Pietism

Pietism is the specific appellation of a phase of religious thought which developed itself especially within the pale of the German Lutheran Church in the 18th century. Like English Methodism, it originated in a period of indifference to religion, and, like it also, aimed to supersede dead faith, knowledge without life, form without spirit, worldliness under the cloak of religion by life — a spiritual and living faith. Like Methodism, it laid great stress on the necessity of the new birth; it prohibited certain amusements and modes of life until then considered as at least harmless; and it encouraged private assemblies of Christian persons for purposes of edification, such as the study of the Scriptures or the interchange of spiritual experiences. Like Methodism, too, it encountered at first no little ridicule, and even persecution. It was accused of being an attempt to found a new sect, and was vehemently opposed on this ground; but, unlike Methodism, tholugh it did here and there give rise to some insignificant bodies of separatists, it never broke off.from the national Church of the country, but remained as a movement within its pale.

The development of German Lutheranism, which really means German Protestantism, repeats in a most peculiar mranner the course of the general Church previous to it. As in the first four centuries the productive spirit of the Church proposed to itself the view of Christianity as a whole, so also was the time from the beginning of the Reformation to the Augsburg Confession (q.v.) one pre-eminently creative, and it laid the foundation of the Lutheran Church as regards its confession of faith. With the endeavor pervading the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries more distinctly to work out the single doctrines corresponds the work of the Lutheran Church up to the time of the Fornula Concordice (q.v.), by which the various differences of doctrines were to be settled. As the Church of the Middle Ages had handed down to it, as a firm foundation, the doctrinal matter produced by the fathers and sanctioned by the Church, which scholasticism then undertook to work out and digest in a systematic manner, so there arose in the 17th century — the Protestant Middle Ages — a scholasticism which put into a regular form the Lutheran confession of faith embodied in the Formula Concordiae. As in the Middle Ages,mysticisma stands side by side with the strict representatives of scholasticism, bo the Protestant mystics, Jacob Bihme (q.v.), Arndt, and others, stand by the side of an effete orthodoxy. This mystical tendency acquired an importance about the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries. A parallel again between tliis period and that of the 14th century is obvious. In the 14th century the romantic spirit had become extinct; scholasticism had outdone itself; from France there flowed over Europe a worldly spirit; the Roman spirit had decayed; everything was in dissolution. Then from the reaction against the externalized scholasticism and secularized life there broke forth on all sides and in the most varied forms mysticism, which had in itself a Reformatory feature. In like manner after the Thirty-years' War the blossom of Germany had withered; the religious spirit, which since the period of the Reformation had been the first power in Germany, had stepped into the background; while, on the other hand, the secular spirit had been let loose, along with a powerful retinue of immorality, especially by the preponderance of France under Louis XIV. It was a dreary period in German history.

Politically the empire had fallen asunder into a numler of separate despotic little states; and the sentiment of national unity had become so nearly extinct that the loss of the fertile and beautiful Alsace to France seems to have been viewed with wonderful indifference. Socially the life of the people had greatly deteriorated. The rural population was terribly diminished in numbers and wealth; their means of communication were restricted by the destruction of their horses and the neglect of the roads;

their schools had disappeared, and were but very slowly replaced; their new houses and churches were bare and barn-like compared to the old ones; their periodical gatherings for certain purposes of local self- government or for festivities had fallen into disuse. It was a vegetating sort of existence, and the writers of the following age bear testimony to the illiteracy and coarseness of manners which prevailed towards the end of the 17th century even among the gentry of the country districts. In the towns things were but little better. The commerce of Germany had received a serious check; her merchant-princes had sunk to the level of petty traders, and adopted the manners and culture of the latter class. Her old free cities were decaying; only a few of the newer ones were growing; and what intellectual life then existed centred in them, as at Hamburg or Berlin, or at the court of any sovereign who specially protected letters, or still more at the universities. Throughout this period Germany contributed only one really great name to literature — that of Leibnitz; while in France it was the age of military glory and social brilliancy — of Racine and Moliere, of Fenelon and Bossuet, of Bayle and Voltaire. German men and women therefore found their own life mean and tiresome, and were carried away by admiration of their splendid neighbor, till it became the fashion to imitate whatever was French in manners, dress, or tone of thought, and the very language was wretchedly corrupted by the intermixture of French phrases. Of course there was a class, of which king Frederick William I of Prussia may be taken as the type, who hated foreign ways, and upheld whatever was most antiquated and unrefined as peculiarly German; but in general the tide set in favor of the foreigners. The French were now the great models, and very unfortunate ones for a people whose natural genius was so totally different. German literature reached its lowest ebb under these influences. One of the earliest signs, if not the first sign, of its revival was a rebellion against French classicism, and an admiration for the master writers of English — Shakespeare and Milton.

Religion suffered under the same depression. On the one hand was a rigid Lutheranism which had petrified what had once been living convictions into dead dogmas, and which gave its whole attention to controversies about definitions of doctrines in which.the people had ceased to feel a genuine interest. On the other hand was a genteel indifference which idolized "enlightenment" (the favorite watchword of that period), and indemnified itself for its compliance with certain outward observances by laughing at the whole affair in private. Rabener, a satirist of this period, when characterizing the earlier part of the 18th century, says: "There was a time in Germany when no satire could be witty at the expense of anything but the Bible, and there were lively heads which had, so to speak, a complete satirical concordance in readiness, that their wit might never run dry. . . . If a groom is conscious of possessing a more cultivated mind than the dairymaid, he startles her by a jest on some text or hymn; all the servants scream with laughter, all admire him down to the very cowboy, and the poor dairymaid, whlio is not so witty, stands there abashed." When the danger seemed imminent that the great work of the Reformation would prove in vain, and that it would soon come to ruin, providential supply and guidance came in the pietistic spirit which arose. Indeed, the learned Dorner holds, with a large number of others, that this new tendency was a necessary stage in the development of Protestantism — a supplement of the Reformation — and that Spener, the father of pietism, was the veritable successor of Melancthon.

But we must first learn what pietism proposed to do before we can properly appreciate its historical importance. Pietism commenced upon the principle that the Church was corrupt; that the ministry were generally guilty of gross neglect; and that the people were cursed with spiritual death. It therefore proposed, as a theological means of improvement:

1. That the scholastic theology, which reigned in the academies, and was composed of intricate and disputable doctrines, and obscure and unusual forms of expression, should be totally abolished.

2. That polemical divinity, which comprehended the controversies subsisting between Christians of different communions, should be less eagerly studied and less frequently treated, though not eitirely neglected.

3. That all mixture of philosophy and human science with divine wisdom was to be most carefully avoided; that is, that pagan philosophy and classical learning should be kept distinct from, and by no means surpersede Biblical theology; but,

4, that, on the contrary, all those students who were designed for the ministry should be accustomed from their early youth to the perusal and study of the Holy Scriptures, and be taught a plain system of theology, drawn from these unerring sources of truth.

5. That the whole course of their education was to be so directed as to render them useful in life, by the practical power of their doctrine and the commanding influence of their example. But it was not intended to confine these reforms to students and the clergy. Religious persons of every class and rank were encouraged to meet in what were called Biblical colleges, or colleges of piety (we might call them prayer-meetings), where some exercised in reading the Scriptures, singing, and prayer, and others engaged in the exposition of the Scriptures; not in a dry and critical way, but in a strain of practical and experimental piety, whereby they were mutually edified. This practice, which always more or less obtains where religion flourishes (as, for instance, at the Reformation), raised the same sort of outcry as at the rise of Methodism; and those who entered not into the spirit of the design were eager to catch at every instance of weakness or imprudence, to bring disgrace on that, which, in fact, brought disgrace upon themselves, as lukewarm and formal Christians. "In so saving, Master, thou reproachest us also." The person who began this religious movement was John Arndt (1555- 1621), who wrote The True Christian, a work as useful religiously as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress or Doddridge's Religion in the Soul. Spener followed (1635-1705). The private religious meetings which he established about 1675, Collegia Pietatis, were the origin of the application of the name pietism to the movement. One of his pupils was the saintly A.H. Francke (q.v.). Paul Gerhard, the well-known author of the German hymns, also belonged to the same party. The revival feeling spread rapidly through Germany, where the institution of the "Collegia," being in complete accord with the national instinct, soon attained great popularity. Up to 1686 pietism had spread without exciting commotion, no persecution having yet been attempted. But when in this year Spener removed to Dresden, and several of his students made bold to lecture at the University of Leipsic, in imitation of their leader's practice, giving in their lectures particular prominence to the correction of the errors contained in Luther's translation of the Bible, the great body of Lutherans, who had been accustomed to regard this translation as little short of inspired, took umbrage at such freedom of criticism, and at the practice of these Pietists who lectured in the popular tongue. All kinds of adverse rumors were circulated, they were maligned in many ways, and complaints were made to the university authorities. When these popular agitations were ignored, there followed tumults of so violent a character as to spread throughout Leipsic the seeds and principles of mutiny and sedition, and finally the matter was forced to public trial. Of course the pious and learned men above mentioned were, indeed, declared free from the errors and heresies that had been laid to their charge, but were, at the same time, prohibited from carrying on the plan of religious instruction they had undertaken with such zeal. It was during these troubles and divisions that the invidious designation Pietists was first invented; it may at least be affirmed that it was not commonly known before this period. It was at first applied by some giddy and inconsiderate persons to those who frequented the Biblical colleges, and lived in a manner suitable to the instructions and exhortations that were addressed to them in these seminaries of piety. It was afterwards made use of to characterize all those who were either distinguished by the excessive austerity of their manners, or who, regardless of truth and opinion, were only intent upon practice, and turned the whole vigor of their efforts towards the attainment of religious feelings and habits. But as it is the fate of all those denominations by which peculiar sects are distinguished to be variously and often very improperly applied, so the title "Pietist" was frequently given in common conversation to persons of eminent wisdom and sanctity, who were equally remarkable for their adherence to truth and their love of piety; and not seldom to persons whose motley characters exhibited an enormous mixture of profligacy and enthusiasm, and who deserved the title of delirious fanatics better than any other denomination. This contest was by no means confined to Leipsic, but spread with incredible celerity through all the Lutheran churches in the different states and kingdoms of Europe. For from this time, in all the cities, towns, and villages where Lutheranism was professed, there started up, all of a sudden, persons of various ranks and professions, of both sexes, who declared that they were called by a divine impulse to pull up iniquity by the root; to restore to its primitive lustre and propagate through the world the declining cause of piety and virtue; to govern the Church of Christ by wiser rules than those by which it was at present directed; and who, partly in their writings and partly in their private and public discourses, pointed out the means and measures that were necessary to bring about this important revolution. Several religious societies were formed in various places, which, though they differed in some circumstances, and were not all conducted and composed with equal wisdom, piety, and prudence, were, however, designed to promote the same general purpose. In the mean time these unusual proceedings filled with uneasy and alarming apprehensions both those who were intrusted with the government of the Church and those who sat at the helm of the state. These apprehensions were justified by this important consideration, that the pious and well-meaning persons who composed these assemblies had indiscreetly admitted into their community a number of extravagant and hot-headed fanatics, who foretold the approaching destruction of Babel (by which they meant the Lutheran Church), terrified the populace with fictitious visions, assumed the authority of prophets honored with a divine commission, obscured the divine truths of religion by a gloomy kind of jargon of their own invention, and revived doctrines that had long before been condemned by the Church. The most violent debates arose in all the Lutheran churches; and persons whose differences were occasioned rather by mere words and questions of little consequence than by any doctrines or institutions of considerable importance, attacked one another with the bitterest animosity; and in many countries severe laws were at length enacted against the Pietists. These revivers of piety proposed to carry on their plan without introducing any change into the doctrine, discipline, or form of government that were established in the Lutheran Church.

At the head of this movement stood, in Germany, the learned and pious Spener, whose sentiments were adopted by the professors of the new Academy of Halle; and particularly by Francke and Paulus Antonius, who had been invited thither from Leipsic, where they began to be suspected of pietism. Though few pretended to treat either with indignation or contempt the intentions and purposes of these good men (which, indeed, none could despise without affecting to appear the enemy of practical religion and virtue), yet many eminent Lutheran divines, and more especially the professors and pastors of Wittenberg, being of opinion that, in the execution of this laudable purpose, several unorthodox maxims were adopted and certain unwarrantable measures employed, proceeded publicly against Spener in the year 1695, and afterwards against his disciples and adherents, as the inventors and promoters of erroneous and dangerous opinions. These debates turned upon a variety of points, and therefore the matter of them cannot be comprehended under any one general head. If we consider them indeed in relation to their origin, and the circumstances that gave rise to them, we may be able to reduce them to some fixed principles. We have already said that those who had the advancement of piety most zealously at heart were possessed of a notion that no order of men contributed more to retard its progress than the clergy, whose peculiar vocation it was to inculcate and promote it. Looking upon this as the root of the evil, it was but natural that their plans of reformation should begin here; and accordingly they laid it down as an essential principle that none should be admitted into the ministry but such as had received a proper education, were distinguished by their wisdom and sanctity of manners, and had hearts filled with divine love. Hence they proposed, in the first place, a thorough reformation of the schools of divinity; and they explained clearly enough what they meant by this reformation, as we have seen above. As these maxims were propagated with the greatest industry and zeal, and were explained inadvertently by some without those restrictions which prudence seemed to require, these professed patrons and revivers of piety were suspected of designs that could not but render them obnoxious to censure. They were supposed to despise philosophy and learning; to treat with indifference, and even to renounce, all inquiries into the nature and foundations of religious truths; to disapprove of the zeal and labors of those who defended it against such as either corrupted or opposed it; and to place the whole of their theology in certain vague and incoherent declamations concerning the duties of morality. Hence arose those famous disputes concerning the use of philosophy and the value of human learning, considered in connection with the interests of religion; the dignity and usefulness of systematic theology; the necessity of polemic divinity; the excellence of the mystic system; and also concerning the true method of instructing the people. The second great object that employed the zeal and attention of the persons now under consideration was that the candidates for the ministry should not only for the future receive such an academical education as would tend rather to solid utility than to mere speculation, but also that they should dedicate themselves to God in a peculiar manner, and exhibit the most striking examples of piety and virtue. This maxim, which, when considered in itself, must be considered to be highly laudable, not only gave occasion to several new regulations, designed to restrain the passions of the studious youth, to inspire them with pious sentiments, and to excite in them holy resolutions, but also produced another maxim, which was a lasting source of controversy and debate, viz.: "That no person who was not himself a model of piety and divine love was qualified to be a public teacher of piety, or a guide to others in the way of salvation." This opinion was considered by many as derogatory to the power and efficacy of the Word of God, which cannot be deprived of its divine influence by the vices of its mninisters, and as a sort of revival of the long-exploded errors of the Donatists; and what rendered it peculiarly liable to an interpretation of this nature was the imprudence of some Pietists, who inculcated and explained it without those restrictions that were necessary to render it unexceptionable. Hence arose endless and intricate debates concerning the following questions: "Whether the religious knowledge acquired by a wicked man can be termed theology?" "Whether a vicious person can, in effect, attain a true knowledge of religion?" "How far the office and ministry of an impious ecclesiastic can be pronounced salutary and efficacious?" "Whether a licentious and ungodly man cannot be susceptible of illumination?" and other questions of a like nature. These revivers of declining piety went still farther. In order to render the ministry of their pastors as successful as possible in rousing men from their indolence, and in stemming the torrent of corruption and immorality, they judged two things indispensably necessary. The first was to suppress entirely, in the course of public instruction, and more especially in that delivered from the pulpit, certain maxims and phrases which the corruption of men leads them frequently to interpret in a manner favorable to the indulgence of their passions. Such, in the judgment of the Pietists; were the following propositions: No man is able to attain to that perfection which the divine law requires; good works are not necessary to salvation; in the act of justification, on the part of man faith alone is concerned, without good works. The second step which they took in order to give efficacy to their plans of reformation was to form new rules of life and manners, much more rigorous and austere than those that had formerly been practiced; and to place in the class of sinful and unlawful gratifications several kinds of pleasure and amusement which had hitherto been looked upon as innocent in themselves, and which could only become good or evil in consequence of the respective characters of those who used them with prudence or abused them with intemperance. Thus dancing, pantomimes, public sports, theatrical diversions, the reading of humorous and comical books, with several other kinds of pleasure and entertainment, were prohibited by the Pietists as unlawful and unseemly, and therefore by no means of an indifferent nature. The third thing on which the Pietists insisted was that, besides the stated meetings for public worship, private assemblies should be held for prayer and other religious exercises. The University of Halle, which had been founded for the avowed purpose of promoting the pietistic movement, finally became its home and centre; and the Orphanhouse established in that town by A.H. Francke, and renowned all over Europe, one of its most effective agencies. Besides, it became a living proof that pietism was not only able to combat the religious errors of the times, but also to grapple with the grave wants of common life. Is not that a good and safe theology which, in addition to teaching truth, can also clothe the naked and feed the hungry? It has been charged against the Pietists that they wrote but little. Writing was not their mission. It was theirs to act, to reform the practical life and faith of the people, not to waste their strength in a war of books. They wrote what they needed to carry out their lofty aim; and this was perhaps sufficient. They did lack profundity of thought; but let it be remembered that their work was restorative, not initial. Yet we would not leave the impression that pietism did not exert any influence as a literary light. The theological instruction of Francke and his coadjutors in the University of Halle was very influential. During the first thirty years of its history six thousand and thirty-four theologians were trained within its walls, not to speak of the multitudes who received a thorough academic and religious instruction in the Orphan-house. The Oriental Theological College, established in connection with the university, promoted the study of Biblical languages, and originated the first critical edition of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, it founded missions to the Jews and Mohammedans. From Halle streams of the new life flowed out until there were traces of reawakening throughout Europe. First, the larger cities gave signs of returning faith; and the universities which were most bitter against Spener were influenced by the power of the teachings of his immediate successors. Pietism propagated its influence by means of Bengel in Wirtemberg and the University of Tubingen, and in Moravia through Zinzendorf. Arnold and Thomasius belonged to this party at the beginning of the 18th century. Oettinger at Tubingen, Crusius at Leipsic, and, to a certain extent, Buddeus also, partook of the spirit of pietism. The opposition of the old Lutheran party of other parts of Germany produced controversies which continued till about 1720 (for an account, see Weismann, Mem. Eccl. Hist. Sacr. [1745], page 1018 sq.). Zurich, Basle, Berne, and all the larger towns received it with gladness. It penetrated as far east as the provinces bordering on the Baltic Sea, and as far north as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Many of the continental courts welcomed it, and orphan-houses, after the model of Francke's, became the fashion of the day. The Reformed Church was influenced and impelled by it, and even England and the Netherlands indicated a strong sympathy for its practical and evangelical features. No higher tribute can be paid it than that of Tholuck, who avers "that the Protestant Church of Germany has never possessed so many zealous Christian ministers and laymen as in the first forty yars of the 18th century." With a new generation of professors at Halle — among them C.B. Michaelis, the younger Francke, Freilinghausen, the elder Knapp, Callenberg, and Baumgarten — taking the place of their more vigorous predecessors, pietism began to lese its first power and earnest spirit The persistent inquiry into scriptural truth passed over into a tacit acquiescence of the understanding. Reliance was placed on the convictions, more than on the fruits of study. Spener had blended the emotions of the mind and heart, reason and faith, harmoniously; but the later Pietists cast off the former and blindly followed the latter. Hence they soon found themselves indulging in superstition, and repeating many of the errors of some of the most deluded Mystics. Science was frowned upon, because of its supposed conflict with the letter of Scripture. The language of Spener and 1rancke, which was full of practical earnestness, came into disuse. Definitions became loose and vague. The "Collegia," which had done so much good, now grew formal, cold, and disputatious. The missions, which had begun very auspiciously, dwindled from want of means and men. External life became pharisaical. Great weight was attached to long prayers. The duke of Coburg required the masters of schools to utter a long prayer in his presence, as a test of fitness for advancement. Pietism grew mystical, ascetic, and superstitious. Some of its advocates and votaries made great pretensions to holiness and unusual gifts. This had a tendency to bring the system into disrepute in certain quarters, though the good influences that it had exerted still existed and increased. It might disappear, but the good achieved by it would live after it. Pietism, though it ceased its aggressive power after Francke and Thomasius, was destined to exert a reproductive power long afterwards. From their day to the present, whenever there has arisen a great religious want, the heart of the people has been directed towards this same agency as a ground of hope. Whatever be said against it, it cannot be denied that it has succeeded in finding a safe lodgment in the affections of the evangelical portion of the German Church. Even in our own century the Church has had recourse to pietism as its only relief from a devastating rationalism; not the pietism of Spener and Francke, we acknowledge, but the same general current belonging to both. Its organ was the Evangelical Church Gazette, in 1827, and among the celebrities who attached themselves to it we find the names of Heinroth, Von Meyer, Schubert, Von Raumer, Steffens, Schnorr, and Olivier. Pietism lacked a homogeneous race of teachers. Here lay the secret of its overthrow. Had the founders been succeeded by men of much the same spirit, and equally strong intellect, its existence would have been guaranteed, so far as anything religious can be promised in a country where there is a state Church to control the individual conscience. The great mistake of Lutheranism was in its failure to adopt it as its child. The sceptical germ which soon afterwards took root, gave evidence that it could cause its overthrow for a time, at least; but the evils of rationalism were partially anticipated by the practical teachings of the Pietists.

The inference has frequently been drawn that the two tendencies — the dogmatic and the pietistic — which marked the religious life of Germany at the opening of the 18th century, ministered indirectly to the production of scepticism; the dogmatic strictness stimulating a reaction towards latitude of opinion, and the unchurchlike and isolating character of pietism fostering individuality of belief. This inference is, however, hardly correct. Dogmatic truth in the corporate Church, and piety in the individual members, are ordinarily the safeguards of Christian faith and life. The danger arose in this case from the circumstance that the dogmas were emptied of life, and so became unreal; and that the piety, being separated from theological science, became insincere. Rationalism in Germany, without pietism as its forerunner, would have been fatal for centuries. But the relation of these tendencies, so plainly seen in the ecclesiastical history of Germany, is one of long standing. From the days of Neo-Platonism to the present they have existed, the good to balance the evil, faith to limit reason. They have been called by different names; but Christianity could little afford to do without it or its equivalent in the past, and the Church of the future will still cling as tenaciously and fondly to it or to its representative. A recent author who has shown a singular facility in grouping historical periods and discovering their great significance, says: "Pietism went back from the cold faith of the 17th century to the living faith of the Reformation. But just because this return was vital and produced by the agency of the Holy Spirit, it could not be termed a literal return. We must not forget that the orthodoxy of the 17th century was only the extreme elaboration of an error, the beginning of which we find as far back as Luther's time, and which became more and more a power in the Church through the influence of Melancthon. It was this: Mistaking the faith by which we believe for the faith which is believed. The principle of the Reformation was justification by faith, not the doctrine of faith and justification. In reply to the Catholics it was deemed sufficient to show that this was the true doctrine which points out the way of salvation to man. The great danger lay in mistaking faith itself for the doctrine of faith.

Therefore, in the controversies concerning justifying faith, we find that faith gradually came to be considered in relation to its doctrinal aspects more than in connection with the personal, practical, and experimental knowledge of men. In this view pietism is an elaboration of the faith of the 16th century. . . . So far from being heterodox, Spener even expressed himself in the most decided manner in favor of the doctribes of the Church. He would make faith consist less in the dogmatism of the head than in the motions of the heart; he would bring the doctrine away from the angry disputes of the schools and incorporate it into practical life. He was thoroughly united with the Reformers as to the real signification of justifying faith, but these contraries which were sought to be re-established he rejected. . . . From Spener's view a new phase of spiritual life began to pervade the heart. The orthodoxy of the state Church had been accustomed to consider all baptized persons as true believers if only they had been educated in wholesome doctrines. There was a general denial of that living, conscious, self faith which was vital in Luther, and had transformed the world. The land, because it was furnished with the Gospel and the sacraments, was considered an evangelical country. The contrast between mere worldly and spiritual life, between the living and dead members of the Church, was practically abolished, though there still remained a theoretical distinction between the visible and invisible Church. As to the world outside the pale of the Church, the Jews and heathen, there was no thought whatever. Men believed they had done their whole duty when they had roundly combated the other Christian churches. Thus lived the state Church in quiet confidence of its own safety and pure doctrine at the time when the nation was recovering from the devastations of the Thirty-years' War. 'In the times succeeding the Reformation,' says a Wurtemberg pastor of the past century, 'the greater portion of the common people trusted that they would certainly be saved if they believed correct doctrines; if one is neither a Roman Catholic nor a Calvinist, and confesses his opposition, he cannot possibly miss heaven; holiness is not so necessary after all'" (Auberlen, Die gottliche Offenbarung, 1:278-281).

The enemies of pietism have confounded it with mysticism. There are undoubted points in common, but pietism was aggressive instead of contemplative; it was practical rather than theoretical. Both systems made purity of life essential. but mysticism could not gfiard against mental disease, while pietism enjoyed a long season of healthful life. The latter was far too much engaged in relieving immediate and pressing wants to fall into the gross errors which mark almost the entire career of the former. Pietism was mystical in so far as it made purity of heart essential to salvation; but it was the very antipodes of mysticism when organized and operating against a languid and torpid Church with such weapons as Spener and his coadjutors employed. Bohme and Spener were world-wide apart in many respects, but in purity of heart they were beautifully in unison.

A brief account of pietism is given in Hase's Church Hist. § 409; and for a fuller account, see Schrockh, Kirchengesch. seit der Ref. 8:255-291; Pusey, On German Theology, part 1 (pages 67-113); part 2, chapter 10; Amand Saintes, Crit. Hist. of Rationalism, chapter 7. Spener's character and life may be seen in Canstein's memoir of him; and in Weismann, pages 966-972. A philosophical view of pietism, as a necessary stage in the development of German religious life, is given by Dorner in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, part 2, page 137, "Ueber den Pietismus." Kahnis, who himself quotes from it (Hist. of Germ. Prot. page 102), regards pietism as ministering indirectly to rationalism; much in the same way as bishop Fitzgerald criticised the similar evangelical movement of England (Aids to Faith, page 49, etc.). The best account of pietism is to be found in Horsbach, Spener u. seine Zeit.; Bretschneider, Die Grundlage des evangelischen Pietismus; Marklin, Darstellung u. Kritik des modernen Pietismus. See also Hurst, Hist. of Rationalism, chapters 2 and 3; Hurst's Hagenbach, Church Hist. of the 18th and 19th Centuries; Winkworth, Christian Sigers of Germany, page 257 sq.; Meth. Qu. Rev. April 1865, page 316; Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1865, page 522; 1864, page 224; Gass, Dogmengesch.; Haag, Hist. des Dogmes.