A Larger Hope 2 Read online

  Johann Wilhelm Petersen (1649–1726) and Johanna Eleonora Petersen (1644–1724)

  Of particular importance for the story of universalism within Pietism are the Radical Pietists Johann Wilhelm Peterson (1649–1726) and his wife Johanna (1644–1724), both friends of Philipp Spener. (According to Johann, Spener himself, while not a universalist and while not speaking out publicly for or against universal restoration, privately confided that he hoped that it was so.130)

  Johanna herself could be said to have long had universalist inclinations. She writes, “Since my early youth, 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.”131 The fate of the unevangelized in particular troubled her. Yet Scripture was clear that only believers were saved and so she wrestled her heart into submission. Then it was “revealed” to her that Christ preached the gospel to the sinners who died in Noah’s flood (1 Pet 4:6), which gave her hope that perhaps there was a possibility of salvation beyond death. Nevertheless, certain biblical texts stopped her short of belief in universal salvation, “for at that time the return of all things had not been revealed to me.”132

  Another step in more universalist directions came after a dream in 1664 in which the end-time conversion of the Jews and the heathens was revealed to her.133 (The conversion of the Jews in the last days became a prominent feature of Radical Pietist millenarianism.) Furthermore, she had been in correspondence with Johann Georg Gichtel (1638–1710) about eternal damnation as early as January 1693 and seems to have been concerned with universal salvation in correspondence from the same year.134

  The Petersens finally became full-blown universalists in 1694/95, when Johann was twenty-five and Johanna was thirty, under the influence of the English mystic Jane Lead (see previous chapter). Lead, as we have seen, believed that the Spirit had given a new revelation that “the everlasting gospel” preached by the angel to the nations in Revelation 14:6 was the gospel of the salvation of all men and angels. The Petersens were sent a prepublication copy of the manuscript of one of her books, The Wonders of God’s Creation Manifested in the Variety of Eight Worlds (London: 1695),135 which they read with skepticism at first, but then suddenly “there was a stillness in both their spirits, as if someone had interrupted them and there came into their minds the words spoken in Revelation 21:5, ‘Behold I make all things new.’”136 Johann writes, “We came to understand that God is essentially love, and that his unending mercy would pour itself out on all his creation.”137

  Lead’s universalism was based more on visions than on Scripture, so Johann and Johanna Peterson provided Lead’s theology with a more solid biblical foundation. They appreciated the value of charismatic visions, but believed that everything must be tested against Scripture. Johanna Petersen—who, unusually for a woman in her day, was quite an amateur theologian—“corrected” some of the aspects of Lead’s chronology of the restoration to bring it more into line with her own pneumatic interpretation of the book of Revelation (a modification that, she says, Lead herself appreciated).138 Johann Petersen was able to modify aspects of Jane Lead’s universalism in an attempt to fix other problems with it. For instance, Lead expected that the universal salvation would precede and induce the return of Christ. Johann denied this. He believed that at death souls were divided into the few who will await the millennium in a quiet place before being resurrected at Christ’s return to reign with him a thousand years. The rest will be sent to a place of torment until the millennium is over. Then there would be a general resurrection of all the dead and the great day of final judgment. At the judgment, those who have been reformed in the postmortem torment will be sent into eternal happiness, significantly increasing the number of the saved, while the rest are cast into the lake of fire. They will suffer in the lake for thousands of years until they are humbled and receive the gift of faith. Then they too will be saved by Christ’s merits. In the end, even Satan will be saved. Sin, lacking an eternal root, cannot last forever—it must vanish from creation. When it does, God will be all in all.139

  In addition to building a biblical case for universalism, he also gathered together earlier writings on universalism into a three-volume work called the Mysterion Apokatastaseos Panton (The Mystery of the Restitution of All Things; 1700, 1703, 1710).140 Included in this work was a book by Paul Siegvolck entitled (in English) The Everlasting Gospel. We shall return to this text later.

  Now convinced of the Restoration, Johann became an eager promoter of the message of Wiederbringung aller Dinge (God’s restoration of all things) in both his preaching and his writing ministry: he travelled widely in German lands—having an extensive network of friends and acquaintances, and receiving many invitations to speak—and was a prolific author.141 He also kept an account in his autobiography of where his Restorationist message was well received. Amongst those who accepted it was Eberhard Ludwig Gruber (1665–1728), the leader of the Inspirationists (a Radical Pietist sect), as well as various counts, barons, councilors, and other significant people.142 It would be fair to say that much, though not all, of the universalism within German Pietism can trace its roots to the work of the Petersens, and through them to Jane Lead.

  Radical Pietist Groups

  The universalists among the Radical Pietists came to gather in different interrelated groupings.143 Of those that emigrated to Pennsylvania in the American colonies, we find three: the followers of Johannes Kelpius, the German Baptist Brethren (and a breakaway group, the German Seventh Day Baptists), and a miscellaneous group of other Separatists. Most or possibly all of these groups were influenced by the Petersens. In addition to them, we need to make mention of the Moravians (another Pietist group, some of whom were universalists) and the scholar Johann Albrecht Bengel.

  Johannes Kelpius and his followers

  The American colonies provided a “new world” free from corruption and oppression that was wide open for radical religious communities to prepare themselves for the millennium. The Frankfurt Land Company (of which Johanna Petersen was a member) bought up forty-three thousand acres in Pennsylvania, some of which was used to build Germantown (outside Philadelphia, which had been founded in 1682). The first group of German Pietists to sail for America was led by Johannes Kelpius (1667–1708) in 1693. We know that, later on, Kelpius embraced a belief in the restoration of all things, though we do not know when he first did so or under whose influence it happened (Jane Lead? Johann Petersen?). Kelpius’s group settled briefly in Germantown before some moved off to form a celibate community called “The Woman in the Wilderness.” The community, while it did not survive, represents the introduction of Pietist universalism into America.

  The German Baptist Brethren

  The Bretheren were deeply influenced from their foundation by Ernst Christoph Hochman von Hochenau (1670–1721), a nobleman and a follower of Johann Petersen, whom he had first met while studying law at the University of Halle. Restorationism was a core doctrine to Hochmann, inherited from his mentor.144

  Hochmann founded several Philadelphian communities in Wittgenstein.145 In 1706 he was invited to Schriesheim, near Heidelburg, by a miller named Alexander Mack (1679–1735). Hochmann became Mack’s mentor and the two men began evangelizing together, with Hochmann getting regularly imprisoned for the effort. Mack fled persecution to Scwarzenau in 1706 with a small group of followers. They decided, after the manner of the Anabaptists, that their infant baptism was invalid, and so in 1708 they (re)baptized each other.146 This was the founding of the Pietist sect calling themselves the Church of the Brethren (also known as German Baptists, Taufers, or Dunkers).147 Hochmann himself, on his release from prison, was somewhat ambiguous about this development—he was not against such baptism, but strongly opposed the suggestion that it was a requirement, believing that this would be a step away from Philadelphianism. While Hochmann slowly drew away from the Breth
ren, who continued to formalize themselves as a distinct sect, they maintained his teachings.

  Perhaps Hochmann’s most influential statement of universalism, even if not his most profound, was made in 1702 when he was released from imprisonment in Detmold Castle. (He had been arrested for preaching.) He was asked to write out his creed as a condition of his release. The Detmold Confession, as it became known, was influential because it was later adopted by the German Baptist Brethren in Pennsylvania as their creed, showing the continued influence of Hochmann’s teaching on the group. In the sixth article he wrote this:

  Concerning the restoration of damned men after death . . . : that just as all mankind are fallen in Adam, so must all men be reborn through Christ, the other Adam; if this was not true, it would necessarily follow that Christ was not mighty enough to restore the human race which was lost through Adam, and in this connection the whole fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans can be read, and from this it may be seen how the Restoration, through the mediatorship of Christ, is much stronger and more mighty than the power of sin through the fate of Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:22 states clearly that as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.148

  Thus, the German Baptists in America made universalism a part of their communal confession. This was not, of course, to deny punishment for the unbelievers. Their main theological text was Mack’s Brief and Simple Exposition of the Outward But Yet Sacred Rights and Ordinances of the House of God (1715), and this makes clear, on the basis of a range of biblical texts (Rev 1:7; 6:16; 14:9–11; 20:15; Matt 25:41; Mark 9:48; Isa 66:24) that “the torment of the condemned and unbelievers will be . . . inexpressible.”

  Then the damned will see this [the blessing of the righteous] and stand in dreadful awe of such blessedness, and will say to one another with penitence, and sigh with anguish of the spirit: “This is the man we fools once laughed at. . . . We thought his life was madness. . . . How did he come to be reckoned among the sons of God, and why is his lot among the saints? Then we must have wandered from the true way. . . . What good did our arrogance do us? And what have wealth and ostentation done for us?” (Wisdom of Solomon 5:1, 4–8). They will ponder all of these things—how they spent their lives in sin, how they did not love God as the highest good, and lost through this folly all this great blessedness. Then they will experience torment, grief, and misery which no tongue can express, for they are banished from the presence of God and all the saints.

  All that sounds very bleak and hardly universalist! However, things are not so simple. The Rights and Ordinances goes on:

  Son: These things are most horrible to hear. Do tell me, are these torments and tortures to last for eternity, without end?

  Father: According to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, “the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever” (Revelation 14:11). However, that it should last for eternity is not supported by Holy Scripture. It is not necessary to talk much about it or speculate about it. The joyous blessedness is definitely forfeited by their folly. Even if at some time the torment should end after long eternities, they will never attain that which the believers have achieved in the time of grace through Jesus Christ if they obey Him.

  Many who have heard about universal restoration commit the great folly not to deny themselves completely but rather hope for the restoration. This hope will most certainly come to naught when they enter the torment, and can see no end to it. Their pitiful comfort will vanish like smoke. Therefore, it is much better to practice this simple truth that one should try to become worthy in the time of grace to escape the wrath of God and the torments of hell, rather than deliberate how or when it would be possible to escape from it again. It is as if a thief were to console himself like this: “Oh, even if I am seized because of the theft, my punishment will have its end.” Would not that be a miserable consolation!

  Therefore, that is a much better and more blessed gospel which teaches how to escape the wrath of God than the gospel which teaches that eternal punishment has an end. Even though this is true, it should not be preached as a gospel to the godless. Unfortunately, in this day, everything is completely distorted by the great power of imagination of those people who teach and write books about restoration.149

  Clearly the doctrine of universal restoration was affirmed but handled with great caution lest people abuse the teaching as license for laxity. It was thus reserved for internal consumption only, not for open declaration to “the godless.” One is reminded here of the patristic pastoral hesitation about preaching apokatastasis to the spiritually immature.

  The German Seventh Day Baptists

  The first wave of German Baptists to move to Pennsylvania sailed in 1719, following persecution back home. Mack himself emigrated with some more in 1729. In the 1730s there was a split within the community in Pennsylvania, with the dissenters, led by Conrad Beissel (1691–1768), founding a community of celibates sixty-five miles away on the banks of the Cocalico River.150 They were known as the Ephrata Community. Their theology seems to have been the same as that of the Brethren, universalism included, with the exception that they practiced celibacy and celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday (hence, the German Seventh Day Baptists). Like the other Brethren, they remained under the influence of Böhme’s mysticism and theosophy, German Pietism, and Philadelphianism.

  The Separatists

  From 1726 on, Separatists, influenced (like the Brethren) by the teachings of Hochmann and the Philadelphians, emigrated to various parts of Pennsylvania. These folk, however, were closer to the Quakers in their rejection of outward rituals like baptism in favor of “the internal revelation of the gospel.”151 They were “deeply religious personalities, keenly concerned for ethics in personal life and in the broader society, who, however, were antagonistic in principle to organized religion.”152 They too were universalists, and included among their number Christoph Sauer/Christopher Sower (1695–1758) and, later, George de Benneville, to whom we shall return.

  The Moravians

  From 1735, another Continental pietistic stream that brought universalism to America was the Moravians.153 It is likely that Count Nicolaus von Zinzendorf (1700–1760), the great man behind the Moravian mission movement of the third wave of Pietism, was a universalist. In his Sixteen Discourses, Zinzendorf writes, “By His [Christ’s] Name, all can and shall obtain life and salvation.”154 Certainly some, albeit a minority, of the early Moravian missionaries believed in the salvation of all. One such was Peter Böhler (1712–75), sent by Zinzendorf to the Americas, where he was active in spreading the gospel and was a key leader in the movement in both America and Britain. His universalism was clearly not something that dampened his missional passion.

  The fact that Zinzendorf and Peter Böhler believed (and sometimes taught) a doctrine of universal restoration was one of the many idiosyncrasies that undid their relationship with George Whitefield, John Wesley, and Dutch and American Reformed Evangelicals. Wesley expressed concern to Zinzendorf about the universalism in the latter’s Sixteen Discourses,155 and the Dutch Reformed condemned Zinzendorf for it. Whitefield wrote to Wesley in 1740 that Peter Böhler, whom Wesley regarded highly, had told him that “all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell” and advanced this “in order to make out universal redemption.”156

  Zinzendorf himself went to Pennsylvania in 1741 to try to establish a league of the different Pietist groupings, working together as “a church of God in the Spirit.” He called the first of several convocations of all the groups at the start of 1742. According to Albert Bell, at the first convocation Zinzendorf proposed an article of faith that Jesus is “not only the Saviour of the faithful and the atonement for their sins, but also the atonement for the whole world and the Saviour of all men.”157 However, he was widely perceived to be seeking unity by means of imposing Moravian beliefs and practices on all the churches, which quickly generated considerable hostility. Relations between Zinzendorf’s Moravia
ns and the other Pietists broke down.

  It is ironic that the different Philadelphian groups in Pennsylvania, with their commitment to brotherly love and their rejection of sectarianism, were unable to unify under a league due to certain differences in belief and practice, and because of a clash between strong personalities.

  Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752)

  Johann Albrecht Bengel was a very important figure in Württembergian Pietism and an accomplished scholar with wide-ranging interests. He taught Latin, Greek, Hebrew, mathematics, and logic at a theological boarding school for fourteen- to eighteen-year-old boys in Denkendorf for twenty-eight years, preparing students for theology with an ultimate view to ministry, and he had a lasting impact through these students. After this he served in church and political posts in Württemberg. While Bengel had been influenced by the spirituality and theology of the Radical Pietists, he was unimpressed by their separatism. Refusing to separate from the Lutheran state church, he and the other Württemberg Pietists sought to renew it from within.

  Bengel is best known for his publications, which included a critical edition of the Greek New Testament (1734), a publication that brought him much fame and established him as a father of textual criticism, and a commentary on the New Testament (1742), often considered Pietism’s greatest exegetical achievement. John Wesley considered it so important that he translated it into English. However, Bengel is of interest to us because in his “Reich-Gottes Theologie” (Theology of God’s Kingdom) he set forth a salvation-historical, millennialist scheme that climaxed in the universal restoration of the whole creation, with a place for aeons of purifying fire, but no place for an everlasting hell.

  Bengel’s universalism was developed by his pupil Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (1702–82) and shaped Württemberg Pietists for generations, especially through Bengel’s Revelation commentary. While he was not a direct ancestor of the universalism that was transplanted to America by radical pietistic groups, his ideas are worth noting here because they ultimately informed Johann Christoph Blumhardt’s (1805–80) growing inclinations to embrace the larger hope in the nineteenth century and, through him, Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann in the twentieth.