sufficient for him. Despite this apparent similarity with the miner Frisch he represents a different type of Pietist layman. He had been well educated and was a member of the bourgeoisie in a large town within the Holy Roman Empire. He had travelled widely through western Europe and had many rel-atives living in various countries. It was comparatively easy for him and his friends to reject the ordinary Sunday services and the eucharist in a large city such as Frankfurt. No sanctions need be expected, but in smaller places it was more difficult for Pietists not to take part in public worship. Nevertheless, there were also lower-class Pietists in Frankfurt besides pious members of the bourgeoisie. Even servants attended Spener’s collegia pietatis. But their par-ticipation was so extraordinary that it was regarded as a peculiarity. The barriers between the social classes remained, although they had lost much of their separating character, but when Schütz withdrew totally from Spener’s collegia pietatis and formed his own conventicle he referred to the illiterate people who were in the practice of attending. It appears that he believed that he could gain no further edification from Spener’s groups. Schütz’s relationship with Spener shows the importance that parsons had as experts within the Pietist movement. They were able to circulate devo-tional texts. Many of these texts were examples of pious literature written not by orthodox Lutherans but by authors from other denominations represent-ing various theological schools. During the second half of the seventeenth century the publication of heterodox literature grew rapidly. In the promotion and distribution of this literature Spener played a major part. He refused to dissociate himself from pious authors simply because they espoused certain heterodox opinions. He preferred to take advantage of the outstanding piety of their writing. Its spirituality emphasized the practical aspect of belief rather than dogmatic rigidity and its associated dryness. Spener advised his disciples to ignore any heterodox views they encountered in their reading or, even better, to revise their texts, erasing the heterodox parts according to Lutheran orthodoxy. His promotion of devotional and mystical literature

doi:10.4324/9780203166505-33

Chapter

sufficient for him. Despite this apparent similarity with the miner Frisch he represents a different type of Pietist layman. He had been well educated and was a member of the bourgeoisie in a large town within the Holy Roman Empire. He had travelled widely through western Europe and had many rel-atives living in various countries. It was comparatively easy for him and his friends to reject the ordinary Sunday services and the eucharist in a large city such as Frankfurt. No sanctions need be expected, but in smaller places it was more difficult for Pietists not to take part in public worship. Nevertheless, there were also lower-class Pietists in Frankfurt besides pious members of the bourgeoisie. Even servants attended Spener’s collegia pietatis. But their par-ticipation was so extraordinary that it was regarded as a peculiarity. The barriers between the social classes remained, although they had lost much of their separating character, but when Schütz withdrew totally from Spener’s collegia pietatis and formed his own conventicle he referred to the illiterate people who were in the practice of attending. It appears that he believed that he could gain no further edification from Spener’s groups. Schütz’s relationship with Spener shows the importance that parsons had as experts within the Pietist movement. They were able to circulate devo-tional texts. Many of these texts were examples of pious literature written not by orthodox Lutherans but by authors from other denominations represent-ing various theological schools. During the second half of the seventeenth century the publication of heterodox literature grew rapidly. In the promotion and distribution of this literature Spener played a major part. He refused to dissociate himself from pious authors simply because they espoused certain heterodox opinions. He preferred to take advantage of the outstanding piety of their writing. Its spirituality emphasized the practical aspect of belief rather than dogmatic rigidity and its associated dryness. Spener advised his disciples to ignore any heterodox views they encountered in their reading or, even better, to revise their texts, erasing the heterodox parts according to Lutheran orthodoxy. His promotion of devotional and mystical literature

Chapter

sufficient for him. Despite this apparent similarity with the miner Frisch he represents a different type of Pietist layman. He had been well educated and was a member of the bourgeoisie in a large town within the Holy Roman Empire. He had travelled widely through western Europe and had many rel-atives living in various countries. It was comparatively easy for him and his friends to reject the ordinary Sunday services and the eucharist in a large city such as Frankfurt. No sanctions need be expected, but in smaller places it was more difficult for Pietists not to take part in public worship. Nevertheless, there were also lower-class Pietists in Frankfurt besides pious members of the bourgeoisie. Even servants attended Spener’s collegia pietatis. But their par-ticipation was so extraordinary that it was regarded as a peculiarity. The barriers between the social classes remained, although they had lost much of their separating character, but when Schütz withdrew totally from Spener’s collegia pietatis and formed his own conventicle he referred to the illiterate people who were in the practice of attending. It appears that he believed that he could gain no further edification from Spener’s groups. Schütz’s relationship with Spener shows the importance that parsons had as experts within the Pietist movement. They were able to circulate devo-tional texts. Many of these texts were examples of pious literature written not by orthodox Lutherans but by authors from other denominations represent-ing various theological schools. During the second half of the seventeenth century the publication of heterodox literature grew rapidly. In the promotion and distribution of this literature Spener played a major part. He refused to dissociate himself from pious authors simply because they espoused certain heterodox opinions. He preferred to take advantage of the outstanding piety of their writing. Its spirituality emphasized the practical aspect of belief rather than dogmatic rigidity and its associated dryness. Spener advised his disciples to ignore any heterodox views they encountered in their reading or, even better, to revise their texts, erasing the heterodox parts according to Lutheran orthodoxy. His promotion of devotional and mystical literature

DOI link for sufficient for him. Despite this apparent similarity with the miner Frisch he represents a different type of Pietist layman. He had been well educated and was a member of the bourgeoisie in a large town within the Holy Roman Empire. He had travelled widely through western Europe and had many rel-atives living in various countries. It was comparatively easy for him and his friends to reject the ordinary Sunday services and the eucharist in a large city such as Frankfurt. No sanctions need be expected, but in smaller places it was more difficult for Pietists not to take part in public worship. Nevertheless, there were also lower-class Pietists in Frankfurt besides pious members of the bourgeoisie. Even servants attended Spener’s collegia pietatis. But their par-ticipation was so extraordinary that it was regarded as a peculiarity. The barriers between the social classes remained, although they had lost much of their separating character, but when Schütz withdrew totally from Spener’s collegia pietatis and formed his own conventicle he referred to the illiterate people who were in the practice of attending. It appears that he believed that he could gain no further edification from Spener’s groups. Schütz’s relationship with Spener shows the importance that parsons had as experts within the Pietist movement. They were able to circulate devo-tional texts. Many of these texts were examples of pious literature written not by orthodox Lutherans but by authors from other denominations represent-ing various theological schools. During the second half of the seventeenth century the publication of heterodox literature grew rapidly. In the promotion and distribution of this literature Spener played a major part. He refused to dissociate himself from pious authors simply because they espoused certain heterodox opinions. He preferred to take advantage of the outstanding piety of their writing. Its spirituality emphasized the practical aspect of belief rather than dogmatic rigidity and its associated dryness. Spener advised his disciples to ignore any heterodox views they encountered in their reading or, even better, to revise their texts, erasing the heterodox parts according to Lutheran orthodoxy. His promotion of devotional and mystical literature

sufficient for him. Despite this apparent similarity with the miner Frisch he represents a different type of Pietist layman. He had been well educated and was a member of the bourgeoisie in a large town within the Holy Roman Empire. He had travelled widely through western Europe and had many rel-atives living in various countries. It was comparatively easy for him and his friends to reject the ordinary Sunday services and the eucharist in a large city such as Frankfurt. No sanctions need be expected, but in smaller places it was more difficult for Pietists not to take part in public worship. Nevertheless, there were also lower-class Pietists in Frankfurt besides pious members of the bourgeoisie. Even servants attended Spener’s collegia pietatis. But their par-ticipation was so extraordinary that it was regarded as a peculiarity. The barriers between the social classes remained, although they had lost much of their separating character, but when Schütz withdrew totally from Spener’s collegia pietatis and formed his own conventicle he referred to the illiterate people who were in the practice of attending. It appears that he believed that he could gain no further edification from Spener’s groups. Schütz’s relationship with Spener shows the importance that parsons had as experts within the Pietist movement. They were able to circulate devo-tional texts. Many of these texts were examples of pious literature written not by orthodox Lutherans but by authors from other denominations represent-ing various theological schools. During the second half of the seventeenth century the publication of heterodox literature grew rapidly. In the promotion and distribution of this literature Spener played a major part. He refused to dissociate himself from pious authors simply because they espoused certain heterodox opinions. He preferred to take advantage of the outstanding piety of their writing. Its spirituality emphasized the practical aspect of belief rather than dogmatic rigidity and its associated dryness. Spener advised his disciples to ignore any heterodox views they encountered in their reading or, even better, to revise their texts, erasing the heterodox parts according to Lutheran orthodoxy. His promotion of devotional and mystical literature

ABSTRACT

The essential difference between the two Pietist leaders can be seen clearly as one compares their respective attitudes to the revelations made by socalled extraordinary women. Between 1690 and 1700 there was a wave of enthusiastic visions in several towns in central and northern Germany. These revelations were received by women belonging to the lower classes, among them domestic servants and wives of artisans. The revelations consisted of warnings to the clergy and the local authorities that Christ’s return was imminent. The prophetesses were escorted by mentors who interpreted their revelations and defended them against critics. Spener was sceptical. He was sure that the revelations were not from God since they were directed against the divine order as it existed in the state, church and family.32 Francke, on the other hand, was thoroughly convinced that God revealed his glory through miracles of this nature and would continue to do so in even more dramatic ways. In particular, he favoured the far-reaching character of the revelations, with their tendency to comprehend every aspect of God’s creation. Even when the events predicted did not occur he persisted in his opinion that God chose to act in mysterious ways and might, as he put it, show his mercy ‘just in an hour that you are not aware of ’.33 He had experienced a strong sense of divine providence at his own conversion. Therefore he advised his hearers to be calm as they waited for God to do his work. He was convinced that there were clear steps leading to conversion for which the individual had to be prepared. To train a pupil up to that point was an important part of his pedagogical programme. But Francke’s agenda went further. Conversion was only the beginning of progress through the world. Consequently, the individual believer had to await attentively God’s further revelations. He had to observe the signs of the time in order to recognize God’s footsteps and to follow them.34 This combination of quietly waiting for and tensely following God’s actions was Francke’s method of employing both chiliasm and enthusiasm for the benefit of his institutions. The method determined his