by Max Weber
10. Die drei gerechten Kammacher was a novelle by the nineteenth-century Swiss writer Gottfried Keller.
11. The allusion is to Machiavelli’s History of Florence, Book III, Chapter 7.
12. This phrase translates as “the Holy Spirit’s mockery.”
13. Théodore de Bèze (1519–1605) was a leading theologian and organizer of the Calvinist movement. With John Calvin he cofounded the Geneva Academy (1559), which thereafter became a powerful vehicle of Calvinist doctrines. As author, translator, and administrator, Théodore de Bèze (also known as Theodore Beza) played a vital role, particularly after Calvin’s death in 1564, in securing the Calvinist faith in Europe.
14. On the Dutch Preciesen (the unbending Calvinists) and their conflict with the Rekkelijken (those willing to compromise), see Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, trans. by Olive Wyon (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 682–86. (Troeltsch’s book was published in Germany in 1912.)
15. Weber uses the English word.
16. George Whitefield (1714–1770), itinerant Methodist evangelist, was a collaborator of John and Charles Wesley, though later broke with them by affirming the doctrine of “double predestination.” Whitefield’s evangelical mission, based upon a spiritual “new birth” as a young man, took him to many parts of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and eventually to America. He died in Newburyport, Massachusetts.
17. Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon (1707–1791), was a major figure within eighteenth-century English Protestantism. She founded Huntingdon’s Connexion, a Calvinist Methodist sect, and promoted its activities through the construction of a number of chapels in the south of England.
18. Richard Hooker (1554–1600) played a leading role in the formation of Anglican theology. He is remembered principally for his treatise Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie (1594–1648; eight books—the last three appeared posthumously), a response to both Puritan and Roman Catholic doctrine. Hooker defended the unity of church and state, and affirmed the place of reason, together with Bible and church, as the three cornerstones of the Anglican communion.
19. William Chillingworth (1602–1643), scholar and theologian, first embraced Catholicism and then renounced it in 1634. In 1638, he took holy orders in the Church of England, and published in the same year The Religion of Protestants: A Safe Way to Salvation. During the En-glish civil wars, he served as a chaplain in the king’s army. Following its defeat, he resided in detention in the bishop’s palace at Chichester, where he died.
20. Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705) was a founding figure of German Pietism, an offshoot of Lutheranism that demanded stricter moral standards among Lutheran clergy and all believers. A skillful organizer, Spener used his base in Berlin (from 1691 onward) to solicit the support of the Brandenburg-Prussian court for various ecclesiastical and educational reforms. Among his most influential works were Pious Desires (1675), The Spiritual Priesthood (1677), and General Theology (1680).
21. August Hermann Francke (1663–1727) was a prominent figure in the German Pietist movement. He taught theology and Oriental languages at the University of Halle (1695–1727), where he was also active in establishing various Pietist groups and organizations for the poor and for orphans.
22. On Zinzendorf, see Editors’ note 2.
23. Editors’ italics. Weber seems to be saying that although it was false to attribute a belief in Terminism to all Pietists in general, a minority of Pietists did in fact hold it (see Weber’s notes 162 and 163).
24. Buβkampf. See p. 95 for more details of this phenomenon.
25. Branch or tendency.
26. This is a reference to James the brother of Jesus, who became known as “The Just” for his strict adherence to the Jewish law.
27. Weber uses the English phrase here.
28. The literal translation is “bench of fear.”
29. Antinomianism is the (heretical) belief that Christians are emancipated by the gospel from the obligation to keep the moral law, faith alone being necessary.
30. Weber uses the English word.
31. Weber uses the English word.
32. Weber uses the English word.
33. Weber uses the English word.
34. Weber uses the English phrase.
35. The distinction anticipates Weber’s discussion in “Churches” and “Sects” in North America. See this volume, here.
36. Or Saint Giles.
37. Kaspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig (1490–1561), advocate of the separation of church and state, and opponent of the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, was a leader of the Reformation in Silesia. He proposed his own doctrinal Middle Way, between Luther and Zwingli’s positions, and soon found himself persecuted by Roman Catholics and Lutherans alike. His most famous work is Confession and Explanation (1540).
38. Robert Barclay (1648–1690), a Scot, was a leader of the Quakers who affirmed that both Scripture and church were secondary to the Holy Spirit’s “inner light” working in the faithful. Promoting his Quaker beliefs, Barclay traveled to Holland and north Germany, before settling with a small group of Society members in East Jersey (now New Jersey). His most famous work, Apology for the True Christian Divinity, was published in 1678. Shortly before his death, Barclay returned to Scotland and died at Ury, Aberdeen.
39. Weber uses the English word.
40. See Weber’s First Rejoinder to H. Karl Fischer, note 4, p. 228 below.
41. Weber uses the English phrase.
42. Weber uses the English word.
43. I.e., conciliatory.
44. An Ebionite was a member of a second-century Gnostic sect, which rejected Saint Paul, and accepted only the Gospel of Matthew. The term derives from a Hebrew word meaning “poor,” and in this context emphasizes the moral worth of poverty.
45. Weber uses the English word.
46. Weber uses the English word.
47. Weber uses the words “skill” and “common best” in brackets after the German equivalents.
48. Weber’s emphasis.
49. The parenthetical comment is Weber’s own.
50. Weber uses the English word.
51. The emphasis is Weber’s.
52. Weber uses the English phrase.
53. Weber uses the English phrase.
54. Weber uses the English phrase.
55. Weber uses the English phrase.
56. Weber uses the English word.
57. In the 1920 edition, Weber adds an explanation of “regents,” namely, a class of rentiers.
58. The terms “idle talk,” “superfluities,” and “vain ostentation” are all given in English.
59. Weber uses the English word.
60. Weber uses the English word.
61. The terms “covetousness” and “mammonism” are both given in En-glish.
62. Ironic inversion of the lines spoken by Mephistopheles: “. . . part of the Power which would Do evil constantly, and constantly does good.”
From “Scene in Faust’s Study,” Goethe’s Faust, translated by David Luke, Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 42.
63. The terms “landlord,” “yeoman,” and “farmer” are all given in English.
64. This expression is given in English.
65. “A clear conscience makes a soft pillow.”
66. This is the expression that Talcott Parsons famously rendered as “the iron cage.” The rationale for our own formulation is explained in the Note on the Translation, p. lxx, above.
67. In the 1920 edition of The Protestant Ethic, Weber replaced “Chinese” with “mechanized.” The association of Chinese history with immobility and petrification was a topos of nineteenth-century European thought. Consider, for instance, John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty” (1859), in Essential Works of John Stuart Mill, edited and with an introduction by Max Lerner (New York: Bantam, 1961), pp. 315–19. More generally, see Jonathan D. Spence, The Chan’s Great Continent: China in Western Minds (New York: W
. W. Norton, 1998).
The Protestant Ethic.
Part II. The Idea of the Calling in Ascetic Protestantism
Weber’s Notes
63) We shall not treat Zwinglianism separately, since after a short period of influence it declined in importance.
“Arminianism,” whose distinctive dogmatic character consisted in the rejection of predestination dogma in its strict form, is only constituted as a sect in Holland (and the United States) and is of no interest to us in this chapter. Its doctrine was dominant in the Anglican Church and in the majority of Methodist denominations.
64) On the development of the concept of “Puritanism,” see especially Sanford, Studies and Reflections of the Great Rebellion, p. 65f. When we use this expression here, we do so consistently in the sense that it had taken on in the popular parlance of the seventeenth century, namely, to refer to the ascetic religious movements in Holland and England, irrespective of Church constitutions and dogmas. It thus includes the “Independents,” Congregationalists, Baptists, Mennonites, and Quakers.
65) I scarcely need to emphasize that this brief account, to the extent that it relates to areas of dogma, relies entirely on the literature of Church and dogmatic history, that is, on secondary sources, and so can make absolutely no claim to “originality.” Naturally, I have attempted to immerse myself in the sources of Reformation history to the best of my ability. But it would have been nothing but arrogance to have simply ignored the intensive and sensitive theological work of many decades, instead of allowing myself by a necessary process to be guided by this work to an understanding of the sources. I can only hope that the unavoidable brevity of the account has not led to erroneous formulations and that I have at least managed to steer clear of significant factual inaccuracy. The only thing that may seem “new” to those familiar with the most important theological literature is likely to be the fact that everything is oriented toward those points of view [Gesichtspunkte] which are important to us. Certain of these points—as, for example, the rational character of asceticism and its significance for the modern “style of life”—were naturally of less interest to theological writers.
A number of other aspects—for example, those alluded to on p. 15f [this volume pp. 75f]—are only dealt with superficially here because it is to be hoped that E. Troeltsch will deal with such matters (lex naturae, etc.) in his contribution to the work edited by Hinneberg. As we know both from his “Gerhard und Melanchthon” and especially his numerous reviews in the Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen, he has been concerned with these subjects for years, and, as the expert, is of course better able to expound them than, with the best will in the world, I could myself. For reasons of space, not every work consulted has been cited, but only those which that particular section of text is based upon or relates to. It is not uncommon for these to be older authors, if the relevant aspects were of particular interest to them. The quite inadequate financial provision of German libraries means that in “the provinces” the most important sources and works can only be loaned for a few short weeks from Berlin or other main libraries. This includes, for example, Voët, Baxter, Tyerman’s “Wesley,” all the Methodist, Baptist, and Quaker writers, and many other writers of the early period not contained in the Corpus Reformatorum. A visit to English or American libraries is essential for any close study of many works. For the following account I have, of course, in general, had to make do with what was available in Germany.
The typical deliberate denial of the “sectarian” past by American universities has unfortunately led to the libraries cutting down on new acquisitions, or indeed acquiring none at all, from this area of literature. This is just one feature of the general tendency toward “secularization” in American life, which is a short time will have destroyed the traditional character of this nation and completely and finally changed the ethos of many of the fundamental institutions of the nation. One is obliged to resort to the small orthodox sectarian colleges out in the country.
66) Alongside the fundamental work of Kampschulte, probably the best account of Calvin and Calvinism in general is that of Erich Marcks in his “Coligny.” Campbell’s The Puritans in Holland, England and America (2 vols.) is not always critical or free of tendentiousness. Pierson’s Studien over Johan Calvijn is nothing but an anti-Calvinist tract. The Dutch development is covered by Motley and by the classics of the Netherlands, especially Fruin’s Tien jaren uit den tachtigjarigen oorlog and now in particular Naber’s Calvinist of Libertijnsch. For France there is now, in addition to Polenz, Baird’s Rise of the Huguenots. For England, as well as Carlyle, Macaulay, Masson, and—last but not least—Ranke, there are also the various works (to be referred to later) of Gardiner and Firth, and, in addition, for example, Taylor: A Retrospect of the Religious Life in England (1845), and the excellent book by Weingarten, Die englischen Revolutionskirchen, plus the essay on the English “Moralists” by Ernst Troeltsch in the Realenzyklopädie für Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed., and Eduard Bernstein’s excellent essay in the Geschichte des Sozialismus (Stuttgart, 1895, vol. 1, p. 506f.), at which we shall look closely in a later context. The best bibliography (with more than 7,000 entries) is found in Dexter, Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years (which admittedly deals primarily—though not exclusively—with Church constitutional questions). The book is clearly superior to Price (History of Nonconformism), Skeats, and others. On the American colonies, the work of Doyle, The En-glish in America, stands out above the numerous other books. On the doctrinal differences the present study is particularly indebted to Schneckenburger’s series of lectures, which has already been cited in the first article.
Ritschl’s basic work, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung (3 vols., quoted here from 3rd ed.), with its pronounced blend of historical exposition and value judgments, demonstrates the author’s strong individuality, which, despite the magnificent precision of the thought, does not always fully convey the impression of “objectivity.” When, for example, he rejects Schneckenburger’s view, I often find his justification for doing so doubtful, while not presuming to form a judgment myself. In addition, his definition of what is “Lutheran” doctrine, out of all the variety of religious ideas and sentiments, even those found in Luther himself, often seems to be arrived at by means of value judgments—it is what seems to Ritschl to be of permanent worth in Lutheranism. It is Lutheranism as Ritschl believes it ought to be, not always what it actually was. It hardly needs to be mentioned that the works of Karl Müller, Seeberg et. al. were used constantly.
If in what follows I have imposed on the reader and myself the penance of a dreadful proliferation of footnotes, there are absolutely compelling reasons of space saving for this.1 Furthermore, I felt constrained to enable nontheologically trained readers in particular at least a provisional means of checking the ideas expressed in this account by indicating a number of related approaches, so that the ideas, in their brevity, do not give the impression of having just occurred to me.
67) In what follows, we shall take the ideas of the ascetic movements in their fully developed form as given. We are not primarily interested in the origins, antecedents, and development of these movements.
68) Regarding the following sketch it should be stated at the outset that we are not here considering the personal views of Calvin, but the doctrine of Calvinism as it developed in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the large regions where it was the dominant influence—regions which, like Holland and England, were at the same time the bearers of capitalist culture. We shall leave Germany on one side for the moment, as Calvinism never dominated large territories here.
69) The full text of this passage, and of other Calvinist writings to be quoted later, may be found in Karl Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig, 1903).
70) On Milton’s theology, see the essay by Eibach in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1879 (Macaulay wrote a superficial essay on the occasion of the public
ation of Sumner’s translation of the “Doctrina Christiana,” edited by Tauchnitz, vol. 185, pp. 1ff.), which had been rediscovered in 1823. For more detailed information the best source is, of course, the (somewhat too schematically structured) six-volume work by Masson, or Stern’s German biography of Milton, which is based on it.
At quite an early stage, Milton began to abandon the doctrine of predestination (in the form of the double decree) and to move toward the ultimately quite liberal Christianity of his old age. In his complete detachment from his own age, he can be compared to a certain extent to Sebastian Franck. However, while Milton was practical and positive, Franck was essentially critical by nature. Milton is a “Puritan” only in the broad sense of the rational orientation of life in the world according to the divine will, which is Calvinism’s lasting legacy to posterity. In a similar sense, one could describe Franck as a “Puritan.” As idiosyncratic individualists, neither is relevant to our concerns.
71) The famous passage in De servo arbitrio reads: “Hic est fidei summus gradus: credere Deum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, justum, qui sua voluntate nos damnabiles facit.”
72) Fundamentally, both Luther and Calvin knew a dual God (see Ritschl’s remarks in the Geschichte des Pietismus and Köstlin in the entry on “Gott” in the Realencyclopädie für Protestantismus und Kirche, 3rd ed.): the merciful and kindly Father as revealed in the New Testament (for it is he who dominates the first books of the Institutio Christiana) and behind him the “Deus absconditus” as an arbitrary despot. For Luther, the God of the New Testament kept the upper hand, as Luther increasingly shunned speculation on the metaphysical as unprofitable and dangerous. For Calvin, on the other hand, the idea of the transcendent deity held sway over life. True, in the popular form of Calvinism such a deity could not maintain its hold—but it was not the Heavenly Father of the New Testament, but the Jehovah of the Old Testament, that took its place.
