The conventicles (collegia pietitatis) themselves, to which Spener’s famous pia desideria gave the theoretical basis, and which he founded in practice, corresponded closely in essentials to the English prophesyings which were first practised in John of Lasco’s London Bible Classes (1547), and after that were a regular feature of all forms of Puritanism which revolted against the authority of the Church. Finally, he bases his well-known repudiation of the Church discipline of Geneva on the fact that its natural executors, the third estate (status aeconomicus: the Christian laity), were not even a part of the organization of the Lutheran Church. On the other hand, in the discussion of excommunication the lay members’ recognition of the Consistorium appointed by the prince as representatives of the third estate is weakly Lutheran. ↩
The name Pietism in itself, which first occurs in Lutheran territory, indicates that in the opinion of contemporaries it was characteristic of it that a methodical business was made out of pietas. ↩
It is, of course, granted that though this type of motivation was primarily Calvinistic it is not exclusively such. It is also found with special frequency in some of the oldest Lutheran Church constitutions. ↩
In the sense of Hebrews 5:13, 14. Compare Spener, Theologische Bedenken, I, p. 306. ↩
Besides Bailey and Baxter (see Consilia theologica, III, 6, 1; 1, 47; 3, 6), Spener was especially fond of Thomas à Kempis, and even more of Tauler-whom he did not entirely understand (op. cit., III, 61, 1, No. 1). For detailed discussion of the latter, see op. cit., I, 1, 1 No. 7. For him Luther is derived directly from Tauler. ↩
See in Ritschl, Pietismus, II, p 113. He did not accept the repentance of the later Pietists (and of Luther) as the sole trustworthy indication of true conversion (Theologische Bedenken, III, p. 476). On sanctification as the fruit of thankfulness in the belief of forgiveness, a typically Lutheran idea, see passages cited by Ritschl, op. cit., p. 115, note 2. On the certitudo salutis see, on the one hand, Theologische Bedenken, I, p. 324: “true belief is not so much felt emotionally as known by its fruits” (love and obedience to God); on the other. Theologische Bedenken, I, p. 335 f.: “As far as anxiety that they should be assured of salvation and grace is concerned, it is better to trust to our books, the Lutheran, than to the English writings.” But on the nature of sanctification he was at one with the English viewpoint. ↩
Of this the religious account books which A. H. Francke recommended were external symptoms. The methodical practice and habit of virtue was supposed to cause its growth and the separation of good from evil. This is the principal theme of Francke’s book Von des Christen Vollkommenheit. ↩
The difference between this rational Pietist belief in Providence and its orthodox interpretation is shown characteristically in the famous controversy between the Pietists of Halle and the orthodox Lutheran Löscher. Löscher in his Timotheus Verinus goes so far as to contrast everything that is attained by human action with the decrees of Providence. On the other hand, Francke’s consistent view was that the sudden flash of clarity over what is to happen, which comes as a result of quiet waiting for decision, is to be considered as “God’s hint,” quite analogous to the Quaker psychology, and corresponding to the general ascetic idea that rational methods are the way to approach nearer to God. It is true that Zinzendorf, who in one most vital decision entrusted the fate of his community to lot, was far from Francke’s form of the belief in Providence. Spener, Theologische Bedenken, I, p. 314, referred to Tauler for a description of the Christian resignation in which one should bow to the divine will, and not cross it by hasty action on one’s own responsibility, essentially the position of Francke. Its effectiveness as compared to Puritanism is essentially weakened by the tendency of Pietism to seek peace in this world, as can everywhere be clearly seen. “First righteousness, then peace,” as was said in opposition to it in 1904 by a leading Baptist (G. White in an address to be referred to later) in formulating the ethical programme of his denomination (Baptist Handbook, 1904, p. 107). ↩
Lectiones Paraeneticae, IV, p. 271. ↩
Ritschl’s criticism is directed especially against this continually recurrent idea. See the work of Francke containing the doctrine which has already been referred to. (See note 229 above.) ↩
It occurs also among English Pietists who were not adherents of predestination, for instance Goodwin. On him and others compare Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus in der reformierten Kirche (Leiden, 1879), a book which even with Ritschl’s standard work cannot yet be dispensed with for England, and here and there also for the Netherlands. Even in the nineteenth century in the Netherlands Köhler, Die niederländische reformirte Kirche, was asked about the exact time of his rebirth. ↩
They attempted thus to counteract the lax results of the Lutheran doctrine of the recoverability of grace (especially the very frequent conversion in extremis). ↩
Against the corresponding necessity of knowing the day and hour of conversion as an indispensable sign of its genuineness. See Spener, Theologische Bedenken, II, 6, 1, p. 197. Repentance was as little known to him as Luther’s terrores
