Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/1013

Rh satisfy the authorities that his religious community could be brought under the conditions of the peace of Augsburg; he had to quiet the suspicions of the Lutheran clergy; and, hardest of all, he had to rule in some fashion men made fanatical by persecution, who, in spite of his unwearied labours for them, on more than one occasion, it is said, combined in his own house to denounce him as the Beast of the Apocalypse, with Rothe as the False Prophet. Patience had at last its perfect work, and gradually Zinzendorf was able to organize his refugees into something like a militia Christi, based not on monastic but on family life. He was able to establish a common order of worship in 1727, and soon afterwards a common organization, which has been described in the article. Zinzendorf took the deepest interest in the wonderful missionary enterprises of the Brethren, and saw with delight the spread of this Protestant family order in Germany, Denmark, Russia and England. He travelled widely in its interests, visiting America in 1741-42 and spending a long time in London in 1750. Missionary colonies had by this time been settled in the West Indies (1732), in Greenland (1733), amongst the North American Indians (1735), and before Zinzendorf's death the Brethren had sent from Herrnhut missionary colonies to Livonia and the northern shores of the Baltic, to the slaves of North Carolina, to Surinam, to the Negro slaves in several parts of South America, to Travancore in the East Indies, to the Copts in Egypt and to the west coast of South Africa. The community in Herrnhut, from which almost all these colonies had been sent out, had no money of its own, and its expenses had been almost exclusively furnished by Zinzendorf. His frequent journeying from home made it almost impossible for him to look after his private affairs; he was compelled from time to time to raise money by loans, and about 1750 was almost reduced to bankruptcy. This led to the establishment of a financial board among the Brethren, on a plan furnished by a lawyer, John Frederick Köber, which worked well. In 1752 Zinzendorf lost his only son, Christian Renatus, whom he had hoped to make his successor; and four years later he lost his wife Erdmute, who had been his counsellor and confidante in all his work. Zinzendorf remained a widower for one year, and then (June 1757) contracted a second marriage with Anna Nitschmann, on the ground that a man in his official position ought to be married. Three years later, overcome with his labours, he fell ill and died (on the 9th of May 1760), leaving John de Wattewille, who had married his eldest daughter Benigna, to take his place at the head of the community.

Zinzendorf had a naturally alert and active mind, and an enthusiastic temperament that made his life one of ceaseless planning and executing. Like Luther, he was often carried away by strong and vehement feelings, and he was easily upset both by sorrow and joy. He was an eager seeker after truth, and could not understand men who at all costs kept to the opinions they had once formed; yet he had an exceptional talent for talking on religious subjects even with those who differed from him. Few men have been more solicitous for the happiness and comfort of others, even in little things. His activity and varied gifts sometimes landed him in oddities and contradictions that not infrequently looked like equivocation and dissimulation, and the courtly training of his youth made him susceptible about his authority even when no one disputed it. He was a natural orator, and though his dress was simple his personal appearance gave an impression of distinction and force. His projects were often misunderstood, and in 1736 he was even banished from Saxony, but in 1749 the government rescinded the decree and begged him to establish within its jurisdiction more settlements like that at Herrnhut.

He wrote a large number of hymns, of which the best known are “Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness,” and “Jesus, still lead on.” A selection of his Sermons was published by G. Clemens in 10 vols., his Diary (1716-1719) by G. Reichel and J. Th. Müller (Herrnhut, 1907), and his Hymns, &c., by H. Bauer and G. Burkhardt (Leipzig, 1900).

See A. G. Spangenberg, Leben des Grafen von Zinzendorf (Barby, 1772-1775); L. von Schrautenbach, Der Graf v. Zinzendorf (Gnadau, 1871, written in 1782, and interesting because it gives Zinzendorf's

relation to such Pietist rationalists as J. K. Dippel); F. Bovet, Le Comte de Zinzendorf (Paris, 1860; Eng. tr. A Pioneer of Social Christianity, by T. A. Seed, London, 1896); B. Becker, Zinzendorf im Verhältniss z. Philosophie u. Kirchenthum seiner Zeit (Leipzig, 1886); H. Römer, Zinzendorf's Leben und Werken (Gnaudau, 1900), and other literature mentioned under and in the article “Zinzendorf” by J. Th. Müller in Hauck-Herzog's Realencyk. für prot. Theologie u. Kirche.  ZION, or  (Heb. , perhaps from “to be dry,” “to set up,” or “to protect”; Arabic analogies favour the meaning “hump,” “summit of a ridge,” and so “citadel”), the name of the Jebusite stronghold at Jerusalem captured by David (2 Sam. v.). Zion (which is synonymous with the Ophel) is properly the southern part of the eastern hill on the top of which was built the temple, so that the name came to be given to the whole hill (2 Kings xix. 31, Isaiah xxiv. 23 and throughout 1 Maccabees), to all Jerusalem (Isaiah i. 27, cf. iv. 3), and even to the nation or its spiritual nucleus. Thus the people of Jerusalem are spoken of as “the daughter of Zion” (Isaiah i. 8), the name being often personified and idealized, especially in Isaiah ii., and in the Psalter, e.g. Ps. lxxxvii. 5, “Every one calls Zion his mother.”

 ZIONISM. One of the most interesting results of the anti-Semitic agitation (see ) has been a strong revival of the national spirit among the Jews in a political form. To this movement the name Zionism has been given. In the same way that anti-Semitism differs from the Jew-hatred of the early and middle ages, Zionism differs from previous manifestations of the Jewish national spirit. It was originally advocated as an expedient without Messianic impulses, and its methods and proposals have remained almost harshly modern. None the less it is the lineal heir of the attachment to Zion which led the Babylonian exiles under Zerubbabel to rebuild the Temple, and which flamed up in the heroic struggle of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes. Without this national spirit it could, indeed, never have assumed its present formidable proportions. The idea that it is a set-back of Jewish history, in the sense that it is an unnatural galvanization of hopes long since abandoned for a spiritual and cosmopolitan conception of the mission of Israel, is a controversial fiction. The consciousness of a spiritual mission exists side by side with the national idea. The great bulk of the Jewish people have throughout their history remained faithful to the dream of a restoration of their national life in Judea. Its manifestations have suffered temporary modifications under the influence of changing political conditions, and the intensity with which it has been held by individual Jews has varied according to their social circumstances, but in the main the idea has been passionately clung to.

The contention of some modern rabbis that the national idea is Messianic, and hence that its realization should be left to the Divine initiative (e.g. Chief Rabbi Adler, Jewish Chronicle, 25th November 1898), is based on a false analogy between the politics of the Jews and those of other oppressed nationalities. As all Hebrew politics were theocratic, the national hope was necessarily Messianic. It was not on that account less practical or less disposed to express itself in an active political form. The Messianic dreams of the Prophets, which form the framework of the Jewish liturgy to this day, were essentially politico-national. They contemplated the redemption of Israel, the gathering of the people in Palestine, the restoration of the Jewish state, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the re-establishment of the Davidic throne in Jerusalem with a prince of the House of David. How little the dispersed Jews regarded this essentially political programme as a mere religious ideal is shown by their attitude towards the pseudo-Messiahs who endeavoured to fulfil it. Bar Cochba ( 117-138) lived at a period when a Jewish national uprising might well have been exclusively political, for the dissolution of the kingdom was