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 Anto- nius, 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 pro- fessors and pastors of Wittenberg, being of opinion that, in the execution of this laudable purpose, several unor- thodox maxims were adopted and certain unwarrant- able 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 mat- ter 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 con- tributed 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 dis- tinguished 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 abnve. As these maxims were propagated with the greatest industry and zeal, and were explained inadver- tently by some without those restrictions which pru- dence seemed to require, these professed patrons and re- vivers of piety were suspected of designs that could not
PIETISM
194
PIETISM
but render them obnoxious to censure. Tiny were Bupposed i" despise philosophy and learning; to treal with indifference, and even to renounce, .-ill 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 ol morality. Hence arose those famous disputes concern- ing the use of philosophy and the value of human learn- ing, considered in connection with the interests of re- ligion; the dignity and usefulness of systematic theol- ogy; 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 .'111(1 attention of the per- sons now iimlcr 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 slumM dedicate themselves to God in a peculiar man- ner, and exhibit the most striking examples of piety and virtue. This maxim, which, when considered in itself, must be considered to he highly laudable, not only
i:u\ :casion to several new regulations, designed to
restrain the passion8 of the studious youth, to inspire them with pious sentiments, and to excite in them holy resolutions. In 1 1 also produced another maxim, which was a lasting source of controversy and debate, viz. : •• That no person who was not himself a i lei of piety and di- vine 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 ministers, and as a sort of revival of the long-exploded errors ofthe Donatists; and what rendered ii peculiarly liable to an interpretation of this nature was the impru- dem e ol some Pietists, w ho 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 tar the office and ministry of an impious ecclesiastic can be pronounced salutary and efficacious?" "Wheth- er a licentious and ungodly man cannot be susceptible of illumination V" 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 a- possible in rousing men from their indo- lence-, and in stemming the torrent of corruption and immorality, they judged two things indispensably nec- essary. The first was to Suppress entirely, in the com-' 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 (.he indulgence of their passions. Such, in the judgment of the Pietists, were tin- 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