^{page 29 note 1} The word ‘Pietist’ originally indicated ‘an affected and indeed feigned kind of righteousness’. So Schmidt, K. D., Grundriss der Kirchengeschichte, 5th ed., Göttingen 1967, 416.Google Scholar M. Schmidt reports that the term became established after J. Feller, Professor of Poetry at Leipzig, used it with favourable connotations in two popular verses in 1689. See Schmidt, M., ‘Pietismus’ in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (hereafter RGG), 3rd ed., Tübingen 1961, V. col. 374.Google Scholar The verses are also cited in Schmidt, M. and Jannasch, W., Das Zeitalter des Pietismus (Klassiker des Protestantismus, vi), Bremen 1965, xxxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} Important material concerning the genesis of Pietism, in the Netherlands and elsewhere, some of it used in the present article, has been provided by Stoeffler, F. E., The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, Leiden 1971, especially 109–79.Google Scholar See also Tanis, James, ‘Reformed Pietism and Protestant Missions’ in HarvardTheological Review, LXVII (1974), 65ff.Google Scholar, Ritschl, A., Geschichte des Pietismus, 3 vols., Bonn 1880–1886Google Scholar, Berlin 1966, i, book 2 (hereafter GP) and Goeters, W., Die Vorbereitung des Pietismus in der reformierten Kirche der Niederlande bis zur Labadistischen Krisis 1670, Leipzig and Utrecht 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} This interpretation differs somewhat from that advanced by F. E. Stoeffler, op. cit., 6ff. He regards Pietism as a manifestation in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Protestantism of an ‘experiential tradition’ that has always been present in Christianity, and which in addition was perfectionistic, emphasised Scripture and opposed certain tendencies in prevailing church life. Dutch Pietism is, thus, seen as one of several forms of a basically unitary phenomenon, and in his discussion thereof Stoeffler deals mainly with its individual representatives. In response to this concept three observations may be made. First, Dutch Pietism requires firmer historical anchorage by correlating it more closely with the conditions in the Netherlands that evoked it. Secondly, the picture of a single Pietist upsurge making its appearance in Protestant Europe must be balanced by the evidence of considerable variations of practice and outlook within Pietism. Thirdly, the phenomenon before us in the Netherlands was a movement, a combined endeavour and, therefore, it cannot be represented sufficiently without attention being drawn to the mutual relationships of its individual exponents. Accordingly the present article regards Dutch Pietism in its early years as a quest for reforms occasioned by specific circumstances, and accords to its ‘experiential’ element a lesser significance dian does Stoeffler.

^{page 30 note 2} See Itterzon, G. P. van and Nauta, D. (eds.), Geschiedenis van de Kerk, Kampen 1964, V. 125ff.;@ and N. K. van den Akker and E. L. Smit, Beknopte Geschiedenis van het Christendom, 8th ed., The Hague, no date, 209.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 3} Cf. Goeters, op. cit., 5, and Stoeffler, op. cit., 111.

^{page 30 note 4} Beyreuther, E. in Evangelisches Kirchenlexicon, Göttingen 1959, iii, col. 217. Hereafter cited as EK.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 1} So Stoeffler, op. cit., 112ff.

^{page 31 note 2} Cf. Tanis, op. cit., 68, n. 13.

^{page 31 note 3} E.g. Heussi, Karl, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte, 12th ed., Tübingen 1960, 362.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} Stoeffler, op. cit, 113ff.

^{page 31 note 5} Published in Amsterdam, 1673–75. For an examination of Cocceius's ideas see Faulenbach, H., Weg und Zeil der Erkenntnis Christi. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Johannes Cocceius. (Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, XXXVI), Neukirchen 1973.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} See K. D. Schmidt, op. cit., 426f.

^{page 32 note 2} On Cocceius see also Ritschl, GP, i. 130ff.; E. Bizer, ‘Cocceius’ in RGG, 3rd ed., i. cols. 1841f.; and Müller, E. F. Karl, in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Grand Rapids 1963, III, 149f., hereafter cited as NSH.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 3} Quoted from Tanis, op. cit, 68, n. 13.

^{page 32 note 4} In keeping with his experiential concept of Pietism Stoeffler offers a somewhat different picture of the rise of the Dutch form of the movement, detecting its first signs in such relatively earlier figures as Jean de Taffin (c. 1589–1602) and Gottfried Cornelius Udemans (c. 1580–1649), evidently because of their ‘inwardly experienced piety’: op. cit., 121ff. The present article, on the other hand, favours an explicit link with the question of reform in order to explain the emergence of the movement under discussion.

^{page 32 note 5} There were of course other figures. One of mem, Willem Teellinck (1579–1629) had much in common with the Pietists, but the relatively early date of his active life make his status in relation to the movement somewhat problematical. Thus, while Stoeffler regards him as a major early Pietist, Ritschl largely ignores him in his voluminous discussion of Dutch Piedsm, and S. D. van Veen sees him as a major forerunner of the movement (NSH, xi, 288). In view of diis disagreement other figures have been chosen for the present review of the emergence of Pietism in the Nedierlands.

^{page 33 note 1} Cf. Karl Heussi, op. cit., 396, and E. Beyreuther, op. cit., col. 217. The term they use is Präzisismus. According to the OED a precisian is ‘one who is rigidly precise or punctilious in the observance of rules or forms’ or ‘who is precise in religious observance’.

^{page 33 note 2} K. D. Schmidt, op. cit., 418.

^{page 33 note 3} See Loewenich, W. von, Die Geschichte der Kirche, 3rd ed., Munich and Hamburg 1969, II. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 4} The term ‘conventicle’ is used here without implying separatist worship, which was on the whole avoided in Dutch Pietism. It is used for group meetings in which Pietists would gather for edificatory religious exercises supplementary to the usual church services.

^{page 33 note 5} It is interesting to note the emperor Charles v's prohibition of conventicles in an edict of 25 September 1525, cited by Lindsay, T. M., A History of the Reformation, 2nd ed., Edinburgh 1909, II, 231.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 6} A. Ritschl, GP, ii. 3. Ritschl discusses Voetius's use of conventicles in i. 117ff.

^{page 34 note 1} Cf. J. Moltmann, ‘Voetius’, EK, iii. col. 1671.

^{page 34 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 34 note 3} Labadie is discussed in Stoeffler, op. cit, 162ff. See also Ritschl, op. cit., i. 194ff.

^{page 34 note 4} On Amesius see Stoeffler, op. cit., 133ff.; Goeters, op. cit., 61ff., and J. Moltmann, ‘Amesius’ in RGG, 3rd ed., i. col. 322.

^{page 34 note 5} Op. cit., 135.

^{page 35 note 1} See Stoeffler, op. cit., 141.

^{page 35 note 2} So J. Moltmann, op. cit., col. 322.

^{page 35 note 3} It is interesting to compare the discussions of Lodensteyn given respectively by Ritschl (GP, i. 152–194) and Stoeffler, op. cit., 141 ff.

^{page 35 note 4} So Ritschl, op. cit., i. 152, and Stoeffler, op. cit., 142.

^{page 35 note 5} Regarding Lodensteyn as a preacher, see Stoeffler, op. cit., 142f.

^{page 35 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 36 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 36 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 36 note 3} For a discussion of this work see Ritschl, op. cit., i. 155ff.

^{page 36 note 4} Op. cit., i. 165.

^{page 36 note 5} S. D. van Veen, ‘Lodenstein’ in NSH, vii. 8.

^{page 37 note 1} Op. cit., i. 192.

^{page 37 note 2} To distinguish these two phases Ritschl uses the terms ‘legalistic’ and ‘evangelical’ for the first and second stages respectively: op. cit., i. passim, but especially ch. 15. Stoeffler's survey of later representatives of Dutch Pietism also brings to light a clear emphasis on devotional religion: op. cit., 148ff.