e latter half of the seventeenth century, show how keenly his own
heart had become impressed by them.

It was very evident that the Lutheran Church would require a long period
for self-purification, if indeed she could achieve it at all. The
shorter and more effectual way would be to operate _individually_ upon
the popular mind. And does not the entire history of the Church prove
that reform has originated from no concerted action of the body needing
reformation, but from the solemn conviction and persevering efforts of
some single mind, which, working first alone, has afterward won to its
assistance many others? Its work then reacted upon the parent
organization in such way that the latter became animated with new power.

The enemies of Pietism made the same objection to it that all the
opponents of reform have ever made: "This is very good in itself, but do
you not see that it is not the Church that is working? We would love to
see the cause of truth advanced and our torpid Church invigorated with
the old Reformation-life; but we would rather see the whole matter done
in a perfectly systematic and legitimate way. Now this Pietism has some
good features about it, but it acts in its own name. We do not like this
absurd fancy of _ecclesiolae in ecclesia_; but we prefer the Church to
act as the Church, and for its own purposes." Thus reasoned the enemies
of Pietism, who claimed as heartily as any of their contemporaries that
they were strict adherents of truth and warm supporters of spiritual
life. But their reasoning, however baseless, found favor; and the Church
gradually came to look upon Pietism not as a handmaid, but as an
adversary.

But we must first learn what Pietism proposed to do before we can
appreciate its historical importance. 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. Though
laughed at for two centuries by the Churchists on the one hand, and by
the Rationalists on the other, it has to-day a firmer hold upon the
respect of those who know its history best than at any former period.
What if Arnold, and Petersen and his wife, did indulge in great
extravagances? Have not the same unpleasant things occurred in the
Church at other times? Yet, because not classed under any sectarian
name, there has been but a transient estimate placed upon them, and
criticism has been merciless. Is not every good