe mit Warheit der Trübsahl rühmen können mit den ersten Christen”. 35 See J. W.  Petersen, Ablehnung der schändliche Aufflagen, § 17, 34: “Nennet nun uns Pietisten / und meinet ihr hättet eine grosse Sache gegen uns erwisen / wenn ihr uns Pietisten genant hättet / gleich wie die Heyden aus dem Beweiß des blossen Nahmens der Christen / die Christen zu verfolgen / Ursache nahmen/  …. Dann wie der Nahme christianos, davon der Antiochenische Patriarch Theophilus ad Autolycum. lib. I, fol. 77. schreibet / ein süsser Name ist / damit sich dieser Patriarch sehr viel tröstet …, also ist auch der Nahme der Pietisten süß”. 36 See J. W. Petersen, Freymüthige Anrede, not paged: “Wenn man dieselbigen nicht mehr urgiret / so will ich auch nicht mehr die Patres urgiren / die ich doch als wahre Zeugen in dieser

Sources of the millenarian expectation

205

Although there is a strong presence of patristic testimony in Johann Wilhelm’s chiliastic treatises, it is clear that the Petersens’ chiliastic inclinations are not rooted solely in the position of the church fathers. Johann Wilhelm’s extensive reliance on invocations of the church fathers has more to do with the criticism voiced by the theologians, so that the patristic testimony he offers in his works represents a strategy to defend the chiliastic expectation against the accusations of the orthodoxy. In fact, the church fathers are neither the main nor the first source of the Petersens’ chiliasm.

3.1.2 The influences of Spener and of the Frankfurt environment Whereas the Petersens’ treatises do not mention other sources, a further hint to discern which authors influenced their chiliastic position is represented by their correspondence with the Frankfurt theologian Philipp Jakob Spener and the lawyer Johann Jakob Schütz since the beginning of the 1670s. In his auto­ biography, Johann Wilhelm declares that he started hearing about chiliastic issues when he attended Spener’s collegia pietatis in Frankfurt. That Spener supported a “hope for better times” already in his 1675 Pia Desideria is well known. However, Johann Wilhelm refers especially to his dialogues with Schütz, whom he considered the main authority on this issue.37 Johanna Eleonora was most probably also acquainted with the eschatological positions that were circulating in Spener’s circles.38 The Frankfurt environment and the relationship between Johanna Eleonora, Johann Wilhelm, Spener and Schütz, therefore, offer a further clue to better outline the sources of the Petersens’ millenarian position, as well as to more precisely describe the beginning of their interest and engagement with the millenarian eschatology. Contrary to Johann Wilhelm’s and Johanna Eleonora’s correspondence, which is for the most part lost, Philipp Jakob Spener’s written works are well conserved, and his correspondence is being edited anew. For this reason, this amply Sache hochhalte / sondern die heilige Schrifft / die mir auch allein das fundament ist / und aus welcher ich den Chiliasmum sanctum Apocalypticum ante omnen lectionem Patrum bloß und allein erkannt habe”. 37 J. W.  Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 6, 20: “Ich ward auch sehr in dem Guten bekräfftigt von dem Herrn Lic. Schützen, welchen ich in dem Collegio pietatis, welches Hr. D.  Spener in seinem Hause angestellet hatte, offtmahls reden hörete, und auch mündlich mit ihm conferirte, und von den fatis Ecclesiae vieles zu wissen kriegte, davon ich auf den Universitäten wenig gehöret hatte”. See also Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 138 and § 1.3 of this chapter. 38 See An [Johanna Eleonora von Merlau in Wiesenburg] (Frankfurt am Main, Dezember 1674), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 1 vol., 856–60.

206

T he sources of eschatology

researched corpus by different scholars represents an important source for investigating the emergence of millenarian positions in the Frankfurt environment.39 As stated above, Pia Desideria contains Spener’s first public statement on his “hope for better times in the church”.40 The theologian already offers a glimpse of this position in a letter dating back to the year before addressed to Johanna Eleonora.41 Did he always espouse this position? Is it possible to observe a turning point in how he viewed eschatology? As Johannes Wallmann shows, Spener did not always support this belief. In fact, at least until the beginning of the 1670s, he followed the Lutheran conviction that the Judgment Day was imminent.42 In the following years, although he did not openly deal with the future condition of the church, he lamented the generally bad situation of the church, as some letters to Johanna Eleonora testify.43 These laments take on a different tone first in 1674, when, in the above mentioned letter to Johanna Eleonora, he writes about the Jubel Year, the realization of God’s promises, and the beginning of a new Spring.44 What caused this change? Is it possible to individuate specific authors or texts that influenced this position? Although Johannes Wallmann did not reach a clear and definitive conclusion, his research shows, for instance, that neither Joachim of Fiore nor Jean de Labadie played a decisive role in this turn in Spener. As briefly described above, Joachim of Fiore represented a turning point in the eschatology in the medieval period, as well as a starting point for several millenarian positions in the following centuries.45 Spener was acquainted with

39 The sources for Spener’s eschatology were researched particularly by Johannes Wallmann, see Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 324–54; Wallmann, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock, 390–421. His numerous letters, also largely analyzed by Wallmann, are being edited anew, and they have also been helpful in describing the beginning of Spener’s “hopes for better times” and for tracing back his sources. 40 See c. 2.1.5. 41 The letter is the above mentioned An [Johanna Eleonora von Merlau in Wiesenburg] (Frankfurt am Main, Dezember 1674), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 1 vol., 856–60. 42 See Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 328–9. Wallmann quotes a sermon dated 1666 and a letter dated 1667 – year in which Spener arrived in Frankfurt – where Spener clearly states that it is not possible to hope for a better condition of the church. 43 For the letters, see Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 1 vol. Wallmann concludes that “es ist kaum denkbar, daß Spener eine Hoffnung besserer Zeiten, wenn er sie bereits hatte, ihr gegenüber gänzlich verschwiegen hätte”, see Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 329. 44 See An [Johanna Eleonora von Merlau in Wiesenburg] (Frankfurt am Main, Dezember 1674), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 1 vol., 856–60. 45 See c. 2.1.4.

Sources of the millenarian expectation

207

this tradition since the 1660s, even though it seems that in these years he did not read the works of Joachim of Fiore.46 The work of the Calabrian abbot could, therefore, not have been decisive in Spener’s eschatological turn. As for Labadie – who is often linked to the birth of Pietism – Spener had met him personally and listened to several of his sermons during his sojourn in Geneva in 1660 and 1661, when Labadie had not yet written his millenarian work Le Héraut du Grand Roy Jesus (which was eventually published in 1667)47 In 1676, Spener nevertheless wrote in a letter that he had never read this text, that he has just learned about Labadie’s chiliastic positions, and that during his stay in Geneva he had thought that Labadie was, in fact, an antagonist of chiliasm.48 Even though Wallmann does not come to any definitive conclusion on the sources for Spener’s “hope for better times”, he indicates some other texts with which the theologian had been acquainted, among them, the Eigentliche Erklärung über die Gesichter der Offenbarung S. Johannis, a text published by the Sulzbacher Kabbalist Christian Knorr von Rosenroth under the pseudonym Peganius, and a manuscript of the English millenarian Joseph Mede, i. e., Clavis apocalyptica.49 Based on Spener’s correspondence, Krauter-Dierolf’s more recent work on Spener’s eschatology adds some other treatises, which the theologian only partly considers in positive light. For example, while he appreciates a comment on the apocalypse by the Reformed Antoine Grélot, he is critical towards Matthias Hoffmann’s Chronotaxy Apocalyptica (1668), as well as towards Paul Egard’s Posaune der Göttlichen Gnade und Liechtes (1623).50 Despite their accurate analyses, Wallmann and Krauter-Dierolf do not reach any firm conclusion on what authors or texts could have influenced Spener embracing the eschatological position presented in Pia Desideria. Nevertheless, I think that at least some clear points emerge from Spener’s correspondence. In a letter to Johanna Eleonora written in December 1674, Spener expresses his hope for a renewal of the church for the first time. Yet again, at the beginning

46 In a letter to Forstner dated 1665, Spener states that he could not read Joachim’s work, see Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 179. 47 The influences of Labadie on Spener and on the birth of Pietism are important for the birth of the conventicles, see Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 144–50; Shantz, An Introduction to German Pietism, 55; F. Van Lieburg, “The Dutch Factor in German Pietism”, in D. Shantz (ed.), A Companion to German Pietism. 1660–1800 (Leiden  / ​ Boston: Brill, 2015), 50–80; W. R. Ward, Early Evangelicalism. A Global Intellectual History, 1670–1789 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 28.  48 See Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 352. The letter is An Johann Melchior Stenger (Frankfurt a.M, 10. August 1676), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, Band 2, 439–53, here 446–7. 49 See Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 344–8. 50 See Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 73–4.

208

T he sources of eschatology

of the following year he addresses this issue in a letter to Elias Veiel, director of the Gymnasium in Ulm and a personal friend since their studies in Strasburg. In this letter, Spener mentions the said text on the apocalypse published under the pseudonym Peganius, Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklärung, which contains an explanation of the last book of the Bible according to the Kabbalistic tradition.51 Spener remarks that this book contains “non pauca solida”, not just a few solid points, and that, even though the chiliastic position supported here had to be rejected, several other points could be accepted.52 Some months later, in a letter to Veiel, writing that he had sent him this book, he again remarks that it was necessary to distinguish the good points in this treatise from those that were unacceptable.53 The same position is reiterated in the same year in a letter to Johann Ludwig about some commentaries on the Apocalypse, where he points out another text authored by the Reformed Antoine Grélot.54 Grélot’s voluminous comment on the Apocalypse remained unpublished, only the Prodromus was published in 1675, as Johann Wilhelm himself reports in Nubes Testium Veritatis.55 Spener’s first reference to this text can be found in a letter to Jacob Thomasius in 1676. Grélot’s comment on the Apocalypse is mentioned by Spener several other times in the same year as well as in the following years. In a letter to Johann Melchior Stenger, he explains that this text elegantly (elegantissime) depicts prophecies and symbols of the Apocalypse by the means of Judaic, Talmudic and Kabbalistic tradition, showing true tenets about the expectation of the kingdom of the Messiah among Jews.56 Circa a month later, writing about 51 See on this text Zeller, “Wissenschaft und Chiliasmus”, 293–7. 52 See An [Elias Veiel] (Frankfurt a. M., Anfang 1675), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 5–12, here 11: “Scripsit in Apocalypsin quidam, qui sub Peganii vocabulo latere voluit, anonimos; in libello illo non pauca solida, ut etiam optarem autorem habere cognitum; multo magis vero opto, ut aliquis rerum harum satis gnarus examinandum sumeret scriptum Chiliasmo, quem eo modo, ut tolerari nequeat, tuetur, expuncto et confirmatis reliquis, quae firmius cohaerent”. 53 See An Elias Veiel in Ulm (Frankfurt a. M., 16. April 1675), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 46–51, here 49: “Peganium a Goerlino, credo, quod iam acceperis vel in via tamen erit. Optarim virum, qui in his valeat, libello illi examinando vacare et relictis, quae calculum merentur, reliqua, in quibus promittit, quae expectanda non sunt, refellere”. 54 See An [Johann Ludwig Hartmann in Rothenburg o. T.] (Schwalbach a. d. Aar, 9. Juli 1675), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 89–96, here 92: “Scripsit anonymus quidam (Peganii enim vocabulum ascitum esse nemo non videt) perbrevem commentarium in Apocalypsin dignum, qui legatur a doctis. Sed Chiliasmum aperte profitetur. Unde optarim ab aliquo, qui tamen Hercule illo viribus non sit inferior, scriptum examinari et a vili separari pretiosum”. 55 See J. W.  Petersen, Nubes Testium Veritatis, Liber Tertius, § 39, 146. The title of the Prodromus published, i. e., the introductive part, is Prodromus in D.  Ioannis Apocalypsin, Leiden: Th. Hoorn, 1675. 56 See An Johann Melchior Stenger (Frankfurt a. M., 10. August 1676), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 439–53, here 442:

Sources of the millenarian expectation

209

the difficulties in understanding apocalyptical symbols, Spener praises Grélot’s text for clarifying several apocalyptical mysteries.57 Spener’s appreciation for this book seems evident in light of the fact that, every time he mentions it, he remarks that it was not yet possible to find an editor for it, because of the considerable length of the manuscript.58 From the letters quoted above, it is not possible to conclude that these texts played a decisive role in effecting a change in Spener’s perspective on the future of the church; nevertheless, it is noteworthy that since the very beginning, he repeatedly quoted these texts. The importance of these texts is also highlighted by the fact that, as Spener’s himself declares, he was also acquainted with several other Apocalypse commentaries. He claims to have devoted much time to the study of the Apocalypse commentaries already during his studies in Strasburg, reading through at least 50 or 60 texts.59 Moreover, he mentions some treatises, such as Matthias Hoffmann’s Chronotaxis Apocalyptica (1668), or Paul Egard’s Posaune der Göttlichen Gnade und Liechts (1623), criticizing them for not being grounded enough.60 Similarly, he declares that he does not approve of the “Superioribus nundinis in hac civitate fuit manuscriptus commentarius cuiusdam Reformati Pastoris, hominis eruditissimi, Ant. Crellotii, qui, quod nullum commentatorem apocalypticum tentasse memini, praestit: cum sancta illa vaticinia eorumque symbola ex Iudaicis, Talmudicis atque Cabbalisticis scriptis elegantissime illustraverit et, qui hypothesin suae religionis hominibus frequenter usitatam de regno Christi glorioso in his terris sequitur, ostenderit pleraque, quae Iudaei de suo Messia fabulosa prodant, aliquid veritatis habere et ex veris maiorum traditionibus detecta, nisi quod caeci primum eius adventum expectent, qui alia ratione et alio adventus genere venturus expectari debeat”. 57 See An [Adam Tribbechov] (Frankfurt a. M., 21. September 1676), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 475–7, here 476: “Superioribus adhuc nundinis in hac urbe quaerebatur editor Commentarii Apocalyptici satis prolixi cuiusdam Reformati Ant. Crelotii, qui quidem, quod in illa Religione non insolens, chiliasticas tuetur sententias, in aliis tamen enodandis Apocalypseos mysteriis plurimorum superasse videtur solertiam. Adhibitis ille Iudaeorum, Thalmudicorum, etiam Cabbalistarum scripsit non ubique obviis, multa symbola Apocalyptica, quae valde alias videntur obscura, ita illustravit, ut mirari subeat in lutosis illis fluentis tantum superasse auri, quod non in Iudaeo­ rum fabellis, cum de adventu sui Messiae plurima somniant, ut absurdissima deridemus, aliquid haberi veri, sed a gente excoecata nunc non intelligi et a maioribus iam detorta esse, cum hi a patribus accepta mala fide conservarent”. 58 In addition to the letters quoted above, see also An [Adam Tribbechov] (Frankfurt a. M., 21. September 1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 322–5, here 323; An [Adam Tribbechov in Gotha] (Frankfurt a. M., 4. September 1678), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 881–4, here 881. 59 See An [Abraham Hinckelmann] (Frankfurt a. M., 12. Oktober 1678), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 975–85, here 983. On Spener’s study of Apocalypse commentaries in the years 1663–1664 see Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 175–80. 60 For Hoffmann see An Johann Melchior Stenger (Frankfurt a. M., 10. August 1676), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol.,

210

T he sources of eschatology

chiliastic positions of the Reformed authors, as well as of the Arminians.61 On the contrary, he constantly suggests the reading of Peganius’ – together with the English millenarian Joseph Mede, whom he identifies as the source of Eigentliche Erklärung – and of Grélot’s texts, which he considers reliable. Spener’s letter to Hickelmann dated 12 October 1678 expresses this particularly eloquently: Do you know the small treatise on the Apocalypse written by Peganius, which is in great measure influenced by Joseph Mede, and which contains many well-grounded points? There is also a manuscript commentary by Grélot, an author who recently died and who was a Reformed preacher; he could not find any editor. It contains a lot of erudition, and it explains apocalyptical figures with remarkable finesse, drawing from Jewish texts. He shows that it is possible to find all [these topics] also in the Talmud and in the Judaic writings, and that there are several truths in the books of these poor people [scil. the Jews], even though they make false use of them.62 439–53, here 442; although he finds in Hoffmann’s book “quae mihi placerent”, he criticizes it because of the calculation he makes, and states that it is not a grounded explanation. For Egard see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 13. Februar 1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 39–49, here 45. About this text he states that the explanation is arbitrary and not conform to the original text. 61 See An [Adam Tribbechov in Gotha] (Frankfurt a. M., 21. Septmeber 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 322–5, here 323. He does not specify who these authors are. 62 See An [Abraham Hinckelmann in Lübeck] (Frankfurt a. M., 12. Oktober 1678), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 975–85, here 984–5: “Ist ihnen Peganii tractätlein in apocalypsin bekant, welches zimlich theils aus Josepho Medo genommen, aber sehr viel solides in sich fasset? Hier ist auch ein MS. commentarius eines neulich verstorbenen autoris Grelotii, gewesenen Reformirten Predigers, so zimlich groß, und also sich noch kein verleger darzu finden wollen. Es ist grosse erudition darinnen, und erklährt er die figuras apocalypticas mit einer sonderbahren dexteritaet selbst aus den Jüdischen schrifften. Und zeigt, wie fast alles auch in dem Talmud und des Jüdischen büchern dergleichen zufinden, daß diese arme leute wol viele warheiten in ihren büchern haben, aber gantz unrecht applicirt und verkehrt. Stante sententia de regno Christi in his terris glorioso, welches so viele Engelländer und andere Reformirten vor sich hat, so gehet gedachter commentarius sehr kräftig, daß daraus den Jüden gewiesen werden möchte, sie erwarteten nicht vergebens des Meßiä, aber eben dessen, welches erste zukunfft sie vorhin verachtet haben”. See also An [Adam Tribbechov in Gotha] (Frankfurt a. M., 4. September 1678), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 881–4, here 881: “Quae de Chiliasmo scire me volebas, beneficio imputo. Et non ingratum erit, si de illo argumento plura commentari velles. Certe digna res est pia meditatione et, ut in timore DOMINI tota expendatur sedulo, sine acerbitate et praecipiti iudicio. Qui vobis autores ad manus sint, nescio. Peganius non omino indignus est, qui legatur. Helmontium illo tegi nomine plures arbitrari, et erat, qui diceret, quod suo nomine alicui libellum dederit. Alii, qui Virum interius norunt, tantum ei studiorum esse non existimant. Habet vero sua pleraque, quod in prefatione fatetur, ex Josepho Medo, qui lectu eo dignor. Crellotius non invenit adhuc editorem, cum moles sit maior. Seidenbecheri vidi scriptum Latinum, cui historia eius et mors adiecta erat, nec non aliud eiusdem Germanico Idiomate, sed sub nomine Warmud Freyburger. Mori copia non est, unde quibus ducatur sententiis, ignoro, tantum audivi ab aliquo laudari, quod in doctrina spirituum non pauca singularia et solida praestiterit, sed

Sources of the millenarian expectation

211

Spener’s correspondence thus shows that the works of Knorr von Rosenroth and Grélot bore a strong influence, and Spener always expressed his admiration for these authors, although he always refuted the strictly chiliastic aspects. Why was Spener particularly interested in these texts? What or who drew Spener’s attention towards these treatises? Spener’s letters offer some answers to these questions.

Spener’s interest in the “Philosophia Prisca Hebraeorum” Spener praises the clarity of Knorr von Rosenroth and Grélot in their explanation of Jewish theology, and, particularly, in their rendering of the “truth” of the Jews expectation of the Messiah and of his glorious kingdom. Spener’s interest in Jewish theology is also expressed in other letters, where he also reflects on other Kabbalistic texts, such as Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbalah Denudata. According to Spener, knowledge of Hebrew is key to penetrating the secrets of the Scripture, for it contains the “Philosophia prisca Hebraerorum”, a kind of wisdom obscured by the Aristotelian philosophy and by the “trifles” of Scholasticism.63 In this sense, the Kabbalistic philosophy, being a mystic interpretation of the Talmud developed by Jews, was considered a valuable instrument to uncover the mysteries of the Scripture: “If we further penetrate the Kabbalistic mysteries – a practice not uncommon among Christians – we will maybe figure out that these can have several useful aspects. Anyway, it is clear to me that if we restore the true old Judaic philosophy, no reading will be more suitable for a theologian”.64 plane nihil eius legi”. On the influences of Joseph Mede on Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklärung see An Elias Veiel in Ulm (Frankfurt a. M., 16. April 1675), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 46–51, 49: “Ex Ios. Medo, cuius ad manus mihi sunt scripta, quod pleraque petierit, fatetur ipse”, An [Adam Tribbechov] (Frankfurt a. M., 21. September1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 322–5, here 324: “Ex eo [scil. Jospeh Mede] pleraque sua habet, [qui] sub nomine Peganii latet et mihi nondum innotuit”. 63 See An [einen Unbekannten] (Frankfurt a. M., Juni 1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 216–7. On the importance of the Jewish philosophy to penetrate God’s mysteries, and the fact that the Aristotelian philosophy corrupted theology see also An Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg (Frankfurt a. M., 24. März.1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 64–74, here 65–6. 64 An Gottlieb Spizel in Augsburg (Frankfurt a. M., 24. März.1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 64–74, here 66: “Unde si Cabbalistica arcana magis penetraremus, quam inter Christianos fieri solet, forte inventuri essemus, quae plurimum usum praestarent. Id autem mihi perspectum videtur indubiae veritatis, si veram Iudaeorum veterum Philosophiam ex sepulcro revocare possemus, non aliam aptiorem fore Theologo sacros scriptores lecturo”. The Kabbalistic tradition, the concept of “philosophia Prisca Hebraeorum”, and their usefulness for the Christian theology as well as for the millenarian speculation will be better explained in the following pages.

212

T he sources of eschatology

This position, as well as the role and usefulness of the Kabbalistic philosophy, is confirmed by other letters, where Spener explains the utility of specific Kabbalistic works. Spener writes to Johann Matthäus Faber: Several people think that its [scil. of Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbala Denudata] study is promising, and I cannot be totally in disagreement with them, since experts have taught me, that the philosophy of the old Jews is concealed in this difficult [text], a philosophy which cannot fail to be good for literature or sacred studies, if it is uncovered.65

Spener’s stance towards Kabbalistic literature was, however, not always complaisant. For example, he criticizes the “occult Origenism” in Knorr von Rosenroth’s Harmonia Evangeliorum (1672) and in Henri More’s Coniectura Cabbalistica (1653), and by occult Origenism he refers to the support for the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, according to Spener, a doctrine which in no way can be “excused”.66 Moreover, evaluating the Kabbalistic philosophy, he describes himself as a blind person who is required to judge about colors.67 Later he will 65 An Johann Matthäus Faber in Heilbronn (Frankfurt a. M., 25. März 1678), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 648–51, here 650: “Kabbalam denudatam, quam protulere nundinae superiores, haud dubie vidisti. De eo studio multi iam magna promittunt, quibus non omnino refragari possum, quando periti eius me docuere, in abstruso illo Philosophiam veterum Iudaeorum latere, quae, si produceretur, non posset illud sine maximo commodo rei literariae quin et sacrae fieri”. See also An [Adam Tribbechov in Gotha] (Frankfurt a. M., 4. September 1678), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 881–4, here 884: “De Cabbala, nisi fallor, nuper etiam scripsi, me eius esse ignarum, id vero ab aliis habeo, Philosophiam, quae Iudaeorum fuit, in ea superesse”. See a similar expression in Knorr von Rosenroth’s Preface to the reader for van Helmont’s The Alphabet of Nature, reported in A. P. Coudert / ​T. Corse (transl. and ed.), The Alphabet of Nature by F. M. van Helmont (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 27: “If, then, such a society were to unearth such remarkable monuments of genuine Jewish antiquity, which were not discovered today or yesterday but were already handed down many thousands of years earlier, how useful would this be for the entire community of letters”. 66 An Jacob Thomasius in Leipzig (Frankfurt a. M., 15. September 1675), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 173–4. here 174; An [Johann Ludwig Hartmann in Rothenburg o. T.] (Frankfurt a. M., Anfang Oktober 1675), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 212–18, here 215; An [Adam Tribbechov] (Frankfurt a. M., 21. September 1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 322–5, here 324. The text here quoted are Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, Harmonia Evangeliorum, oder Zusammenfügung d. vier H. Evangelisten (1672) (published also in 1699 with an intrduction by A. H. Francke); Henry More, Conjectura Cabbalistica: Or, A Conjectural Essay of interpreting the minde of Moses according to a threefold Cabbala, viz., literal, philosophical, mystical, or divinely moral (London, 1653). 67 See An [Adam Tribbechov in Gotha] (Frankfurt a. M., 4. September 1678), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 881–4, here 884: “Quod si ita habeat, posset eius aliquod esse monumentum, sed quod dixi, de coloribus non iudicat coecus”.

Sources of the millenarian expectation

213

also declare to have been disappointed by Kabbala Denudata. As his preface to Balthasar Köpke’s Sapientia Dei, In Mysterio Crucis Christi Abscondita (1700) confirms, the appeal of the Kabbalah lay in hope to finding in it the old Jewish philosophy, but such hopes remained unfulfilled, for he noticed that its study required a lot of time and reflection.68 Despite his criticisms, it is noteworthy that this tradition, particularly as rendered in Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklärung and Grélot’s manuscript on the Apocalypse, was known and praised by Spener at the very beginning of his eschatological turn. Spener’s interest in the Kabbalah was, however, not an isolated case in the Frankfurt environment. Wallmann has noticed that the Kabbalistic tradition of Sulzbach had also caught the attention of another key figure in the Frankfurt circle, namely the jurist Johann Jakob Schütz.69 Wallmann’s studies, based partly on suppositions, received a confirmation and a new impulse by Deppermann’s research on the correspondence of Johann Jakob Schütz, another key figure to better understand the beginning of eschatology in Spener and in his Frankfurt circle.70

Johann Jakob Schütz and the beginning of the Frankfurt eschatology Deppermann’s research on Schütz’s correspondence, preserved in Frankfurt, has highlighted not only the importance of this figure for the beginning of the eschatology of the Frankfurt circle, but also the fact that the lawyer showed 68 K. Balthasar, Sapientia Dei, In Mysterio Crucis Christi Abscondita: Die wahre Theologia Mystica Oder Ascetica, Aller Gläubigen A. und N. Test.; Aus I. Corinth. II. v. 6. 7. Entgegen gesetzet Der falschen aus der Heydnischen Philosophia Platonis und seiner Nachfolger / In zwey Theil abgefasset Durch Balthasar Köpken … Nebst Hrn. D. Phil. Jacob Speners Vorrede (Halle, 1700) Vorrede, § 6: “Gleichwie als die Kabbala denudata heraus kommen solte / und man hoffnung gemacht / man werde darinn einiges der philosophie der alten hebreer finden / ich verlangen darnach getragen / und als der erste theil gedruckt / solchen lesen wollen / wie ich aber nicht allein sahe / daß die sache mehrere zeit und nachsinnen erfordern würde / als mir meine andere verrichtungen zugaben und bald merckte / daß die hoffnung nicht erfüllet seye / legte das buch wiederum hin / daß auch den andern theil / der darnach heraus kam / mir nicht anschaffte”. Already in 1680, he declares to have given too much credit to Peganius’ Eigentliche Erklährung, whereas now he is no longer satisfied, especially with his calculations on the beginning of the millennium, see An [Caspar Heunisch] (Frankfurt a. M., 1. April 1681), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 5 vol., 147–50, here 148: “Peganius (von dem ich wol weiß, daß es Helmontius nicht ist, ob ers wol wegen beforderung des trucks sich mag attribuirt haben, aber vernehme, es seye D. Kolhans, so nun unter den Quakern dißmal sich findet) setzet mir die rechnung zu weit hinaus, und sind seine scheinende apodixes nicht so fest, als es das ansehen haben möchte”. On Spener’s later abandon of the Kabbalah, also see Wallmann, Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 157. 69 See Wallmann, Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus, 346–7. 70 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 126–41.

214

T he sources of eschatology

interest in this issue way before the friend Philipp Jakob Spener. According to Deppermann, the first testimony about Schütz’s involvement with chiliasm dates back to 1671, when his cousin Georg Friedrich Wagner, City Counsel of Essling, had asked him to obtain Nikolaus Drabík’s visions, i. e., Johann Amos Comenius’ Lux in Tenebris (1657).71 Schütz mentions having borrowed the rare and expensive book from a friend – most likely Spener himself, who owned this work in his library, but, who, at that time, did not show particular interest in it. He dissuades his correspondent from spending so much money for it, declaring that such visions were the machinations of the devil and not the auspices for peace. The chiliastic problem appears again in Schütz’s correspondence a year later in a letter to Johanna Eleonora. The Frankfurt jurist responds to Johanna Eleonora’s question about the right interpretation of Rev 20. Schütz’s explanation not only shows a clear interest in chiliasm, but also indicates the source used by the jurist to explain this biblical passage: Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklärung, a text not directly quoted by Schütz, but whose influence is proved by Deppermann, who draws several parallels between Schütz’s argumentation and Knorr von Rosenroth’s work.72 71 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 126–8. On Comenius and on this work see c.2, § 1.4. 72 See Schütz an Johanna Eleonora von Merlau nach Wiesenburg (20.12.1672), reported in Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 128–9: “Vom 1000 Jährigen Reich Christi sind vergnüglichen und H. Schrifft nicht zuwider laufende gedancken, wann mann das 20. cap. Apoc. nach dem Buchstaben verstehet (nicht zwar von ketten, Stuhlen etc. die der Schmid oder der Schriner machet, und dergleichen, sondern einer arth die von geistlichen leibern ziemet, und bey denen ist was ketten oder Stühl bey menschen oder thieren so fort an). Dann im vorhergehenden 19ten. cap. macht sich Christus auf seine kirche zu reinigen, und nächst vertilgung seiner feinde sein reich auf Erden herrlich zu machen (nicht zwar sichtbarlicher weiße, doch eben so mercklich, alß er zu außrottung des Judenthumbs kommen ist, da er auch sagte ihr werdet sehen des Meschen-Sohn kommen, wobey dann vorgehet die verwerfung des thieres und falschen Propheten, und die große Schlacht. Hier im 20ten. cap. nun wird der Drach der verführer gebunden 1000. Jahr, daß er diese Zeit über das Reich Christi nicht mehr verunruhige. Vv. 4. Da werden die Martyrer aufersthen leiblicher weiß, von welcher auferstehung auch gehandelt wird 1. cor.15:23. 1. Thess.4:16. Die andere aber welche die martyrer kron nicht erlanget haben, sondern das thier nicht angebetet haben und noch bey leben, die werden auf Erden mit großer herrligkeit außgerüstet und Jehne auferstandene Martyrer herrschen mit Christo unsichtbarlich, diese lebende rechtglaubigen auf Erden, in großen geistliche herrlicjkeit biß an das Ende der welt oder 1000. Jahren folget die allgemeine auferstehung, in welcher aller todten auferstehn davon vers. 12.13.14. Wann nun diese nach dem buchstaben zu verstehen, worumb nicht auch jehne! Hierbey ist nicht eben nöthig, daß diese priester gottes auf Erden sichtbarlich erscheinen, dann ihre himmlische leib werde unsichtbar seyn. Doch können sie etwan wohl, wie bey der auferstehung Christi einem und anderm erscheinen, und darmit etwan zur bekehrung der Juden helfen, dann auch die fülle der heiden eingegangen, gantz Israel seelig werden wird. Rom: 11:25”. For an introduction to Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklährung see I. M.  Battafarano, “‘Denn wenn Gott brüllet / wer wolte nicht

Sources of the millenarian expectation

215

In his response, Schütz writes that the one-thousand-year Kingdom of Christ does not contradict Rev 20. He also writes that Rev 19 thematizes Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, which, while not visible, will be recognized by everyone. Moreover, he explains that in Rev 20 the following events are contained: the imprisonment of the beast so that the kingdom will be not challenged and tormented for 1000 years; the corporeal resurrection of the martyrs as laid out in 1 Cor 15:23 and 1 Thess 4:16, and the fact that they will have a heavenly body, for which reason they would be not visible on Earth, although they could appear in the same way as Christ appeared to the apostles after the resurrection, and, in this way, can help the conversion of the Jews; the sovereignty on Earth of those who would not resurrect with the martyrs but who, nevertheless, have never adored the beast (i. e., the Devil); the universal resurrection at the end of the millennium. Schütz’s correspondence similarly shows that beyond Eigentliche Erklährung, he had been aware of other commentaries on the Apocalypse and had been in contact with other authors who had written on the last book of the Bible, starting with Grèlot, whose Prodromus was sent by Schütz to Knorr von Rosenroth in 1675. Also Schütz sought an editor for the manuscript brought to Frankfurt by Grèlot himself.73 Another chiliastic author known to Schütz was the Dutch preacher Johannes Rothe, about whom he inquired in 1674 in a letter to Pierre Yvon, and towards whose interpretation of prophecies he adopted a diffident stance.74 The same stance is adopted also towards Rothe’s friend and Böhme’s follower Quirinus Kuhlmann.75 Other authors with whom Schütz was in contact were the Labadists Pierre Yvon and Anna Maria van Schurman, and not least, Alhardus de Raadt, a follower of Böhme and friend of Johann Georg Gichtel, as well as Daniel de Breen, the leader of the Collegiants in Amsterdam.76 Even though Schütz’s knowledge of these authors’ works is attested in letters written subsequente to the letter to Johanna Eleonora, already in his reply to Merlau, Schütz declares that he was also acquainted with other works on the millennium: weissagen’. Christian Knorrs von Rosenroth Deutung der Weltgeschichte als Heilgeschichte im Apokalypse-Kommentar (1670)”, in I. M. Battafarano (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitscrhift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (15 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2005), 13–26. 73 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 139–40. 74 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 134–5. On Johannes Rothe (1628–1702) see H. Schneider, Art. Rothe, Johannes, in: RGG⁴ 7(2004), 646. 75 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 136. On Quirinus Kuhlmann (1651–1689) see J. Wallmann, Art. Kuhlmann, Quirinus, in: RGG⁴4 (2001), 1796–7. 76 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 138–9. On Pierre Yvon (1646–1707) see J. Wallmann, Art. Yvon, Pierre, in: RGG⁴8 (2005), 1772; on Anna Maria van Schurman (1607–1678) see J.  Wallmann, Art. Schurman, Anna Maria van, in: RGG⁴7 (2004), 1041; on Daniel de Breen (1594–1665) see Art. Breen, Daniel van, in P. C. van Molhuysen / ​P. J. Blok (ed.), Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek (Sijthoff: Leiden, 1921), 246; on Alhardus de Raadt (dates not verified) see Art. Raadt, Alhardus de, in K. R. J. van Harderwijk / ​C. D. J. Schotel (ed.), Biographisch Woordenboek 6 (1969), 1. 

216

T he sources of eschatology

“There are hundreds opinions on the one-thousand-year kingdom”. Although he knew several interpretations of the Apocalypse, he chooses the Eigentliche Erklärung as the best explanation for Rev 20.77 Schutz’s response to Johanna Eleonora thus confirms that, among other commentaries, the work of Knorr von Rosenroth was most influential in defining the chiliastic position of the Frankfurt jurist. This letter also shows that this happened two years before Spener’s eschatological turn, which can be traced back to a letter to Johanna Eleonora written at the end of 1674. For these reasons, Deppermann concludes that not Spener, but, rather, Schütz was the promoter of the eschatological position in the Frankfurt environment, and that the reception of Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklährung signaled this trend.78

The Kabbalistic tradition as tool for the conversion of the Jews How did Schütz get acquainted with the works of Knorr von Rosenroth? What captured his interest in his text? The relationship between the Frankfurt jurist and Knorr von Rosenroth is amply documented by his correspondence, which shows an intense involvement not only with Eigentliche Erklährung, but also with other texts by the Sulzbach Kabbalist. Schütz’s father, Jakob Schütz (1587–1654), was chancellor of the count palatine of Sulzbach from 1623 until 1628, and he had left an inheritance to the son, who, for this reason, was asked to travel to Sulzbach. Schütz was in Sulzbach in ­February 1673, when he met, among other people, Knorr von Rosenroth.79 Between 1673 and 1674 Schütz received 230 copies of his Apocalypse commentary from Knorr von Rosenroth, which he sold or distributed among his friends. Most likely, Spener also received a copy of the treatise in 1674, which he first mentions at the very beginning of the following year.80 Since 1672, Schütz had begun to be involved in the publication of von Rosenroth’s Harmonia Evangeliorum, which he sent to the Frankfurt editor David Zunner to publish. In the following 77 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 130: “Wegen dieses 1000. Jahrigen Reichs sind wohl 100erley Meinungen, aber diese bedüncket mich der Schrifft und herrligkeit Christi am gemäßesten zu seyn; zu seiner Zeit werden wirs erfahren”. 78 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 131: “Wenn man wissen will, in welcher genauen Ausprägung die Lehre von dem noch ausstehenden Tausendjährigen Reich bei den Pietisten in Frankfurt Eingang gefunden hat und sich durchgesetzt hat, muß man sich an die “Eigentliche Erklährung” halten”. 79 On the relationship between Johann Jakob Schütz and Sulzbach, and on the important role that he played in spreading some Kabbalistic texts produced here see, in addition to Deppermann’s monography, V.  Wappmann, “Johann Jakob Schütz, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth und die Anfänge des Pietismus”, in M. Battafarano (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (15 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2005), 299–309. Wappmann also indicates Eigentliche Erklärung as the text which decisively influenced not only Schütz’s millenarian position but also Spener’s one. 80 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 133.

Sources of the millenarian expectation

217

year, he also wrote to von Rosenroth suggesting that he improve some parts of the work – according to Deppermann some Kabbalistic and chiliastic passages which had been removed at the behest of the Reformed professor of Heidelberg, Johann Ludwig Fabricius.81 Similarly, since 1677, he strove to find an editor for Kabbalah Denudata, as Knorr himself had requested.82 The contact between Schütz and von Rosenroth was mediated by another figure who had been active at the Sulzbach court, the naturalist philosopher Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, with whom Schütz had corresponded since 1672 and whom he personally met only subsequently.83 Son of the famous Paracelsus’ disciple, Jean Baptiste van Helmont, Franciscus Mercurius established a connection with several prominent philosophers and theologians, both in Germany – where he was in close contact with Leibniz and his correspondent Sophie duchess of Hannover  – and in England, where he travelled several times and met, inter alia, John Locke, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Georg Fox, Anne Conway, William Penn, and Henry More, of whom the latter two are particularly significant for Schütz and for the Frankfurt environment, since it was van Helmont who sent the work of Henry More to Frankfurt – which Spener mentions in his correspondence – and put Schütz in contact with the Quakers. In fact, the Quaker leader William Penn visited the Saalhof circle, a meeting in which Johanna Eleonora also partook.84 The large network created by the Kabbalists of Sulzbach was in no small way fostered by their immediate milieu. The Sulzbach court was led by the Catholic Count Palatine Christian Augustus, who encouraged ecumenism, irenic endeavors, and confessional reunion.85 In this sense, the Kabbalistic tradition promoted by van Helmont and by von Rosenroth was seen as an instrument to foster ecumenism not only among Christians, but also among Jews, who were regarded as potential Christians. The Sulzbach court was one of the most important centers for Christian Kabbalism during the seventeenth century. This kind of Jewish philosophy had, however, already attracted the attention of Christian authors in the former centuries. 81 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 223–4 and 230–1. 82 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 233–7; Wappmann, “Johann Jakob Schütz, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth und die Anfänge des Pietismus”, 307–8. 83 On the life and tought of Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont (1614–1698) see Coudert, “The impact of the Kabbalah”. 84 See Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 225. On the connection between the Sulzbach court and the Platonic of Cambridge, particularly Henri More, see R. Zeller, “Naturmagie, Kabbala, Millennium. Das Sulzbacher Projekt um Christian Knorr von Rosenroth und der Cambridger Platoniker Henri More”, in R. Zeller (ed.). Morgen-Glantz 11 (2001), 13–75. On the Sulzbach court see R. Zeller, “Wissenschaft und Chiliasmus”. On the meeting between Quakers figures and the “Pietistic” circle of Frankfurt, see Deppermann, Johann Jakob Schütz, 322–7. 85 On the Sulzbach court see M. Finke, “Toleranz und “discrete” Frömmigkeit”.

218

T he sources of eschatology

Developed by some Jewish rabbis in Provence and Spain in the twelve century as a mystic interpretation of the Talmud, the Judaic Kabbalah entered the Christian environment and begun to be linked to Christian speculations in the fifteenth century.86 One of the first texts to testify to the influence and use of the Jewish Kabbalah in Christian speculations is Pico della Mirandola’s 900 Theses.87 The Italian Renaissance philosopher – first among several Christian authors – referred to this Jewish tradition, presenting it as a part of the philosophia perennis, the perennial philosophy, i. e., the primordial wisdom or Adamic wisdom understood to have been imparted directly by God to Moses, conveyed through the Scripture and, successively, passed down to several other  – also pagan – traditions.88 According to Pico, the language of the Kabbalah was the primordial language de ore Dei nata through which God had conveyed his wisdom to Moses.89 Such a primordial wisdom can be found, however, not only in the Scripture, but also in pagans traditions, for instance, in the Egyptian Hermes Trismegistos or in the Persian Chaldean Oracles, transmitted later to Plato and to the Greek philosophy; it can be found in Neo-Platonism, which was the main source for several Christian authors of the first centuries – among whom Pico mentions Origen in particular. But it can be also traced back to the Judaic Kabbalistic tradition, which began to develop in the twelve and thirteen centuries. Through the Kabbalah, he believed to have discovered “an original divine revelation to mankind that had been lost and would now be restored, and with the aid of which it was possible not only to understand the teachings of Pythagoras, Plato, and the Orphics, all of whom they greatly admired, but also the secrets of Catholic faith”.90 Successively, what attracted some Christian authors – such as – to give weight to learning about this tradition was not only the possibility of discovering through it God’s primordial wisdom, but also of proving the truth of Christian mysteries (creation, incarnation, trinity).91 86 On the birth of the Judaic Kabbalah, its development, and its influences on the Christian world, see G. Scholem, Art. Kabbalah, in Encyclopedia Judaica² 10 (2007), 489–653; O. Betz, Art. Kabbalah, in: TRE 17 (1993), 487–509. 87 On this text, see S. A. Farmer (transl. and ed.), Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486). The evolution of traditional religious and philosophical systems, (Arizona: Tempe, 1998). 88 On the origin of this tradition, see F.  Stengel, “Reformation, Renaissance and Hermeticism: Contexts and Interfaces of the Early Reformation Movement”, in Reformation & Renaissance Review 20 (2018), 1–31, particularly 3–6; Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis, 27–36 and 409–12. On Pico’s 900 These see Farmer, Syncretism in the West. On the Kabbalah in general see F.  Stengel, Art. Kabbalah, Christianity, in: EBR 14 (2017), 1184–7; J. Dan, Art. Kabbala, in: RGG⁴ 4 (2001), 725–7. 89 On the specific meaning of the Kabbalah in Pico see Betz, Art. Kabbalah, 501–3. 90 See Scholem, Art. Kabbalah, 643. 91 Reuchlin was the first Christian author who wrote texts on this subject. Whereas Pico had made used of it, quoting some passages translated into Latin, Reuchlin devotes two works to this subject: De Verbo Mirifico (1494), and De Arte Cabalistica (1517). Moreover, Reuchlin stressed the importance of the Hebrew language as original language through which God

Sources of the millenarian expectation

219

The use of Jewish philosophy to recover God’s primordial wisdom appears particularly clear in van Helmont’s treatise A short sketch of the truly ­natural Hebrew alphabet, published in 1667 with an introduction by Knorr von Rosenroth.92 This text is built upon the idea that the Hebrew letters were a “natural alphabet”, i. e., the language through which Adam named everything. As a consequence, thanks to their knowledge, it was possible to penetrate the primordial structure of the world and, in this way, God’s intellect.93 For Knorr von Rosenroth, Hebrew was also the key to the New Testament, in that it contained the Adamic language also present behind the structure of the Greek language used to compose the New Testament, a kind of Greek which  – he remarks – cannot be found in the classical Greek of Hesiod or Homer. Indeed, this kind of Greek, according to von Rosenroth, was directly influenced by the Judaic culture of that time. The ultimate aim of the Adamic language, and of the Kabbalah, is, according to von Rosenroth and van Helmont, to reveal the real meaning of the Bible, which is realized in the New Testament’s Christological Metaphysics of the Logos. Allison Coudert summarizes van Helmont’s position getting right to the point: “If Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Moslems agree in accepting the Hebrew Bible as the revealed word of God, why do they disagree so fundamentally and murderously about its meaning? For van Helmont the only possible explanation was that the text had been corrupted and people no longer understood it”.94 In this sense, the Kabbalah became a tool to recover the real communicated with his creatures; on this topic he wrote in 1506 De rudimentis hebraicis. Whereas, on the one hand, the Kabbalah and the Hebrew language were considered two “instruments” to discover the original revelation of God and to prove the truth of Christianity, the most of Christian authors who made use of the Kabbalah usually asserted its congruity with Christianism without really proving the similarities, so that they were sometimes criticized by Jewish Kabbalists because of their misunderstanding of this knowledge. On the history of the Christian Kabbalah see W.  Schimdt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala, 4 volumes (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2012–15). 92 Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, Alphabeti vere naturalis hebraici brevissima delineation quae simul methodum suppeditat, juxta quam qui surdi nati sunt sic informari possunt, ut non alios saltem loquentes intelligant, sed & ipsi ad sermonis usum perveniant, Lichtenthaleri, Sulzbach, 1667. For an English translation and introduction to this text see Coudert / ​Corse (transl. and ed.), The Alphabet of Nature by F. M. van Helmont. 93 Van Helmont was convinced that not every kind of Hebrew could reveal the real essence of creation, e. g., contemporary Hebrew or scriptural Hebrew as passed down to its genearation were corrupted forms. On the contrary, he claimed to have rediscovered Hebrew in its original, divine form thanks to the “natural alphabet” based on pictorial representations of the movements made by the tongue, as each Hebrew letter was pronounced. On this point as well as on the influence of this idea (and, in general of the Sulzbach Kabbalah) for the beginning of the modern science (and, specifically, thanks to the influence on Leibniz), see A. P.  Coudert, “Forgotten ways of knowing: The Kabbalah, Language, and Science in the Seventeenth Century”, in D. R. Kelley / ​R. H. Popkin (ed.), The shapes of knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991), 83–99. 94 See Coudert / ​Corse (transl. and ed.), The Alphabet of Nature by F. M. van Helmont, XVI.

220

T he sources of eschatology

meaning of the sacred text, and to convert the Jews by showing them the truth about Jesus Christ through their own tradition, as von Rosenroth asserts in his introduction to van Helmont’s Short Sketch: In fact, don’t you think that this society [scil. a society for the study of the Hebrew language] would benefit those still unenlightened and wretched Jews? Could one hope that the veil of Moses, which covers their faces, might be partly if not completely lifted for their benefit so that it would be possible for that blindness, which come from the side of Israel, to be healed to some extend? … Indeed, if arguments have ever prevailed against the Jews, it is obvious that they must be drawn from evidence taken from their own writings. And God may bless such holy and righteous efforts that achieve more in this way than through violent compulsion.95

This was precisely the point that also attracted Schütz and Spener to the K ­ abbalah. It was, therefore, not merely the presence of millenarian speculations in the texts of the Kabbalists of Sulzbach which made these authors so receptive to the Kabbalistic texts, but also the explanation of Jesus’ future Kingdom through a Judaic wisdom. For this reason, Spener invokes the Judaic theology, naming it “Philosophia prisca Hebraerorum”, Jews’ primordial philosophy. The Kabbalah was seen as an instrument to convert the Jews, and, in this way, to prepare for the arrival of Jesus’s Kingdom.

Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm Petersen Although Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklährung was not the only Apocalypse-commentary known in the Frankfurt circle, both Spener’s and Schütz’s letters seem to clearly indicate that this was the text which most influenced these authors’ eschatological views in the “millenarian” sense.96 What about Johanna Eleonora von Merlau and Johann Wilhelm Petersen? In Nubes Testium Veritatis, Johann Wilhelm also mentions Eigentliche Erklährung among other testimonies on chiliasm.97 Nevertheless, as the previous analyses on Petersen’s 95 Coudert / ​Corse (transl. and ed.), The Alphabet of Nature by F. M. van Helmont, 25. See also Schimdt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala (3 vol.; Stuttgart / ​Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2013), 22 and 100; R. Zeller, “Böhme-Rezeption am Hof von Christian August von Pfalz-Sulzbach”, in W. Kühlmann, F. Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur europäische Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 125–41. 96 I use the concept “millenarian” in quotes since Spener never defined his position as “millenarian” or “chiliastic” (see chapter 2), he just spoke about a “hope for future better times”. 97 See J. W. Petersen, Nubes Testium Veritatis, Liber Tertius, § 37. Petersen believed that the pseudonym Peganius did not refer to Knorr von Rosenorth, rather the other Kabbalist of Sulzbach, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont. Already Spener could not identify the real

Sources of the millenarian expectation

221

Nubes Testium Veritatis shows, it is difficult to identify which texts had a greater influence on the Petersens’ chiliastic position. The beginning of their millenarian position could be traced back thanks to other sources, i. e., to Schütz’s and Spener’s correspondences, as well as the two authors’ autobiographical accounts. Johanna Eleonora first writes about her discovery of chiliasm in her autobiography. Writing on her marriage to Johann Wilhelm in 1680, Johanna ­Eleonora asserts that some “carping tongues” had spread lies that they had started interpreting the Apocalypse during marriage festivities, when the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of fire. The author not only denied this episode, but also commented on it: “at that time I did not have the insight that I have now in great fullness, nor did I recognize with great certainty God’s judgment and glory for his church here on Earth as a retribution for the pain we suffered for Christ’s sake”.98 In the second part of her autobiography, where she explains how God revealed different secrets to her, Johanna Eleonora writes that the secret about the one-thousand-year kingdom was disclosed to her in 1685 and that, until that moment, she had not so much thought about the Revelation: “I had never before thought much about this book but had always bypassed it, thinking that I would not understand anything in it”. She also recounts that already in her eighteenth year, i. e., in 1662, she had a vision on this discovery, whose meaning, however, she understood only afterwards: Then I remembered the vision in a dream that I had in 1662, in the eighteenth year of my life. In the dream I saw in the sky the number 1685 of which the first two numbers disappeared quickly into the clouds, but the other two numbers remained as 85. I saw a man standing to my right who pointed to the number and said: ‘Behold, at that time great things will begin to happen, and something will be revealed to you’. This really happened, for in 1685 the great unrest and persecution in France started and in the very same year the blessed thousand-year-realm of Jesus Christ in the Book of Revelation was opened up to me.99

Thus, it seems that in 1685 Johanna Eleonora first discovered the chiliastic meaning of the Apocalypse and that this book had remained obscure to her until author behind this pseudonym, a fact quite surprising if one considers that Schütz was in contact with Knorr von Rosenroth and that, most likely, Spener received the treatise directly from Schütz. The fact that Petersen also cannot recognize the real author of the treatise could be a sign that Schütz never revealed the real identity of Peganius. 98 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 26, 82. 99 Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 35, 90–1. This confirms also what Ruth Albrecht claims against Deppermann, i. e., that these visions did not play a fundamental role in determining the eschatology of the Saalhof circle (see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 69), indeed, not only were these the first to be used by Johanna Eleonora in the autobiography published in 1718, but she also confirms that at the time she had such visions she could not understand their meaning.

222

T he sources of eschatology

that moment. Is it possible to conclude that Johanna Eleonora first learned about chiliasm as recently as in 1685? Schütz’s letter of 20 December 1672, the first testimony of the chiliastic turn in the Frankfurt circle, seems to tell a different story. This letter proves not only that chiliasm entered the Frankfurt environment through Schütz’s mediation, and that his own position was influenced particularly through Knorr von Rosenroth’s Eigentliche Erklährung, but also that Johanna Eleonora was interested in this matter before moving to Eyseneck’s estate in Frankfurt. In contrast to Spener, who speaks about a “new spring”, Schütz offers her a clear explanation of several apocalyptical symbols and events. Unfortunately, most of Johanna Eleonora’s letters no longer exist; this renders it almost impossible to gain insights into her engagement with eschatology in the Frankfurt years or the development of her position. Spener’s letters also do not offer any insight into this matter. In the letters in which Spener denies the possibility of an improvement of the church situation, and in the letter of December 1674, where he first expresses a hope for a new spring, it is not clear that he is answering a question on the meaning of the Apocalypse. For the first time, a letter written in 1687 directly addresses the question of the interpretation of the Apocalypse in chiliastic sense.100 On the other hand, it is also necessary to consider that Johanna Eleonora twice wrote and published her autobiography, and that she indicates 1685 as the turning point in her eschatology only in the second part published towards the end of her life.101 Johanna Eleonora’s interest in the Apocalypse most likely developed over the years, although it had already started at the very beginning of her Frankfurt meetings as Schütz’s letter indicates. Her intereset remained marginal and not completely clarified until the beginning of the 1680s, for Spener’s initial letters to Johanna Eleonora mainly concern edification and not 100 See An [Johanna Eleonora Petersen in Eutin] (Dresden, 9. Juni 1687), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit. 1686–1691, 1 vol., 404–8. Here Spener comments on a manuscript text by Johanna Eleonora on the interpretation of the Apocalypse in chiliastic sense. From Spener’s answer it is clear that Johanna Eleonora deals with the Antichrist seen in the Roman church, with the conversion of the Jews, and with the first bodily resurrection of the martyrs. Also, in a letter to Johann Wilhelm dated 29 November 1686, Spener writes about a manuscript on the Apocalypse that Petersen had sent him; we do not know what is contained in this manuscript, but from Spener’s response it is quite clear that Petersen also dealt with the chiliastic issue here, see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Eutin (Dresden, 29. November 1686), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1686–1691, 1 vol., 171–5. 101 The first part – in which she also narrates about the marriage – was published in 1689 as appendix to A Heart’s Conversations with God; whereas the second part (§§ 31–38) – where she recounts how God let her discover some secrets, and where she speaks also about the revelation of the chiliastic truth in 1685 – appeared together with her husband’s Lebens-Be­ schreibung in 1718.

Sources of the millenarian expectation

223

directly the chiliastic issue or the destiny of the church, and took definitive contours only towards the end of the 1680s, as Spener’s response to Johanna Eleonora of 9 June 1687 shows. This is partly confirmed by Johann Wilhelm’s Lebens-Beschreibung. In contrast to Johanna Eleonora, it is possible to find several more proofs in Spener’s letters that testify to Johann Wilhelm’s interest in and commitment to the Apocalypse as early as in the 1670s. In his Lebens-Beschreibung, Johann Wilhelm confirms that the chiliastic truth was revealed to him by God in 1685, at the very same time as it was revealed to his wife, yet separately. The descriptions of their discovery seem almost a calque on each other. Both explain that God let them discover the chiliastic truth at the same time, while the meaning of the last book of the Bible had until then remained obscure to them, and that they did not have the courage to undertake its interpretation, that both had written this revelation on a sheet of paper which they had exchanged with each other while the ink had still been wet, that Johanna Eleonora, in her eighteenth year, had a vision that something great was going to happen in 1685, with the start of the Huguenot persecution in France, and that they discovered this truth on the very same day.102 This narration is contradicted by another passage in this same text. At the beginning of his autobiography, Johann Wilhelm mentions that he had already started hearing about the future condition of the church in Spener’s Frankfurt circle, i. e., at least ten years before the “revelation” in 1685: I was also corroborated by Mr. Schütz, whom I had often heard speaking in the collegio pietatis organized by Spener at his home. I also had directly spoken with him, learning much about the destiny of the church (a topic about which I had heard very little at the universities), namely about the development of the papacy and the persecution of the Evangelical church, about the fact that papacy would fall; about the conversion of the Jews, which a better condition of the church on Earth will follow, and about the fact that on the eve of this world there will still be light, since God and His name will be only one Ze 14. … At that time we also met a learned man from the University of Strasburg, who, disputing about chiliasm, claimed that the one-thousand-year kingdom entailed in Rev 20 had started at Constantin’s time and already finished; but I and the others did not consider this thesis probable, for I could not find the big imprisonment of the devil described in that chapter in the previous centuries.103 102 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 21, 70–5. 103 J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 6, 20: “Ich ward auch sehr in dem Guten bekräfftiget von dem Herrn Lic. Schützen, welchen ich in dem Collegio pietatis, welches Hr. d. Spener in seinem Hause angestellet hatte, offtmahls reden hörete, und auch mündlich mit ihm conferirte, und von den fatis Ecclesiae vieles zu wissen kriegte, davon ich auf Universitäten wenig gehört hatte, als da sind, wie das Pabsthum noch sehr würde zunehmen, und die wahren Evangelischen verfolgen, aber darnach, wenn es aufs höchste gekommen, fallen; hingegen aber die Juden noch bekehret werden würden, worauf eine bessere Kirche auf Erden aufgienge, und

224

T he sources of eschatology

Johann Wilhelm’s engagement with the Apocalypse and with the destiny of the church also find a mention in several letters from Spener. Spener’s letter to Petersen, dated 3 September 1675, mentions several texts bearing resemblance to those in his Pia Desideria, namely dealing with the decay of the church which will be followed by a better condition. In this letter, Spener writes that he is sending Johann Wilhelm two books on the corrupt situation of the church: Joseph Mede’s De Apostasia Novissimorum Temporum, and De Novo Evangelio by Paul Tarnow. He also mentions two treatises on eschatological issues which Johann Wilhelm had sent him and which he could not find: Moevius Volschovius’ Aureum Pietatis Seculum, and Christian Gross’ Consilium Theologicum: De quibus Defectibus in & ab Ecclesiis Evangelicorum tollendis.104 Starting 1677, the eschatological problem is again thematized in several letters, where the interpretation of Rev 20 is discussed. At the beginning of February, Spener asserts in his response to Johann Wilhelm’s letter that he is not convinced by Paul Egard’s explanation on Rev 20, which he claimed departed from the original meaning of the text.105 In May, he conceded he shared Johann Wilhelm’s view about the upcoming spring es am Abend dieser Welt noch Licht werden würde, da GOtt einer wäre, und sein Name auch einer. Zach. XIV. … Es kam auch ein Studiosus zu der Zeit von der Universität Straßburg, der de Chiliasmo disputiret, und darinnen verthädiget hatte, daß die in der Heil. Offenbahrung am 20. Capitel benennete tausend Jahre schon zu Zeiten Constantini Magni angefangen, und bereits vollendet wären, welches mir und andern nicht probable zu seyn vorkam, wenn ich die grosse allda beschriebene Bindung des Teuffels erwägete, und in den vorigen Seculis nicht fand”. 104 See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 3. September 1675), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 161–5. The works quoted are Joseph Mede (1586–1639) Prophetia Apostolica, 1. Tim. IV v. 1.2.3. De Apostasia Novissimorum Temporum. Et Theologia Daeomonum Gentili apud Christianos instaurata; diligenter & accurate expensa, Basel: J. König 1656, this text was originally written by Mede in English: The apostasy of the latter times, in which, according to divine prediction, the world should wonder after the beast the mystery of iniquity should so farre prevaile over the mystery of godlinesse, whorish Babylon ober the Virgin-Church, … delivered in publique some years since upon I Tim. 4. 1,2,3, London 1641; Paul Tarnow (1562–1633) De Novo Evangelio, quod sit caussa omnium calamitatum, universum Christianorum orbem inundantium & submergentium, Dissertatio: Habita in academia Rostochiensi MDCXXIV. IX Kal. Maij, Rostock o. J. 1624; Moevius Volschovius (1588–1650) Aureum Pietatis Seculum. Das ist: Geistliche Gülden-Zeit / eines Evangelischen Buß-Predigers / Von stifftung guter Ordnung / und unerwünscheter Besserung der Christenheit im Geistlichen Stande/ … durch Moevium Volschovium, Greifswald: J. Jäger 1645; Christian Gross (1602–1673) Consilium Theologicum: De quibusdam Defectibus in & ab Ecclesiis Evangelicorum tollendis … die XXV. Novemb. Anno MDCXXLI. On Petersen’s reading of these authors also see Matthias, Petersen, 105. 105 See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 13. Februar 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 39–49, here 45. The text to which he is referring is Paul Egard (1578/79–1655) Posaune der Göttlichen Gnade und Liechts; das ist: Offenbahrung und Entdekkung des Göttlichen Geheimnisses in Apocalypsi von den 1000. Jahren  … oder Erklarung des Xxsten Capittels der Offenabahrung Johannis (Hamburg, 1623).

Sources of the millenarian expectation

225

before the summer of the eternity, a spring announced by the numerous wishes of emendation, wishes not so much of the learned as of the commoners. He also addresses Johann Wilhelm’s doubt about the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ in Peganius’ Eigentliche Erklährung. In this letter, as well as in a subsequent letter, Spener defends Knorr’s text, claiming that it did not contradict their religion on this point and that the divinity of Jesus Christ is clearly asserted here.106 In a couple of other letters, Spener also discusses chiliasm. In a letter to Johann Wilhelm written on 13 August 1677 he offers an explanation and defense of some criticism of his Frankfurt circle. Among these, he also explains that he does not support the Anabaptist position condemned in CA 17, i. e., the expectation of an earthly kingdom. The chiliastic position – he continues – was also supported by several church fathers, who believed in an earthly kingdom guided by Christ from above. About this position, he is not able to give a definitive decision, choosing to follow Jerome’s position: “licet hanc sententiam non sequamur, tamen damnare non possumus”. On the other hand, he clearly confesses to believing in the conversion of the Jews, and in the expansion of the church.107 In other letters, he explains that the concept of chiliasm frightens several people like the head of Medusa. Chiliasm has several acceptations, and, according to him, not all are wrong; nevertheless, many people are afraid of supporting it because of the general condemnation of this term.108 Spener’s letters show that, similar to Johanna Eleonora, Johann Wilhelm also was interested in eschatological matters since the 1670s. Moreover, the correspondence with Spener and Schütz shows that whereas Johanna Eleonora was the first to be interested in the Apocalypse, Johann Wilhelm had continuously dealt with this text since his meeting with Spener and his circle. Both were strongly influenced by the Frankfurt environment, which thus could be called the cradle of the Petersens’ chiliastic position. The cooperation and synergy between the two authors are further testified by Spener himself, where, writing in 1687 on some manuscript comments on the Apocalypse by Johanna Eleonora, he considered the position here presented as a product of both.109 106 See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 12. Mai 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 154–62, here 156–7; and [An Johann Wilhelm Petersen] (Frankfurt a. M., 4. August 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 238–44, here 242. 107 An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 13. August 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 253–76, here 272–3. 108 See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 12. Oktober 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 386–96, here 395; and [An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 4. Oktober 1678), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 962–9, here 968. 109 See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Dresden., 29. November 1686), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit. 1686–1691, 1 vol., 171–5, here 174.

226

T he sources of eschatology

From Spener’s and Schütz’s letters, it is possible to discern not only that the couple was influenced by the contacts with Spener and Schütz, but also that, thanks to this contact, their understanding of the Revelation and their eschatological views were first influenced by Peganius’ (scil. Knorr von Rosenroth’s) Eigentliche Erklährung. To what extent this and other texts (as quoted by Johann Wilhelm in Nubes Testium Veritatis) shaped the Petersens’ eschatology as presented in the treatises published in the 1690s is a question which must remain open here. To precisely define how different authors have influenced the eschatology of the couple, a more rigorous analysis would be required – not only of the Petersens’ works, but also of these authors.

3.2 The sources of the apokatastasis doctrine Different from the chiliastic texts, Johanna Eleonora and especially Johann Wilhelm directly mention the sources used for the apokatastasis doctrine, sometimes also explaining the role and importance of certain authors for discovery and acceptance of the apokatastasis doctrine. In their respective autobiographies, both authors indicate that Jane Lead’s manuscript Eight Worlds was the decisive source that strengthened their conviction about the possibility of universal redemption.110 Jane Lead’s texts were the initial source for apokatastasis doctrine, but not the only one. Particularly in Johann Wilhelm’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton (1700), several other authors are mentioned as witnesses for the apokatastasis, and their texts are used to better explain this doctrine. In addition to Jane Lead, the main sources mentioned are Origen, particularly his Principles, the Kabbalistic tradition, especially the Christian Kabbalah, and even Luther. The main aim here is not only to investigate the sources of this doctrine – which are clearly mentioned by the couple – but also to understand the use of these authors in the narrative offered by the Petersens. How is it possible to reconcile different traditions? Specifically, how is it possible to reconcile Origen’s view with that of Luther, considering that the theologian of Wittenberg had not only rejected the Origenian tradition in favor of the Augustinian tradition, but also openly condemned Origen and his doctrine of universal salvation?111 In what sense is the Kabbalistic tradition useful to explain universal salvation and how is it linked to the other traditions mentioned?

110 See c. 1.2.1. 111 See P. Terraciano, Omnia in figura. L’impronta di Origene tra ’400 e ’500, (Roma: edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2012), 133–61.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

227

To answer these questions, each author or tradition will first be separately analyzed to distinguish their contributions to the Petersens’ apokatastasis doctrine, and, in so doing, also to better understand these doctrines as presented by both authors. At a later stage, the issue about the relationship among the different authors mentioned will be discussed.

3.2.1 Jane Lead and the Philadelphian Society According to both Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm, Jane Lead’s manuscript Eight Worlds was the first treatise which aroused their interest in the apokatastasis doctrine.112 Ruth Albrecht argues that, in addition to this treatise, Lead’s A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message might have had an even stronger influence.113 This is confirmed by the comparison between Lead’s treatises and the Petersens’ works. Indeed, the apokatastasis doctrine, briefly presented in Eight Worlds, is largely discussed in A Revelation. In Eight Worlds, the English theosophist presents the structure of God’s creation, divided into eight regions according to the revelations received by Lead, four of which are allocated to the soul and to its purification, whereas the remaining form the heavenly worlds devoid of sin.114 The condition of the soul after death is also amply addressed in the treatises authored by the Petersens. Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium invokes the middle condition of the soul, during which souls have the possibility to purify themselves and to recognize Christ as the Savior. However, in contrast to Jane Lead, the Petersens never describe this condition precisely. They make use of some biblical images (such as “sea”, “death”, “prison”, etc.), without further defining a precise cosmological structure, as the English text does. Another distinguishing feature of Lead’s text is Böhme’s Sophia-doctrine. The theosophist establishes the parallel between the first Adam and the second Adam, Jesus Christ, as well as between the Eternal Virgin Mother and the Virgin Mary.115 This doctrine will later also be used by Johann Wilhelm to explain 112 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 61, 297–301; Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen written by herself, § 36, 91–4. 113 See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 277. A German translation of this treatise appeared in Amsterdam in 1697. It was Baron von Knyphausen who supported the publication of Lead’s treatises in English as well as their translation and publication in German, which was made by Loth Fischer, see Hirst, Jane Leade, 90. 114 For a transcription of the manuscript of this text see URL = http://www.passtheword. org/Jane-Lead/8-worlds.htm. On this text see also Hirst, Jane Leade, 119–21. 115 On the use of the Sophia-doctrine in Jane Lead, see Hirst, Jane Leade, 121–4; S. Salvadori, “The Restitution of ‘Adam’s Angelical Body’: Jane Lead’s Metaphor of Rebirth and Mystical Marriage”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016),143–65. Böhme’s Sophia-doctrine was one of the central tenets of

228

T he sources of eschatology

how restitution occurs, but only starting with the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos (1703), where he declares to have learned about this doctrine from John Pordage and from Gottfried Arnold; interestingly, Jane Lead is not mentioned as the source in this regard. More similarities between Lead’s and the Petersens’ writings can be found in A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message.116 Particularly the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton shares some central points of similarities with the English text. The line of argument in both texts is built on the idea that God is essentially love and mercy and these attributes would be dimished if the notion were that God’s blood was not able to recover what was lost by the first Adam.117 Both texts also claim that only that which has no beginning, i. e., love, wisdom, and goodness, has no end, whereas death, darkness and punishment are only transitory and will come to an end.118 Indeed, God created everything according to a pure eternal Nature. He did not create sin, for this derives from the disobedient will of some angels, from the ambition of making themselves into gods.119 Moreover, both treatises resort to alchemical references as they describe Christ’s “redeeming Tincture”.120 Whereas the Petersens’ and Lead’s writings present similarities on several points, the Petersens assert their disagreement with some of Lead’s statements. First, they do not adopt Lead’s assertions about having learned the truth of the universal restoration directly from a godly revelation.121 They always refer to the Scripture as the ultimate foundation in support of their thesis, as Johann the Philadelphians ideal. Böhme’s positions were received and spread in England way before the beginning of the Philadelphian society, his works were, indeed, translated into English between 1644 and 1662 by John Sparrow and John Elliston. John Pordage  – Jane Lead’s spiritual fathers and the other central figure for the birth of the Philadelphian society  – was a follower of Böhme’s position; under his tutelage Jane Lead got to know the German philosopher’s work. On the reception of Böhme’s works in England see A. Hessayon, “Jacob Boehme’s Writings During the English Revolution and Afterwards: Their Publication, Dissemination, and Influence”, in A. Hessayon / ​S. Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of Thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014), 77–97; Dohm, “Böhme-Rezeption in England”. 116 For a transcription of the manuscript of this text see URL= http://www.passtheword. org/Jane-Lead/gospel.htm. 117 J. Lead, A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, § XI. 118 J. Lead, A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, § XIII. 119 J. Lead, A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, § XXVI and § XXIX. 120 J. Lead, A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, § XX and XXVII. Jane Lead often makes use of the alchemical language to describe the process of regeneration in metaphorical terms as an alchemical transmutation. Lead borrowed the alchemical language deriving from the Renaissance doctor Paracelsus directly from Jacob Böhme; the use of the alchemical language in the Philadelphian poetry influenced, in turn, several Pietist authors, such as Arnold, Horche, and Zinzendorf. See Hirst, Jane Leade, 41–56; Dohm, Poetische Alchimie. 121 J.  Lead, A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, § II. The Petersens’ stance towards Lead’s revelations is dealt with in c. 2.2.2.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

229

Wilhelm reaffirms in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos: Following the reading of Lead’s manuscript, they had started searching biblical passages to prove her thesis wrong, eventually discovering that, on the contrary, universal salvation was revealed also in the Scripture.122 Secondly, the Petersens distance themselves from another tenet put forth by Lead, according to which the restoration is to be expected in the 8000th year from the year of creation.123 In her autobiography, Johanna Eleonora indicates, instead, the 50,000th year from the creation, a position which she most likely borrowed from the Sulzbach Kabbalist Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont.124 The relationship between the German couple and the English theosophist does not cease with a mere reception of some ideas. As the first chapter shows, the Petersens’ first treatises were published under the pseudonym “D.Ph.G”, which is an abbreviation for “German Philadelphian Society”, as already noted by Johann Joachim Wolf.125 It represents an acknowledgement of the couple that they were connected to the group that had grown around the English mystic. The Petersens’ membership to the English society is also attested by other sources, such as the Catalogus amicorum in Germania, where, among other names, that of Johann Wilhelm also appears.126 However, in contrast to the English society, the German Philadelphians had no defined structure, and, as Ruth Albrecht remarks, the Petersens’ affiliation to the English Philadelphians cannot be considered a real

122 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Zweyer in einem Geiste Abgefaste Antwort, §§ 2–3, 3.  123 J. Lead, A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, § XXIV. 124 See Becker-Cantarino, The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, § 36, 91–4; J.  W. Pe­tersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCL, 240. Also van Helmont in the treatise Seder Olam had indicated the year 50,000 from the beginning of the world as JubelYear; see F. M. van Helmont, Sedar Olam. Sive Ordo Seculorum, Historica enarratio doctrinae, 1693, § 63: “Quod vero annus quisque quinquagesimum septem annorum hebdomadas complectens, Jubilaeus fuerat, in quo quisque captivus libertati suae erat restituendus, & cuique redeundum erat ad propriam familiam, domum & possesionem, hoc certe quinquaginta mille annos significat, qui 7. septimanas mundorum complectitur. In anno igitur quinquagesimo millesimo sive in fine mundi septimi cujusque multae animae salvandae sunt & DEO per Christum restituendae, quae in mundis aut septimanis antecedentibus salute nondum obtinerent, sed poenas ignis infernalis propter nefanda sua scelera justissimo DEI judicio luerent”. Van Helmont’s calculation is based on the classical representation of the creation in seven days, and on the Psalm 90 and on 2 Pet 3 where it is said that in front of God 1000 years are like one day; for this calculation see Schmidt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala, 3. vol., 36–43. 125 See J. J. Wolf, Kurtze Anmerckungen, § 16, 31.  126 See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 113. In the catalogue preserved in Gotha only Johann Wilhelm’s name is mentioned, that of Johanna Eleonora does not appear. Moreover, one can find the name of Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg, who, most likely, came into contact with Lead thanks to the Petersens. Albrecht also mentions a letter from Asseburg to Lead dating 11.3.1696, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 112.

230

T he sources of eschatology

membership.127 Even though the Petersens often received visits and the Petersens themselves – particularly Johann Wilhelm – travelled greatly, they never organized a structured circle for the advancement of piety or for the reading of devotional literature.128 The Petersens’ relationship to the Philadelphian Society can be described as a sharing of common ideals and world-views. Similar to Lead, Johann Wilhelm’s and Johanna Eleonora’s treatises also promote the cause of the advancement of piety.129 At the same time, their message – addressed to each person, without distinguishing between confessions – is grounded on the expectation of Christ’s second coming. Furthermore, like Lead, the Petersens also present themselves as God’s “instruments”. They impart a message which “does not come from them, rather from above”. For this reason, they excuse those who” cannot see this truth yet” and remark on the progressive character 127 See Wallmann, Der Pietismus, 102. Among the German authors who had a link with the Philadelphian Society Wallmann mentions Heinrich Horche (1652–1729), Johann Henrich Reitz (1655–1720), Samuel König (1671–1750), Gottfried Arnold (1666–1714), Ernst Christoph Hochmann von Hochenau (1670–1721), Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700–1760). On the diffusion of the Philadelphian movement in Germany as well as its organitation, see also Vogt, “Philadelphia”. The relationhip of the Petersens to Jane Lead through Johann Georg Gichtel is described by Lucinda Martin in her article “‘God’s Strange Providence’: Jane Lead in the Corrispondence of Johann Georg Gichtel”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 187–212. In contrast to what Wallmann claims, i. e., that the Petersens were members and followers of the Philadelphian Society, Ruth Albrecht underlines the differences between Jane Lead’s stance and that of the Petersens, concluding that they cannot be really defined members of the Philadelphian Society, see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 113: “Ihre [scil. of the Petersens] Art von persönlicher und brieflicher Kontaktpflege sowie ihre immense Buchproduktion dienten der Vorbereitung der philadelphischen Kirchenepoche, die sie teilweise als bereits vorhanden wähnten. Leade hingegen drängte auf konkrete Maßnahmen, um das Kommen Christi und den Anbruch des tausendjährigen Reiches zu beschleunigen. … Insofern können beide Petersen nicht zu den Mitgliedern und Verfechtern der in London gegründeten Philadelphischen Sozietät gerechnet werden, auch wenn ihre Bestrebungen in etlichen Hinsichten mit denen Leades und ihrer Anhänger übereinstimmten”. The Philadelphians in England not only gathered regularly but since 1697 also took to publishing a short-lived journal, the Theosophical Transaction by the Philadelphian Society, where they published “conferences, letters, dissertations, inquires and the like for the advancement of Piety and Divine Philosophy”. On the birth of the Philadelphian Society in 1694 and on his organization see Hirst, Jane Leade, 89–107; A. Hessayon, “Lead’s Life and Times (Part Three): The Philadelphian Society”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 71–90. 128 See Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 114: “J. E. und J. W. Petersen sagten sich weder völlig von der lutherischen Kirche los, noch schlossen sie sich einer festen pietistischen Gruppierung an, sie führten vielmehr eine eigenständige und ungebundene Existenz”. On their travels and the visits received in Niederdodeleben see Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 101–14. 129 E. g., see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 12, where Johanna Eleonora states that the apokatastasis doctrine, far from preventing men from conversion in this life, encourages them to recognize their sins and Christ as redeemer.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

231

of God’s revelation.130 Such a message is announced “peacefully”, in the sense that they neither involve themselves directly in the secular politics nor took any “concrete measure” to accelerate the instauration of the Philadelphian Age and of the coming of Christ.131 Writing seems to be their only tool to disseminate their views and a weapon to defend themselves, but how writing can be subversive and influence history is yet another story.

3.2.2 Patristic testimonies Even if Jane Lead was the first source to be mentioned by the Petersens to whom they attribute their discovery of the apokatastasis doctrine, she was not the only influence. Especially Johann Wilhelm’s first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton shows that the sources quoted include several more. Among the numerous names which appear in the treatise – more than a hundred – two traditions are particularly noteworthy: the patristic tradition, and, particularly, Origen, on the one hand, and the Kabbalistic tradition, on the other hand. Before the latter will be analyzed in the next paragraph, the patristic tradition is discussed below. Origen’s name is mentioned most frequently in the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton and in Johanna Elonora’s Das ewige Evangelium, which is not that surprising, given that among Petersens’ contemporaries the idea of universal restauration was usually associated with Origen, as some commentators of Lead’s texts remarked, or as Leibniz underlined in his System of theology.132 130 See J. Lead, A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, § II and § IX. On this stance in Jane Lead, see also Hirst, Jane Leade, 101: “Jane, in common with many of her female contemporaries, saw herself as a subordinate author, a medium through which God’s will could be disseminated”, and 118–9. 131 Different from the chiliastic position which cost to Johann Wilhelm his position as superintendent, since he was accused to be a subverter of the social order, the only criticism they received on the apokatastasis doctrine was about the contents. They were accused of being “enthusiasts”, but not subverters of the social order. 132 In the preface to Lead’s A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, her Philadelphian friend Francis Lee writes: “If Scripture and Nature be not against us, we hope we shall not be afraid, or asham’d though we should have as many Opponents as either Origen, or Athanasius had. Neither shall the Name of Origen be at all matter of confusion, if objected. … That must be first confuted, together with other Authors of no mean Name, before we shall be asham’d of this Great Man”. Gichtel, writing on Lead’s position also wrote that Böhme had already refuted Origen’s position, but Lead was “warming it up again”, see Martin, “‘God’s Strange Providence’”, 199. Leibniz writes in System of theology: “nor is there any necessity to recur to the merciful theory devised by Origen, who, affixing his own capricious interpretation to that mysterious passage of Paul, in which it is said that all Israel should be saved, extend the divine mercy eventually to every creature”, see Leibniz, A system of theology, C. W. Russell (transl. and ed.) (London, 1850), 161. On the doctrine of the universal restoration in Origen see Prinzivalli, Art. Apocatastasis; I. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2013).

232

T he sources of eschatology

In a similar vein, in the treatises of the Petersens, Origen is considered one of the first witnesses of apokatastasis, proclaimed by John’s Revelation or by Apostle Peter in Acts 3:21. In the introduction of Mysterion apokatastaseos, Origen, along with the so called “Vätter der Barmhertzigkeit”, Fathers of Mercy, are the first witnesses Johann Wilhelm mentions.133 These authors recognized the depth of God’s mercy, claiming that everything would find its original good godly image, thanks to the mediation of Jesus Christ. However, as the first chapter shows, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton also explains several other points referring to Origen’s thought. First, Origen’s work is invoked to explain what the term “apokatastasis” means: in the introduction of Mysterion apokatastaseos, the term “apokatastasis” is linked to the term “eternal gospel”, that is dealt with in Principles, III, 6.134 The meaning of the word “apokatastasis” is better clarified through Origen’s Homilia XI in Hieremiam: to restitute something means to bring it back to the place from where it comes from.135 Other points are also supported and illustrated by referring to Origen’s work, and, particularly, to his Principles. Citing from Principles, III, Johann Wilhelm clarifies, for instance, that not the devil as such will be restituted, but its original angelic essence.136 Principles, III, 1 is quoted, among other sources, to also address God’s economies and salvation

133 See J. E. Petersen, Das ewige Evangelium, 7; J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 1: “Es sind zwar zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten einige gewesen / welche die von dem H. Apostel Petro in dem dritten Capitel der Apostel-Geschicht benennete apokatastasin panton, oder Wiederbringung aller Dinge / erkannt / und die darinnen verborgene Weißheit / und Barmhertzigkeit Gottes gegen alle seine Geschöpffe erblicket haben / absonderlich hat sich unter den h. Vättern der berühmte Origenes, und die vom Augustino also genannte / Vätter der Barmhertzigkeit / hervorgethan / die da bejahet / es würden einmahl alle Dinge / wie sie durch den Willen GOttes das Wesen hätten/ … wiederumb durch JEsum Christum / den Wiederbringer aller Dinge / gut gemachet / und zum Preiß seines H. Nahmens verherrlichet werden”. The Vätter der Barmhertzigkeit are Clement of Alexandria (c. ­150–c. 215), Gregory of Naziansus (c. 329–390), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 395), Evagrius Ponticus (345–399), Diodorus of Tarsus (?–c. 390), Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428), Stephen Bar Sudhaile (5th century), Isaac of Nineveh (c. 613–c. 700), Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662), John Scoto Eriugena (c. 815–c. 877), see D. Breuer, “Der Bekräfftigte Origenes – Das Ehepaar Petersen und die Leugnung der Ewigkeit der Höllenstrafe”, in H. Laufhütte / M.  Titzmann (ed.), Heterodoxie in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006), 413–24, here 420. 134 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 3. Petersen quotes from the edition of Erasmus published in Basel in 1571, see Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera quae quidem extant omnia doctiss. virorum studio iam olim translate & recognita: Nunc vero … ab innumeris repurgaata mendis. Cum Vita Auctoris, & Indice copiosissimo (Basel, 1571), I, 736. 135 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, II, § 10, 4. The quotation is from Erasmus, Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera, I, 607. 136 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXX, § 1–4, 117–19.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

233

over different epochs.137 The Alexandrian is mentioned moreover also to clarify two other crucial points: the figure of Christ, and the relationship between free will and God’s mercy. About Christ, we find a quotation from Origen’s In Evangelium Johannis, where the theologian claims that while Christ came after John, he existed before him; a passage reported to prove that Christ is the beginning of the entire creation.138 Concerning the issue of the relationship between creatures’ free will and God’s mercy, Origen’s Principles, III, 1 is mentioned as a “harmonious” position between those who highlight the necessity of mercy and those who, on the contrary, remark on the importance of free will. Through the example of the “vessel of honor”, Johann Wilhelm argues – on the basis of Origen – that men can choose the good through their free will with God’s help, but God intervenes with punishment if their will is turned away from him, in order to bring his creatures’ will back to him.139 Origen’s name is also mentioned several times in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton. As in the case of the millenarian expectation, the recourse to church fathers was not uncommon among protestant theologians, who, in this way, sought to find support from the primitive church and, thence, to strengthen their positions. For the Petersens, Origen represents support for their position from an authority from the primitive church. Nevertheless, such a choice cannot pass unnoticed if one considers the controversies and debates on this figure, whose positions were condemned on different occasions. To better understand the Petersens’ position on Origen’s life and thought, the salient historical moments in the Origenian controversies must be briefly recalled.

Condemnations and rehabilitations of Origen along the centuries The history of Origen’s condemnations is not linear. A first condemnation was proclaimed by his bishop Demetrio, who banished him from the Christian community once he learned that Origen had preached to heathens and that he had been ordained without his approval. Especially in the fourth century, polemics and suspicion with respect to some tenets of the Alexandrian were aroused by several theologians. Among the points charged with heresy was the 137 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, § 8, 120–1. The quotation is from Erasmus, Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera, I, 717. 138 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 9, 136. The quotation is from Erasmus, Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera, II, 267. 139 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CCXCVIII, § 3, 267: “… sondern beyde Warheiten in eine Harmonie bringe / welches sonderlich Origenes gethan / und herrlich bey eben derselbigen Sache / da er von der Wiederbringung aller Dinge redet / vorgestellt hat lib III. peri archon cap. I in fine fol. m. 722”. The quotation is from Erasmus, Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera, I, 722.

234

T he sources of eschatology

pre-existence of the soul, the condition of the soul after the resurrection, and Christ’s salvific work extended to every rational creature, fallen angels included. These charges were definitively ratified first in 543 in a document undersigned by Emperor Justinian, by Pope Vigilius, by the oriental patriarchs, and in the Synod of Constantinople.140 Origen’s position also contrasted with Augustin’s one as representing opposite paradigms on some crucial points. In the chapter XVII of De civitate Dei, Augustin reproaches Origen for the excessive mercy attributed to God residing in the idea of the salvation of the demons, a point discussed directly. Moreover, contrary to Origen, the theologian of Hippo attributed a central role to God’s mercy while curtailing creatures’ free will.141 The virtual discussion between Origen and Augustin is symptomatic of the real dispute between the Renaissance theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam and the Wittenberg theologian Martin Luther at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Throughout the fifteenth century, several authors showed an interest in Origen’s life and work. Erasmus was key in rehabilitating and disseminating Origen’s work. Such a rehabilitation was twofold. First, with Origenis Opera Omnia, the theologian of Rotterdam introduced a publication project of the Origenian corpus, which, among several other publications of the Alexandrian’s work that appeared in this century, was one of the most important and influential, with at least seven editions – one of which was also used by Johann Wilhelm to read Origen’s texts.142 Secondly, Erasmus upheld several Origenian tenets, supporting a position that was, at least in regard to these points, opposed to that of Luther. In the dispute with Luther, particularly two points relevant to the present work emerge.143 The first relates to the issue of God’s mercy and goodness. Debating especially Origen’s example of the Pharaoh’s heart, Erasmus claims that God’s mercy, and the possibility of salvation, is offered to everyone, but man had the 140 On the condemns of Origen, see R. Williams, Art. Origenes / ​Origenismus, in: TRE 25 (2000), 397–420, especially 417; E. A. Clark, The Origenist contreoversy: the cultural construction of an early Christian debate (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992); Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 10–23. 141 On Augustin’s position in relationship to that of Origen see Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 20–3. 142 For a bibliography of the editions of Origen’s works see H. Crouzel, Bibliographie critique d’Origène (Steenbrugis: In abbatia Sancti Petri, 1971). From Origen’s quotations reported by Johann Wilhelm, it seems that Petersen used the Erasmus’ edition published in Basel in 1571 (I thank Elena Rapetti for helping me to discover the edition). 143 The dispute between Luther and Erasmus started in 1516 following Luther’s remarks on Erasmus’ explanation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. For the dispute and the two positions see Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 135–40; P. Walter, “Inquisitor, non dogmatistes. Die Rolle des Origenes in der Auseinandersetzung des Erasmus von Rotterdam mit Martin Luther”, in A. Fürst / ​C. Hengstermann (ed.), Autonomie und Menschenwürde. Origenes in der Philosphie der Neuzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012), 169–83.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

235

choice whether to accept the mercy offered or not.144 In strict connection with this issue, i. e., God’s infinite mercy, Erasmus discusses yet another typically Origenian topic, namely his eschatology centered on universal redemption.145 Without openly embracing the apokatastasis doctrine, Erasmus presents this possibility in strict connection with the issue of God’s mercy and goodness. The dispute between Erasmus and Luther is paradigmatic for this work, for it brings to the light two theological paradigms that are at the base of the Petersens’ standpoint: on one side, God’s infinite mercy and goodness, a God who does not want to punish his creatures, but, rather, collaborates with them towards their salvation  – not independent of their freedom  – and, on the other side, God’s punitive justice linked to an anthropology based on depraved human will, whose only possibility of redemption is God’s salvific intervention. However, it is also necessary to note that Erasmus did not embrace all Origenian tenets. He refused those strictly Platonic tenets, such as the pre-existence of the soul and the succession of different epochs  – ideas that appear in the Petersens’ work.146 Luther’s rejection of Origen characterized the stance of several reformers, not least Melanchthon, who saw Origen’s position as a contamination of Christianism.147 Moreover, Origen’s universal redemption was indirectly condemned in the article 17 of the Confessio Augustana, where the alleged Anabaptist thesis of universal salvation was rejected.

Petersen’s defense of Origen In awareness of the fact that references to Origen could give rise to problems, Johann Wilhelm spent several pages in the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton to rehabilitate his figure, defending his good life. Such a defense was necessary not only because of Luther’s rejection and the condemnation of the universalist position in the Confessio Augustana, but also because of the criticism 144 For a better overview on the synergy between grace and free will in Erasmus, see G. Chantraine, Mystère et philosophie du Christ selon Erasme (Namur: Presse Universitaire de Namur, 1971), 227–34. According to Terraciano, Erasmus’ position is linked to the attempt to represent God as, first, a merciful God, or better, as a God whose justice is based on his mercy, see Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 138. 145 On Erasmus’ position about Origen’s universal salvation see Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 156–9. 146 See Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 159: “Se l’Origene di Erasmo è depurato da errori platonici  – cioè dalla preesistenza delle anime  e dalla dinamicità del sistema escatologico – rimane però in piedi l’irriducibile disagio verso la dannazione: senza la successione di mondi e di vite purgative, si portava sulla terra, in una vita, l’afflato misericordista del Padre alessandrino”. 147 On the reception of Origen in the Reformation see Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 161–76. On Melnachthon see also P. Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum.

236

T he sources of eschatology

directly addressed to Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium by the theologian Johann Joachim Wolf. In Kurtze Anmerckungen, the theologian remarked, on the one hand, the heretical character of the doctrine of universal salvation, showing that such a doctrine was supported already before Origen by Marcion (a figure condemned as heretic in the first centuries by several church fathers, such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Eusebius) and also, in more recent centuries, by the Anabaptists, whose position was clearly rejected in CA 17. On the other hand, the author of Kurtze Anmerckungen briefly also mentions the fact that, after the death of his father Leonides, Origen lived with a woman in Alexandria where he had daily conversations with a heretic. Recalling this, Wolf sought to further discredit Origen’s orthodoxy.148 Answering Wolf’s criticism, first, Petersen defended Origen from the charge of supporting the same doctrine as the heretic Marcion. Johann Wilhelm asks: How can Wolf compare Marcion’s position with Origen’s? Nobody had claimed something similar before, and the two positions make it difficult to draw such a comparison. Marcion believed, indeed, in two principles, a thesis incompatible with the apokatastasis doctrine, which, on the contrary, presupposes a unique creator, who has created everything good and to whom everything will come back, restoring the original good essence.149 Moreover – Petersen continues – several authors testify that Origen rejected Marcion’s position, not least Origen himself in the 6th book of Contra Celsum.150 In the second place, Johann Wilhelm defends the Alexandrian from the charge of having been educated by a heretic, namely Paul from Antakya. Following Eusebius’ and Nicephorus’ narrations on Origen’s life, he shows that, even though Origen came into contact with this heretic person and learned grammar or other liberal disciplines from him, he never had him as preceptor in theology; on the contrary, he followed what he had learned from his father Leonides.151 This was Johann Wilhelm’s response to Wolf’s criticism. In order to better show how wrong his opponent’s position was, he continues describing Origen’s life “so that the reader can recognize the good fountain from which so many admirable doctrines sprang”.152 Despite the fact that he ran into several troubles, 148 On Wolf’s position on Origen see J. J. Wolf, Kurtze Anmerckungen, c.II, 55–62. 149 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, LXXVIII, §§ 1–7, 53–6. 150 See, J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, LXXVIII, § 2, 54. See Origenes, Contra Celsum, VI, § 53, the quotation is from Erasmus, Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera, II, 763. 151 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, LXXVIII, §§ 9–11, 56–8. Petersen quotes from Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, VI 2,12–15, and from Nicephorus Callistus, Historia ecclesiastica, V, 4 (Basel, 1560) 212. 152 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, LXXIX–LXXXV, 58–66.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

237

Origen never disavowed his faith, on the contrary, he converted several people. He wrote several works – more than 6000 according to Ephiphanius – some of which were considered heretic after Origen’s death, so that he could no longer defend himself. Petersen briefly also mentions the fact that several of Origen’s works were elaborated on by Rufinus, without, however, addressing this point any further.153 He devotes more attention to the condemnations of Origen, caused, according to him, by envy. In the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos, he remarks on the fact that the decisions taken in synods could be failing.154 In Origen’s case, its condemnation was determined by Demetrius’ position, in one case, or by the imperator Justinian, in another case, whose opinion became most influential. On the other hand, Johann Wilhelm remembers some authors who defended Origen and his doctrine. Among them he recalls Pico della Mirandola, ­Erasmus, Pierre Daniel Huet and some other authors mentioned by the latter in his Origeniana: Gregory of Nyssa, Caesar bishop of Cappadocia, Didymus of Alexandria, Merlin, Halloix, Trithemius, and others.155 Some of these authors were among those mainly responsible for the rehabilitation of the Alexandrian in the former century. They had not only reedited Origen’s works, becoming, in this way, responsible for the diffusion of his thought, but were also aware of the controversy surrounding this author, for which reason they had engaged in an apologetic work on his life. Pico della Mirandola first asked the question as to whether Origen could be damned, given his virtuous life, to which he answered that it was more probable that he was saved than damned. According to Merlin, Origen had “lived holily, written rightly, and died innocently”. Erasmus, whose edition of the Origenian corpus was one of the most influential, explained the presence of the unorthodox propositions in Origen’s work as the result of interpolations or residuals of his philosophical formation; he argued, however, that this did not undermine Origen’s figure as an exegete or theologian.156 Even the theologian and church historian Gottfried Arnold devoted several apologetic pages to Origen’s life and doctrine in his monumental work Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzer-Historie (1699). Johann Wilhelm not only was in personal contact with the church historian, but also owned this treatise and quoted from it in Mysterion apokatastaseos, although not in this context. It is possible to conjecture that Arnold’s defense of Origen may have served as the 153 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, LXXXVII, § 1, 88. 154 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gegen-Anmerckungen / über die kurtze Anmerckungen, § 21, 11: “Synody sie seyen Particulares oder Oecumenicae können irren / und haben öffters würcklich geirret”. 155 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, LXXXV, 65–6, and Gespräch II, LXXXVII, § 1, 88. 156 On the defense and condemnations of Origen between the fifteenth and sixteenth century in these authors, see Terraciano, Omnia in figura.

238

T he sources of eschatology

basis for Johann Wilhelm’s own defense of Origen’s life, owing to the similarities in their claims: The Alexandrian converted several people; he was a learned man, as his ample written works prove; he could not answer the criticisms, as the most were addressed to him after his death; the charges and condemnations which he received were caused mainly by the opinion of some authors, such as Demetrio and Justinian, which became the generally accepted opinion on Origen’s figure and doctrine.157 Arnold’s work was not only a very probable source for the defense of Origen’s life, but it also represented an important touchstone for understanding why Johann Wilhelm took to defend the Alexandrian referring to his life. In his monumental work, the church historian Arnold rehabilitates a series of controversial authors, including Origen, on the basis of their life. Such a rehabilitation is not as much about the doctrines clearly declared heretical or about those positions condemned by the entire church. Arnold is, rather, interested in those authors whose position was contested or who were on the margins of orthodoxy, and he rehabilitates their figure on the basis of their pious life, leaving open the veracity and orthodoxy of their doctrines. Arnold’s voice usually does not appear directly in the treatise; the theologian undertakes a collection of the texts and testimonies of other authors to defend such authors through an external testimony. In Origen’s case he mentions, for example, Pico’s question as to whether Origen is saved or damned, without declaring his position on this issue. Anyway, by presenting Origen’s condemnations as the result of some authors’ opinions (opinions that subsequently became influential), Arnold is depriving councils and church decisions of any authority, underscoring their fallibility, rather than their universal character, in a manner Johann Wilhelm emulates.158 In the wake of Arnold’s Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzer-Historie, Petersen can also exculpate Origen from the charges and rehabilitate him on the basis of his pious and virtuous life. In this way, once his life is vindicated, Johann Wilhelm – taking a step further than Arnold – can also use the Alexandrian’s apokatastasis doctrine as a testimony to support his position.

157 See G. Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzer-Historie, I, III, III, 102–4. 158 See Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzer-Historie, IV, I, IV. On Arnold see F. C. Roberts, Gottfried Arnold as a Historian of Christianity: A reappraisal of the Unpartei­ sche Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie (Ph. D. dissertation, Tennessee: Nashville, 1973), 174–240; J.  ­Büchsel, Gottfried Arnold. Sein Verständnis von Kirche und Wiedergeburt (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1970). On Arnold’s position in Kirchen- und Ketzergeschichte see also E. Seeberg, Gottfried Arnold. Die Wissenschaft und die Mystik seiner Zeit (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1964).

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

239

3.2.3 The Kabbalistic tradition Petersen uses Origen’s work in conjunction with Kabbalistic texts, which, as already discussed, were highly influential in the Frankfurt environment. The Kabbalistic tradition seems to emerge, among others, as a prominent springboard for the strand of millenarianism that developed in Spener’s and Schütz’s circles. The Sulzbach Kabbalistic tradition can also be traced in the Petersens’ treatises on apokatastasis. This tradition, together with other Kabbalistic authors quoted in Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, provides an important framework for how the Petersens defined universal salvation. In what follows, I delineate the main authors and ideas that had a significant influence on the Petersens’ apokatastasis doctrine.

Adam Cadmon One of the most important figures to emerge from the Kabbalistic tradition in the works of the Petersens is Adam Cadmon.159 As shown in the first chapter, Adam Cadmon is linked to the figure of Christ, a central point in the process of return of every creature, owing to its cosmic connotation. How Petersen establishes the link between these two figures – Adam Cadmon and Christ – will be analyzed here directly referring to the sources used. To explain the figure of Adam Cadmon, Mysterion apokatastaseos contains quotes from Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbalah Denudata, a text published between 1677 and 1684 with the support of the Frankfurt lawyer Johann Jakob Schütz, who most likely introduced Johann Wilhelm to this work.160 159 See c. 1.2.2: Christ: the universal redeemer. 160 As explained in the first part of this chapter, Schütz strove to find an editor for von Rosenroth’s work. The Kabbalah Denudata is a two-volumes treatise comprising a collection of several Jewish Kabbalistic texts translated into Latin and interpreted in Christological sense. Particularly, the most important tradition is that of Lurianic Kabbalah, which, in contrast to earlier Jewish Kabbalistic writers who focused particularly on the cosmology and on the explanation of creation, stresses on the redemption and the wait for the millennium. On Lurianic Kabbalah and its influence on Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbala see Scholem, Art. Kabbalah, 645–6. Christian Kabbalists such as Pico della Mirandola, Francesco Zorzi, Paulus Ricius or Johannes Reuchlin are not considered; the reason is that Knorr wanted to evangelize Jews through their own sources. Moreover, he believed that the pagan philosophy of the Greek had contaminated this ancient wisdom and that it was one of the main causes of dissention among Christians. He declares: “I do not consider myself a Kabbalist, rather I think how the Kabbalah can be corrected through Christ and the apostles”; see C. Knorr von Rosenroth, Kabbala Denudata, II, Lectori Philebraeo, § 19: “Omnes quaerunt quae sit mea sententia? Ego hic iterum repeto, quod Tomo priore jam dixeram: me translatorem esse, non thetice rem proponere: sed zetetice. Prout enim qui Philosophorum scripta & qui Alcorani ediderunt, non eo ipso professi sunt Ethnicismum vel Muhammedismum; ita nec Ego totum Cabbalismum,

240

T he sources of eschatology

As explained in the first chapter, Adam Cadmon serves as the medium between the Ensoph (or Ein Sof ), which literally means “without end” and represents the unending principle from which everything descends, and the Sefiroth, which emanate from the Ensoph through successive contractions and represent the created universe. Adam Cadmon is the first manifestation of the Ensoph, for which reason it is described as light (the light is what makes it possible to see); everything is contained in Adam Cadmon. This function as the “medium” of the entire creation is particularly significant for Johann Wilhelm to show that every creature can return to God through Christ since every creature descends from him.161 Along the same lines as Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbalah Denudata, the interpretation of this Kabbalistic figure takes on a Christological connotation, as Petersen shows, drawing from Anne Conway’s Principia philosophiae antiquissimae et recentissimae de Deo, Christo & Creatura and from Guillaume Postel’s Clavi absconditorum a constitutione mundi.162 In these two works, the parallel between Adam Cadmon or the Messiah’s soul, on the one hand, and Christ, on the other hand, becomes explicit. Anne Conway writes in her Principia philosophia, as quoted by Johann Wilhelm: This void was not privation or non-being but an actual place of diminished light, which was the soul of the Messiah, called Adam Kadmon by the Hebrews, who filled the entire space. … This Messiah (called logos or the word and the first-born son of God) made from within himself (the diminution of his light having recently occurred for the convenience of the creatures) the succession of all creatures.163

sed quatenus a Christo & Apostolis correctus est; multo minus Judaismum”. For a German translation and edition of this preface to the second volume of the Kabbalah Denudata see R. Zeller (ed.), “Vorrede an der Leser (Lectori philebraeo salute!) Frankfurt 1684”, in A. B. Kilcher, Andreas B. (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (16 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), 17–54. For an introduction and an analysis of this text see Schmidt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala, 3 vol., 63–187. Coudert also devotes an entire chapter to the figure and the work of von Rosenroth, see Coudert, The Impact of the Kabbalah, 100–36. 161 The concept “Messiah’s soul” can be found for the first time in the Kabbalist Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla (1248–1325); successively, several Christian Kabbalists referred to it, such as Paulus Ricius, Johannes Reuchlin, Guillaume Postel. Its reception in the Kabbalah Denudata was influenced by the English theologian Henry More; see J. P.  Brach, “Das Theorem der ‘messianischen Seele’ in der christlichen Kabbala bis zur Kabbala Denudata”, in A. B. Kilcher (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (16 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), 243–58. 162 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton 1700, Gespräch I, CXXX, §§ 7–9, 135–6. 163 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 7, 135. For the translation see Coudert / ​Corse (ed.), The Principles, 10–11. Petersen is quoting from the Latin edition of the Principia philosophiae, 3 and 5. 

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

241

And also: The ancient Kabbalist have written many things about this, namely, how the son of God was created: how his existence in the order of nature preceded all creatures; how everything is blessed and receives holiness in him and through him, whom they call in their writings the celestial Adam, or the first man Adam Kadmon, the great priest, the husband or betrothed of the church, or as Philo Judaeus called him, the first-born son of God. This son of God, the first born of all creatures, namely this celestial Adam and great priest, as the most learned Jews call him, is, properly speaking, the mediator between God and the creatures.164

Postel’s text also presents Christ as the mediator between God and creatures: “This [scil. the comprehension of finite in infinite] is made possible by Jesus Christ, through whom everything was created”.165 Whereas, on the one hand, the Kabbalistic figure of Adam Cadmon takes on a Christological connotation, on the other hand, the Kabbalistic tradition becomes key to reading and interpreting the figure of Christ, so that Petersen can attribute a cosmic meaning to it. That Petersen uses Adam Cadmon as the key-figure to interpret the figure of Christ becomes particularly clear in the concluding quotation of this passage. Quoting a passage from Origen’s In Evangelium Johannis and one from (Pseudo-) Clement of Rome’s Recognitiones, Johann Wilhelm shows that their position expresses the same meaning as the Kabbalistic figure of Adam Cadmon. Origen and (Pseudo-) Clement of Rome comment on the beginning of the prologue to John’s gospel, claiming that Christ was with the Father since the very beginning, even though he was born after John the Baptist and took the form of man being born of Virgin Mary. According to Johann Wilhelm, who interprets this passage on the basis of the Kabbalah, the figure of Christ described by the two mentioned authors expresses the same meaning as Adam Cadmon.166 164 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 7, 135–6. For the translation see Coudert / ​Corse (ed.), The Principles, 23–4. 165 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 8, 136. Translation mine. The quotation is from Guillaume Postel, Absconditorum a constitutione mundi clavis: qua mens humana tam in divinis, quam in humanis pertinget ad interior velaminis aeternae veritatis; una cum appendice pro pace religionis Christianae, (Amsterdam, 1646), c. VI, 15–16 and c. VII, 20–2. On the relationship between the Anima Messia and Adam Cadmon in Guillaume Postel and the fact that the entire creation is contained in this figure see also E. Morlok, “De Revolutionibus Animarum in der Kabbala Denudata und dessen lurianische Vorlage Sefer haGilgulin von Chajjim Vital (1543–1620)”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (24 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2014), 51–68, here 65–8. 166 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 9, 136. He quotes from Erasmus, Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera, II, 267: “Christus etiam dicitur praeter haec Vir veniens post Johannem, ante ipsum existens, ut edoceamur, etiam Hominem Filii Dei Divinitati ipsus commixtum ante fuisse, quam nascetur ex Maria, quem hominem dicit se nescire Johannes”, and from (Pseudo-)Clement of

242

T he sources of eschatology

Cosmic Harmony The Kabbalistic authors of Sulzbach are not the only ones quoted in Mysterion apokatastaseos. A concept often used by Petersen to describe the universal redemption is that of “Ordnung und Harmonie” as opposed to “Unordnung”. Such terms describe the return of all creatures to their original condition, i. e., their return to God through their submission to his will as much as they indicate the end of all doctrinal disputes through the acknowledgment of a common truth – of God’s infinite mercy and goodness (see chapter 2). Such concepts are inherited from De harmonia mundi totius cantica tria (1525), a work authored by the Franciscan Kabbalist Friar Francesco Zorzi.167 Quoting from this work, Petersen describes the return of all creatures to God as a possibility of reaching the highest harmony: Everything has its own measure and order, but such a harmony is greater when everything participates in the highest harmony, goodness, and beauty which is in God.168 Such a harmony starts with the millennium: Its beginning is characterized by the reunion of all believers from the multiplicity of the rites in the worship of a common truth and ends with the universal restitution through Jesus Christ.169 It is remarkable that Zorzi’s work was also written in a period of conflicts and divisions among Christians (as in the context described here) and that his work was permeated with millenarian expectations as well. In this work, the Franciscan friar seeks to reconcile different traditions, such as Platonism and Aristotelianism, Kabbalah and Christianity, the hermetic tradition as well Neoplatonic tradition, in a sort of syncretic work, which shows the harmony and concordance between different positions. The Scripture and the Christian message remain, however, at the center. Each tradition is presented to indicate the truth of the Gospel. This is especially true of the Kabbalistic tradition, which Zorzi invokes in order to explain the truth of the Trinity and of

Rome’s Recognitiones, Lib. I: “Christus ab initio & semper erat, per singulas quasque generationes piis, latenter licet, semper tamen aderat, his precipue, a quibus exspectabatur, quibus frequenter apparuit.” 167 Francesco Zorzi, De harmonia mundi totius cantica tria (Venedig, 1525). This work was translated into and edited in Italian, see S. Campanini (ed. and transl.), Francesco Zorzi. L’armonia del mondo (Milano: Bompiani, 2010). On Francesco Zorzi (1466–1540) see Schmidt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala, 1 vol., 384–90; G. Busi, “Francesco Zorzi. A Methodical Dreamer”, in Y. Dan (ed.), The Christian Kabbalah. Jewish Mystical Books and their Christian Interpreters (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 97–125. 168 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, IV, § 3, 5–6. The quotation is from De harmonia mundi (Paris, 1544) cantico primo, tono octavo, cap. 13, 176–7. 169 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, XCIV, §§ 3–7, 81–3. The quotations are from De harmonia mundi (Paris, 1544), cantico secondo, tono secondo, cap. 18, 214–15; Cantico tertio, tono octavo, modulo nono, 466–7; cantico secondo, proemio, 183; cantico secundo, tomo quarto, capite quinti, 252.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

243

Jesus Christ.170 Zorzi’s De harmonia mundi is centered on the figure of the Father, summus unus, from whom everything descends in subsequent degrees according to the Platonic cosmological system, hinged on the unique principle from which, thanks to successive emanations, the entire creation originates. The father is, therefore, the original power and measure from which everything derives, and to which all comparison are made.171 The creation is, in turn, explained referring to the ten Kabbalistic Sefirot, of which particularly one is highlighted: tif ’eret or beauty. Zorzi pays particular attention to the concept of “beauty”, considered by him the center and the balance among all Sefirots.172 Quoting from De harmonia mundi, it is likely that Johann Wilhelm is stressing exactly this point: Restitution means to find the beauty and the measure which creatures have lost, having departed from their origin, and, as a consequence, destroying such a universal harmony.

Tikkun, or the necessity of a universal restoration Two other important arguments contained in the Petersens’ apokatastasis doctrine, i. e., the negation of the eternity of the hell and the assertion that God’s mercy and Christ’s power to redeem are bigger than sin, are derived from the Kabbalistic tradition. This point is the central argument used by Petersen to support the doctrine of apokatastasis. The sources for this position are the Sulzbach Kabbalist Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, the English philosopher Anne Conway, and the Dutch millenarian theologian Petrus Serrarius.173 Petersen takes an excerpt from van Helmont’s Paradoxal Discourses where the Kabbalist of Sulzbach, commenting on biblical passages which deal with God’s punitive justice (such as Matt 5:26 or Matt 18:23–24), writes: And again, that God’s rewards always exceed his punishing, to the glory and magnifying of his Mercy and Vengeance: In the third place, that sin is a falling off

170 The Kabbalistic tradition is linked to the Christian revelation through the first Hebrew words of Genesis “BeReishit Bara Elohim”, which means “at the beginning God created Elohim”. 171 For an analysis on the structure of Zorzi’s De harmonia see Schmidt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen, 1 vol., 391–416; Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 183–97. 172 On the role of “beauty” and on the use of the Kabbalah, and, particularly, the parallel between the Kabbalistic Sefirot and the creation, see S. Campanini, “Francesco Zorzi: Armonia del mondo e filosofia simbolica”, in A. Angelini / ​P. Caye (ed.), Il pensiero simbolico nella prima età moderna (Firenze: Olschki, 2007), 239–60. 173 On Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont (1614–1698) see Coudert, The Impact of the Kabbalah; on Anne Conway (1631–1679) see S. Hutton, Anne Conway. A Woman Philosopher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); on Petrus Serrarius (1600–1669) see E. G. E. van der Wall, De mystieke chiliast Petrus Serraius (1600–1669) en zijn wereld (Ph. D. diss., University of Leiden, 1987).

244

T he sources of eschatology

from God downwards, which is a short time comes to its end, whereas the recovery and bringing again to God doth still mount upwards and ascend higher and higher to Infinity, because the Divine Glory hath neither end nor limit. … Lastly, for that wickedness must and shall have an end, because there can be no Eternal or Infinite Will. Wherefore the punishment of wicked men is not to be looked upon as that whereby the Creatures should still become worse and worse; but as it is in order to the changing of it from Evil to good. … Seeing then that man was created in the Image of God, and that no end or bound is in God; must it not follow, that this creature Man, and in him all other Creatures must still work upwards and advance in good, to the utmost degree of possible perfection without all end or bounds?174

This argument can also be found in the writings of Anne Conway, who, by distinguishing body from spirit, links the first to evil and the second to good: (surely nothing exist which is infinitely and immutably bad, as God is infinitely and immutably good, and there is nothing which is infinitely dark as God is infinitely light, nor is anything infinitely a body having no spirit, as God is infinitely spirit having no body), it is therefore clear that no creature can become more and more a body to infinity, although it can become more and more a spirit to infinity. … For this reason, nothing can be bad to infinity, although it can become better and better to infinity. Thus, in the very nature of things there are limits to evil, but not to goodness. … And because it is not possible to proceed towards evil to infinity since there is no example of infinite evil, every creature must necessarily turn again towards good or fall into eternal silence, which is contrary to nature. But if anyone should say that it falls into eternal torment, I answer: if you understand by eternity an infinity of ages which will never end, this is impossible because all pain and torment stimulates the life or spirit existing in everything which suffers. … Thus, since a creature cannot proceed infinitely toward evil nor fallen into inactivity or silence or utter eternal suffering, it irrefutably follows that it must return towards the good, and the greater its suffering, the sooner its return and restoration.175 174 J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, XCVI, § 2, 84. This passage is taken from the English version of van Helmont’s Paradoxal Discourses, which was the first version published in 1685 under the title Paradoxal Discourses of F. M. van Helmont, concerning the macrocosm and microcosm, or the greater and lessser wordls, and their union set down in writing by J. B. and now published (London: J. C. and Freeman Collins, for Robert Kettlewel, and the Hand and Scepter near St Dunstan’s Church in Fleetstreet, 1685), 136–8. Petersen quotes from the German version of this work published in 1691 entitled Francisci Mercurii Freyherrn von Helmont Paradoxal Discourses, oder, – Ungemeine Meynungen von dem Macrocosmo und Microcosmo, das ist – von der grossen und kleinern Welt und derselben Versinigung mit einander worinnen von der Sonnen, Mond und Sternen, und ihrer Würckung und Einfluss, wie auch insonderkeit von dem Menschen, Thieren, Erdgewäschen, Metallen und Mineralien, Steinen und Saltzen sampt anderen Curiösen Dingen aus der Erfahrung nachdencklich gehandelt wird. Auss der Englischen in die Hochdeutsche Sprache übersetzet durch Johann Lange (Hamburg: Gottfried Liebernickel, 1991), 287–8. 175 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, XCVI, §§ 3–4, 85–6. For the English translation see Coudert / ​Corse (eds.), The Principles, c. VII, § 1, 42–3. Petersen is quoting from the Latin edition of the Principia philosophiae, 73–6.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

245

The fact that Johann Wilhelm juxtaposes passages from the works of these two authors is no coincidence. Anne Conway was a disciple of van Helmont and her position – presented in The Principles – was defined particularly by her meeting with the Sulzbach Kabbalist, who introduced her to the Lurianic Kabbalah.176 Van Helmont had heard about it from Knorr von Rosenroth, a friend and colleague who had included the Lurianic Kabbalah in his voluminous treatise Kabbalah Denudata. In Kabbalah Denudata Conway found the key to solve the problem of dualism rooted in the Cartesian philosophy, in particular on the relationship between spirit and matter, which according to the English philosopher had given rise to atheism and materialism. In the Lurianic Kabbalah spirit and matter are considered not two distinct substances, rather the opposite ends along the same continuum. For this reason, Luria believed that matter would eventually be restored to its essentially spiritual state through a process of restoration called tikkun.177 Since everything is vital, punishment and suffering experienced by sinners trigger the spirit to “become better”. In comparison, Johann Wilhelm’s speculation is neither concerned with such metaphysical issues, nor does it touch upon the problem of the “book of nature”, as the Kabbalah Denudata does.178 However, the theologian retains the core of these positions: that evil cannot proceed to infinity and that God’s punishment has a pedagogical and cathartic character – it is not to condemn sinners, rather to turn creatures back to good and to God.

The Kabbalistic tradition and the Petersens’ theodicy Lurianic Kabbalah also provided the solution to another concern, namely the multiplicity of incompatible views among confessions which opposed the idea of a common worship shared by all believers, a prerequisite for the beginning of the millennium. This was a concern the Petersens shared with van Helmont and Conway, altough it arose from different contexts. As Coudert argues, for Conway it was the contact with the non-Christian world that raised the question of the 176 On the relationship between Conway and van Helmont see the two chapters devoted to this topic in Hutton, Anne Conway, 140–76. The contact was mediated by Henry More, teacher of Anne Conway, but the primary reason was not to debate about philosophical or theological issues, rather because of Conway’s headache, van Helmont was, indeed, quite famous also for his medical knowledge and ability. 177 See Coudert / ​Corse (ed.), Anne Conway, xix. 178 On the metaphysical speculations about matter, the world, and the relationship between matter and spirit, as well as between natural sciences and religion, between book of nature and book of revelation in the Kabbalistic tradition of Sulzbach see the chapters 7 and 8 in Coudert, The Impact of the Kabbalah, 137–76. Petersen neither develops a cosmological theory, nor deals with the knowledge of the book of nature as way to know God’s secrets. He just takes some motives from these kind of speculations (which were based mainly on the alchemical knowledge) and he uses some ideas to better explains the apokatastasis.

246

T he sources of eschatology

salvation of the so-called “virtuous pagans”.179 For van Helmont, as well as for the Petersens, the problem of the unity was defined by the confessional conflicts present in German territories.180 They resolved such issues through the Lurianic Kabbalah, and particularly through the idea of restoration, creating a theodicy based on God’s infinite mercy and cathartic punishment as opposed to a punitive justice.181 Writing on Conway and van Helmont, Coudert clarifies their positions in the following way: There were grave problems and seeming injustices in the Christian concept of faith and salvation. If men might only be saved through Christ and by believing in him, what was to happen to all the virtuous pagans who lived before Christ was born? How was one to harmonize the idea of God as merciful with the horrific notion that the sins of the fathers would be visited on their innocent children? How could God’s justice entail the idea of original sin which tainted those living long after Adam’s fall? Was there anything generous and good to be found in the plight of the maimed and deformed?182

Such a concern was solved by Conway and van Helmont through two doctrines – of the pre-existence of the soul and of metempsychosis (reincarnation). Such debates – about the origin of the soul and about its condition – began to receive a crucial impulse starting in the half of the seventeenth century. The main protagonists in Germany were the Kabbalists of Sulzbach Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont and Knorr von Rosenroth, whereas in England, this topic was debated among the Cambridge Platonists, among others, especially by Henri More and his disciple Anne Conway. This doctrine was rooted in Luranic 179 See Coudert / ​Corse (ed.), The Principles, xi-xii: “The Christian religion has many problematic features, and these became even more glaring in the early modern period as contacts with the non-Christian world increased and factionalism within Christianity escalated. The question of what do to with the so-called “virtuous pagans”, a problem that had bothered early Christianity, became more pressing as people realized how little of the world’s population had, or ever would have, a chance to worship Christ and achieve salvation. … Further problems arose from the Christian conception of God’s divine attributes. How could a just and merciful God create men and then damn them for eternity when, in his omniscience, he must have known before he created them that they were bound to sin?”. 180 See particularly c. 2.1.2. 181 On the position of Conway and of van Helmont as theodicy, see Coudert / ​Corse (ed.), The Principles, xi: “Her work is essentially a theodicy, an endeavor to justify God’s goodness and affirm his justice on impregnable grounds”; Coudert, The Impact of the Kabbalah, 124: “Knorr and van Helmont were deeply influenced by this optimistic aspect of the Lurianic Kabbalah. The millennial vision of a future time when every particle of matter would be restored to its pristine spiritual condition provided von Rosenroth and van Helmont with the basis for a truly convincing theodicy. For, if evil, sin, and suffering could be shown to be merely temporary stages in a preordained drama of universal redemption, then God would be proven to be just and merciful”. 182 See Coudert, The Impact of the Kabbalah, 190.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

247

Kabbalah from Kabbala denudata, particularly in the part entitled De revolutione animarum, as well as in some Origenian tenets presented in A letter of resolution concerning Origen and the Chief of his opinion (1661), which the Cambridge Platonists deemed an important authority supporting this doctrine.183 Van Helmont was the bridge between all these authors and his rendition of Lurianic Kabbalah found a fertile soil on the isle for its reception in light of the Neoplatonic and Origenian speculations that were already rife there. According to the Lurianc Kabbalah, all souls were created at the same time in the beginning and were contained in the figure of Adam Cadmon. Through the idea of the pre-existence of all souls, Luria justified the concept of original sin, claiming that each soul had participated in Adam’s sin and, consequently, had to suffer for it.184 This doctrine was often linked to the idea of reincarnation (called metempsychosis in the Greek philosophy), i. e., a cycle of revolutions during which souls have the possibility to perfect themselves through successive reincarnations, which however, was not accepted by all Christian authors. For Christian Kabbalists this concept was useful to convey Christ’s knowledge to the pagans, as well as to explain the origin of sin. 183 On the issue of the pre-existence of the soul in the seventeenth century, and on the relationship between Sulzbach Kabbalists and Cambridge Platonists, see the entire volume 24 of Morgen-Glantz: R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (24 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2014); H. Zander, Geschichte der Seelenwanderung in Europa. Alternative religiöse Traditionen von der Antike bis heute (Darmstadt: Buchges, 1999), 299–318, and also 258–73 for the specific poisition of van Helmont. On van Helmont’s influence on More and Conway see also Coudert, The Impact of the Kabbalah, 190–200. On this topic, also see S. Hutton, “Origen and Anne Conway”, in A.  Fürst / ​C.  Hengstermann (ed.), Autonomie und Menschenwürde. Origenes in der Philosophie der Neuzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012), 221–34; S. Hutton, “Henri More and Anne Conway on Preexistence and Universal salvation”, in M. Baldi, “Mind Senior to the World”. Stoicismo e Origenismo nella filosofia platonica del Seicento inglese (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1996), 113–26. That Origen was a supporter of the doctrine of pre-existence of the souls was asserted in A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the Chief of his Opinions (London, 1661). The letter was published anonymously, and it was attributed to Georg Rust, even though its authorship remains also nowadays an open question. The reason why it was published anonymously was that its contents questioned the eternity of hell, supporting universal salvation, a position which could lead to moral anarchy. On this letter, its importance for the debate on the pre-existence of the soul, and its authorship, see R. Lewis, “Of “Origenian Platonisme”: Joseph Glanvill on the Pre-existence of Souls”, in Huntington Library Quarterly, 69 vol., no. 2 (June 2006), 267–300. That Origen supported the doctrine of pre-existence of the soul is a debated issue among scholars. For the scope of this work, it is, however, important to remark that in this context this doctrine was linked to Origen’s name, so that several authors would go on to speak about “Origenian doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul”. 184 On the Lurianic position on Seelenwanderung and tikkun see G. Necker, ““Die ganze Seele des Hauses Jacob” – Universalismus und Exklusivität kabbalistischer Seelenwanderungslehren in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in R.  Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft, (24 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang 2014), 15–27.

248

T he sources of eschatology

The Petersens were also not insensitive to such problems. Indeed, Johann Wilhelm raises the question of the salvation of heathens and of those who lived before Christ. He argued that to depict God as a tyrant and to assert that he wanted to save only some of his creatures is against the principle of God’s mercy and justice. He resolves this problem by admitting to a notion similar to the Kabbalist reincarnation doctrine, i. e., an intermediate state of the soul, where souls have the possibility of getting to know Christ, to purify themselves, and to be saved even after their physical death.185 As for the Christian Kabbalists, for the Petersens, too, this doctrine was not only a fundamental premise underlying the possibility of universal salvation, but also a crucial point to establish a theodicy according to which God’s mercy can actually reach everyone and Christ’s redemption to be a universal power. On the other hand, the doctrine of a middle condition of the soul presented some divergences from the position held by the Kabbalists. That Johann Wilhelm was acquainted with the pre-existence doctrine is evident from some letters written by Spener, where the latter, criticizing this doctrine, links it, on the one hand, to Origen, and, on the other, to the Kabbalistic tradition, especially to the strand propagated by Sulzbach.186 Also in this case, this doctrine was brought into the Frankfurt circle by Johann Jakob 185 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, LXXXV, § 13, 87: “Es wäre nicht allein solches gegen seine Barmhertzigkeit / ​ sondern auch gegen seine Gerechtigkeit selbst / ​daß er also disproportionate straffete / ​und sein Geschöpff mehr als ein Tyrann immer thun kann / ​quälete. Weil aber dennoch solche heyden / ​weder in dem Licht des Sohnes Gottes / ​noch des Glaubens an den Sohn / ​ohne welche absolut keine Seligkeit zu hoffen ist / ​bey Leibes-Leben gestanden / ​so muß ein mitler Zustand vorhanden seyn / ​darinnen sie noch nach dem Tode zum Glaube kommen / ​und nach Gottes unerforschliche Weise und Wege seiner Weißheit / ​wodurch er sie dazu bringen wird / ​seiner ewigen Erbarmung geniessen mögen”. 186 For Spener’s letters which deal with this topic see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 13. August 1677), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 253–76, here 270: “Errare errorem Origenianum de praeexistentia animarum. Resp.: Daß jemand unter uns [scil. Schütz] einige gedancken von solcher meinung habe, bin ich nicht in abrede, jedoch, daß er bezeugt, darinnen noch nicht fest zu stehen, ob ihm wol andere meinungen vom ursprung der seelen noch schwerer vorkommen, hingegen die argumenta wider die praeexistentiam ihn nicht convinciren wollen. Daher auch niemanden solche meinung auftringet, sondern zu weiterem bedacht zeucht. So ists ohne das vielmehr eine philosophische als theologische frage. Lasset uns vielmehr sorgfältig trachten, unsere seele zu verwahren, daß sie zu Gott komme, als in einer solchen dunckeln frage, wie sie von Gott herkomme, mit einander streiten”. In other letters Spener had linked the “Origenian doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul” to Kabbalistic texts such as Knorr von Rosenroth’s Evangelienharmonie, see An Jacob Thomasius (Frankfurt a. M., 15. September 1675), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 173–4; An [Johann Ludwig Hartmann] (Frankfurt a. M., [Anfang Oktober] 1675), in Wallmann (ed.) Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 2 vol., 212–18. The sources mentioned by Spener allow us to suppose, in addition to the clear reference to the Sulzbach Kabbalistic tradition, an influence from the English environment, where, as said, the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul was linked to Origen.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

249

Schütz, as Johann Wilhelm notes in his autobiography.187Although the Petersens were acquainted with this doctrine they never explicitly dealt with it.188 To better understand the Petersens’ standpoint on this issue, it is necessary to turn to the doctrine of the middle condition of the soul and to its sources.

3.2.4 The sources of the middle condition of the soul The doctrine of the middle condition of the soul is at the core of Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium, but it is also mentioned in Mysterion apokatastaseos panton. Embracing this doctrine, the Petersens not only reject the Reformed doctrine of predestination but also solve the problem of the justification by sola fide, extending the possibility of knowing Christ and of converting to Christianity even after physical death. Indeed, according to this doctrine, after the detachment from the body due to the physical death, souls do not receive their final judgment immediately, as stated in the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory and believed by most of Lutheran theologians. Whereas Lutheran theologians generally agreed to reject the existence of the purgatory and of the limbo, they endorsed the idea that souls receive their final judgment immediately after the physical death. This point was criticized by the Petersens, for it negated the possibility of conversion after death and, therefore, of universal salvation.189 As explained in the first chapter, supporting this doctrine, the Petersens admitted something similar to the idea of purgatory  – as some theologians have remarked  – claiming that souls underwent different degrees of punishment through which they were purified and could acknowledge Christ as the redeemer.190 The Petersens had surely taken inspiration for this doctrine from Jane Lead, whose treatise, Eight Worlds, directly deals with the condition of the soul after death.191 The English theosophist is, however, not mentioned in Das ewige Evangelium, whereas in Mysterion apokatastaseos, her name, as source for this doctrine, is only briefly mentioned among other authors. Das ewige Evangelium indicates as sources for the middle condition of the soul Bernard of Clairvaux 187 See Lebens-Beschreibung, § 7, 23: “Unter andern war auch die Frage de praexistentia antemundana animae Christi beantwortet und geschrieben, daß zwar nicht er [scil. Spener], sondern der Herr. Lic. Schützes solches glaubete”. 188 At least in the first two treatises taken into consideration in this work. 189 On the Lutheran position on the middle condition of the soul between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries see E. Kunz, Protestantische Eschatologie, 49–55; F. Stengel, Friedemann, “Seele, Unsterblichkeit, Auferstehung”, 104–8. 190 For example, Fecht, criticizing the position presented in Das ewige Evangelium, remarks that it is similar to the doctrine of purgatory. 191 On Jane Lead’s position, as well as on similarities and differences between Lead and the Petersens on this point see c. 3.2.1 of this work.

250

T he sources of eschatology

(Sermon CVII), the entire Greek church, and part of the Latin church, namely Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Haymo, Smaragdus, Gersonus.192 In Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, one of the main sources and testimonies for this doctrine is Abraham von Franckenberg’s Von dem Orthe der Seelen (1646).193 In this treatise, the Silesian mystic discusses the condition of the soul after death, defending an idea similar to the purgatory. The condition of the soul after death, as indicated by several biblical passages, is a place where souls are located between the first and the second death, i. e., between the physical death and God’s final judgment. In this place, also visited by Jesus Christ after his death, all souls have the possibility to convert, also the souls of those pagans who lived before Christ.194 Franckenberg’s treatise shares several similarities with the Petersens’ position and the arguments concerning the doctrine of the middle condition. It is, therefore, not improbable that the treatise of the Silesian mystic was the primary source for the couple on this point. To support this doctrine, Franckenberg quotes a series of scriptural passages describing the middle condition, as a testimony of sorts; in Mysterion apokatastaseos, Johann Wilhelm quotes almost the same passages.195 Moreover, Franckenberg’s treatise indicates a series of authors in the Greek and Latin church who accepted the notion of the middle condition of the soul. These same authors are mentioned at the beginning of Das ewige Evangelium, in the same order: Bernard (Sermon CVII), the entire Greek church, and some authors in the Latin church (Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Haymo, Smaragdus, Gersonus).196 192 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, Vor­ bericht, 1–2. 193 Schrifft- und Glaubens-gemässe Betrachtung, Von Dem Ohrte der Seelen, wann sie von dem Leibe geschieden: Gerichtet auf den Spruch 1. Petr. 3, v. 18.; Item 1. Petr. 4, v. 3.5.6. Von den Geistern in der Gefängnüs und den Todten, denen das Evangelium ist geprediget worden … / Durch Franciscum Montanum Elysium. Noch hinzu gesetzt Schluß-Rede vom Grund der Weißheit (Amsterdam, 1646). Franciscus Montanius is the nickname for Abraham von Franckenberg, as also Petersen writes, see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXLVI, § 3, 155. 194 Even though Petersen also quotes Franckenberg as a witness to the apokatastasis, the Silesian mystic never supported such a doctrine. In the treatise Von dem Ohrte der Seelen, he clearly speaks about a final judgment through which God would separate the blessed from the condemned. Petersen takes some passages where he states that “every creature must praise the Lord” and reads it in the sense of universal salvation. On the fact that Franckenberg did not accept the apokatastasis doctrine see also Schmidt-Biggemann, Geschichte der christlichen Kabbalah, 2 vol., 255. 195 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXLVIII, 158 and Franckenberg, Von dem Orthe der Seelen, 13–14 and 17–18. 196 See See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, Vorbericht, 1–2. The same authors are indicated in Franckenberg, Von dem Orthe der Seelen, 3, §§ 14–15, and 38–9.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

251

The similarities among the three treatises seem to leave no doubt about the influence of Von dem Orthe der Seelen on the Petersens’s treatises. Franckenberg’s work is, however, not the only source used by the Petersens. In addition to Jane Lead’s Eight Worlds, Petersen claims in Mysterion apokatastaseos that this doctrine can also be found in the Talmud, or among heathens, such as Plato.197 The sources used there are different. The first source is Selectae de fide Controversiae, a treatise published in Paris in 1665 by the Jesuit Jean-Baptiste Comitin.198 He also mentions the work of the German Orientalists, Andrea Müller, Monumenta Sinica, and Ludolf Hiob, Super historiam Aethiopicam.199 These works can be found in the second part of Mysterion, where Johann Wilhelm answers Fecht’s criticism. If one looks into Fecht’s Disputatio, it is possible to notice that these texts had already been invoked to criticize the doctrine of the middle condition of the soul, by showing that several authors from different traditions had supported this doctrine, without being able to really prove it.200 As elsewhere, Johann Wilhelm refers to other theologians’ criticism and uses it to his advantage and purposes, for instance, to argue that this doctrine had found acceptance among several authors, and not just among the Christian authors. Petersen’s answer to Fecht concludes with a quote from an anonymous treatise entitled De statu, loco et vita animarum postquam discesserunt a corporibus. In this case also, the treatise was already mentioned in Fecht’s disputation; however, the long quotation included by Petersen shows that, in this case, he might have viewed the work.201 In addition to the above-mentioned sources, the Petersens also bring into play Luther as an authority and witness to the doctrine of the middle condition. 197 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, LXXXI, § 3, 77. 198 César Jean-Baptiste Comitin (1600–1686), Selectae de fide controversiae. Authore P. Caesare Io. Baptista Comitino Theologo Societatis Jesu, Parisiis, Apud Iohannem Henault, M.DC. LXV, 113–4. The author deals here with the purgatory doctrine and quotes Plato to show the consensus between philosophy and faith. 199 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, LXXXI, § 3, 77. Andreas Müller (1630–1694) was an Orientalist who worked in Berlin. Petersen mentions his work Monumentum Sinicum, 1672, 59. Jobus Ludolff (1624–1704), the work to which Petersen is referring is most likely Jobi Ludofi ad suam historiam aethiopicam antehac editam commentarius, Francof. ad Moen. 1691, lib. 2, c. 5. 200 See Disputatio theologica inauguralis  … sub rubrica das ewige Evangelium, sec. II, subsec. II, § VIII. 201 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, LXXXV, § 5, 82 and § 12, 85. The treatise Anonymi cujusdam Seria Disquisitio de Statu, Loco et Vita Animarum, Postquam discesserunt à corporibus praesertim fidelium was published anonymously and without place and editor. This treatise was edited again together with some commentaries on it by Balthasar Bebel in 1671: Examen Seriae disquisitionis De Statu, Et Loco, Et Vita Animarum. Postquam discesserunt a corporibus praesertim fidelium. On Bebel’s position on the condition of the soul see S. Salatowsky, “Debatten um den Ursprung der Seele. Der Arianer Christoph Sand und sein lutherischer Kritiker Balthasar Bebel”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (24 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang 2014), 111–32.

252

T he sources of eschatology

Especially Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium devotes several pages to the theologian of Wittenberg, reporting different texts in which – according to the Petersens – he deals with this doctrine.202 E. g., in a comment to Eph 6:12 in 1632, Luther writes that evil spirits are not yet damned in hell, a passage that Johanna Eleonora comments in the following way: “Since Luther clearly learns that the devils are not yet in the place of their definitive damnation, rather in a loco and statu medio waiting for the final Judgment, it is clear that this testimony from Luther does not contradict the existence of a status and locus medius”.203 In another text, interpreting Gen 25, Luther writes that between their death and their resurrection, souls are in places which our intellect cannot define; whereas in some comments on Genesis he defines this state of the soul after death through the Hebrew word Scheol.204 Even though Luther never clearly supported such a position, for the Petersens, it is significant that he criticized the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory and that his position on the state of the soul after death did not contradict the existence of a middle condition.

Pre-existence and revolutions? Supporting the idea that after the physical death souls still have the possibility of purifying themselves and of being saved, the Petersens certainly took a step beyond the commonly accepted Lutheran position, according to which souls receive their final judgment immediately after death. As above stated, the problem of the origin of the soul or the possibility of its reincarnation – as explained in Lurianic Kabbalah – are not directly discussed in the Petersens’ treatises.205 202 The positions of Luther on the middle condition of the soul in Johanna Eleonora’s Das ewige Evangelium was presented in c.1, § 2.2: The middle condition of the soul and the order of restitution. Luther’s position on the condition of the soul after death changed along the years; he criticized the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory and he spoke mainly about a “sleep of the soul” until the Judgment Day; see M. Mühling, Art. Eschatologie, in V. Leppin / ​ G. Schneider-Ludorff (ed.), Das Luther-Lexikon (Regensburg: Bückle & Böhm, 2014), 199–204, and A. Sander, Art. Fegefeuer, in V. Leppin / ​G. Schneider-Ludorff (ed.), Das Luther-Lexikon (Regensburg: Bückle & Böhm, 2014) 218–19; Kunz, Protestantische Eschatologie, 15–22. 203 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 27–8. The quotations of Luther are from Tom. V. Altenb. fol. 998 b and Tom. V Jen. fol. 522 b. Although Luther’s position on the condition of the soul after death is not totally defined, and changed over the years, it is quite clear that, supporting the idea that souls were asleep, he claimed that souls were unconscious until Judgemnt Day, a position which could hardly find a compromise with that of the Petersens, who, on the contrary, through the doctrine of the middle condition supported the idea that souls could convert and change their will even after death. 204 See J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Das ewige Evangelium, 28–9. Luther’s quotations are from Tom. IX. Altenb. fol. 70 b seq. and Tom. X. Wittenb. fol. 598 b. seq.; Tom. IX. Altenb. fol. 1334 a seqq. and Tom. XI Wittenb. fol 184 a. 205 About this doctrine in the Kabbalistic tradition see the conclusion of c. 3, § 2.3: Tikkun, or the necessity of a universal restoration. On this point the Petersens could have followed

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

253

That the Petersens never openly supported the idea of the pre-existence of the souls and of its reincarnation is also stated by Leibniz. In a letter in which the philosopher comments on Mysterion apokatastaseos, he affirms that this text contained several ideas, among which only the metempsychosis, or at least the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul are missing to achieve an Origenian position.206 Nevertheless, although these issues are not openly dealt with, these doctrines seem to be implied in some statements. Writing on universal restoration, Johann Wilhelm makes use of expressions such as “Widerkehr in ihren vorigen guten Stand”, or similarly “zum vorigen guten Stand wiedergebracht”, which means “return to the previous good condition”, seeming thereby to point to an original state of the souls to which they had to return.207 Also the figure of Adam Cadmon seems to embody such a doctrine. In reference to this Kabbalistic figure, Johann Wilhelm gives Christ a cosmological meaning: He is the beginning of every creation, for every creation is contained within him. This position seems to also postulate that souls pre-existed their incarnation, and that they were all contained in Christ. As said, the Petersens did not directly deal with the origin of the soul, and it is possible only to conjecture that they were supporters of the pre-existence doctrine, although the passages indicated above seem to clearly point to it. On the other hand, it is also necessary to take into consideration the fact that they did not create a metaphysical cosmological system, and that they used several different doctrines to explain how apokatastasis is possible, yet without being always consistent with the positions presented. Even fewer conjectures can be made on the reincarnation doctrine, or metempsychosis, i. e., the idea that souls migrate to new bodies at different times.208 However, it is not unlikely that the theologians were partly influenced by the Spener’s suggestion that it is better to be concerned about how our soul can reach God, than to lose time with such an obscure question as about the origin of the soul, see An Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Frankfurt a. M., 13. August 1677), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit. 1666–1686, 3 vol., 253–76, here 270: “Lasset uns vielmehr sorgfältig trachten, unsere seele zu verwahren, daß sie zu Gott komme, als in einer solchen dunckeln frage, wie sie von Gott herkomme, mit einander streiten”. 206 See Leibniz an Thomas Burnett of Kemney (Hannover, 27. Februar 1702), in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner politischer und Historischer Briefwechsel (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006), Erste Reihe, Zwanzigster Band, 808–18, here 811: “Voilà de plaisantes idées, aux quelles manque seulement la metempsychose, ou du moins la preexistence des ames, pour achever l’origenisme”. Metempsychosis is the Greek term for reincarnation, see D. H. Betz / ​ U. Dehn / ​J. Dan / ​S.  Schmidtke, Art.  Seelenwanderung, in: RGG⁴ 7 (2004), 1108–10. 207 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, XLVII, 26 and XCIV, § 8, 83. 208 On the idea of reincarnation, see H. Obst, Reinkarnation. Weltgeschichte einer Idee, (München: Beck, 2009).

254

T he sources of eschatology

debates on this issue, and that certain concepts are a direct heritage from these. They speak, indeed, about aeonen, i. e., epochs, periods of time, future worlds, of which the millennium is the next, but not the last one. Johann Wilhelm writes: “Forgiveness is obtained by those who, after the accomplishment of the thousand years, the first of the future aeonen, are written in the book of life, regardless of whether they were in the prison of the sea, of death, or of hell; on the contrary, those who committed a sin against the Holy Spirit must remain in this sin also in the successive aeonen of the future world, and they receive no forgiveness until Christ subordinates everything to him”.209 Other concepts used to describe the aeonen or period of times are “revolutions” or “future world” (zukünftige Welt).210 Concepts such as “Revolutionen”, “Perioden”, “Wiederkehr”, “Zukünftige Welt”, “Aeonen” are used not only by the Petersens to describe the development of the future epochs, they can also be found in the works of other authors, such as van Helmont, whose texts have significantly influenced the debates on the condition of the soul after death and its reincarnation, as several scholars have pointed out, through the 18th century.211 According to van Helmont, souls undergo different time-cycles (he counts twelve cycles) through which they have the possibility to redeem themselves. Whether van Helmont really believed in a reincarnation is not clear, his position remains quite cryptic on this point. Indeed, while he disassociated himself from the Pythagorean idea of reincarnation, he speaks about a rebirth in 209 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch II, LXCI, § 2, 90: “Denn da eine Vergebung bey denen vorgehet / welche nach Vollendung der Tausend Jahre / als des ersten zukünfftigen aionos, in dem sie / ob sie gleich entweder in den Gefängnissen des Meers / des Todes und der Höllen gewesen / dennoch im Buch des Lebens geschrieben gefunden werden / so müssen die Sünder in den H. Geist hergegen durch die nachfolgende aionas der zukünfftigen Welt fort und fort in dem reatu bleiben / und mögen keine Vergebung finden / biß die zukünfftige Welt vorbey / und Christus / nach dem er en to aioni mellonti Eph. I.21. regieret / und alles auff die allerbeste Weise unter seinem Haubte subordiniret / und wiedergebracht hat”. See also J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Vorrede, § 11: “… alle Creaturen/ … doch eine jegliche in ihrer von GOtt bestimmten Zeit / und Ordnung / nach ergangener Läuterung hie in dieser Zeit / oder in den zukünfftigen oeönen nach rückstelligen Gerichten/ …/ endlich solle errettet”. 210 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CVI, § 1, 98: “Ja / das hat Sie auch erklähret / und zur Antwort gegeben / daß solches durch manche Zeiten / ​Revo­ lutionen und Veränderungen geschehen wurde”; Gespräch III, 147: “es ist alles sehr gut durch JEsum Christum den Wiederbringer aller Dinge / der hiemit in diesem grösten Hagilgel Herumwaltzung und revolution seine Perioden und vielfaltige Umbläuffe der Zeiten in den Aeonen vollendet”. 211 Van Helmont’s position on reincarnation is considered a mile stone and an unavoidable turning point by different scholars, see Obst, Reinkarnation, 106–17; H. Zander, Geschichte der Seelenwanderung, 257–73; D. Cyranka, Lessing im Reinkarnationsdiskurs. Eine Untersuchung zu Kontext und Wirkung von G. E. Lessings Texten zur Seelenwanderung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005).

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

255

the same body.212 It is beyond the scope of this work to delve any further into van Helmont’s position, however, it is important to notice the similarities between the Petersens’ position and that presented by van Helmont. Not only do they make use of the same terms, their cosmological structure is also similar: In both cases the idea of successive time-periods – of which the millennium is the subsequent one – during which souls have the possibility to purify themselves, and, each in its order – another aspect remarked by both authors – to be restored is present.213 The Petersens appears to have a similar position to that of van Helmont, an influence of the Sulzbach Kabbalist on this point cannot, therefore, be excluded. However, similar concepts can also be found in another source used by the Petersens, namely in Jane Lead’s A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message, where the concept “revolutions”, along with other similar concepts such as “aeons”, “circles of duration”, “vicissitudes”, indicates the process of restoration. Similar to the Petersens, Lead does not characterize these “revolutions” in any further detail. Lead’s influence on the Petersens has already been amply discussed. What is interesting here is to see a diffusion of similar ideas and similar concepts that, on the one hand, help to better understand the Petersens’ position not as a unique or novel debate, but as a part of a larger debate not only on German territories, but also on some English contexts. On the other hand, such similarities suggest the need to better investigate the link between these authors and their reciprocal influences.

212 On Van Helmont see Obst’s and Zander’s studies as indicated in the note above. The works in which the idea of “revolution” appear are Zweyhundert Mit gebührender Bescheidenheit vorgestellte Fragen / Betreffend die Lehre von der Wider-Kehr der Menschlichen Seelen / und Wie solche mit der Warheit deß Christenthums überein komme: Aus dem in Londen 1684. in Englisch gedrucktem Exemplar übergesetzet und gedruckt, 1686; Seder Olam sive Ordo Saecolorum, historica enarratio doctrinae, 1693; Cogitationes super quatuor priora capita libri primi Moysis, 1697. This last text is directly quoted by Petersen in Mysterion apokatastaseos, even though not for this question about reincarnation. 213 A possible influence of van Helmont on Petersen concerning this issue must remain a hypothesis, since the Petersens are not so clear, neither in explaining this point, nor in indicating the sources. The analyzes of other treatises by the Petersens not considered in this work could turn out to be useful to better resolve this problem. The thesis of van Helmont’s influence is, however, supported by Obst’s work, who, dealing with this question among some radical Pietists, reamarks that they were influenced by van Helmont himself on this point, even though they also did not always support a reincarnation-doctrine. Van Helmont’s influence on the Petersen appears, therefore, not unlikely. However, it is probable that Petersen was also influenced by other authors on this point. He mentions e. g. a manuscript treatise by the English Jacob Windet, Das ewige A und O / oder allgemeines Circkel-Rad aller durch den ewigen Gottes-Sohn gemachten und zu dessen haupt-Erbtheil verordneten Ewigkeiten in ihren allgemeinen und besondern Revolutionen und Umbetrehungen (I could find no other information on this text and on this author).

256

T he sources of eschatology

3.2.5 Luther Luther was an important source and witness for the doctrine of the middle condition of the soul. The Petersens recognize the divergences between their position and that of the theologian of Wittenberg. Nevertheless, what is important to them is, first of all, the fact that Luther rejected the doctrine of the purgatory, for this doctrine contradicts the Lutheran tenet according to which salvation is obtained only by virtue of God’s mercy and faith. On this point, the Petersens fully concur with Luther. On the other hand, some passages where Luther deals with a statu intermedio are highlighted to show that this standpoint does not contradict the existence of a middle condition. Luther is brought into play not only to support the idea of the intermediate state of souls, but also in support of the apokatastasis doctrine itself, a surprising fact considering that Luther had in no uncertain terms supported a double eschatology.214 In addition to some passages on the middle condition of the soul, Das ewige Evangelium describes a letter that Luther wrote in 1522 to Hans von Rechenberg in which he answers the question as to whether it was possible that God save those without faith. At first, Luther’s answer to this question is negative, and thereby also directly critical of Origen’s position, for, according to the Alexandrian, God would undoubtedly save everyone, the devil included, a position that, according to Luther, could not be asserted with certainty. On the contrary, Luther insisted that without faith nobody could be saved. He seems, then, to reconsider his position and admits: “Who would doubt that He [scil. God] can do that [scil. to save everyone]? But, that He will actually do that is impossible to prove”.215 Starting from this assertion, the Petersens claim that Luther could not grasp the truth of universal salvation thoroughly because the church had not yet completely deteriorated and the times had not yet been ripe enough to understand how big and how deep God’s mercy and love are.216 What was admitted by Luther as a remote possibility becomes, for the Petersens, a certainty clearly revealed by the Spirit through the reading of the Scripture. Also, in this case, the Petersens’ position does not coincide totally with that of Luther. However – similar to the middle condition of the soul – what is important to the Petersens is to find in Luther’s standpoint some hints about the possibility of universal salvation. 214 On Luther’s rejection of universal salvation, see c.3, § 3.2.2: Condemantions and rehabilitations of Origen along the centuries. 215 J. W.Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Ewiges Evangelium, Vorbericht, 30–1. For the letter see WA 10.2, 322–326: Ein Sendbrief über die Frage, ob auch jemand,  ohne Glauben verstorben, selig werden möge (1522). 216 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, LXVI, § 1, 37.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

257

To better understand Petersens’ reference to Luther is necessary to take into consideration two further aspects. First, for the Petersens, Luther is a central turning point in the history of the church and in the economy of revelation. As Johann Wilhelm explains in the chiliastic text Phanerosis tes Aletheias, Luther is the beginning of a new epoch, the Philadelphian era. He considers this epoch the preparatory time for the arrival of the millennium. Starting with Luther  – Johann Wilhelm argues  – believers began rediscovering God’s pure Word and Babel (i. e., the Roman papacy) fell for the first time.217 Luther stands at the beginning of a new church epoch, which still has to come to fruition and leave space for the next epoch to follow, namely Laodicea, characterized by the millenarian kingdom. Just as Luther represents the beginning of a new epoch, so, too, his positions are considered an important stage in God’s revelation; yet they do not represent its fulfillment. The use of Luther’s thought – this is the second aspect – must, therefore, be regarded also in relationship to the possibility of a progressive revelation.218 God’s revelation did not cease and did not reach its fulfillment during the era of the Apostles. On the contrary, with the Spirit’s action, it is possible to delve deeper into the sense of the Scripture. For this reason, according to the Petersens, Luther could only glimpse into a part of universal salvation, which is why he regarded it only as a remote possibility, yet without fully penetrating and acknowledging it. The understanding of the sense of the Scripture is not detached from the historical times, and at Luther’s time – the Petersens claim – the situation of the church was not completely depraved so as to have been able to grasp this truth.

3.2.6 The conceptual framework behind the Petersens’ use of different sources In his Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Johann Wilhelm refers to a number of authors and traditions (e. g., Jane Lead, Origen, Luther, the Kabbalistic tradition) that are vastly different and partly incompatible. Only some of the sources used by Petersen, especially in the first edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos, were analyzed, but in this treatise several other authors are also mentioned, for instance the Catholic mystic Antoinette Bourignon, the Dutch millenarian Petrus Serrarius, or the English theologian Thomas Burnet.219 These different sources are used simultaneously. Is there a framework within which references to these authors can find an explanation? 217 See c. 1.1.3. 218 The Petersens’ position on the progress in revelation was discussed, see c. 2.2.4: Johannes Coccejus: the “sensus vere mysticum”. 219 On Thomas Burnet’s (c. 1635–1715) apokatastasis idea see D. Forman, “The Apokatastasis Essays in Context”.

258

T he sources of eschatology

The Petersens’ interest in the apokatastasis doctrine first arose through the works of Jane Lead, who, however, had always denied the influence of other authors, and, particularly, of Origen, claiming, on the contrary, that her ideas did not derive from human wisdom and were a gift of God’s wisdom.220 On the other hand, for the Petersens, it was not difficult to link the English mystic with Origen. Indeed, not only did Lead write in a period which saw a revival and rehabilitation of the Alexandrian among some English theologians, but a direct reference to Origen appears also in the preface to Lead’s A Revelation of the everlasting Gospel-Message, written by her friend Francis Lee.221 In a similar vein, the Petersens also claim that their work are not derived from the works of other authors, but that their support for their position was necessary, especially the authority of an author in the primitive church, in order to counter the charge of being new prophets and of spreading a new gospel.222 For the Petersens, Origen represents an important authority for the apokatastasis doctrine from the first church, similar to the millennium, for which Johann Wilhelm refers to several church fathers as authorities from the primitive church and as witnesses to the chiliastic truth. 220 On Lead’s refusal of other authors’ authority see A. Hessayon, “Lead’s Life and Time (Part Two): The Woman in the Wilderness”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and Her Transnational Legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 39–69, here 53. 221 In the Prefatory Epistel of the Editor, Francis Lee defends the position supported in the treatise against the “zealots” of his time establishing a parallel between the standpoint of the treatise and that of Origen, he writes: “It matters not what Names the Zealots of any Party do fix upon what they have once received an Aversion against. Truth will be Truth, and Error will be Error, under whatever Disguise they pass. If Scripture and Nature be not against us, we hope we shall not be afraid, or asham’d though we should have as many Opponents as either Origen, or Athanasius had. Neither shall the Name of Origen be at all matter of confusion, if objected. There is a Letter of Resolution concerning Him, known well enough to have been written by an Eminent and Learned Bishop, and Printed in the Year 1661. That must be first confuted, together with other Authors of no mean Name, before we shall be asham’d of this Great Man”. 222 Establishing a parallel with the beginning of the Reformation, when some points, such as the article of justification, became clear to many people, Johann Wilhelm states that, in the same way, he also has acknowledged in his heart the truth of universal salvation, without reading Origen or other books, see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch III, 45–6: “wie es beym Anfange der Reformation geschehen ist / da der Artickel von der Rechtfertigung eines armen Sünders vor Gott mit allen Umständen so nicht ausgeführet worden / als hernach / da die Sache immer klärer und klärer ward. So hat auch das Mitglied weder Origenem, noch andere gelesen / sondern ohne einiges Buch / oder hülffe das / wie es in ihrem hertzen gelegen / entworffen / und es für nöthig geachtet solches / als es da gedruckt lieget / auffzusetzen”. This position is also reiterated in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos several times. Here he remarks that Lead and Origen also received this “revelation” from God, as he did, see J. W.  Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Das fünffte Send-Schreiben, 12: “Ob nun gleich / wie gedacht / die Leade aus England die Gnade von Gott sonderbare Art offenbahret worden / so hat doch Gotts schon vorhin seinen Lieblingen / als dem Origeni, Gregorio, Nisseno und andern von dieser Warheit im Blick kund gethan”.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

259

Origen is the most quoted author in the Petersens’ writings. Beyond the mention of his name in Mysterion apokatastaseos panton, Origen also finds mention in Das ewige Evangelium, among the few, as a witness. Schimdt-Biggemann rightly places Petersen’s Mysterion apokatastaseos panton in the Origenian tradition.223 Nevertheless, the Petersens did not just rely on the writings of Origen, and solely an understanding of the influence of Origen will not offer a complete picture of the complex intellectual context within which their works emerged. The notion that God’s love and Christ’s power of redemption are greater than evil and creatures’ intention to sin  – the central point in the Petersens’ apokatastasis – and Christ as a universal figure in order to assert the possibility of universal redemption are directly inherited from the Kabbalistic tradition, and, specifically, from Lurianic Kabbalah. The reception of Origen cannot, therefore, be detached from or understood apart from the Kabbalistic tradition. Origen is neither the main nor the first source for the Petersens. His thought is, rather, rehabilitated through the works of Jane Lead, and, especially, the Kabbalistic tradition. The use of Origen’s work along with other traditions is not a novelty. The Petersens found outriders in the English milieu, as the second half of the seventeenth century saw the spread of Origenian universalist ideas among some English authors.224 In turn, such a Neoplatonic / ​Origenian position represented a fertile soil for the reception of Kabbalistic ideas deriving from Germany. After all, the Kabbalah endorsed by van Helmont and by his disciple Anne Conway was the strand of Lurianic Kabbalah developed in the fifteenth century, a kind of Kabbalah influenced also by Neoplatonic positions.225

223 See Schmidt-Biggemann, Philosophia Perennis, 359–68. 224 As shown, starting from 1661 (A letter of Resolution) Origenian positions are rehabilitated and widespread in England especially among the so-called Cambridge Platonists. Origenian positions on universal restoration or pre-existence were some years later mixed to similar positions present in the Lurianic Kabbalah, brought to England aided by the Kabbalists of Sulzbach Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont. When Lead started writing on the condition of the soul after death or on the apokatastasis, such ideas were already circulating in her environment, so that it is not inconceivable to think about an influence of these authors also on Lead, even though she always denied other authors’ influence. Hessayon indicates as other promoters of universal salvation at Lead’s time some authors such as Gerrard Winstanley, Theaurau John Tany, Richard Coppin and William Erbery, without further discussing or analyzing a possible real influence on Lead, see Hessayon, Lead’s Life and Time (Part Two), 53. 225 See Hutton, Anne Conway, 164–5. Origen’s name never appears in Conway’s Principles, however, as Hutton explains after having analyzed the parallels between Conway and Origen on universal salvation, “the two most important strands in her thinking are Neoplatonism and Kabbalism. These do share a number of features, since Jewish Kabbalistic thought was heavenly influenced by Neoplatonism. She owes to these systems of thought the hierarchism of her own system, her concept of a single universal substance and the idea of the monad. In kabbalah she would have found confirmation of, perhaps inspiration for, the restorative

260

T he sources of eschatology

In turn, such a fusion between Origen and the Kabbalistic tradition in English authors is rooted in some Renaissance philosophers. The first to establish this link was Pico della Mirandola at the end of the fifteenth century – as already partly discussed in the first part of this chapter. In his 900 Theses, Pico presented the idea of a prisca theologia, later called philosophia perennis, i. e., the godly wisdom conveyed to Moses and from Moses to other authors, both heathens, such as Hermes Trismegistus, Pythagoras, and Plato, and Christians, such as Origen, who is, for Pico, a witness to this prisca sapientia.226 In this way, drawing from Marsilio Ficino, Pico establishes a link between theology and philosophy, considering a certain strand of philosophy to have been derived from the revelation, and emphasizing that philosophical and theological truth was, broadly speaking, preserved within the Platonic-Neoplatonic tradition. On the other hand, taking it a step further Ficino, Pico reads traces of prisca theologia in Averroes, the Koran, and the Kabbalah.227 Besides Pico, the Franciscan friar and Christian Kabbalist Francesco Zorzi – an author widely quoted in Mysterion apokatastaseos panton – also supported the idea of Origen as a witness to this original wisdom.228 A link between the Kabbalah and Origen can also be found in Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbalah Denudata. Even though Knorr von Rosenroth was not a supporter of the philosophia perennis, like other authors, the Kabbalist considered the Hebrew language to be the original language which could potentially uncover the mysteries of the Scripture. In this context, he posits Origen as one of the authors who mastered and made use of this language.229 The link between Origen and the Kabbalah is confirmed  – yet more in a polemic sense – by the Lutheran theologian Daniel Colberg. In Das Plato­nisch-

character of her system. She certainly aimed to devise a system which would be acceptable to Jews and Muslims as well as to Christians. … So, while we can single out kabbalist, Origenist and Neoplatonic sources for Anne Conway, it is impossible to privilege one as the major source”, see Hutton, “Henry More and Anne Conway”. 226 On Pico’s construction of Origen as Kabbalist see Terraciano, Omnia in figura, 98–101. The term philosophia perennis was coined in the following century by Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) (see De perenni philosophia, Lyon 1540); it is used, however, in an anachronistic way also to indicate Pico’s position. On this tradition see C. B. Schmitt, “Perennial Philosophy from Agostino Steuco to Leibniz”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 27, no. 4 (1966), 505–32; Schimdt-Biggemann, Philosophia perennis; C. B. Schmitt, ““Prisca Theologia e philosophia perennis”: due temi del rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna”, in G. Tarugi (ed.), Il Pensiero italiano del rinascimento e il tempo nostro, (Firenze: Olschki, 1970), 211–36. 227 See Schmitt, “Perennial Philosophy”, 510 and 513. 228 See Schimdt-Biggemann, Philosophia perennis, 207 and 232. On the reception of Judaism and, particularly of Jewish esoteric doctrines in Origen see G. G.  Stroumsa, Hidden Wisdom. Esoteric traditions and the roots of Christian mysticism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 117–31. 229 See C. Knorr von Rosenroth, Kabbalah Denudata, vol. 2, Lectori Philebraeo, § 41.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

261

Hermetisches Christenthum, published in two volumes between 1690 and 1691, the theologian criticizes a certain kind of theology based on some Platonic tenets, such as pre-existence of the soul and existence of an anima mundi.230 Among the proponents of this strand, Colberg also indicates Origen and the Kabbalistic tradition. According to Colberg, Origen inherited directly the Platonic position, introducing some mistakes into Christianity concerning the doctrine of Trinity (Origen would support a sort of subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father), the creation of angels and human beings (seen as a part of God’s essence), and the pre-existence of souls (the original image of all souls were lost after the fall, a position directly linked to universal restitution). This kind of theology, disseminated in the Middle Ages thanks to Eriugena’s translation of the Corpus Dionysiacum, is the same theology proposed by the Kabbalah, which Colberg – drawing from a Paracelsian quotation – also calls, rather polemically, “revelation”, criticizing, in this way, the idea of philosophia perennis or prisca sapientia. Colberg offers a more concise explanation rather than a detailed description of the origin of the Kabbalah, presenting it as a mystic theology, whereby mystic theology is understood as a form of Platonism. As example and proof of this connection, Colberg mentions the treatise of the Spanish Kabbalist Abraham Cohen Herrera, whose title is quite evocative: Liber Scha’ar ha-Schamaiin seu Porta Coelorum In quo Dogmata Cabbalistica Philosophice proponuntur & cum Philosophia Platonica conferuntur. This book was part of the Kabbala Denudata and it proposed the doctrine of Adam Cadmon as a Kabbalistic interpretation of the Neoplatonic intellectus primus, a position that, according to Colberg, directly supports emanationism. Colberg’s position is significant not only to better describe the relationship between Origen and the Kabbalah in the Petersens’ context, i. e., as deriving from the perennial philosophy, but also to place the standpoint of our theologians in this context. Indeed, whereas the Lutheran theologian criticizes this kind of theology, together with the authors who support it, as a product of paganism, the Petersens embrace this kind of thinking, as being close to the true revelation from God.231 230 See D. Colberg, Das Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum (1690–1691). On Colberg’s position see Lehmann-Brauns, Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte, 112–86. The Petersens are not quoted in Colberg’s treatise, which was published right at the beginning of the chiliastic discussions among the Petersens and other theologians. The name of the Petersens appears, however, in the edition published in 1710 in the frontispiece image, where a woman holding the book of orthodoxy sits upon a rock, whereas several people, all women (maybe the illustrator had in mind Feustking’s position), stand at her feet and cover their face with a mask. Among the figures represented here, the name Petersen also can also be found. 231 In the seventeenth century, there was a debate on the origin of the Kabbalah. Whereas some authors connected it to the mosaic tradition, others  – such as Wachter, whom also Colberg quotes – believed that it was a product of the pagan tradition. See Y. Schwarz, “­Kabbala

262

T he sources of eschatology

The Petersens do not discuss the philosophia perennis.232 They are not directly interested in showing the concordance between heathen philosophies and Christianism, as, for instance, Pico della Mirandola or Agostino Steuco did. However, the scheme adopted to quote such different sources is the same: those they mentioned are all understood to have testified to the truth of universal salvation, and the source of such a truth is always the same, i. e., God’s wisdom. This same idea also forms the basis of the list of the witnesses of chiliasm presented in Nubes Testium Veritatis. For this reason, it is not problematic for them to juxtapose such different traditions, for these are all recipients of this divine wisdom imparted by the Holy Spirit, yet to a different extent. In this way, to mention Luther among the witnesses of the apokatastasis or as a precursor of the Philadelphian epoch does not seem problematic to them, for this means that he also had had a glimpse of this truth. However, one must be aware that the reference to so many different authors and traditions transpires through select passages from their works that the Petersens can use to bolster their idea, disregarding other points that are not compatible with their own position  – as their use of Luther’s works particularly shows. The Petersens situate themselves among the authors they quote as witnesses to this godly wisdom. The theologians claim that this truth comes directly from God: It is a godly “revelation”.233 For this reason, it is also defined as “impartial wisdom”, whereby “impartial” refers to the ability of the person who received als Atheismus? Die Kabbala Denudata und die religiöse Krise des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in A. B. Kilcher (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (16 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), 259–84, especially 280–3. Petersen considered the Kabbalah God’s revelation, however, a revelation which must be completed and illuminated by the Christian revelation, see J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXXX, § 1, 132: “Sie [scil. Jews] haben sehr vieles hievon / aber / weil ihnen das Licht Christi verhasset ist / dadurch doch alles muß begriffen werden / was man von Gott lauterlich erkennen kan”. 232 They never discuss this concept, but, in the second edition of Mysterion apokatastaseos panton III, there are a couple of quotations that seem to refer to it. See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II¸ Vorrede, § 16, where he quotes from Caspar Calvör (1650–1725), Fissura Zionis, a text where the author shows the concordance among the Christian God, the Kabbalistic Ein-Soph, and other doctrines from Zoroaster, Platone, Pitagora, Hermes Tris­megisto; and also J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Gründliche Antwort auff des Herren Johann Wincklers, § 125, 69: “Was für merckwürdige Dinge sind nit sonsten von den heydnischen Philosophen / und Priestern auffgezeichnet / dabey man solche Spuhren findet / daß sich Gott ihnen nicht habe unbezeuget gelassen / unter welche der Hermes Trismegistus, der Orpheus, der Aglaophemus, Pythagoras, Philolaus, Plato und dergleichen gewesen / ​die sehr warhafftige Dinge von Gott / und dem Wort außgesprochen / … und nicht anders sagen können / daß / weil alle Warheiten von einer Warheit herrühren / deswegen auch solche Bächlein auff sie hingeleitet / und auß dem Brunnen Israels geflossen / oder auch gar von Gott ihnen offenbahret seyn”. 233 The meaning of “revelation” was dealt with in the c. 2.2.2.

T he sources of the apokatastasis doctrine

263

such a revelation to recognize it wherever it is. Such a revelation would also be supported by heathens, as Petersen tries to show, by referring to numerous witnesses from different traditions.234

234 See J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton II, Kurtze Untersuchung, § 11, 59: “Jacobus, der Apostel / zeuget / e sophia anothen, die Weißheit / die von oben ist / sey adiakritos, und unpartheyisch / welches unter andern auch darinnen vornemlich bestehet / daß ein Zeuge der Warheit / dieselbige bekenne / er mag sie auch finden / wo er wolle / und sie bey allen als eine Warheit bekenne / wann sie auch von einem heyden wäre außgesprochen / welches ich / ​mit meinem angezogen Zeugnüssen auch gethan”.

Conclusion

Johann Wilhelm and Johanna Eleonora Petersen were two writers on eschatology who worked and wrote in a synergetic way to propagate their positions.1 Their eschatological views reflected concerns and expectations which they developed first through their contact with the Frankfurt circle of Philipp Jakob Spener and, especially with Johann Jakob Schütz, who was the main promoter of chiliasm. The eschatology endorsed by the Frankfurter, in turn, was shaped by external influences, starting with the Sulzbach Kabbalists. The millenarian expectation discussed in Spener’s circle and publicly presented, among other topics, in his Pia Desideria became the central concern around which the Petersens’ thought and writings developed. While Spener’s position represented a reference point for the Petersens, especially in the discussions with other theologians, the couple took some further steps to embrace the idea of universal salvation. The Petersens – and especially Johann Wilhelm – outlined their eschatological position first and foremost in disputing with other authors. In this sense, their eschatology can also be connoted as a fight against “the established orthodoxy”. It was Johann Wilhelm Petersen himself who referred to his adversaries as “the Orthodoxy”, and used in a polemical sense the expression “supposed Orthodoxy”.2 He, however, did not refuse the “orthodox doctrine” as a matter of principle, but sought to open the borders of the established doctrine, striving for conformity to the Scripture and to the confession while at the same time transforming the confession through the entitlement to Orthodoxy. Conversely, from the point of view of the Petersens’ opponents, the couple not only supported two doctrines against CA 17, but their position also was the result of enthusiasm and fanaticism: “Supposed Orthodoxy” on the one hand, “enthusiasm and fanaticism” on the other hand. These were the main terms used by the two sides (the Petersens and their critics) to move criticism to each other.

1 Their works found a large resonance among their contemporaries, as stated by Johann Wilhelm regarding their treatises on apokatastasis, see J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 60, 296–7: “Worauf das Buch zu Berlin in allen Buch-Läden ist zu finden und zu bekommen gewesen, welches gewiß ein grosses Exempel der Providence Gottes ist, die da wohl weiß Bahn zu machen …“. The treatises in defense of chiliasm were also widely disseminated, considering the large number of responses that they received. Specie facti was also translated into English by Lead’s friend Francis Lee under the title A Letter to some Divines, Concerning the Question, Whether GOD since Christ’s Ascension, doth any more Reveal himself to Mankind by means of Divine Apparitions? … (London, 1695). 2 See J. W. Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 39, 158, and § 68, 343.

C onclusion

265

Starting with these debates, the present work has sought to describe the standpoint of the German couple in relation to other authors’ remarks, objections, criticisms, and rejections. As declared in the introduction to the present work, the aim of this study was not to establish whether the Petersens’ eschatological positions were orthodox or not, but, rather, to analyze and define their standpoint in this specific context, i. e., in the debates with other contemporary theologians. In this sense, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, the Petersens’ position does not appear separatist. As Matthias remarks, the issue about the truth of chiliasm was not the ultimate reason why Johann Wilhelm was removed from his public office, rather, he was charged for having preached on this topic despite the authorities’ admonition.3 Matthias also concludes that the end of Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s career did not lead to his expulsion from the church, and even less to an excommunication from the state church. He remained linked to the church, although he was no longer allowed to hold public office. In this sense, he cannot be considered a separatist.4 While I generally share Matthias’ thesis, I think it is necessary to further specify the relationship of Johann Wilhelm to the state church. Through the resolution of 1692, Johann Wilhelm was not only forbidden from publicly preaching on chiliasm, but he also had to leave the city of Lüneburg within four weeks.5 The fact that the Petersens continued writing on eschatological topics until the end of their lives should be regarded first as the consequence of the fact that they found refuge in Brandenburg-Prussia, where several religious minorities or non-conformists were allowed and tolerated.6 Therefore, the relationship between the Petersens and the state church must be regarded first on the basis of the territory in which they lived. The role which the different lands and state churches played in allowing the diffusion of certain ideas cannot be overlooked, as the promulgation of the edict on Pietism in 1694 in the duchy of Württemberg 3 See Matthias, Petersen, 321–30, here 327: “Obwohl noch einige Einzelheiten zu klären seien, gäbe es doch eine ‘evidentia facti’ des wiederholten Verstoßes Petersens gegen den obrigkeitlichen Erlaß. Das Urteil erklärt, daß sich Petersen ‘seines bey der Christlichen Gemeinde zu Lüneburg bisher gehalten Ambts, und aller anderer geistlichen function in diesem Fürstenthum und Landen’ mit seinem Handeln selbst unfähig und verlustig gemacht habe. […] Seine Lehre enthalte obrigkeitsfeindliche Tendenzen, woraus ein allgemeines Ärgernis auch bei anderen Kirchen enstanden sei”. 4 Matthias, Petersen, 330: “Das Urteil vom 3. Februar 1692 markiert das Ende der kirchlichen Karriere Petersens. Sie beudeuetet nicht den Ausschluß Petersens aus der Kirche, da das Urteil ihn nur als Amtperson trifft. Umgekehrt bedeuetet sie auch nicht in eigentlichem Sinne dem Separatismus oder dem separatistischen Pietismus zuzuordnen. Er steht der Kirche nicht feindlich gegenüber, sondern ist vor allem Individualist. Er lebt sein Christentum und ist auf die Kirche als Institution nicht angewiesen”. 5 See Matthias, Petersen, 328. 6 This does not mean that the Petersens must be regarded as non-conformists, but they did not run into social troubles because of their discussions with the Lutheran church.

266

C onclusion

testifies. Through this edict, it was allowed, among other things, also to discuss about chiliasm, without incurring the charge of supporting a heretic position.7 This shows that conformism and non-conformism are also produced by state borders. Moreover, Johann Wilhelm Petersen’s stance with respect to criticism received also does not show a separatist outlook, as he sought to conciliate his positions with the Scripture, considered, accordingly to the Lutheran principle sola fide, as the ultimate source for the thesis supported and as the touchstone for judging about their veracity. According to Johann Wilhelm, chiliasm is neither against the Confessio nor the result of a special revelation. This point is strictly linked to the charge of fanaticism and to the definition of the Petersens as “radical” authors. The “radical” aspect of their thought – expressed at that time by the charge of being Schwärmer – is strictly linked to their support for some doctrines not generally shared by the established Orthodoxy, which gave rise to numerous debates. However, their stance on the criticisms received appears quite conciliatory and not subversive or overtly against the Orthodoxy. The reference to the Scripture is the first important clue in this sense. Different from Jane Lead or from Asseburg, they never used special revelations or dreams as the ultimate reason to embrace a new truth. Although they did not exclude the possibility of special revelations, according to their narration, the discovery of chiliasm or of universal salvation was first and foremost linked to God’s Word. In this regard, the Petersens’ stance is totally in line with one of the main Lutheran tenets: the sola scriptura, along with the consequent assumption that the unity among its authorship and its interpretation is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. This Lutheran tenet had given rise, since the beginning of the Reformation, to several debates on the right interpretation of the sacred text. Following Spener, who, in turn, invoked other theologians such as Arndt and Gichtel, the Petersens emphasized the reading of the Bible guided and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Also in this case, their position, far from being innovative or subversive, was rooted in a topos already 7 See Des Durchläugtisten Fürsten und herrn, Herrn Eberhard Ludwigen, Hertzogen zu Würtemberg und Teckh, Grafen zu Mömpelgard, herrn zu Heidenheimb, etc. Edict und Verordnung, Nach welcher Ihro hoch-fürstl. Durch. Alumni oder Theologiae Studiosi, bey Dero Fürstlichen Universität zu Tübingen, und Theologico Stipendio daselbsten, auch einfolglich die sämtliche Würtembergische Kirchen- und Schul-Diener, in denen zwischen einigen Evangelischen Theologen ohnlängst entstandenen, und unter den neuerlichen Titul der Pietisterey gezogen Streitgkeiten, angewiesen, und in was Schrancken der Lehre sie erhalten werden sollen, Stuttgart, den 28. Febr. 1694. In this edict chiliasm was considered a point not fundamental for faith, for this reason it was allowed to dispute on it and on CA 17, moreover, those who supported a chiliastic position were not considered heretic. On the edict and on its importance for the dissemination of chiliastic ideas in Württemberg see M. Brecht, “Philipp Jakob Spener und der württembergische Pietismus”, in H. Liebing / ​K. Scholder (ed.), Geist und Geschichte der Reformation (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966), 443–59, here 454; Groth, Die “Wiederbringung aller Dinge”, 52.

C onclusion

267

traversed by Luther and by several other theologians as well as Spener himself. Stressing this point, the Petersens did not aim to criticize the orthodoxy of certain doctrines or ideas, rather the stance of those theologians who “boasted about being orthodox, but who were missing God’s true light and Spirit”, an essential point for “true theology”. Through this expression – “true light and Spirit” – they did not mean a special revelation as in the case of Asseburg, rather a light from above that was essential to understand the Word, anyway, a light given not apart from the reading of the Scripture. The attempt of conciliating their positions with the main tenets of Lutheran faith is further suggested by their defense of chiliasm in front of CA 17. Referring to the literal meaning of this article, Johann Wilhelm remarked that this is only against the Jewish expectation of a second coming of the Savior on Earth and the beginning of an earthly kingdom, a position firmly rejected by both him and Spener. It was more difficult to defend the apokatastasis doctrine in light of the position expressed in Confessio Augustana 17, where universal salvation was in no ambiguous terms condemned. In this case, Johann Wilhelm did not look for any conciliatory position, rather, he clearly asserted that the fathers of the Confessio had a lot of light in regard to numerous points, but not in this regard. He thus had taken a step further than the confessional books by advocating doctrinal development. Nevertheless, also in the treatises on apokatastasis, it is possible to note a certain attempt of remaining anchored to essential and unavoidable articles of faith. For example, in the case where Johann Wilhelm remarks that “although the restoration of all things is not present in the Apostles’ Creed, it is not against it; similarly, it is not against the entire Protestant Church, which is based on the fact that, contrary to what Papists believe, faith and mercy are not gained through own efforts or sufferance, rather only thanks to the victim of reconciliation Jesus Christ. This apokatastasis panton doctrine is completely in agreement with these points”.8 As outlined above, Spener plays an important role in the defense of the Petersens’ eschatology. Both Petersen’s reference to Spener, and Spener’s standpoint on chiliasm in general and on Johann Wilhelm’s person in particular provides another piece of the puzzle to describe the Petersens’ relationship with the church and the established doctrine. On the one hand, Johann Wilhelm’s reference to 8 J. W. Petersen, Mysterion apokatastaseos panton I, Gespräch I, CXL, § 1, 148: “Sondern das ist die Meinung der Worte / ​daß / ​gleichwie die Wiederbringung aller Dinge / ​ob sie gleich mit solchen Worten in dem Symbolo Apostolico nicht stehet / ​doch nicht gegen dasselbige sey / ​ also auch eben solche Lehre nicht entgegen stehe der gesambten protestirenden Kirche / ​deren Grund und fundament gegen die Papisten / ​gegen welche sie protestiret / ​darinnen beruhe / ​daß die Gnade und Seligkeit nicht durch eigen Verdienst / ​oder durch Leiden der Menschen erlanget werde / ​noch der Gerechtigkeit Gottes damit ein Genügen geschehe / ​sondern allein durch das Versöhn-Opffer Christum JEsum / ​mit welchem allem diese Lehre von der apokatastasis panton auffs genaueste übereinstimmete”.

268

C onclusion

Spener’s argument on chiliasm can be read as a further attempt of conciliating his standpoint with the Lutheran faith. Indeed, Spener’s position, albeit criticized, was never condemned, and he continued to hold church office until the end, especially owing to the climate of tolerance prevalent in Brandenburg-Prussia. On the other hand, even though Spener’s stance towards the Petersens appears not always compliant, he defended Johann Wilhelm, advocating freedom to preach on chiliasm and defending his sincere faith.9 Moreover (this should be noted in addition), despite what Krauter-Dierolf states on Spener, i. e., that his eschatological position remained unchanged, I think that a progressive turn towards chiliasm can be observed starting from the beginning of the 1690s. Although Spener never openly supported a chiliastic position, he defended it, as long as it did not contradict the words of CA 17.10 It is not my aim here to define whether Spener’s wait for a better future condition of the church can be 9 Spener not only distanced himself from some points supported by Petersen in his published texts, but he also repeatedly warned his friend to stop publicly preaching about the millennium and, especially, about the first resurrection, since these points are not necessary for one’s own bliss. Moreover, he asked Petersen to not refer to his own name, since their positions differed on several points. See An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Lüneburg (Dresden, 7. Februar 1689), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1690–1691, 3 vol., 86–96; An [Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Lüneburg] (Dresden, 25. Februar 1690), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1690–1691, 4 vol., 118–20; An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Lüneburg (Dresden, 14. April 1690), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1690–1691, 4 vol., 166–70; An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Lüneburg (Dresden, 27. Juni 1690), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1690–1691, 4 vol., 260–2; An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Lüneburg (Dresden, 14. August 1690), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1690–1691, 4 vol., 343–8; An Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Lüneburg (Dresden, 16. September 1690), in Wallmann (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1690–1691, 4 vol., 390–2. 10 In the first text inside the Hamburger discussions, Erfordertes Bedencken, he speaks about different kinds of chiliasm, still remaining circumspect, he quotes, indeed, Jerome’s standpoint on chiliasm: “Although we do not follow this position, we cannot condemn it, since several theologians and martyrs supported it, each of them in his way; the entire judgment on this issue is reserved to God” (see Jakob Speners Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken, Die Dritte Frage (not paged), in Philipp Jakob Spener. Schriften, V, 117). In Die Freyheit der Gläubigen the defense of millenarianism is strengthened; Spener remarks that at least one kind of chiliasm, i. e., the one based on Rev 20, must express a divine truth (see Die Freyheit der Glaübigen, 73; 207 in Philipp Jakob Spener. Schriften, V). In Behauptung der Hoffnung künfftiger besserer Zeiten, referring to Rev 20, he explains that, although some aspects are not totally clear to him, this passage clearly means a future Kingdom where Christ will reign with his saints. Therefore, he has no doubts on the interpretation of the expression “one-thousand years”, even if he does not know some particulars, such as how it will be the imprisonment of the beast, or the persecution of heathens, if the expression “one-thousand years” should be literally understood or if this indicated just a long period of time, how the resurrection would be (it would not be just spiritual – according to Spener – but, on the other hand, it was not possible to assert with certainty that it would be a corporeal resurrection) (see D. Philipp Jakob Speners Behauptung Der Hoffnung künfftiger Besserer Zeiten, 175–83).

C onclusion

269

labeled as chiliastic or not. The issue that I would like to discuss is, instead, what determined this development. My supposition is that such a progressive open defense of chiliasm must be read in relationship to the events around Johann Wilhelm Petersen, who encountered several troubles because of his declared millenarianism. Although Spener never avowed the reasons for this progressive defense in favor of chiliasm, this hypothesis seems to be corroborated by his statements in relationship to Asseburg’s revelations. While he expressed doubts on the veracity of the revelations, he always stressed Petersen’s good and sincere faith, defending him as a Christian brother and friend. Moreover, even though he did not share some of the Petersens’ tenets, he clearly stated that Johann Wilhelm could not be condemned for the chiliastic doctrine, since his position did not undermine the basis of faith.11 For this reason, he believed that not those who supported a different opinion – even a wrong one – should be considered guilty, rather those who started agitations, namely the theologians who criticized him and Petersen.12 In Spener’s eyes, the position supported by Johann Wilhelm was in no way against the established orthodoxy, and the reason for his removal was not chiliasm, rather the fact that Petersen had preached on this topic despite the authorities’ prohibition. With regard to universal salvation, Spener’s position was much more cautious; he never openly supported such an idea and he invited the Petersens to present more scriptural passages to endorse their position. Whether he really converted to universal salvation at the end of his life – as Johann Wilhelm claims – remains an unclarified issue.13 11 Spener never agreed with Petersen’s ideas on the double resurrection and the double church, at the same time, he advocated freedom of thought on these points. 12 See Philipp Jakob Spener. Letzte Theologische Bedencken und andere brieffliche Antworten 1711. Nebst eine Vorrede von Carl Hildebrand von Canstein, Blaufuß / ​Schicketanz (ed.), c. VI, art. III, sec. XXXII, 435–8; sec. LIV, 480–2; sec. LXXIII, 528–30; sec. LXXXI, 548–58; sec. CXXIV, 661–4; sec. CXXXVII, 684–5; sec. CXLIII, 697–9; sec. CLXIII, 759–60). Some years later, coming back on Petersen’s removal, Spener remarks that the reason of this was not chiliasm, rather the fact that Petersen had preached on chiliasm despite the authorities’ prohibition (see sec. XLVIII, 467–68). 13 According to Petersen’s autobiography, Spener spoke to him about a dream he had at the end of his life. In this dream he saw several rooms. In the first one there were pictures concerning the future reign, but he could have just a short look into the other rooms, which were immediately shut from his eyes. Petersen explains this stating that, whereas the secret of the kingdom was clearly revealed to him, the other rooms with other secrets were not revealed to him during his life, among these, the secret of universal salvation. Just before this episode, Petersen also recounts that Spener, even though he never wrote or preached on the apokatastasis, was, however, not against this position and was pleased by the idea that at the end of the times the entire world could reach salvation, although he did not find yet enough places in the Scripture to support it. See J. W.  Petersen, Lebens-Beschreibung, § 66, 330–1, here 330: “Ich kan hierbey auch nicht eingemeldet lassen, daß, ob zwar der herr D. Spener solche apokatastasin weder geprediget, noch davon was hat drucken lassen, warum ich ihn doch bath, daß ers thun, und meine geziemende, und mit allem Respect gegen ihn gerichtete

270

C onclusion

Still another perspective on the Petersens’ eschatology is offered by Leibniz. The theologian was acquainted not only with the position of the couple, but also with several other millenarian authors, as well as with the several criticisms addressed to this kind of expectations, starting from that of Spener. Although the philosopher always refused to consider the expectation of the millenarian kingdom or the doctrine of universal salvation as theological dogma or truth of reason, he supported and encouraged such positions since useful for moving human being’s passions to hope for “something better” and operate for improvement, in short for progress.14 At the same time, he moved the fulcrum of the discussion on such issues from theology to poetry, depicting poets as the new prophets of an undefined better future. Leibniz’s wish and suggestion of discussing such eschatological topics in poetry was maybe fulfilled. In a literary journal published in 1849, Guhrauer – who edited also some of Leibniz’s works  – devoted an article to Johann Wilhelm Petersen and to the German poet Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock. While he remarked on the role of Leibniz’s interest towards Johann Wilhelm’s position for the diffusion of the latter’s ideas in the following century, he remarked on some parallels between Johann Wilhelm’s Urania and Klopstock’s Messias, seeing in the former an “ideal” antecedent of the latter.15 The reception of the Petersens’ eschatology and the transformation of these ideas in the following centuries is, to my knowledge, an almost unexplored field, and a task which this work has to leave to future researchers.16 Antwort wider lesen möchte, ausdrücklich zu mir gesagt, er würde ja nicht dagegen schreiben, er wünschete vielmehr, daß aller Welt Ende selig würde”. That Spener acknowledged universal salvation at the end of his life is denied by Canstein, see Krauter-Dierolf, Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners, 340–1. 14 Especially the modern concept of progress as theorized in the 18th century. On the concept of ‘progress’ see Cancik, Art. Fortschritt; Art. Progresso, in Treccani, URL= https:// www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/progresso; M. Meek Lange, Art. Progress, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011); F. Rapp, Fortschritt. Entwicklung und Sinngehalt einer philosophischen Idee (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992). 15 See G. E. Guhrauer, J. W. Petersen und Klopstock, in Blätter für literarische Unterhaltung, n. 10 (11. Januar 1849), 38–40 and n. 11 (12 Januar 1849), 42–3. 16 Research on the reception of the Petersens’ position could take two directions: a) direct reception of their ideas in the following century and particularly significant in this sense are the Berleburger Bible (permeated with Philadelphian ideas), or authors linked to the Württembergischen Pietismus (especially Bengel, Oetinger, and Hahn); see M. Brecht, “Die Berleburger Bibel. Hinweise zu ihrem Verständnis”, in: PuN 8 (1982), 162–200; Groth, Die “Wiederbringung aller Dinge”; R. Haug, Reich Gottes im Schwabeland. Linien im württembergischen Pietismus (Metzinger / ​Württemberg: Ernst Franz, 1981); E. Fritz, Radikaler Pietismus im Württemberg (Epfendorf / ​Neckar: Bibliotheca academica, 2003). b) as suggested by the above-quoted journal, to look for the transformation of such ideas and their reception and use in other contexts, such as the literary context, or to see which ideas are preserved and which are, instead, dismissed; see, for example, F. Stengel, Aufklärung bis zum Himmel. Emanuel Swedenborg im

C onclusion

271

It is important for the present work to specify what made Leibniz so receptive to the Petersens’ eschatology, namely the common Kabbalistic background. Leibniz became familiar with this tradition through his contacts with the Kabbalists of Sulzbach and with the English countess Anne Conway, who also propagated chiliastic and universal ideas, so that when he read the work of the Petersens, he had no difficulties in recognizing the same positions supported by van Helmont or by Anne Conway.17 To identify the sources that inform the Petersens’ eschatology and to describe the Petersens’ use and indebtedness to different authors and traditions were another aim of this work. The sources mentioned by Johann Wilhelm also hint at a moderate position. Although the texts of the couple always encompass more heterodox ideas or traditions over the years, an attempt of conciliating their claims with the main tenets of Lutheranism, and to anchor these to God’s Word as primary and ultimate source of knowledge is always present. This is particularly evident in the case of chiliasm. Both the reference to some church fathers, as well as the mention of biblical figures and authors in Johann Wilhelm’s Nubes Testium Veritatis suggests the attempt of showing a continuity between the prophets, the New Testament, the position of some church fathers, Luther, Spener, and their own position. The case of apokatastasis doctrine also shows the Petersens’ attempt of establishing a continuity between their position and the Lutheran confession. While they include several non-Lutheran traditions, they also find traces of the apokatastasis doctrine in Luther’s works. In this way, they put forth, on the one hand, their own ideas in the wake of the Lutheran Orthodoxy, on the other they seek to open the boundaries of the established orthodoxy, making use of several non-Lutheran traditions. If a moderate stance results from the description of the Petersens’ discussions with other theologians, the novelties their eschatology introduced cannot be overlooked. The reference to the Scripture and to the Holy Spirit as principle of its interpretation, while suggesting a position anchored in and based on God’s Word, and, in this sense, orthodox, also represents the springboard for opening the boundaries of the established orthodoxy. The established orthodoxy is Kontext der Theologie und Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), especially 442–5 on the reception of certain eschatological ideas in Swedenborg through the comparison with the Berleburger Bible; Stengel, “Seele, Unsterblickeit, Auferstehung”, 98–130, on the condition of the soul after death; F.  Stengel, “Zwischen ‘fanatischer Barbarei’ und ‘moralischem Sinn’. Schnitt- und Schneidepunkte der Schriftauslegung im 18. Jahrhundert”, in M. Lang / ​J. Verheyden (ed.), Goldene Anfänge und Aufbrüche. Johann Jacob Wettstein und die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2016), 177–216; Cyranka, Lessing im Reinkarnationsdiskurs, particularly II.B, § 3.4, 380–91 on the use and transformation of the concept “Eternal Gospel” and of chiliastic expectations. 17 On the relationship between Leibniz and Kabbalists authors, as well on the influences of Kabbalistic ideas on the philosopher see Coudert, Leibniz and the Kabbalah.

272

C onclusion

questioned in favor of a progressive theology, according to which it is possible to delve deeper into God’s Word and his secrets. As a consequence, orthodox theologians, i. e., those theologians who defended the established orthodoxy, become, for the Petersens, theologians lacking God’s true light, while several other authors rejected by the church were brought into play, for the Petersens discerned in their positions “God’s true wisdom”. The main tenets introduced by the Petersens that substantially undermined the established Lutheran orthodoxy were the following. 1. The Philadelphian ideal shaped the Petersens’ eschatology and their irenic efforts, which were behind not only the chiliastic expectation but also the apokatastasis doctrine. 2. The notion of God and, accordingly, of human being, influenced as well by Philadelphian ideals, gained new connotations. Especially through the apokatastasis doctrine, the Petersens established a theodicy centered on God’s mercy and goodness. Accordingly, sin and punishment acquire only a cathartic meaning, while the original godly image in every creature – Gottes Ebenbild which embodies creatures’ dignity, Würde der Geschöpfe – is emphasized. 3. The notion of Christ acquires a cosmological connotation through Lurianic-Kabbalistic influences, especially through the figure of Adam Cadmon. 4. The Kabbalistic thesis, according to which evil has a transitory character, explains the necessity of the restoration process, without, however, implying its automaticity. 5. Drawing from Origen, the Petersens claim that creatures’ return to God happens through an act of their will, when the latter freely recognize Christ as the redeemer. Does this picture confirm the definition of Radical Pietism as presented in the introduction to this dissertation? Schneider indicated as main parameters to describe “Radical Pietism” a certain danger of radicalization, a latent dynamic of separatism in relation to conventicles, as well as the influences of mystic and spiritualistic literature. Although these criteria are very general, they are usually used to define the boundaries between “Church Pietism” and “Radical Pietism”. Do these parameters sufficiently embrace and describe the positions presented in this work? With regard to the first point – separatism and radicalization – the present work has not only shown that the Petersens sought always to find an agreement between their standpoint and the established Lutheran orthodoxy, referring first to the Scripture as impartial over-faction touchstone, but it has also highlighted those separatist dynamics must be always regarded in relationship to the specific territories in which the authors resided and operated. The case of the Petersens is emblematic in this sense. Whereas the church of Lüneburg ordered the Petersens to leave the territory, the couple was welcomed in Brandenburg-Prussia owing to the politics of tolerance practiced by the Hohenzollern. They might have been welcomed and not criticized, if they had lived in Württemberg, where an edict allowing the chiliastic position was issued.

C onclusion

273

As to the second point, the influence of mystic and spiritual literature, or better, the influence of theosophical literature, this is surely a category which describes the Petersens’ position. The legacies of Jacob Böhme, Abraham von Franckenberg, Jane Lead, and Kabbalistic authors are emblematic in this sense. Nevertheless, similar influences can be also traced in Spener. His eschatological turn in the 1670s, strongly influenced by Kabbalistic texts, is the clearest example in this sense. Moreover, even though Spener always kept the distance from certain aspects of the Petersens’ chiliastic expectation and from their apokatastasis doctrine, he never condemned these. This suggests that to mark a clear division between these authors is difficult. Each author should be analyzed as “singular case”, considering many factors, for instance, political conditions, influences from other authors, stance towards the established orthodoxy. On the other hand, the analysis of the Petersens’ eschatology presented in this work has highlighted the indebtedness of their position to several authors and traditions. They were not innovative thinkers; they borrowed the most of their ideas from other texts, creating through them a peculiar synthesis. This suggests that their position can be considered the result of a “network” of texts and ideas, partly from within the Lutheran tradition, partly from the outside. Particularly, the influence of theosophical and kabbalistic literature represents not a secondary point in the Petersens’ eschatology; however, a point which risks to be overshadowed by the use of certain categories such as “Radical”. The case of millenarian expectations is emblematic, for it shows that such a position was already partly present in the Lutheran church, but also strongly influenced from external traditions. To what extent these traditions have influenced and transformed the theological positions of the following century is a question worthy of further attention and research.

Bibliography Primary sources (a selection, including modern editions) Achtzehen Theologische Fragen / Die wegen der neuen unmittelbahren Offenbarungen und Erscheinungen in Statu Controversiae zu beantworten vorgenommen ([s. l.], 1692) Des Durchläugtisten Fürsten und herrn, Herrn Eberhard Ludwigen, Hertzogen zu Würtemberg und Teckh, Grafen zu Mömpelgard, herrn zu Heidenheimb, etc. Edict und Verordnung, Nach welcher Ihro hoch-fürstl. Durch. Alumni oder Theologiae Studiosi, bey Dero Fürstlichen Universität zu Tübingen, und Theologico Stipendio daselbsten, auch einfolglich die sämtliche Würtembergische Kirchen- und Schul-Diener, in denen zwischen einigen Evangelischen Theologen ohnlängst entstandenen, und unter den neuerlichen Titul der Pietisterey gezogen Streitgkeiten, angewiesen, und in was Schrancken der Lehre sie erhalten werden sollen (Stuttgart, den 28. Febr. 1694) Bibliotheca Peterseniana Id Est Apparatus Librarius, Quo, Dum Viveret, Usus Est […] die XVII. Sept, seqq, An. MDCCXXXI, Berolini in Platea vulgo die Fridrichs-Strasse dicta auf dem Fridrichswerder, in Aedibus Küsterianis Curieuses  Gespräche  Jm  Reiche  derer  Todten  Zwischen zweyen hochberühmten Männern, Johann Friedrich Mayern / Der Heil. Schrifft Doctorn, Königl. Schwedischen Ober-KirchenRaths, General-Superintendens des Herzogthums Pommern und Rügen … Prof. Theol. Publ. und Procancellario der Universität Greiffswalde Und Johann Wilhelm Petersen / Der Heil. Schrifft Doctorn, vormahligen Professoren zu Rostock, nachgehends Prediger in Hannover an St. Egydii-Kirche, darnach des Bischoffs zu Lübeck Superintendenten und Hof-Prediger, endlich Superintendenten in Lüneburg : Darinnen nechst dieser beyder hochberühmten Männer Lebens-Particularitäten, von vielen curieusen und zu unserer Zeit strittig gewordenen Glaubens-Lehren, pro & contra gestritten wird ([s. l.], 1731) Aland, K. / ​Köster, B. (ed.), Die Werke Philipp Jakob Speners. Studienausgabe (Gießen: Brunnen, 1996–2006) Arnold, G., Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie. Von Anfang des Neuen Testaments biß auff das Jahr Christi 1688 (Frankfurt am Main: Fritsch, 1699) Arnold, G., Vitae patrum: oder das Leben der Altväter und anderer Gottseeligen Personen: …; nebst einem doppelten Register / auffs neue erläutert und vermehrt von Gottfried Arnold (Halle: Waeysen-Haus, 1701) Arnold, G., Historie und beschreibung der mystischen Theologie: oder geheimen Gottes Gelehrtheit; wie auch derer alten und neuen Mysticorum (Franckfurt am Main: Fritsch, 1703) Conway, A., Principia Philosophiae Antiquissime et Recentissimae de Deo, Christo & Creatura (Amsterdam: Brown, 1690) Coudert, A. P. / ​Corse, T.  (ed.), Anne Conway. The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) Coudert, A. P. / ​Corse, T. (transl. and ed.), The Alphabet of Nature by F. M. van Helmont (Leiden: Brill, 2007) Erasmus, Origenis Adamantii Magni Illius et Vetusti Scripturarum Interpretis Opera quae quidem extant omnia doctiss. virorum studio iam olim translate & recognita: Nunc vero … ab innumeris repurgaata mendis. Cum Vita Auctoris, & Indice copiosissimo (Basel, 1571) Erdmann, H. C., Probe Der heutigen neuen Offenbahr- und Bezeugungen: Worinnen nicht allein Das Send-Schreiben An einige Theologos und Gottesgelehrte / nebenst den vornehmsten darin enthaltenen (Luneburg: Winckelmann, 1692)

Primary sources (a selection, including modern editions)

275

Erdmann, H. C., Offenbahrungen und Fragen / sondern auch andere Umstände der Sachen / so in der Specie facti nicht enthalten / erörtert werden/ … / Nach der neuen auff Schreib-Papier numerirten und autensirten edition in 8vo. dem Leser zur Nachricht / eingerichtet von Henrich Christopff Erdmann / ​Pastorem beym Kalckverge und der Fürstlichen Guarnison in (Lüneburg, 17 Martii 1692) Fecht, J., Disputatio Theologica Inauguralis, libellum recentissumum, sub rubrica Das ewige Evangelium der allgemeinen Wiederbringung aller Creaturen  / examinans, quam jussu maxime Reverendi ordinis Theologicii, in illustri Universitate Rostochiensi, Praeside Dr. Johanne Fechtio (Rostochi: Wepplingius, 1699) Feustking, J. H., Gynaeceum haeretico fanaticum, oder, Historie und Beschreibung der falschen Prophetinnen, Quäckerinnen, Schwärmerinnen, und andern sectirischen und begeisterten Weibes-Personen: durch welche die Kirche Gottes verunruhiget worden: sambt einem Vorbericht und Anhang entgegen gesetztet denen Adeptis Godofredi Arnoldi (Leipzig  / ​ Franckfurt: Zimmermannm, 1704) von Franckenberg, A., Schrifft- und Glaubens-gemässe Betrachtung, Von Dem Ohrte der Seelen, wann sie von dem Leibe geschieden.: Gerichtet auf den Spruch 1. Petr. 3, v. 18.; Item 1. Petr. 4, v. 3.5.6. Von den Geistern in der Gefängnüs und den Todten, denen das Evangelium ist geprediget worden … / Durch Franciscum Montanum Elysium. Noch hinzu gesetzt SchlußRede vom Grund der Weißheit (Amsterdam, 1646) van Helmont, F. M., Paradoxal Discourse, oder Ungemeine Meynüngen von dem Macrocosmo und Microcosmo, Das ist: Von der Grossen und kleinern Welt und derselben Vereinigung mit einander / Worinnen Von der Sonnen / Mond und Sternen / und ihrer Würckung und Einfluß … (Hamburg: Liebernickel, 1691) Koch, C. G., Apokatasaseōs Act. III. 21. Solida & Orthodoxa Expositio, S. Scriptura corroborata, Patrum itidem, & Theologorum testimoniis confirmata: Fanaticis nostri temporis, & qui illis adstipulantur, inprimis verò, Dn. Petro Poireto, & Evangelii æterni Auctori, M. D. Ph. G. opposita, & ab eorum Strophis vindicata  / Auctore Christiano Gottlieb Koch (Lipsiae  / ​ Francofurti / ​K iel: Richelius, 1699) Köpke, B., Sapientia Dei, In Mysterio Crucis Christi Abscondita: Die wahre Theologia Mystica Oder Ascetica, Aller Gläubigen A. und N. Test.; Aus I. Corinth. II. v. 6. 7. Entgegen gesetzet Der falschen aus der Heydnischen Philosophia Platonis und seiner Nachfolger  / In zwey Theil abgefasset Durch Balthasar Köpken  … Nebst Hrn. D.  Phil. Jacob Speners Vorrede (Halle, 1700) Köster, B. (ed.), Pia Desideria. Deutsch-leteinische Studienausgabe (Gießen: Brunnen, 2005) Lead, J., The Wonders of God’s Creation: Manifested in the Variety of Eight Worlds; As they were made known Experimentally to the Author. [A Manifestation Concerning the Eight Worlds or Regions, Alloted to Human Souls; According to their several Degrees of Ascent or Descent] (1695) Lead, J., A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message: Which Shall Never Cease to Be Preach’s Till the Hour of Christ’s Eternal Judgment Shall Come; Whereby will be Proclaim’d the Last-Love Jubilee, in order to the Restitution of the Whole Lapsed Creation, Whether Human or Angelical. When by the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant, all Prisoners shall be set free (London, 1697) Leibniz, G. W., Tentaminum Theodicaeae, de bonitate Dei, libertate homines, et origine mali (Francofurti / ​Lipsiae: Berger, 1739) Leibniz, G. W., Extrait d’un journal du voyage que William Penn a fait, in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Politische Schriften, Berlin 2008, Sechster Band, n. 51, 339–60 Leibniz, G. W., Remarques sur le journal du voyage que William Penn a fait, in Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Politische Schriften, Berlin 2008, Sechster Band, n. 52, 360–5 Leibniz, G. W., Viri Illustris Godofridi Guil. Leibnitii Epistolae Ad Diversos, Theologici, Iuridici, Medici, Philosophici, Mathematici, Historici Et Philologici Argumenti / E Msc. Auctoris

276

Bibliography

Cum Annotationibus Suis Primum Divulgavit Christian Kortholtus, A. M. Ordinis Philosophici In Academia Lipsiensi Asseosr, Et Collegi Minoris Principum Collegiatus (Lipsiae: Breitkopf, 1734) Lichtscheid, F. H., Christliche Gedancken über das Büchlein vom Ewigen Evangelio / der allgemeinen Wiederbringung Aller Creaturen  / aufgesetzet von Ferdinand Helfreich Licht­ scheid / Evangel. Predigern in Zeitz (Zeitz: Hucho, 1700) Mayer, G. T., Gebhardi Theodori Meieri S. Theol. Doctoris & Sacrarum Antiqvitatum Professoris Publici Ordinarii Castigatio Injustæ Animadversionis Johannis Wilhelmi Petersen Proscripti Superintendentis, Universam Christi Ecclesiam hodie inaudito exemplo misere turbantis: in Defensionem Programmatis, qvo Ecclesiæ nostræ calamitates sincero corde dolebat; Adornata & in usum Auditorum suorum publici juris facta (Helmstadii: Hesse, 1693) Mayer, G., Geistlicher Brieff-Wechsel Darin das Send-Schreiben / An einige Theologos und Gottes-Gelehrte / Betreffend die Frage. Ob Gott nach der Auffart Christi nicht mehr heutiges Tages durch göttliche Erscheinungen den Menschen sich offenbahren wolle … Sampt einer erzählten Specie Facti Von einer Adelichen Jungfer … Mit einem Ordentlichen / ​vollständigen … Antwort-Schreiben / Nach der Regul H. Schrifft / zum Collegialischen Andencken / ​ abgefasset und zurück gesand / Von Georgio Meyero, S. Th. D. Eccl. L. P. und Min. Lünaeb. Seniore (Lüneburg: Winckelman / ​Goßlar: Dunckler, 1692) Mayer, J. F., Prufung des Geistes / so sich durch ein Adeliches Fräulein itzo offenbahren soll: Bey Erklährung des ordentlichen Sontags Evangelii / Dom. IV. Adventus Joh. I. In offentlicher heiliger Versamlung der Kirchen Gottes zu St. Jacob vorgestellet (S. I., 1692) Petersen, J. E., Glaubens-Gespräche Mit Gott: In Drey unterschiedene Theile abgefasset / Also daß Der I. Theil / Das Werck des Glaubens in der Krafft / Der II. Theil / Das Zeugniß / die Macht und Herrlichkeit des Glaubens / Der III. Theil / Das Ende des Glaubens / welches ist der Seelen Seligkeit / vorstellet / In dieser letzten Glaublosen Zeit zur Auffmunterung und Erweckung des Glaubens auffgesetzt Von Johanna Eleonora Petersen / Gebohrne von und zu Merlau (Franckfurt / ​Leipzig: Brodthagen, 1691) Petersen, J. E., Anleitung zu gründlicher Verständniß der Heiligen Offenbahrung Jesu Christi: welche er seinem Knecht und Apostel Johanni Durch seinen Engel gesandt und gedeutet hat … Nach Ordnung einer dazu gehörigen Tabelle, Darinnen die heilige Offenbahrung … kürtzlich entworffen ist; Mit einer zur Vorbereitung dienlichen Vor-Rede und Dreyfachem Anhange / … mitgetheilet und herausgegeben von Johanna Eleonora Petersen / gebohrnen von und zu Merlau (Franckfurt / ​Leipzig / ​Magdeburg: Müller, 1696) Petersen, J. E., Das ewige Evangelium Der Allgemeinen Wiederbringung Aller Creaturen: Wie solche unter andern In rechter Erkäntniß Des Mittlern Zustandes der Seelen nach dem Tode tieff gegründet ist / Und nach Ausführung Der endlichen Gerichte Gottes dermaleins völlig erfolgen wird / Vorgestellet … Von einem Mit-Gliede D. Ph. G. [i. e. Johanna Eleonora Petersen] Zu Ende ist beygefüget ein kurtzer Anhang Von einigen harmonischen Schrifft-Stellen / und verschiedenen sonderbahren Zeugnüssen Lutheri ([s. I.], 1698) Petersen, J. E., Das Geheimniß Des Erst-Gebornen Der von Anfang ist, und der da ist Gott das Wort Der Gott-Mensch Jesus Christus Gestern und Heute und Derselbe in Ewigkeit: Durch dessen seeliges Erkäntniß die strittige Partheyen in den unterschiedlichen Religionen unter sich könten vereiniget werden; Sammt einer Summarischen Erklärung Uber die Epistel an die Römer, wie auch über das 17. Cap. Johanniß, und über einige Schrifft-Oerter, so von dem obigen Geheimniß handlen, vorgetragen / Von Johanna Eleonora Petersen, Gebohrne von und zu Merlau (Franckfurt: Heyl & Liebezeit, 1711) Petersen, J. E., Einige Send-Schreiben, Betreffende die Nothwendigkeit Verschiedener bißher von den meisten Gelehrten in Verdacht gezogener Lehren: Sonderlich in diesen letzten Zeiten, da die Zubereitung zur Hochzeit des Lammes, mit so größerem Eyfer und Fleiss geschehen soll; Auff einiger Freunde Begehren verfertiget / von Johanna Eleonora Petersen Gebohrnen von und zu Merlaw ([s. I.], 1714)

Primary sources (a selection, including modern editions)

277

Petersen, J. E., Leben Frauen Joh. Eleonora Petersen / Gebohrnen von und zu Merlau, Hrn. D. Jo. Wilh. Petersen Eheliebsten; Von Ihr selbst mit eigener Hand aufgesetzet, und vieler erbaulichen Merckwürdigkeiten wegen zum Druck übergeben, daher es als ein Zweyter Theil zu Ihres Ehe-Herrn Lebens-Beschreibung beygefüget werden kann. Anno MDCCXVIII. Auf Kosten guter Freunde (Halle: Renger, 1718) Petersen, J. W., Spruch-Catechismus: Aus dem Catechismo des sel. Lutheri in Fragen vorgestellet / Die mit den unmittelbahren Sprüchen der Heiligen Schrift beantwortet werden / Auff gnädigsten Befehl Des … Herrn August Friedrich / Erwehlten Bischoffs zu Lübeck/ … herauß gegeben Von Johann Wilhelm Petersen/  … Hoff-Prediger / und des Stiffts Lübeck Superintend. Sam[p]t einer Vorrede Hn: Christiani Kortholt / der H. Schrifft D. und Prof. Primar. auff der Universität Kiel (Plöen: Schmidt, 1685) Petersen, J. W., Spruch-Catechismus: Aus dem Catechismo des seel. Lutheri in Fragen vorgestellet, Die mit den unmittelbahren Sprüchen der Heiligen Schrifft beantwortet werden / Auff gnädigsten Befehl Des … August Friedrich, Erwehlten Bischoffs zu Lübeck … Der Kirchen Gottes zum besten herausgegeben von Johann Wilhelm Petersen (Franckfurt / ​Leipzig: Lippern, 1689) Petersen, J. W., Schrifftmässige Erklährung und Beweis Der Tausend Jahre / und der daran hangenden ersten Auferstehung / Aus der Offenbahrung S. Johannis am 20. Cap (Franckfurt, 1692) Petersen, J. W., Send-Schreiben An einige Theologos und Gottes-Gelehrte / Betreffend die Frage Ob Gott nach der Auffahrt Christi nicht mehr heutiges Tages durch göttliche Erscheinung den Menschenkindern sich offenbahren wolle und sich dessen gantz begeben habe? / Sampt einer erzehlten Specie Facti Von einem Adelichen Fräulein / was ihr vom siebenden Jahr ihres Alters biß hieher von Gott gegeben ist ([s. I.], 1692) Petersen, J. W., Ablehnung Der schändlichen Aufflagen / Welche ich Mit meinem guten Gewissen Für Gott In dem Angesichte Jesu Christi Und Seiner Kirchen / Hiemit darstelle  / Johann. Wilhelm. Petersen, der Heiligen Schrifft Doctor, und Bekenner Jesu Christi und seines Reichs (Franckfurt: Brodhagen, 1692) Petersen, J. W., Iusta Animadversio Qua Professorem aliquem Helmstadiensem Contra Regnum Jesu Christi, In septima tuba promissum, In programmate quodam Infelici prorsus & vano conatu se armantem E Scriptis Prophetarum & Apostolorum refutat Johannes Wilhelmus Petersen, D. (Franckfurt: Brodhagen, 1692) Petersen, J. W., Eine öffentliche Stimme Gegen Das Urtheil eines Licht-scheuenden / Damit er das gesegnete Reich Christi / so in der H. Offenbahrung am XX. verheissen ist / und worauff alle Kinder des Reichs im Geiste warten / in einer Läster-Schrifft (mit dem Titel: Copia eines Sendschreibens vom Chiliasmo.) unverantwortlicher Weise verurtheilet hat / aus der Freudigkeit des Glaubens erhoben (Magdeburg, 1692) Petersen, J. W., Die Warheit des herrlichen Reiches Jesu Christi welches in der siebenden Posaune noch zu erwarten ist / Geschrieben zu Magdeburg im Jahr nach der Geburth Christi 1692, Gedruckt im Jahr 1693 ([s. I.], 1693) Petersen, J. W., Der veste Grund Des In der siebenden Posaunen annoch zukünfftigen Reiches Christi: In einer Antwort Auff einige unlängst herausgegebene Send-Schreiben / Hrn. Caspar Hermann Sandhagens / Hochfürstl. Hollstein. General-Superintendenten, gründlich gezeiget Und Aus Gottes Wort bestättiget (Franckfurt, 1692/1694) Petersen, J. W., Freymüthige Anrede / An (Tit.) Herrn Licentiat Johannem Joachimum Wolfium, Predigern zu S. Ulrich und Levin in Magdeburg / welcher Einen Lästerer Des Reiches Christi und offenbahren Pasquillanten unchristlicher Weise zuverthätigen sich unternommen hat / In dem Angesicht der Christl. Kirchen (Magdeburg, 1693) Petersen, J. W., Bekenntnüß Von dem Zukünfftigen herrlichen Reiche Jesu Christi Und Der damit verbundenen Ersten Aufferstehung: Zum Unterricht Aus Den unmittelbahren Worten der heiligen Schrifft / und nach dem Zeugnüß der Warheit In Frag und Antwort gestellet (Magdeburg, 1693)

278

Bibliography

Petersen, J. W., Endliche Erklährung Gegen (Tit.) Herrn Licent. Johann. Joachim. Wolfium Zu St. Ulrich und Levin Predigern in Magdeburg / Wie auch Gegen Alle / Welche Theils mit höhnischer und lästerlicher / theils mit zänckischer und unnützer Schreib-Art mich und die von mir bekannte Wahrheit des herrlichen annoch bevorstehenden Reiches Jesu Christi bißher angetastet haben (Magdeburg, 1693) Petersen, J. W., Kurtzer und gründlicher Beweißthum Des Chiliasmi Sancti Apocalyptici, In einer ernstlichen Anrede an den M. Johannem Vake / Archidiaconum der Gemeine zu SS, Petri und Pauli in Hamburg // Aus heiliger Schrifft Mit Unwidertreiblichen Gründen (Magdeburg, 1694) Petersen, J. W., Oeffentliche Bezeugung Für der gantzen Evangelischen Kirchen: Daß das Reich Jesu Christi / Welches ich Johann Vvilhelm Petersen, Der H. Schrifft Doctor, Aus Apoc. am XX. behaupte / Weder mit den alten ketzerischen Irrthümern des Cerinthi / noch mit den Jüdischen Fabeln einige Gemeinschafft habe; Imgleichen / Daß dasselbige nicht gegen den 17. Artickel der Augspurgischen Confession lauffe ([s. I.], 1695) Petersen, J. W., Erläuterung Der Bekäntniß von dem künfftigem herrlichem Reiche Jesu Christi / ​ Und Der damit verbundenen Ersten Aufferstehung (Franckfurt, 1695) Petersen, J. W., D.  Joh. Wilhelm Petersen klarer Beweiß daß das Reich Christi noch fest stehe / Welches in der siebenden Posaune soll aufgerichtet / und darnach von Ihm Gott und seinem Vatter überantwortet werden / wieder D. Augustum Pfeiffer/ … Der den Propheten Daniel / so wohl in seinem andern / als siebenden Capitel fälschlich außleget / und verkehret: Hiebey sind Zweene Brieffe des Herrn D. Pfeiffers zu finden / darinnen er das gesegnete Reich Christi … vormahls verthädiget / nun aber … verlästert hat (Franckfurt: Zunnerus, 1696) Petersen, J. W., Nubes Testium Veritatis De Regno Christi Glorioso, In Septima Tuba Futuro Testantium. Libri Tres (Franckfurt: Zunnerus, 1696) Petersen, J. W., Phanerōsis tēs Alētheias, Oder Offenbahrung der Warheit / Denen geistlichen Edomitern dieser Zeit / So sich in ihren neulich heraus gegebenen Schrifften gegen das Gesegnete Reich Jesu Christi vergeblich empöret (Magdeburg, 1696) Petersen, J. W., Scopticismus Pfeifferianus, Oder Der Geist Ismaëls, in D.  Pfeiffern offenbahret: Damit er liederlicher Weise Die Hoffnung besserer Zeiten / Oder Das Reich Christi außhöhnet / Welches vor aller unpartheyschen Augen darleget Johan Wilhelm Petersen D (Franckfurt: Zunnerus, 1697) Petersen, J. W., Mysterion Apokatastaseōs Pantōn, Das ist: Das Geheimniß Der Wiederbringung aller Dinge: Darinnen In einer Unterredung zwischen Philaletham und Agathophilum gelehret wird / Wie das Böse und die Sünde … wiederum gäntzlich solle auffgehoben / und vernichtet: Hergegen die Creaturen Gottes … durch Jesum Christum, Den Wiederbringer aller Dinge … sollen befreyet und errettet werden / auff daß da bleibe Das Gute / Und Gott sey Alles in Allen / Offenbahret durch Einen Zeugen Gottes und seiner Warheit, Pamphilia [i. e. Offenbach]: [self-published] (1700) Petersen, J. W., Mysterion Apokatastaseōs Pantōn, Oder Das Geheimniß Der Wiederbringung aller Dinge, Durch Jesum Christum / [Johann Wilhelm Petersen] Tomus Secundus: Worinnen auf verschiedene Schrifften, und Einwürffe gründlich und bescheidentlich geantwortet, und, was etwa im erstem Tomo undeutlich seyn möge, erläutert wird, Pamphilia [i. e. Offenbach]: [self-published] (1703) Petersen, J. W., Mystērion Apokatastaseōs Pantōn, Oder Das Geheimniß Der Wiederbringung aller Dinge, Durch Jesum Christum / [Johann Wilhelm Petersen], Pamphilia [i. e. Offenbach]: [self-published] (1710) Petersen, J. W., Das Geheimniß Des Erst-Gebohrnen aller Creaturen: Von Christo Jesu Dem Gott-Menschen, Der da ist Jesus Christus, Gestern und Heute und Derselbe in Ewigkeit / Für Christo und seine Gläubige bekant und auffgesetzet Von Joh. Wilhelm Petersen, D. (Franckfurt: Heyl & Liebezeit, 1711) Petersen, J. W., Das Leben Jo. Wilhelmi Petersen, Der Heil. Schrifft Doctoris, Vormahls Pro-

Primary sources (a selection, including modern editions)

279

fessoris zu Rostock, nachgehends Predigers in Hannover an St. Egidii Kirche, darnach des Bischoffs in Lübeck Superintendentis und Hof-Predigers, endlich Superintendentis in Lüneburg: Als Zeugens der Warheit Christi und seines Reiches, nach seiner grossen Oeconomie in der Wiederbringung aller Dinge (Halle: Renger, 1717) Petersen, J. W., Lebens-Beschreibung Johannis Wilhelmi Petersen, Der Heiligen Schrifft Doctoris, vormahls Professoris zu Rostock, nachgehends Predigers in Hanover an St. Egidii Kirche, darnach des Bischoffs in Lübeck Superintendentis und Hoff-Predigers endlich Superintendentis in Lüneburg ([s. l.], 1719) Petersen, J. W., Apostolischer Zusammenhang: Darinnen das Verklährte Evangelium So wol in der Apostel-Geschicht, Als in allen Episteln Paul, Petri, Johannis, Jacobi und Judä, In der Connexion Als dem Schlüssel der wahren Exegesis, und Erforschung des Sinnes und des Geistes, hervorleuchtet und gezeiget ist (Franckfurt: Sand, 1722) Pfeiffer, A., Augusti Pfeiffers / Der H. Schrifft D. und der Lübeckischen Kirchen Superintendentis, Antichiliasmus, oder Erzehlung und Prüfung des betrieglichen Traums Derer so genannten Chiliasten Von der noch zukünfftigen Tausend-jährigen güldenen Zeit / oder sichtbahren Reiche Christi auff Erden vor dem jüngsten Tage: Darinnen Nicht allein dieses Schwarms eigentliche Beschaffenheit/  … ausführlich beschrieben/  … Sondern auch der Chiliasten Einwürffe/  … beantwortet werden; Mit einem dreyfachen Register (Lübeck: Böckmann / ​Ratzeburg: Ortmann, 1691) von Rosenroth, K., Kabbala Denudata Seu Doctrina Hebraeorum Transcendentalis Et Meta­ physica Atque Theologica: Opus Antiquissimae Philosophiae Barbaricae variis speciminibus refertissimum. In Quo Ante ipsam Translationem Libri difficillimi atq[ue] in Literatura Hebraica Summi, Commentarii nempe in Pentateuchum, & quasi totam Scripturam V. T.  Cabbalistici, cui nomen Sohar Tam Veteris, quam recentis, eiusque Tikkunim seu supplementorum tam Veterum, quam recentiorum, praemittitur Apparatus (Franckfurt: Zunnerus, Sulzbaci: Lichtenthalerus 1677–1684) Sandhagen, C. H., Casp. H. Sandhagens / der regierenden Hoch-Fürstl. Durchl. zu Schleßwig und Holstein / General-Super. Consist. Raths / Oberhoffpredigers und Probstes Erstes Zehen Theologischer Sendschreiben: darin unterschiedliche Oerter der Schrifft erkläret werde (Schleswig: Holwein, 1692) Simonetti, M. (ed.), Origene. Principi (Torino: Utet, 1979) Spector, S. A. (transl. and ed.) Sketch of Christian Kabbalism (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2012) Spener, P. J., Erfordertes Theologisches Bedencken über den von einigen des E. Hamburgischen Ministerii publicirten Neuen Religions-Eid (Ploen: Tobias Schmidt 1690) reprint in Beyreuther, E. / ​Blaufuß, D. (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Schriften (5 vol.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2005) 97–132 Spener, P. J., Die Freyheit der Glaubigen, von dem Ansehen der Menschen in Glaubens-Sachen / In gründlicher beantwortung der so genanndten Abgenöthigten Schutz-Schrifft / Welche im Namen Des Evangelischen hamburgischen Ministerii Von Herrn D. Johann Friederich Meyern / außgefertiget worden / Gerettet von Philipp Jacob Spenern / D. (Franckfurt am Mäyn: Zunners 1691) reprint in Beyreuther, E. / ​Blaufuß, D. (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Schriften (5 vol.; Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2005) 133–260 Spener, P. J., Theologisches Bedencken über einige Puncten / Nahmentlich: 1. Die gerühmte Offenbahrungen eines Adelichen Fräulein. 2. Den D. Petersen Superint. zu Lüneburg / und das von Ihm behauptete Tausendjährige Reich Christi. Und 3. Die so genannten Pietisten angehende ([s. l.], 1692) – Behauptung Der Hoffnung künfftiger Besserer Zeiten / In Rettung Des ins gemein gegen dieselbe unrecht angeführten Spruchs Luc. XIIX, v. 8. Doch wan[n] des menschen Sohn kommen wird / meynest du / daß Er auch werde glauben finden auff erden? (Frankfurt am Mayn: Zunnerus, 1693) – Letzte Theologische Bedencken und andere Breiffliche Antworten 1711. Nebst einer Vorrede

280

Bibliography

von Carl Hildebrand von Canstein, D. Blaufuss / ​P. Schicketanz (ed.) Teil 1, 2, 3 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1987) Russell, C. W. (transl. and ed.), A system of theology, (London, 1850) Wallmann, J., (ed.) Spener, P. J., Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Frankfurter Zeit 1666–1686 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992–1919) Wallmann, J. (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Briefe aus der Dresdner Zeit 1686–1691 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003–2017) Winckler, J., Schrifftmässiges wohlgemeintes Bedencken Uber das Send-Schreiben an einige Theologos, Betreffend die Frage: Ob Gott nach der Aufffahrt Christi nicht mehr heutiges Tages durch Göttliche Erscheinung den Menschen-Kindern sich offenbahren wolle?: Sampt einer erzehlten Specie Facti, von einer Adelichen Jungfer  / Zum andern mal außgefertiget / und an vielen Orten vermehret von Johanne Wincklern / Pastore zu St. Michaelis in Hamburg (Hamburg: Liebezeit / ​Ziegler, 1692) Wolff, J. J., Abgenöhtigte kurtze Antwort Auff die Neuligst aus der Freudigkeit des Glaubens erhobene Offentliche Stimme des Neuen Himmlischen Propheten ([s. l.], 1693) Wolff, J. J., Abgenöthigte ausführliche Antwort auff die freymüthige Anrede des … D. Petersen, womit er leyder! … bezeuget, daß er sich gantz fälschlich und lästerlich für einen unschuldig-verfolgten Zeugen Jesu … außgebe: Sampt … Unterricht von desselben Tausendjährigen Reiche ([s. l.], 1693) Wolff, J. J., Kurtze Anmerckungen / über die Frage: Ob nach diesem Leben / eine Allgemeine Wiederbringung aller Creaturen In Warheit zuhoffen …: Nach Anleitung Des Ewigen Evangelii / Von einer Allgemeinen Wiederbringung aller Creaturen … / Durch Johann J. Wolfium (Helmsted: Hamm, 1699) Zedler, J. H., Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon Aller Wissenschafften und Künste (53 vol.; Leipzig, 1747)

Literature Art. Breen, Daniel van, in P. J. van Molhuysen, P. C. / ​Blok (ed.), Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek (Sijthoff: Leiden, 1921) 246 Art. Carpzov, Johann Benedikt II (1639–1699), in: F. W. Bautz (ed.), Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, I, 937 Art. Mayer, Johann Friedrich, in: DBE² 7 (2011) Art. Progresso, in Treccani, URL= https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/progresso Art. Raadt, Alhardus de, in K. R. J. van Harderwijk / ​C. D. J. Schotel (ed.), Biographisch Woordenboek 6 (1969) 1 Art. Universalism / ​Universalists, in: The Enciclopedia of Christianity, E. Fahlbusch / ​G. W. Bromiley / ​J. M. Lochman / ​J. Mbiti / ​J. Pelikan Jaroslav (ed.) (vol. 5, Grand Rapids (Michigan / ​ Cambridge / ​Leiden / ​Boston: Eerdmans Publishing Company / ​Brill: 2008) 638 Adam, G., Art. Huber, Samuel in: RGG⁴ 3 (2000), 1919 Albrecht, R., Johanna Eleonora Petersen. Theologische Schrifstellerin des frühen Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) (Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen,) Albrecht, R.,“Zum Briefwechsel Johann Georg Gichtels mit Johanna Eleonora Petersen”, in W.  Breul / ​M.  Meier / ​L .  Vogel (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 327–359 Albrecht, R., “Pietismus und Mystik. Verknüpfung von Bibellektüre und visionärem Erleben bei Johanna Eleonora Petersen”, in M. Delgado / ​V. Leppin (ed.), ‘Dir hat vor den Frauen nicht gegraut’. Mystikerinnen und Theologinnen in der Christentumsgeschichte (Stuttgart  / ​ Fribourg: Kohlhammer GmbH / ​Academic Press Fribourg, 2015) 196–216

Literature 

281

Albrecht, R., Begeisterte Mägde. Träume, Visionen und Offenbarungen von Frauen des frühen Pietismus (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt) 2018 Antognazza, M. R. / ​Hotson, H., Alsted and Leibniz on God, the magistrate and the Millennium (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999) Antognazza, M. R., Leibniz. An Intellectual Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) Van Asselt, W. J., The Federal Theology of Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669) (Leiden: Brill, 2001) de Baar, M., “Ik moet spreken”. Het spiritueel leiderschap van Antoinette Bourignon (1616–1680) (Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2004) Backus, I., “Reformed Orthodoxy and Patristic Tradition”, in H. J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2013) 91–117 Barbàra, M. A. (ed. and transl.), Prospero di Aquitania. La vocazione dei popoli (Roma: Città nuova, 1998) Barner, W., “Traditionsverhalten als Element kultureller Orientierung. Mit Erläuterungen am Beispiel von Leibnizens Reunionsbemühungen”, in S. Huedecker / ​D. Niefanger / ​J. Wesche (ed.), Kulturelle Orientierung um 1700. Traditionen, Programme, konzeptionelle Vielfalt (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004) 182–97 Barteleit, S., Toleranz und Irenik. Politisch-Religiöse Grenzsetzungen im England der 1650er Jahre (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003) Battafarano, I. M., (ed.), Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. Apokalypse-Kommentar (Bern: Peter Lang, 2004) Battafarano, I. M., “‘Denn wenn Gott brüllet / ​wer wolte nicht weissagen’. Christian Knorrs von Rosenroth Deutung der Weltgeschichte als Heilgeschichte im Apokalypse-Kommentar (1670)”, in I. M.  Battafarano (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitscrhift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (15 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2005) 13–26 Baumann, T., Zwischen Weltveränderung und Weltflucht. Zum Wandel der pietistischen Utopie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, St.- (Lahr-Dinglingen: Johannis-Dr. Schweickhardt, 1991) Becker-Cantarino, B., (ed. and transl.), Johanna Eleonora Petersen. The Life of Lady Johanna Eleonora Petersen, written by herself (Chicago / ​London: The University of Chicago Press, 2005) Becker-Cantarino, B., “Das Neue Jerusalem. Jane Leade, die Philadelphian Society und ihre Visionen von religiöser Erneureung in den 1690er Jahren”, in U. Sträter (ed.), Alter Adam und Neue Kreatur. Pietismus und Anthropologie. Beiträge zum II. Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2005 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2009) 151–64 Bellucci, E., “Wait for better times. Eschatological expectations in Philipp Jakob Spener, Johann Wilhelm Petersen and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”, in course of publication Ben-Sasson, H. H., Art. Messianic Movements, in: Encyclopedia Judaica² 11 (2007), 1417–27 Benz, E., “Verheissung und Erfüllung”, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935), 484–546 Benz, E., “Gottfried Arnold ‘Geheimniss der göttliche Sophia’ und seine Stellung in der christlichen Sophienlehre”, in: JHKGV 18 (1967), 51–82 Berg, J. van den, “Continuity within a changing context: Henry More’s millenarianism, seen against the background of the millenarian concepts of Joseph Mede”, in: PuN 14 (1988), 185–202 Bernet, C., Das Quäkertum in Deutschland. Von den ersten Anfängen bis zum Kaiserreich (Hamburg: Kovac, 2016) Betz, D. H. / ​Dehn, U. / ​Dan, J. / ​Schmidtke, S., Art.  Seelenwanderung, in: RGG⁴ 7 (2004), 1108–10 Betz, O., Art. Kabbalah, in: TRE 17 (1993), 487–509 Biagioni, M., The radical Reformation and the making of modern Europe. A lasting heritage (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2017) Blaufuß, D., “Der Theologe Johann Friedrich Mayer (1650–1712): Fromme Orthodoxie und Gelehrsamkeit im Luthertum”, in W. Kühlmann / ​H. Langer (ed.), Pommern in der frühen Neuzeit. Literatur und Kultur in Stadt und Religion (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994) 319–47

282

Bibliography

Böcher, O. / ​Blum, G. G. / ​Konrad, R. / ​Bauckham, R. Art.  Chiliasmus, in: TRE 7 (1981), 723–45 Brach, J. P., “Das Theorem der ‘messianischen Seele’ in der christlichen Kabbala bis zur Kabbala Denudata”, in A. B. Kilcher (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (16 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2006) 243–58 Brecht, M., “Philipp Jakob Spener und der württembergische Pietismus”, in H. Liebing / ​ K. Scholder (ed.), Geist und Geschichte der Reformation (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966) 443–59 Brecht, M., “Die Berleburger Bibel. Hinweise zu ihrem Verständnis”, in: PuN 8 (1982), 162–200 Brecht, M. (ed.), Geschichte des Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993–2004) Brecht, M., “Der radikale Pietismus  – die Problematik einer historischen Kategorie. Ein Plakat”, in Breul, W. / ​Meier, M. / ​Vogel, L. (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012) 11–18 Breuer, D., “Grimmelshausens simplicianische Frömmigkeit. Zum Augustinismus des 17. Jahr­ hunderts”, in Breuer, D. (ed.), Frömmigkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Studien zur religiösen Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984) Breuer, D., “Irenik  – Bestrebungen zur Überwindung des Konfessionsstreits im Barockzeitalter”, in M.  Battafarano (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (11 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2001) 229–50 Breuer, D., “Der Bekräfftigte Origenes – Das Ehepaar Petersen und die Leugnung der Ewigkeit der Höllenstrafe”, in H. Laufhütte / ​M. Titzmann (ed.), Heterodoxie in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006) 413–24 Breul, W. / ​Salvadori, S.  (ed.), Geschlechtlichkeit und Ehe im Pietismus (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014) Brink, C. / ​L . Martin (ed.), Grund und Ungrund. Der Kosmos der mystischen Philosphen Jacob Böhme (Dresden: Sandstein Verlag, 2017) Brown, G., “Miracles in the best of All Possible Worlds: Leibniz’s Dilemma and Leibniz’s Razor”, in History of Philosophy Quarterly, vol. 12, n. 1 (1995), 19–39 Busi, G. “Francesco Zorzi. A Methodical Dreamer”, in Y. Dan (ed.), The Christian Kabbalah. Jewish Mystical Books and their Christian Interpreters (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) 97–125 Böcher, O. / ​Blum, G. G. / ​Konrad, R. / ​Bauckham, R., Art.  Chiliasmus, in TRE 7 (1981), 723–45 Büchsel, J., Gottfried Arnold. Sein Verständnis von Kirche und Wiedergeburt (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1970) Büchsel, J., “Gottfried Arnolds Verteidigung der Unparteiischen Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie. Dargestellt anhand seines Briefwechsels mit Hofrat Tobias Pfanner”, in Breul, W. / ​Vogel, L. (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010) 85–104 Bütikofer, C., Der frühe Zürcher Pietismus (1689–1721). Der soziale Hintergrund und die Denk- und Lebenswelten im Spiegel der Bibliothek Johann Heinrich Lochers (1648–1718) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) Campanini, S., “Francesco Zorzi: Armonia del mondo e filosofia simbolica”, in A. Angelini / ​ P. Caye (ed.), Il pensiero simbolico nella prima età moderna (Firenze: Olschki, 2007) 239–60 Campanini, S. (ed. and transl.), Francesco Zorzi. L’armonia del mondo (Milano: Bompiani, 2010) Campi, E., Art. Curione, Celio Secundo in: RGG⁴ 2 (1999), 506–7 Cancik, H., Art. Fortschritt, in RGG⁴ 3 (2000), 202–3 Capp, B. S., “Radical Chiliasm in the English Revolution”, in: PuN 14 (1988), 125–33 Cavarzere, M., Costantino e la riforma radicale nel Cinquecento. Il successo di un mito negativo, in Enciclopedia Treccani, URL= http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/costantino-e-lariforma-​r adicale-nel-cinquecento-il-successo-di-un-mito-negativo_%28EnciclopediaCostantiniana%29/ (updated 2013) Chantraine, G., Mystère et philosophie du Christ selon Erasme (Namur: Presse Universitaire de Namur, 1971)

Literature 

283

Clark, E. A., The Origenist controversy: the cultural construction of an early Christian debate (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992) Cyranka, D., Lessing im Reinkarnationsdiskurs. Eine Untersuchung zu Kontext und Wirkung von G. E. Lessings Texten zur Seelenwanderung, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) Cornuz, M., Le protestantisme et la mystique: entre répulsion et fascination (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2003) Coudert, A. P., “Forgotten ways of knowing: The Kabbalah, Language, and Science in the Seventeenth Century”, in D. R. Kelley / ​R . H. Popkin (ed.), The shapes of knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991) 83–99 Coudert, A. P., Leibniz and the Kabbalah (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995) Coudert, A. P., The impact of the Kabbalah in the seventeenth century. The life and thought of Francis Mercury van Helmont (1614–1698) (Leiden: Brill, 1999) Crome, A., The restoration of the Jews: early modern hermeneutics, eschatology, and national identity in the works of Thomas Brightman (Cham: Springer, 2014) Crouzel, H., Bibliographie critique d’Origène (Steenbrugis: In abbatia Sancti Petri) 1971 Dan, J., Art. Kabbala, in: RGG⁴ 4 (2001), 725–7 Delgado, M. / ​V. Leppin, ‘Dir hat vor den Frauen nicht gegraut’. Mystikerinnen und Theologinnen in der Christentumsgeschichte (Stuttgart / ​Fribourg: Kohlhammer GmbH / ​Academic Press Fribourg, 2015) Delumeau, J., Angst im Abendland. Die Geschichte kollektiver Ängste im Europa des 14. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Hamburg: Rowohlts, 1985) Deppermann, A., Johann Jakob Schütz und die Anfänge des Pietismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) Deppermann, K., “Die politische Voraussetzungen für die Etablierung des Pietismus in Brandenburg-Preußen”, in: PuN 12 (1986) 38–53 Dingel, I., Art. Postel, Guillaume, in: RGG⁴ 6 (2003), 1514 Dingel, I., Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014) Dohm, B., Poetische Alchimie. Öffnung zur Sinnlichkeit in der Hohelied- und Bibeldichtung von der protestantischen Barockmystik bis zum Pietismus (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000) Dohm, B., ““Götter der Erden”: Alchemistische Erlösungsvisionen in radikalpietistischer Poesie”, in A.-C. Trepp / ​H. Lehmann (ed.), Antike Weisheit und kulturelle Praxis. Hermetismus in der Frühen Neuzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001) 189–204 Dohm, B.,“Böhme-Rezeption in England und deren Rückwirkung auf den frühen deutschen Pietismus. Jane Lead und das Ehepaar Petersen”, in W. Kühlmann / ​F. Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur europäischen Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin / ​Boston: De Gruyter, 2012) 219–39 Dölemeyer, B., Die Hugenotten (Stuttgart: Kohlammer, 2006) Duchhard, H., (ed.), Der Exodus der Hugenotten. Die Aufhebung des Edikts von Nantes 1685 als europäisches Ereignis (Köln / ​Wien: Böhlau, 1985) Dufour, A., Art. Beza, Theodor, in: RGG⁴1 (1998), 1402 Edighoffer, R., Art. Andreae, Johann Valentin, in W. J. Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006) 72–5 Edighoffer, R., Art. Rosicrucianism I, in W. J.  Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006) 1009–14 Ensign, C. D., Radical German Pietism (unpublished Dissertation, Boston University Graduate School 1955) 189–99 Faivre, A., Art. Christian Theosophy, in W. J.  Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006) 258–67 Farmer, S. A. (transl. and ed.), Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486). The evolution of traditional religious and philosophical systems, (Arizona: Tempe, 1998)

284

Bibliography

Faulenbach, H., Weg und Ziel der Erkenntnis Christi. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Johannes Coccejus (Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973) Fichant, M., “Ewige Wiederkehr oder unendlicher Fortschritt: Die Apokatastasisfrage bei Leibniz”, in Parkinson, G. H. R. / ​Schepers, H. / ​Totok, W. (ed.), Studia Leibnitiana, XXIII, 2 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1991) 133–50 Finke, M., “Toleranz und ‘Discrete’ Frömmigkeit nach 1650. Pfalzgraf Christian August von Sulzbach und Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels”, in D. Breuer (ed.), Frömmigkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Studien zur religiösen Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984) 193–212 Fleischer, D., Zwischen Tradition und Fortschritt: Der Strukturwandel der protestantischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im deutschsprachigen Diskurs der Aufklärung (Waltrop: Spenner, 2006) Forman, D., “The Apokatastasis Essays in Context: Leibniz and Thomas Burnet on the Kingdom of Grace and the Stoic / ​Platonic Revolutions”, in W. Li, “Für unser Glück oder das Glück anderer”. Vorträge des X. Internationalen Leibniz-Kongresses. Hannover, 18–23 Juli 2016 (Hildesheim: Olms, 2016) 125–37 Föller, O., Pietismus und Enthusiasmus. Streit unter Verwandten: geistliche Aspekte der Ein­ ordnung und Beurteilung enthusiastisch-charismatischer Frömmigkeit (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1998) Frank, G. / ​Leinkauf, T. / ​Wriedt, M. (ed.), Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit. Die Relekture der Kirchenväter in den Wissenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Fromman-­ Holzboog, 2006) Fraenkel, P., Testimonia Patrum. The function of the patristic argument in the theology of Philipp Melanchthon (Geneve: Doz, 1961) Fredriksen, P., Augustine and the Jews. A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday 2008) Fritz, E., Radikaler Pietismus im Württemberg (Epfendorf / ​Neckar: Bibliotheca academica, 2003) Fulda, D., “Wann begann die ‘offene Zukunft’? Ein Versuch, die koselleck’sche Fixierung auf die ‘Sattelzeit’ zu lösen”, in W.  Breul / ​C.  Schnurr (ed.), Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 141–72 Fürst, A., “Autonomie und Menschenwürde. Die origenische Tradition”, in Fürst, A. / ​Hengstermann, C. (ed.), Autonomie und Menschenwürde. Origenes in der Philosophie der Neuzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012), 9–46 Gantet, C., Der Traum in der Frühen Neuzeit. Ansätze zu einer kulturellen Wissenschafts­ geschichte (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010) Gause, U., Art. Paracelsus, in: RGG⁴ 6 (2003), 907 Gawthrop, R. L., Pietism and the making of Eighteen-century Prussia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) Ginsberg, H. L. / ​Flusser, D. / ​Blidstein, G. J. / ​Dan, J. / ​Jacobs, L., Art.  Messiah, in: Encyclopedia Judaica² 11 (2007), 1407–17 Goertz, H.-J., “Apokalyptik in Thüringen. Thomas Müntzer- Bauernkrieg  – Täufer”; in H.-J. Goertz (ed.) Radikalität der Reformation. Aufsätze und Abhandlungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 97–118 Goldish, M. D. / ​Popkin, R. H. (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Cuture (1 vol., Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media, 2001) Gorceix, B., “Le culte de la Sagesse dans l’Allemagne baroque et piétiste. A propos du ‘Mystère de la Sophie divine’ du piétiste Gottfried Arnold (1700)”, in Abécassis, A. (ed.), Sophia et l’âme du monde (Paris: Albin Michel, 1983) 195–214 Göse, F., Friedrich I. (1657–1713). Ein König in Preussen (Regensburg: Pustet, 2012)

Literature 

285

Grane, L., Die Confessio Augustana. Einführung in die Hauptgedanken der lutherischen Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) Greyerz, K. von, “Wissenschaft, Endzeiterwartung und Alchemie in England des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in A.-C. Trepp / ​H. Lehmann (ed.), Antike Weisheit und kulturelle Praxis. Hermetismus in der Frühen Neuzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001) 205–18 Greyerz, K. von, “Das Nachdenken über die Apokalypse im England des späteren 17. Jahrhunderts”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (21 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2011) 15–38 Groh, D., Göttliche Weltökonomie. Perspektiven der Wissenschaftlichen Revolution vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010) Groot, A. de, Art., Gomarus, Franciscus, in: RGG⁴3 (2000), 1083 Groth, F., Die “Wiederbringung aller Dinge” im württembergischen Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) Guggisberg, H. R., Art. Castellio, Sebastian, in: TRE 7 (1993), 663–5 Guglielmetti, P. (ed.), Johanna Eleonora Petersen geb. von und zu Merlau. Leben, von ihr selbst mit eigener Hand aufgesetzet (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2003) Guhrauer, G. E.,“J. W. Petersen und Klopstock”, in Blätter für literarische Unterhaltung, n. 10 (11. Januar 1849) 38–40 and n. 11 (12 Januar 1849) 42–3 Günter, F. / ​Meier-Oeser, S., “Einleitung: Hermeneutik, Methodenlehre, Exegese. Zur Theorie der Interpretation in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in F. Günter / ​S. Meier-Oeser (ed.), Hermeneutik, Methodenlehre, Exegese. Zur Theorie der Interpretation in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart / ​ Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzbook, 2011) 9–14 Hanig, R., Art. Cerinthus, in: RGG⁴2 (2001) 87–8 Haug, H., Reich Gottes im Schwabeland. Linien im württembergischen Pietismus (Metzinger  / ​ Württemberg: Ernst Franz, 1981) Hedley, D., “The Cambridge Platonists and the “Miracle of the Christian World””, in Fürst, A. / ​Hengstermann, C. (ed.), Autonomie und Menschenwürde. Origenes in der Philosophie der Neuzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012) 185–97 Heinrich, G., “Spener in Berlin und Brandenburg. Pietismus und Staatsgesellschaft unter dem ersten König in Preußen”, in D.  Wendebourg (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener  – Leben, Werk, Bedeutung. Bilanz der Forschung nach 300 Jahren (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007) 71–88 Heinze, R., Das Verhältnis von Mystik und Spekulation bei Jacob Böhme (Dissertation in der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster, 1972) Herbst, K.-D., “Die großen Schreibkalendar als medialer Ort der Kontroverse um die Deutung der Sonnenfinsternis vom 2./12. August 1654 als Vorbote des Jüngsten Tages”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosneroth-Gesellschaft (21 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2011) 36–56 Hessayon, A., “Boehme’s Life and Times”, in A. Hessayon / ​S. Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of Thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014) 13–37 Hessayon, A., “Jacob Boehme’s Writings During the English Revolution and Afterwards: Their Publication, Dissemination, and Influence”, in A.  Hessayon / ​S. Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of Thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014) 77–97 Hessayon, A., Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) Hessayon, A., “Lead’s Life and Time (Part Two): The Woman in the Wilderness”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and Her Transnational Legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 39–69 Hessayon, A., “Lead’s Life and Times (Part Three): The Philadelphian Society”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 71–90

286

Bibliography

Hessayon, A. / ​S.  Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014) Hill, C., Antichrist in seventeenth-century England² (London / ​New York: Verso, 1990) Hirsch, E. Geschichte der neuen evangelischen Theologie (2 vol.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1951) Hirst, J., Jane Leade: Biography of a Seventeenth-Century Mystic (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005) Holzem, A., “Zeit  – Zeitenwende  – Endzeit? Anfangsbeobachtungen zum deutschen ka­ tholischen Schrifftum um 1700”, in M.  Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​H.  Lehmann / ​J.  Schilling / ​ R. Staats (ed.), Jahrhundertwenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) 213–32 Hotson, H., Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588–1638. Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) Hotson, H., Paradise postponed. Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000) Hotson, H., “Arianism and Millenarianism: The Link Between Two Heresies from Servetus to Socinus”, in J. C. Laursen / ​R. H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern Culture (4 vol.; Dodrecht: Kluwer, 2001) 9–36 Hotson, H., “Irenicism in the Confessional Age. The Holy Roman Empire, 1563–1648”, in H. P.  Louthan / ​R . C.  Zachman (ed.), Conciliation and Confession. The struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415–1648 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004) 228–85 Hutton, S., “Henri More and Anne Conway on Preexistence and Universal salvation”, in M. Baldi, “Mind Senior to the World”. Stoicismo e Origenismo nella filosofia platonica del Seicento inglese (Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1996) 113–26 Hutton, S., The Cambridge Platonists, in Nadler, S. (ed.), A Companion to Early Modern Philosophy (Malden / ​Oxfor: Blackwell, 2002) 308–19 Hutton, S., Anne Conway. A Woman Philosopher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) Hutton, S., “Origen and Anne Conway”, in A. Fürst / ​C. Hengstermann (ed.), Autonomie und Menschenwürde. Origenes in der Philosophie der Neuzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012) 221–34 Hutton, S., British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) Jakubowski-Tiessen, M., “Eine alte Welt und ein neuer Himmel. Zeitgenössische Reflexionen zur Jahrhundertwende 1700”, in M. Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​H.  Lehmann / ​J. Schilling / ​ R. Staats (ed.), Jahrhundertwenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) 165–86 James, E. D., Pierre Nicole, Jansenist and Humanist. A Study of his Thought (Nijhoff: The Hague, 1972) Janz, B. B., “Conclusion: Why Boehme Matters Today”, in A. Hessayon / ​S. Apetrei (ed.), An Introduction to Jacob Boehme. Four Centuries of Thought and Reception (New York / ​London: Routledge, 2014) 279–93 Johansson, T., “Die Vernunft vor den Mysterien der Heilige Schrift. Anthropologische Erwägungen zur Bibelhermeneutik der evangelisch-lutherischen Theologie des 17. Jahrhunderts und der Bibelhermeneutik Spinozas”, in C. Bultmann / ​L. Danneberg (ed.), Hebraistik – Hermeneutik – Homiletik. Die “Philologia Sacra” im Frühneuzeitlichen Bibelstudium, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011) 413–39 Jue, J. K., Heaven upon Earth. Joseph Mede (1586–1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006) Kampmann, J., Art. Limborch, Philippus van, in: RGG⁴ 5 (2002) 376 Kaufmann, T., Art., Arminius, Jacobus, in: RGG⁴ 1 (1998), 778–9 Kaufmann, T., “1600  – Deutungen der Jahrhundertwende im deutschen Luthertum”, in

Literature 

287

M. Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​H.  Lehmann / ​J. Schilling / ​R . Staats (ed.), Jahrhundertwenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) 73–128 Kiefl, F. X., Der Friedensplan des Leibniz zur Wiedervereinigung der getrennten christlichen Kirchen² (Hildesheim: Olms, 1997) Kittsteiner, H.-D., Die Entstehung des modernen Gewissens (Frankfurt am Main: Suhr­ kamp, 1995) Klausner, J. G. / ​Scholem, G., Art. Eschatology, in Encyclopedia Judaica²6 (2007) 859–86 Klempt, A., Die Säkularisierung der universalhistorischen Auffassung. Zum Wandel des Geschichts­denkens im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1960) Klueting, H., (ed.), Irenik und Antikonfessionalismus im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Hildesheim: Olms, 2003) Kolb, R., Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God. The Wittenberg School and Its Scripture-Centered Proclamation (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2016) Krauter-Dierolf, H., Die Eschatologie Philipp Jakob Speners (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) Krauter-Dierolf, H., “Hoffnung künftiger besserer Zeiten. Die Eschatologie Philipp Jacob Speners im Horizont der zeitgenössischen lutherischen Theologie”, in W. Breul / ​C. Schnurr (ed.), Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 56–68 Kunz, E., Protestantische Eschatologie. Von der Reformation bis zur Aufklärung (Freiburg: Herder, 1980) Kühlmann, W. / ​Vollhardt, F. (ed.), Offenabrung und Episteme. Zur Europäischen Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012) Lagny, A. (ed.), Les piétismes à l’âge Classique (Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Univ. du Septentrion, 2001) Lagny, A, “The Dutch Factor in German Pietism”, in Shantz, D. H. (ed.), A Companion to German Pietism. 1660–1800 (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2015) 50–80 Lee, E.-J., Philipp Jakob Spener als Bibelausleger. Eine Untersuchung seiner Römerbrieferklärung (1677) (Seoul Korea: Pyung-Dan, 1999) Lee, N. K., Die Prädestinationslehre der Heidelberger Theologen. 1583–1622 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009) Lehmann, H., Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus. Gottesgnadentum und Kriegsnot (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980) Lehmann, H., “Pietismus und soziale Reform in Brandenburg-Preußen”, in O. Hauser (ed.), Preußen, Europa und das Reich (Köln / ​Wien: Böhlau, 1987) 87–102 Lehmann, H., “Endzeiterwartung im Luthertum im späten 16. und im frühen 17. Jahrhundert”, in H.-C. Rublack (ed.), Die lutherische Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland. Wissen­ schaftliches Symposion des Vereins für Reformationgeschichte 1988 (Gütersloher: Haus Mohn, 1992) 545–8 Lehmann, H., “La crise religieuse du XVII siècle”, in A.  Lagny (ed.), Les Piétismes à l’âge classique. Crise, Conversion, Institutions (Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2001) 57–67 Lehmann, H., Transformationen der Religion in der Neuzeit. Beispiele aus der Geschichte des Protestantismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) Lehmann, H., “Die langfristigen Folgen der kirchlichen Ausgrenzung des radikalen Pietismus”, in Breul, W. / ​Meier, M. / ​Vogel, L. (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012) 45–56 Lehmann-Brauns, S., Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte. Philosophiegeschichte zwischen Barock und Aufklärung (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004) Leppin, V., Art. Pürstinger, Berthold, in: TRE 28 (2006) 1–2 Lerner, R. E., Art. Joachim von Fiore, in: TRE 17 (1988) 84–8

288

Bibliography

Lewis, R., “Of “Origenian Platonisme”: Joseph Glanvill on the Pre-existence of Souls”, in Huntington Library Quarterly, 69 vol., no. 2 (June 2006), 267–300 Van Lieburg, F., “The Dutch Factor in German Pietism”, in D. Shantz (ed.), A Companion to German Pietism. 1660–1800 (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2015) 50–80 Lohse, B., “Zur Eschatologie des älteren Augustin (De civ. Dei 20,9)”, in Vigiliae Christianae, 21 (1967) 221–40 Luft, S., Leben und Schreiben für den Pietismus. Der Kampf des pietistischen Ehepaares Johanna Eleonora und Johann Wilhelm Petersen gegen die lutherische Orthodoxie (Herzberg: Bautz, 1994) Lund, E., “Modus docendi mysticus. The interpretation of the Bible in Johann Arndt’s Postilla”, in T.  Johansson / ​R . Kolb / ​J. Steiger (ed.), Hermeneutica Sacra. Studien zur Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Berlin / ​New York: De Gruyter, 2010) Lücke, F., Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes oder Allgemeine Untersuchungen über die apokalyptische Litteratur überhaupt und die Apokalypse des Johannes insbesondere (Bonn: Weber, 1852) Malena, A., ““Promoting the Common Interest of Christ. H. W. Ludolf’s “impartial” Projects and the Beginning of the SPCK. British Protestant Missions and the Conversion of Europe, 1600–1900”, in Routledge Studies in Early Modern Religious Dissents and Radicalism (London: Routledge, in course of publication) Marschke, B., Absolutely Pietist. Patronage, Factionalism, and State-Building in the Early Eighteenth-Century Prussian Army Chaplaincy (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2005) Marschke, B., “Mish-Mash with the Enemy. Identity, Politics, Power, and the Threat of Forced Conversion in Frederick William I’s Prussia”, in D. M. Luebke / ​J. Poley / ​D. C. Ryan / ​D. Warren Sabean (ed.), Conversion and the Politics of Religion in Early Modern Germany (New York: Berghahn Books, 2012) 119–34 Martin, L., Women’s religious speech and activism in German Pietism (Johanna Merlau Petersen, Anna Nitschmann), (Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin, December 2002) Martin, L., “Jacob Böhmes ‘göttliche Sophia’ und Emanzipationsansätze bei pietistischen Autorinnen”, in W. Kühlmann / ​F. Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur euro­ päischen Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin / ​Boston: De Gruyter, 2012) Martin, L., Tolerance, Anti-Judaism, and Philo-Judaism in the Pietist Periodical Bau des Reichs Gottes, in Seminar. A Journal of Germanic Studies, XLVIII, 3, September 2012, 301–16 Martin, L., “‘God’s Strange Providence’: Jane Lead in the Corrispondence of Johann Georg Gichtel”, in A. Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 187–212 Martin, L., “Jacob Böhme at University: The Historiographic Exile of a Seventeenth-Century Philosphers”, in Aries – Journal for the study of Western Esotericism 18 (2018) 3–20 Matthias, M., “‘Enthusiastische’ Hermeneutik des Pietismus, dargestellt an Johanna Eleonora Petersens ‘Gespräche des Hertzens mit GOTT’ (1689)”, in: PuN 17 (1991) 36–61 Matthias, M., Johann Wilhelm und Johanna Eleonora Petersen. Eine Biographie bis zur Amts­ enthebung Petersen im Jahre 1692 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) Matthias, M., “Mutua Consolatio Sororum. Die Briefe Johanna Eleonora von Merlaus an die Herzogin Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz”, in: PuN 22 (1996) 69–102 Matthias, M., “Wann starb Johann Wilhelm Petersen?”, in: PuN 22 (1996) 230–3 Matthias, M., “Rezension: Luft, Stefan: Leben und Schreiben für den Pietismus. Der Kampf des pietistischen Ehepaares Johanna Eleonora und Johann Wilhelm Petersen gegen die lutherische Orthodoxie”, in: PuN 22 (1996) 252–3 Matthias, M., “Gab es eine Frömmigkeitskrise um 1600?”, in H. Otte / ​H. Schneider (ed.),

Literature 

289

Frömmigkeit oder Theologie. Johann Arndt und die “vier Bücher vom wahren Christenthum” (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 27–44 Matthias, M., “‘Preußisches’ Beamtentum mit radikalpietistischer ‘Privatreligion’: Dodo II von Innhausen und Knyphausen (1641–1698)”, in W. Breul / ​M. Meier / ​L. Vogel (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010) 189–210 Matthias, M., “Rechtfertigung und Routine. Zum Verständnis der Rechtfertigungslehre im lutherischen Pietismus”, in Soboth, C. / ​Müller-Bahlke, T. (ed.), Reformation und Generalreformation – Luther und der Pietismus (Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen, 2012) 1–20 Matthias, M. (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener. Die Anfänge des Pietismus in seinen Briefen (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016) 144–50 Matthias, M., “Der Geist auf den Mägden. Zum Zusammenhang von Enthusiasmus und Geschichtsauffassung im mitteldeutschen Pietismus”, in: PuN 43 (2017) 71–99 Mazzucco, C., Art. Apocalisse, in A. Monaci Castagno (ed.), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opera (Roma: Città Nuova, 2000) 22–4 McIntosh, C., The Rose Cross and the age of the reason. Eighteenth-century rosicrucianism in Central Europe and its relationship to the Enlightenment (Leiden: Brill, 1992) Meek Lange, M., Art. Progress,  in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  (Spring Edition 2011), Zalta, E. N. (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/ progress/ Meier, M., “Horch und Petersen. Die Hintergründe des Streits um die Apokatastasis im radikalen Pietismus”, in PuN, 32 (2006), 157–74 Meier, M., “Der ‘neue Mensch’ nach Jane Lead. Anthropologie zwischen Böhme und Früh­ aufklärung”, in U.  Sträter (ed.), Alter Adam und Neue Kreatur. Pietismus und Anthro­ pologie. Beiträge zum II. Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2005 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2009) 136–49 Mentzer, R. A. / ​Van Ruymbeke, B. (ed.), A Companion to the Hugenots (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2016) Meumann, M., “Von der Endzeit zum Säkulum. Zur Neuordnung von Zeithorizonten und Zukunftserwartungen ausgangs des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in Huedecker, S. / ​Niefanger, D. / ​ Wesche, J. (ed.), Kulturelle Orientierung um 1700. Traditionen, Programme, konzeptionelle Vielfalt (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004) 100–21 Michel, S., Eruditio – Confessio – Pietas. Kontinuität und Wandel in der lutherischen Kon­ fessionskultur am Ende des 17. Jahrhundert; das Beispiel Johann Benedikt Carpzovs (1639–1699) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009) Miller, G., “Luther’s view of the Jews and Turks”, in R. Kolb / ​I. Dingel / ​L’U. Batka (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Martin Luther’s theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 427–34 Montgomery, J. W., “Sixtus of Siena and Roman Catholic Biblical Scholarship in the Reformation Period”, in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte: international Zeitschrift zur Erforschung der Reformation und ihrer Weltwirkung, 54 (1963), 2, 214–34 Morlok, E., “De Revolutionibus Animarum in der Kabbala Denudata und dessen lurianische Vorlage Sefer haGilgulin von Chajjim Vital (1543–1620)”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (24 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2014), 51–68 Mucillo, M., La “prisca theologia” nel “De perenni philosophia” di Agostino Steuco, in Rinascimento, 28 (1988), 41–111 Mulsow, M., Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland. 1680–1720 (2 vol.; Göttingen: Wallstein, 2018) 313–422 Mühling, M., Art. Eschatologie, in V. Leppin / ​G. Schneider-Ludorff (ed.), Das Luther-Lexikon (Regensburg: Bückle & Böhm, 2014) 199–204

290

Bibliography

Müller, G., Art. Lambert von Avignon, Franz, in: TRE 20 (2000), 415–18 Müller, H. J., Irenik als Kommunikationsreform. Das Colloquium Charitativum von Thorn 1645 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) Necker, G., ““Die ganze Seele des Hauses Jacob” – Universalismus und Exklusivität kabbalistischer Seelenwanderungslehren in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft, (24 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang 2014) 15–27 Nordmann, W., Die theologische Gedankenwelt in der Eschatologie des pietistischen Ehepaares Petersen (Naumburg: Stelings, 1929) Nordmann, W., “Die Eschatologie des Ehepaares Petersen, ihre Entwicklung und Auflösung”, in Zeitschrift des Vereins für Kirchengeschichte der Privinz Sachsen, 26 (1930) 83–108 Nordmann, W., “In Widerstreit von Mystik und Föderalismus, Geschichtliche Grundlagen der Eschatologie bei dem pietistichen Ehepaar Petersen”, in Zeitschrift des Vereins für Kirchengeschichte, 49 (1930) 146 Nordmann, W., “Die Eschatologie des Ehepaares Petersen, ihre Entwicklung und Auflösung”, in Zeitschrift des Vereins für Kirchengeschichte der Privinz Sachsen, 27 (1931) 1–19 Oberman, H. A., Forerunners of the Reformation. The Shape of Late Medieval Thought (London: Lutterworth, 1967) Obst, H., Reinkarnation. Weltgeschichte einer Idee, (München: Beck, 2009) Oort, J. van, “The end is now: Augustine on History and Eschatology”, in Herv. teol. stud. [online] 2012, 68 vol., n.1, 1–7, HTTPS: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_​ arttext&pid=S0259-94222012000100034&lng=en&nrm=iso Osculati, R., Vero cristianesimo. Teologia  e società moderna nel pietismo luterano (Roma: Laterza, 1990) Palumbo, M., “Ernst Salomon Cyprian, biografo di Campanella”, in Ernst, G. / ​Fiorani, C. (ed.), Laboratorio Campanella. Biografia, Contesti, Iniziative in corso. Atti del convegno della fondazione Camillo Caetani (Roma, 19–20 ottobre 2006) (Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2007) 137–59 Paul, J.-M., L’homme face à Dieu. Mystique, Réforme, piétisme (Arras : Artois Presses Université, 2004) Pitassi, M. C., “‘Nonobstant ces petites differences’: enjeux et présupposés d’un projet d’union intra-protestante au début du XVIII siècle”, in G.  Saupin / ​R.  Fabre / ​M.  Launay (ed.), La Tolérance. Colloque international de Nantes mai 1998. Quatrième centenaire de l’édit de Nantes (Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes, 1999) 419–26 Placanica, A., Millennio: realtà e illusioni dell’anno epocale (Roma: Donzelli, 1997) 59–69 Pohlig, M., “‘The greatest of all Events’: Zur Säkularisierung des Weltendes um 1700”, in M.  Pohling (ed.), Säkularisierung in der Frühen Neuzeit. Methodische Probleme und empirische Fallstudien (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2012) 331–71 Popkin, R. H. (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought 1650–1800 (Leiden: Brill, 1988) Popkin, R. H., The third Force in Seventeenth-Century Tought (Leiden: Brill, 1992) Popkin, R. H. / ​Weiner, G. M. (ed.), Jews Christians and Christian Jews. From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media, 1994) Prell, H. P. / ​Schebben-Schmidt, M., Die Verbableitung im Frühneuhochdeutschen (Berlin / ​Boston: De Gruyter, 2011) Prinzivalli, E., Art. Apocatastasis, in A. Monaci Castagno (ed.), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opera (Roma: Città Nuova, 2000) 24–9 Procopé, J., Art. Hermetism, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London / ​New York: Routledge 1998) 395–7 Rainer, H., Das Verhältnis von Mystik und Spekulation bei Jacob Böhme (Diss. zur Erlangung der Würde eines Doktors der Theologie, Westf. Univ. Münster, 1972)

Literature 

291

Ramelli, I., The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena, (Leiden / ​Boston Brill, 2013) Rapetti, E., Pierre-Daniel Huet: erudizione, filosofia, apologetica (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1999) Rapp, F., Fortschritt. Entwicklung und Sinngehalt einer philosophischen Idee (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992) Reckermann, A., Art. Hermetismus / ​Hermetisch, in: HWPh (3) (Basel: Schwabe, 1974) 1075–1078 Ritschl, A., Geschichte des Pietismus, (2 vol, Bonn: Marcus, 1884) Roberts, F. C., Gottfried Arnold as a Historian of Christianity: A reappraisal of the Unparteische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie (Ph. D. dissertation, Tennessee: Nashville, 1973) Rudolph, U., Art. Eschatologie, in: RGG⁴ 2 (1999), 1575–9 Ruokanen, M., Trinitarian grace in Martin Luther’s The bondage of the will (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021) Salatowsky, S., “Debatten um den Ursprung der Seele. Der Arianer Christoph Sand und sein lutherischer Kritiker Balthasar Bebel”, in R. Zeller (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (24 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang 2014) 111–32 Salvadori, S., “The Restitution of ‘Adam’s Angelical Body’: Jane Lead’s Metaphor of Rebirth and Mystical Marriage”, in A.  Hessayon (ed.), Jane Lead and her transnational legacy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 143–65 Sander, A., Art. Fegefeuer, in V.  Leppin / ​G.  Schneider-Ludorff (ed.), Das Luther-Lexikon (Regensburg: Bückle & Böhm, 2014) 218–19 Schätz, H., Die Aufnahmeprivilegien für Waldenser und Hugenotten im Herzogtum Württemberg (Stuttgart: Kohlammer, 2010) Schäufele, W.-F., “Matthias Flacius Illyricus und die Konzeption der Zeugenschaft im Cata­ logus testium veritatis”, in I. Dingel / ​J. Hund / ​L . Ilić (ed.), Matthias Flacius Illirycus. Bio­ graphische Kontexte, theologische Wirkungen, historische Rezeption (Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 2019) 159–74 Schenk, T., Wegbereiter der Emanzipation? Studien zur Judenpolitik des “Aufgeklärten Absolutismus” in Preußen (1763–1812) (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2010) Schilling, J., “Der liebe Jüngste Tag. Endzeiterwartungen um 1500”, in M. Jakubowski-Tiessen / ​H.  Lehmann / ​J.  Schilling / ​R .  Staats (ed.), Jahrhundertwenden. Endzeit- und Zukunftsvorstellungen vom 15. Bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) 15–26 Schmidt, M., “Der Pietismus und die Einheit der Kirche”, in K. Herbert (ed.), Um Evangelische Einheit. Beiträge zum Unionsproblem (Herborn: Oranien, 1967) 67–114 Schmitt, C. B., “Perennial Philosophy from Agostino Steuco to Leibniz”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 27, no. 4 (1966), 505–32 Schmitt, C. B., ““Prisca Theologia e philosophia perennis”: due temi del rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna”, in G. Tarugi (ed.), Il Pensiero italiano del rinascimento e il tempo nostro, (Firenze: Olschki, 1970) 211–36 Schmidt-Biggemann, W., “Apokalyptische Universalwissenschaft: Johann Heinrich Alsteds “Diatribe de mille annis apocalypticis””, in: PuN 14 (1988) 50–71 Schmidt-Biggemann, W., Philosophia Perennis. Historical Outlines of Western Spirituality in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought (Dordrecht: Springer, 2004) Schmidt-Biggemann, W., “Apocalyptic political concepts: Comenius’ collection of pro­ phecies Lux in Tenebris”, in P.  Zemek / ​B.  Jiři / ​B.  Motel (ed.), Studien zu Comenius und zur Comeniusrezeption in Deutschland (Uherský Brod: Muzeum J. A. Komenského, 2008) 132–52 Schmidt-Biggemann, W., Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala (1 vol.; Stuttgart / ​Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 2012) Schmidt-Biggemann, W., Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala (2  vol.; Stuttgart / ​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2013)

292

Bibliography

Schmidt-Biggemann, W., Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala (3 vol.; Stuttgart / ​Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2013) Schneider, H., “Der radikale Pietismus in der neueren Forschung”, in: PuN 8 (1982) 15–42 Schneider, H., “Der radikale Pietismus in der neueren Forschung (Fortsetzung)”, in: PuN 9 (1983) 117–51 Schneider, H., Art. Rothe, Johannes, in: RGG⁴ 7(2004) 646 Schneider, H., German Radical Pietism (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2007) Schneider, H., “Rückblick und Ausblick”, in Breul, W. / ​Meier, M. / ​Vogel, L. (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010) 451–68 Schneider, H., “Die unerfüllte Zukunft. Apokalyptische Erwartungen im radikalen Pietismus um 1700”, in Hans Schneider. Gesammelte Aufsätze I. Der radikale Pietismus, Breul, W. / ​ Vogel, L. (ed.) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2011) 378–404 Schockenhoff, E., “Die Wirkungsgeschichte des Origenes,“ in Fürst, A. / ​Hengstermann, C. (ed.), Autonomie und Menschenwürde. Origenes in der Philosophie der Neuzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012) 47–66 Scholem, G., Art. Kabbalah, in Encyclopedia Judaica² 10 (2007) 489–653 Schreiner, S. / ​Dan, J. / ​U lrich, R., Art. Eschatologie, in: RGG⁴ 2 (1999) 1575–9 Schrenk, G., Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus vornehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus² (Gissel: Brunnen, 1985) Schulte, M., Über die Bürgerlichen Verhältnisse der Juden in Preussen. Ziele und Motive der Reformzeit (1787–1812) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014) Schunka, A., “Daniel Ernst Jablonski, Pietism, and Ecclesiastical Union”, in F. van Lieburg / ​ D. Lindmark (ed.), Pietism, Revivalism and Modernity, 1650–1850 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008) 23–41 Schunka, A., “Zwischen Kontingenz und Providenz. Frühe Englandkontakte der Halleschen Pietisten und protestantische Irenik um 1700”, in: PuN 34 (2008) 82–114 Schunka, A., Die Hugenotten. Geschichte, Religion, Kultur (München: Beck, 2019) Schwarz, Y., “Kabbala als Atheismus? Die Kabbala Denudata und die religiöse Krise des 17. Jahrhunderts”, in A. B. Kilcher (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (16 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2006) 259–84 Seebaß, G., Art. Apokaliptik / ​Apokalypsen, in: TRE 3 (1978) 189–289 Seeberg, E., Gottfried Arnold. Die Wissenschaft und die Mystik seiner Zeit (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1964) Shantz, D. H., Between Sardis and Philadelphia. The Life and World of Pietists Court Preacher Conrad Bröske (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2008) 130–5 Shantz, D. H., “Conversion and Revival in the Last Days: Hopes for Progress and Renewal in Radical Pietism and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”, in F. van Lieburg / ​D.  Lindmark (ed.), Pietism, Revivalism and Modernity, 1650–1850, (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008) 42–62 Shantz, D. H., An Introduction to German Pietism. Protestant Renewal at the Dawn of Modern Europe (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2013) Shantz, D. H., Radical Pietist Eschatology as a Complex Phenomenon. Differing Chiliastic Views in Jacob Böhme, J. W. Petersen and Conrad Bröske, in W. Breul / ​C. J. Schnurr (ed.), Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 103–14 Siegfried, C. G. A., Art. Wasmuth, Matthias, in: ADB 41 (1896) 230–2 Slenczka, N., “Luther’s Anthropology”, in R.  Kolb / ​I.  Dingel / ​L’U.  Batka (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 212–32 Sommer, W., Art. Hoburg, Christian, in: RGG² 3 (2000), 1798–9 Stengel, F., Aufklärung bis zum Himmel. Emanuel Swedenborg im Kontext der Theologie und Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011)

Literature 

293

Stengel, F., “Omnia sunt communia. Gütergemeinschaft bei Thomas Müntzer?“, in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 102 (2011) 133–74 Stengel, F., Art. Theosophie, in Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit 13 (2011) 527–53 Stengel, F., Sola scriptura im Kontext. Behauptung und Bestreitung des reformatorischen Schriftprinzips (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016) Stengel, F., “Zwischen ‘fanatischer Barbarei’ und ‘moralischem Sinn’. Schnitt- und Schneidepunkte der Schriftauslegung im 18. Jahrhundert”, in M. Lang / ​J. Verheyden (ed.), Goldene Anfänge und Aufbrüche. Johann Jacob Wettstein und die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2016) 177–216 Stengel, F., Art. Kabbalah, Christianity, in: EBR 14 (2017) 1184–7 Stengel, F., “Seele, Unsterblichkeit, Auferstehung. Luther im Aufklärungsdiskurs”, in W.-F. Schäufele / ​C. Strohm (ed.), Das Bild der Reformation in der Aufklärung (Heidelberg: Güters­loher, 2017) 98–130 Stengel, F., “Reformation, Renaissance and Hermeticism: Contexts and Interfaces of the Early Reformation Movement”, in Reformation & Renaissance Review 20 (2018) 1–31 Sträter, U., Meditation und Kirchenreform in der lutherischen Kirche des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) Sträter, U., “Spener und August Hermann Francke”, in D. Wendebourg (ed.), Philipp Jakob Spener  – Leben, Werk, Bedeutung. Bilanz der Forschung nach 300 Jahren (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007) 89–104 Strohl, J. E., “Luther’s Eschatology”, in R. Kolb / ​I. Dingel / ​L’U. Batka (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 353–62 Strom, J., “Jacob Fabricius, Friedrich Breckling und die Debatte um Visionen”, in W. Breul / ​ M. Meier / ​L . Vogel (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010) 249–69 Strom, J., “Krisenbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung bei Friedrich Breckling”, in W. Breul / ​ J. C. Schnurr (ed.) Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 84–102 Strom, J. / ​Lehmann, H. / ​Melton, J. v. H. (ed.), Pietism in Germany and North America ­1680–1820² (New York: Routledge, 2016) Stroumsa, G. G., Hidden Wisdom. Esoteric traditions and the roots of Christian mysticism (Leiden: Brill, 1996) Suitner, R., Die philosophischen Totengespräche der Frühaufklärung (Hamburg: Meiner, 2016) Taatz-Jacobi, M., Erwünschte Harmonie. Die Gründung der Friedrichs-Universität Halle als Instrument brandenburg-preußischer Konfessionspolitik – Motive, Verfahren, Mythos (1680–1713) (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014) Tanner, F., Die Ehe im Pietismus (Zürich: Zwingli, 1952) Telle, J., “Jacob Böhme unter deutschen Alchemikern der frühen Neuzeit”, in W. Kühlmann / ​ F. Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur europäischen Wirkung Jakob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012) 165–82 Temme, W., Krise der Leiblickeit. Die Sozietät der Mutter Eva (Buttlarsche Rotte)  und der radikale Pietismus um 1700 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998) Terraciano, P., Omnia in figura. L’impronta di Origene tra ’400  e ’500, (Roma: edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2012) Thiel, C., Art. Hermetisch / ​Hermetik, in Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie (3 vol.; Stuttgart / ​Weimar: Metzler, 2008) 371–3 Thiel, C., Art. Makrokosmos, in Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie (5 vol.; Weimar: Stuttgart, 2016) 186–9 Tiraboschi, G., Storia della letteratura italiana (7 vol., II; Florence: Molini, 1810) Treue, Eine Frau, drei Männer und eine Kunstfigur. Barocke Lebensläufe (München: Beck, 1992)

294

Bibliography

Trippenbach, M., Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg, die Prophetin und Heilige des Pietismus (Sangerhausen: Schneider, 1914) Tulloch, J., Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the seventeenth century (2 vol., Edinburg / ​London: Blackwood and sons, 1872) Vessey, M., “‘Vera et Aeterna Monumenta’: Jerome’s Catalogue of Christian Writers and the Premises of Erasmian Humanism”, in G. Frank / ​T. Leinkauf / ​M. Wriedt (ed.), Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit. Die Relekture der Kirchenväter in den Wissenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog, 2006) 351–76 Vogel, L., “Beobachtungen zur Böhmerezeption in Gottfried Arnolds Sophienschrift”, in Breul, W. / ​Meier, M. / ​Vogel, L. (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012) 271–92 Vogt, P., ““Philadelphia”- Inhalt, Verbreitung und Einfluss eines radikal-pietistischen Schlüsselbegriffs”, in U. Sträter (ed.), Interdisziplinäre Pietismusforschungen. Beiträge zum Ersten Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2001 (2 vol.; Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 2005) 837–48 Vogt, P., “Connectedness in hope. German Pietism and the Jews”, in D. H.  Shantz (ed.), A Companion to German Pietism (Leiden: Brill, 2015) 81–115 Wall, E. G. E. van der, “A Precursor of Christ or a Jewish Impostor? Petrus Serrarius and Jean de Labadie on the Jewish Messianic Movement around Sabbatai Sevi”, in: PuN 14 (1988) 109–24 Wall, E. G. E. van der, De mystieke chiliast Petrus Serraius (1600–1669) en zijn wereld (Ph. D. diss., University of Leiden, 1987) Wall, E. G. E. van der, “Mystical Millenarianism in the Early Modern Dutch Republic”, in J. C. Laursen / ​R . H. Popkin (ed.), Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture (4 vol.; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001) 37–46 Wallmann, J., Der Theologiebegriff bei Johann Gerhard und Georg Calixt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961) Wallmann, J., “Johann Arndt und die protestantische Frömmigkeit. Zur Rezeption der mittelalterlichen Mystik im Luthertum”, in Breuer, D. (ed.), Frömmigkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Studien zur religiösen Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984) 50–74 Wallmann, J., Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) Wallmann, J., Der Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990) Wallmann, J., “Reich Gottes und Chiliasmus in der lutherischen Orthodoxie”, in J. Wallmann, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 105–23 Wallmann, J., “Spener und Dilfeld. Der Hintergrund des ersten pietistischen Streites”, in J. Wallmann (ed.), Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock. Gesammelte Auf­ sätze (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) Wallmann, J., “Philipp Jakob Spener in Berlin 1691–1705”, in J.  Wallmann, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 295–324 Wallmann, J., Art. Kuhlmann, Quirinus, in: RGG⁴4 (2001) 1796–7 Wallmann, J., Art. Pfeiffer, Johannes, in: RGG⁴6 (2003) 1231 Wallmann, J., Art. Pietismus, in: RGG⁴6 (2003) 1342–3 Wallmann, J., Art. Sandhagen, Caspar Hermann, in: RGG⁴7 (2004) 827 Wallmann, J., Art. Schurman, Anna Maria van, in: RGG⁴7 (2004) 1041 Wallmann, J., Art. Yvon, Pierre, in: RGG⁴8 (2005) 1772 Wallmann, J., Art. Winckler, Johannes, in: RGG⁴8 (2005) 1588 Wallmann, J., Der Pietismus, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) Wallmann, J., “Kirchlicher und radikaler Pietismus. Zu einer kirchengeschichtlichen Grundunterscheidung”, in W. Breul / ​M. Meier / ​L . Vogel (ed.), Der radikale Pietismus. Perspektiven der Forschung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010) 19–43

Literature 

295

Walker, D. P., The Decline of Hell. Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964) Walter, P., “Inquisitor, non dogmatistes. Die Rolle des Origenes in der Auseinandersetzung des Erasmus von Rotterdam mit Martin Luther”, in A. Fürst / ​C. Hengstermann (ed.), Auto­ nomie und Menschenwürde. Origenes in der Philosphie der Neuzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 2012) 169–83 Wandrey, I. / ​Dan, J., Art.  Messias / ​Messianismus, in: RGG⁴ 5 (2002) 1146–50 Wappmann, V., “Johann Jakob Schütz, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth und die Anfänge des Pietismus”, in M. Battafarano (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (15 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2005) 299–309 Ward, W. R., Early Evangelicalism. A Global Intellectual History, 1670–1789 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) Weeks, A., Art. Boehme, Jacob, in W. J. Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (Leiden / ​Boston: Brill, 2006) 185–92 Widmann, M., “Wege aus der Krise. Johann Valentin Andreae und Johann Amos Comenius”, in P.  Zemek / ​B.  Jiři / ​B.  Motel (ed.), Studien zu Comenius und zur Comeniusrezeption in Deutschland (Uherský Brod: Muzeum J. A. Komenského, 2008) 93–113 Widmann, M., Wege aus der Krise. Frühneuzetliche Reformvision bei Johann Valentin Andreae und Johann Amos Comenius (Epfendorf / ​Neckar: bibliotheca academica Verlag, 2011) Winkler, G., “Überlegungen zum Gottesgeist als mütterlichem Prinzip und zur Bedeutung der Androgynie in einigen frühchristlichen Quellen”, in T. Berger / ​A. Gerhards (ed.), Liturgie und Frauenfrage. Ein Beitrag zur Frauenforschung aus liturgiewissenschaftlicher Sicht (St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1990) Wollgast, S., “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Paracelsus im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert”, in P. Dilg / ​ H. Rudolph (ed.), Resultate und Desiderate der Paracelsus-Forschung (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993) 113–44 Wustmann, C., Die “begeisterten Mägde”. Mitteldeutsche Prophetinnen im Radikalpietismus am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig / ​Berlin: Kirchhof & Franke, 2008) Zaepernick, G., Art. Breckling, Friedrich, in: RGG⁴ (1998) 1743 Zaepernick, G., Art. Felgenhauer, Paul, in: RGG⁴ 3 (2000) 63 Zander, H., Geschichte der Seelenwanderung in Europa. Alternative religiöse Traditionen von der Antike bis heute (Darmstadt: Buchges, 1999) Zaunstöck, H. / ​K losterberg, B. / ​Soboth, C. / ​Marschke, B. (ed.), Hallesches Weisenhaus und Berliner Hof (Halberstadt: Verlag der Franckesche Stiftungen Halle, 2017) Zeller, R., “Naturmagie, Kabbala, Millennium. Das Sulzbacher Projekt um Christian Knorr von Rosenroth und der Cambridger Platoniker Henri More”, in R.  Zeller (ed.). Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (11 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2001) 13–75 Zeller, R., “Wissenschaft und Chiliasmus. Heterodoxe Strömungen am Hof von Sulzbach. Wissenschaft und Chiliasmus bei Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont and Henry More”, in H. Laufhütte / ​M. Titzmann (ed.), Heterodoxie in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006) 291–307 Zeller, R. (ed,), “Vorrede an der Leser (Lectori philebraeo salute!) Frankfurt 1684”, in A. B. Kilcher, Andreas B. (ed.), Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (16 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2006) 17–54 Zeller, R., Morgen-Glantz. Zeitschrift der Christian Knorr von Rosenroth-Gesellschaft (21 vol.; Bern: Peter Lang, 2011) Zeller, R., “Böhme-Rezeption am Hof von Christian August von Pfalz-Sulzbach”, in W. Kühlmann, F.  Vollhardt (ed.), Offenbarung und Episteme. Zur europäische Wirkung Jacob Böhmes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012)

Index

Abraham Isaac ben  41 Affelmann Johann  120, 124, 125 Alsted Johann Heinrich Alsted  114, 121, 200 Andreae Johann Valentin  116, 117 Andreae Valentin  117 Anna Margarete von Hessen-Homburg  11, 12 Arcangelus Minorita  70 Aristotle  58 Arminius  96, 97, 100 Arndt Johann  13, 21, 80, 83, 109, 116, 167, 179 Arnold Gottfried Arnold  19, 21, 74, 116, 145, 186, 187, 228, 230, 237, 238 Asseburg Rosamunde Juliane von der Asseburg  19, 26, 34, 35, 135, 150, 182, 229 Augustin  22, 86, 93, 193, 196, 197, 202, 234, 250 Augustus Count Palatine Christian  217 Balduin  107 Barclay Robert  22 Bebel Balthasar  8, 251 Beier Johann Wilhelm  199 Betke Heinrich  22 Betke Joachim  121 Beza Theodore  71, 96, 97 Böhme Jacob  185 Böhme  21, 23, 24, 30, 33, 41, 60, 80, 83, 93, 104, 116, 117, 118, 121, 127, 130, 157, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 200, 201, 215, 228, 231, 273 Boldig Ernst Christian  125 Borgonovo Arcangelo da  70 Borrhaus Martinus  200 Bourignon Antoinette  83, 93, 100, 135, 136, 200, 257, 281 Boyle Robert  217 Breckling Friedrich Breckling  22, 80, 117, 121, 151, 153, 293 Breen Daniel de  215 Brightman Thomas  111, 113

Brocardus Jacobus  198, 200 Brocke Heinrich Matthias von  57 Burnet Thomas  133, 137, 257 Calixt Friderich Ulrich  144 Calov Abraham  120 Capito Fabricius  200 Carpzov Johann Benedict  41 Castellio Sebastian  195 Cerinthus  39, 40, 124, 143, 144, 158, 196, 202 Chemnitz Martin  86 Chigi Fabio  16 Christian August von Sulzbach  105, 284 Cicero  16, 68, 195 Clairvaux Bernard of  86, 197, 249 Clement of Rome  241, 242 Coccejus Johannes Coccejus  71, 170, 171, 172, 257, 281, 292 Colberg Daniel  158, 201, 260 Comenius Johann Amos  114, 117, 200 Conway Anne  76, 77, 81, 82, 88, 118, 217, 240, 243, 244, 245, 246, 259, 260, 271 Cramer Daniel  120 Cromwell Oliver  111 Curione Coelio Secundo  110, 200 Descartes René  10 Dilfeld Georg Konrad  178 Dionysius the Areopagite  83, 196, 201 Drabík Nikolaus  114 Egard Paul  121, 224 Eilmar Georg Christian  57 Erasmus  93, 105, 107, 196, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 241, 295 Erdmann Heinrich Christoph  153, 154, 160 Eyseneck Maria Juliana Baur von  14 Faber Johann Matthäus  212 Fabricius Johann  136, 137, 138 Fecht Johann  64, 65, 67, 160 Felgenhauer Paul  22, 200 Fevardentius Franciscus  197

Index Ficino Marsilio  25, 260 Fiore Joachim of  109, 110, 120, 121, 184, 195, 197, 198, 200, 201, 206, 207 Forbesius Patrick  121 Fox Georg  217 Francke August Hermann  103, 104, 117 Franckenberg Abraham von  22, 121, 250, 273 Gerhard Johann  107, 120, 124, 165, 166, 167, 179, 193 Gesenius Justus  86 Gichtel Johann Georg  61, 62, 116, 200, 215, 230 Gifftheil Ludwig Friedrich  121 Gomarus Franciscus  96, 97 Grapius Zacharius  65 Grélot Antoine  207, 208 Grynaeaus Johann Jacob  68 Guhrauer  270, 285 Hanneken Philipp Ludwig  17 Heerbrand Jacob  82, 83 Helffreich Liechtscheid Ferdinand  64 Helmont Franciscus Mercurius van  76, 77, 87, 88, 119, 135, 136, 217, 220, 229, 243, 246, 259 Helmont Jean Baptiste van  217 Herrera Abraham Cohen  261 Hilten Johann  153 Hoburg Christian  22, 117, 145 Hoenegg Matthias Hoe von  120 Hornius Georgius  73 Huber Samuel  97 Huet Pierre Daniel  46, 47, 237 Hunnius Ägidius  119, 120 Hus Jan  198 Jablonski Daniel Ernst  102, 103, 104 Jahn Anna Margaretha  19 Jurieu Pierre  135 Kirchhayn Johann Simon  125 Klein-Nicolai Georg  65 Klopstock Friedrich Gottlieb  270 Knyphausen Dodo von Knyphausen  19, 100 Koch Christian Gottlieb  64 Koch Christoph  57 Kortholt Christian  83 Kotterus Christopher  114

297

Kuhlmann Quirinus  116, 200, 215 Labadie Jean de  15, 114, 115, 200, 206 Lambert Francis  199 Lead Jane Lead  24, 60, 61, 62, 80, 100, 116, 118, 130, 163, 164, 200, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 249, 257, 258, 259, 266, 273, 283, 285, 291 Leibniz Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz  10, 28, 102, 127, 135, 136, 156, 157, 253 Limborch Philipp van  41 Locke John  217 Ludolf Heinrich Wilhelm  104 Ludwig Johann  208, 217, 248 Luther  44, 50, 71, 84, 85, 86, 91, 93, 106, 108, 123, 144, 145, 158, 160, 161, 164, 166, 183, 191, 193, 198, 200, 201, 202, 226, 234, 235, 238, 251, 252, 256, 257, 262, 267, 271, 282, 291, 295 Mani  92 Marcion  236 Marianus Angelus  68 Mayer Georg  36 Mayer Johann Friedrich  8, 36, 56, 124, 142 Mede Joseph  111, 112, 200, 207, 210, 211, 224 Meier Georg  32, 157 Melanchthon  129, 146, 153, 161, 166, 200, 202, 235 Merlau Georg Adolph von und zu  12 More Henry  111, 112, 118, 119, 135, 217, 240, 245, 260 Müntzer Thomas  107, 108, 110, 113, 158 Neumann Georg  125, 144 Newton Isaac  217 Nicola of Cusa  198 Origen  56, 67, 68, 70, 81, 92, 93, 138, 159, 201, 218, 226, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 247, 248, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 272 Paracelsus  80, 116, 153, 200, 201, 228 Peganius  59, 207, 208, 210, 220 Pelagius  92 Penn William Penn  15, 113, 135, 136, 217

298

Index

Pfeiffer August  34, 36, 54, 125, 140, 158, 199 Pfeiffer  34, 36, 54, 140 Pfeiffer Julius Franz Pfeiffer  34 Pico della Mirandola  70, 237, 239, 260, 262 Plato  68, 70, 195, 218, 251, 260, 262 Poiret Pierre  83, 93, 116, 135 Poniatowska Christina  114 Pordage John  60, 76, 79, 80, 116, 118, 186, 228 Postel Guillaume  76, 81, 240, 241 Presbyterus Philippus  197 Pretorius Magdalene  16 Pythagoras  218, 260, 262 Raadt Alhardus de  215 Rallius Andreas  121 Rechenberg Hans von  256 Reitz Johann Heinrich  21 Reuchlin Johannes  239, 240 Romanus Clemens  81 Rosenroth Christian Knorr von  59, 79, 105, 111, 117, 119, 207, 216, 217, 240, 241, 247, 262 Rostius Georg  119 Sandhagen Caspar Hermann  36, 38, 141 Savonarola  58, 198 Schott Robert  182 Schurman Anna Maria van Schurman  15, 100, 200, 215 Schütz Jakob  214, 216 Schütz Johann Jakob Schütz  8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 93, 122, 205, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 239, 249, 264 Seidenbecher Georg Lorenz  121 Senensis Sixtus  82, 197

Serrarius Petrus  114, 115, 121, 200, 243, 257 Sevi Sabbatai  115 Siegvolck Georg Paul  65 Solms-Rödelheim Eleonora von  12 Sophie Elisabeth von Sachsen-Zeitz  23 Stenger Johann Melchior  207, 208, 209 Steuco Agostino  195, 260, 262, 289, 291 Tarnow Paul  68, 69, 224 Tauler Johann  22 Thomasius Christian  10 Thomasius Jacob  208, 248 Trismegistos Hermes  159, 218 Turrettini Jean Alphons  105 Ubertino of Casale  198 Utzberg Maria Sabina née Ganß von  12 Vake Johann  39 Veiel Elias  123, 208 Wächtler Jacob  57, 125 Wasmuth Matthias  48 Weigel Valentin Weigel  33, 83, 116, 180, 200 Wilhelm Christoph of Hessen-Homburg  12 Winckler Johann  36, 37, 41, 123, 154, 160, 183 Wolf Christian  10 Wolf Johann Joachim  36, 38, 39, 64, 67, 229, 236 Wyclif John  198 Yvon Pierre  15, 215 Zorzi Francesco  69, 70, 98, 99, 239, 242, 243, 260 Zunner David  216