once manifested by the character of the works published at this period.

The reformers had clearly taught, that the exposition of the Scriptures was the foundation of all theological knowledge. But this principle was less and less practically regarded by their followers, especially in the Lutheran church, where the whole activity of the learned was expended in Polemics. Exegesis and Dogmatic were extended no further than the defence of the symbolical books, and were not scientifically studied for their own sake. Exegesis particularly, sunk into neglect. In the beginning of the 17th century, few, if any lectures were read upon this subject in the German Universities. Spener obtained a command from the elector of Saxony, that exegetical lectures should be read in Leipzig; but when Carpzov commenced reading in obedience to this order, he was obliged to desist after the very first lecture, for want of hearers. Spener says, he knew theologians who had been six years at the university, witho t receiving the least instruction upon this subject. The exegetical books of this period, contained nothing more than the application of the formularies of the church, to the explication of particular passages of the sacred Scriptures. This was, indeed, not always the case, but the exceptions were few, The Dogmatic was as much confined to the path marked out by the symbolical books as the Exegesis. Melancthon's loci theologici, were thrown aside, and Hutter's loci communes filled with scholastic disputations, were adopted in their place. Ecclesiastical History was a defence of Protestantism, and an account of the controversies between the Calvinists and Lutherans. This department was almost entirely neglected in the 17th century in all the universities, of which Spener loudly complained. The evils of the prevalent system, were peculiarly manifested in the practical part of ministerial duties, and operated

most injuriously on the piety of the common people. Even in the sermons of Luther, there is by far too much of a polemical character, which although it admits of apology, cannot be entirely justified. But in his sermons, there was always a general practical tendency, which became less and less characteristic of those of his followers. The sermons of the 17th century were generally directed against heretics, and to the inculcation of a dry system of morals, although the form of orthodoxy was strictly adhered to. The manner of preaching was equally forced, delighting in uninteresting grammatical remarks, or childish playing upon words. The Pastor Jacob Andriae published a volume of sermons in four parts, 1568. The first part was devoted to the papistical controversy, the second against the disciples of Zuingle, the third against the followers of Schwenkfeld,* and the fourth against the Anabaptists. Artomedes in Koeningsbergh published eight sermons, in 1598, on the Lord's Supper, filled with the bitterest revilings against the Calvinists. One of these sermons begins thus, Against the Holy Supper, two bands of the devil are contending, the idolatrous Papists and the concerted Calvinists. Even the poor heathen Ovid was a better theologian than our Calvinists." As an example of the tasteless manner of sermonizing, in this period, we refer to a discourse of Hermann, a preacher in Brieg, in Silecia, upon Zacheus. His text was "he was small in person." He divided his sermon in the following manner:-1st, that little word he teaches us, personae qualitatem; 2d, the little word was, vitae fravilitatem; 3d. small, staturae parvitatem. To the exegetical part of the sermon, followed the practical part, which was commonly equally insipid. Thus

Schwenkfeld was a Silecian nobleman, born 1490, who separated from the Lutheran church and founded a distinct sect, distinguished by many mystical doctrines. (TR.)

C

the application made by Hermann of the text, just mention ed was: 1st that Zacheus, was informator devarietate operum Dei 2, consolator parvorum ; 3, adhortator ut defectum nostrum virtute compensemus. In the polemical discourses the application consisted in the direction of the subject to particular heretics.

Spener also complains greatly of the manner of studying pursued in the Gymnasia. In his Piis Desideriis, and in hist preface to Dannhauer's Hodogetic, he says, that in the schools, Latin alone is studied; Greek is almost neglected, and Hebrew entirely so. The students proceed to the university without any proper idea of what theology is, which they regard as a mere task for the memory. Prayer, meditation, and a holy walk and conversation are regarded as of little consequence. With respect to the several departments of the course of study, he says, "the philosophy is nothing more than dull scholastic formularies, and yet to this branch, the greatest portion of time is devoted. Philology is almost unknown; many theologians cannot read the Greek Testament. Thetik or dogmatic in its most restricted sense, is regarded as the most important branch of theology; the quotation of Scripture-passages in support of doctrines is little resorted to. Exegesis is only studied after the student has become a preacher, and even then no further than to enable him to make out the exposition of his text. Polemics are regarded, as second only to Thetik in importance, although it is difficult to be ever refuting errors when we ourselves know not the truth. And if the necessity of this branch be admitted, it does not follow that every preacher should be a Polemic. Ethics are not taught at all. Homoletik consists merely in scholastic rules, for the logical construction of a sermon.

Thomasius a learned professor of philosophy, published in 1686 a work entitled, "Free ideas pleasant and serious on all kinds of new books ;" in which he gives the following

description of a candidate of theology. "He has studied two years the Aristotelian Philosophy, devoted a third to positive theology, the fourth to scholastic theology, and the fifth to polemic theology. He has held a long disputation on the importance of metaphysics in refuting heretics, is able to prepare a well wrought sermon, with the help of philosophy, logical arrangement and a concordance, and prepare a refutation of that "devilish" book of Richard Simon, "Critical history of the Old Testament," and is all the while an utter stranger to practical theology.

The better part of the thelogians, describe also in dark colours the state of the laity. Thomas Gerhard, a learned and pious theologian, says, "even the most constant attendants in church are very immoral in their lives; yet, if any one questions their christian character, they are ready to commence a legal prosecution against him. Whoever becomes a real christian is stigmatized as a Pharisee,* Weigelian, or Rosencrucian." External religion, or the observance of the rites of the church was greatly overvalued, and even the Lord's Supper was greatly abused. One of the friends of Spener, H. Mueller, complains particularly of what he calls the four dumb idols of the church; the baptismal font, the pulpit, the confessional, and the altar.

SECTION II.

The first controversy against formal orthodoxy, occasioned by the revival of vital piety, through the instrumentality of JOHN ARNDT.

In the period, of which we have been speaking, many voices were heard lamenting over the fall of the church.

* Val. Weigle was a preacher in Tschopau, born 1533. His writings speak much of the "inward light," and anointing which he made the great source of religious knowledge: his views of the Trinity and many other important doctrines are also peculiar. (TR.)、

mans

But these complaints, were generally made so cautiously, and were attended with so little exertion to correct the evil, that they produced little effect. The first impression of importance was produced by John Arndt, who died May 6th, 1621. He was pious from his youth. During his stay at the university, he manifested peculiar fondness for exegetical studies, which was then generally the result of real religion. In Helmstadt he privately interpreted the Epistle to the RoAs soon as he entered upon his office as a clergyman, he began to preach in a biblical manner, especially upon the doctrine of regeneration. This was an exceedingly unpleasant subject to the orthodox, who were accustomed to explain it as nothing more than baptism. Arndt possessed the same mildness and modesty, which adorned the character of Spener, connected with more energy of mind. Neither his excellence, nor his vigilance were however, able to prevent the attacks of his enemies, in which character the orthodox very soon appeared. They complained that he required of men angelic perfection; they accused him of being an Alchymist, and accounted for his liberality, by saying that he had discovered the philosopher's stone, and could therefore well afford to dispense his illgotten gold. The preachers in Brunswick publicly warned their hearers, against the poison he was disseminating. After the publication of his book, upon true religion, the opposition became more violent. (This work has been translated into a greater number of languages, than any other human production, with the exception of Thomas a Kempis' Imitation of Christ.) The pulpits in every part of Germany, resounded with denunciations against him and his doctrines. He was pronounced a dangerous heretic, by John Cordinus, a preacher in Danzig. His opposers ridiculed his sermons and writings, and were not ashamed to call this distinguished servant of God, "an ignorant ass." Lucas Osiander wrote in 1623, a long work against him entitled "Taeologi