published and circulated useful and religious books; and sought to promote frequent intercourse between Christians of different countries by extensive travel, as well as by correspondence.

"The four friends often held meetings for conference, and freely exchanged their thoughts on all that pertained to the objects they had in view. Rothe contributed to the interest of these occasions by his charming eloquence, his methodic mind, and his profound acquaintance with Scripture. Schaefer enlivened the discussions with his characteristic vivacity, his bold, enterprising spirit, his knowledge of the human heart, and his somewhat rough openness of manner. Young Watteville was valued for his mental clearness and accuracy, as well as his amiable and conciliatory disposition; for if ever there was any asperity to be smoothed down, or any misunderstanding to be set right, he was always appealed to. Zinzendorff, with his ardent love to the Saviour, and his talent for organisation, was the soul of the fraternity. In matters that were non-essential, he readily gave way to his friends but when once he was convinced that his views on any vital point were founded on the Bible, nothing would induce him to abandon them."

s;

They published several popular religious works, and corresponded and travelled a great deal. A printing press was soon procured, and thereby the Psalms, the New Testament, and at length the entire Bible, were published and circulated at a cheap rate. But Zinzendorff seems never to have been worn out with work, and ever ready to assist any of the other three in their labours when he was at home; but he travelled much, leaving the care of everything to his friend Watteville, who had now entirely forsaken the world, and devoted himself to the work which was being carried on at Berthelsdorf. Fresh emigrants were continually arriving; all of them earnest religious men, but most of them extremely obstinate, self-willed, and unyielding about matters which were of little, if any, real consequence; hence it frequently required all the skill and ability of Zinzendorff and his friends to prevent open ruptures. But since shelter was here given to any one that was persecuted for conscience sake, of whatever denomination he might be, it is not surprising that matters in this respect should have continued to grow worse rather than better. Zinzendorff found himself surrounded by a motley crowd of people, without any distinct confession, full of spiritual pride and all sorts of odd notions and individual crotchets ; but schools were provided for the young, and work for the adults, and thus wholesome occupation tended in some degree to lessen the evil.

Zinzendorff did his utmost to procure religious toleration for the United Brethren in Bohemia. At the time of the coronation of the Emperor Charles VI. as king of that country, he went to Prague and saw his majesty, with whom he was granted a private interview. He interceded, however, in vain; for although the king listened attentively to all that was urged, he

did not promise to relax any of the stringent orders that were then in force against the United Brethren. The truth seems to have been, that the Pope would not permit him to do so.

Zinzendorff spent a great portion of his time in writing, and also in translating religious works for publication. He started a weekly review, entitled the "Dresden Socrates;" his object in writing it was, "to lead men to reflect on their own condition, and to show them, by his own example, the true way of happiness. And there he said he wished to persuade them to become true Christians, or at any rate not to profess to be so till they really were." But these literary pursuits were continually interrupted by questions and anxieties respecting the Moravian settlement at Herrnhüt. The number of emigrants to the Count's little territory continued rapidly to increase, and as it did so, the Imperial Government looked coldly and suspiciously on Zinzendorff; considering him as peopling his own domain at its expense. With the view of preventing further emigration, the Government became more vigilant and cruel Zinzendorff clearly saw his own position, and the light in which his conduct would be regarded if he still continued to shelter these refugees; but being conscious that his own motives were pure and unselfish, he let things go on as they had done, except that he was rather more careful to satisfy himself that each new comer was in reality an exile for conscience sake. These honest and harmless Christian people were certainly most cruelly treated in their native land; they were imprisoned, persecuted, and stripped of all their goods. Zinzendorff's ideas of liberty of conscience were most conspicuous; he would harbour men whose doctrines he hated, if he believed them to be sincere, and knew that they were suffering persecution for conscience sake, however mislead they might be.

than ever.

In 1727, he gave up his public appointment. He never wished to hold it, and had only accepted it to satisfy his relations. Besides which, the little settlement at Herruhüt now numbered 300 people, and required all his energies; he therefore left his own mansion at Berthelsdorf, and went to live among his new colonists, leaving the care of his property to his wife and Henry Watteville. At Herrnhut, amongst other capacities, he acted as lay assistant to Rothe. The Moravians at this time earnestly denied the re-establishment of the ancient constitution of their church; and if this request were refused, they stated they would withdraw from the Church, and if necessary leave Herruhüt. After much consideration and prayer, and study of the "History of the Brethren," Zinzendorff determined to do as they wished; accordingly, laws founded upon the practice of the apostolic churches, and in accordance with the constitution

and

of the Church of the Brethren, were carefully draw up adapted to meet the necessities of the community at Herrnhüt. The inhabitants were assembled, and Zinzendorff, after addressing them for three hours, read the proposed statutes, which were unanimously accepted and signed by all present, with many expressions of sorrow for the idle and mischievous disputes in which they had for so long indulged, and a general promise thenceforth of amendment, and that they would cultivate meekness and humbleness of heart and mind.

"That day,' said Zinzendorff some years afterwards, 'was to determine the question, whether Herrnhüt would embrace the true idea of the Church of the Saviour, and humbly take its place therein; or whether it would choose to be nothing but a new sect, set up by the will of man. The power of the Holy Spirit decided it. What the Holy Spirit did for us towards the end of that year, no one can tell. Herrnhüt was like a tabernacle for God.""

To this period belongs the Moravian story as connected with the early Methodists. We must tell it chiefly in Wesley's words: how it originated, what were its influences, and how soon it was dissolved; leaving, however, its traces on the English Church, which are still visible.

However we may admire the youthful piety of Zinzendorff, it is impossible to conceal from ourselves the deplorable want of a wise and gentle instructor, who might have saved him. from so much extravagance. His religion wanted reverence and godly fear. His letters to the Saviour were a gross impropriety. We do not for a moment place them in the same class with those blasphemous epistles, which the young ladies of Italy are invited to drop into the Virgin Mary's Post Office, receiving in due course an answer from the Virgin, the audacious forgery of the designing priest. Zinzendorff's probably resembled much more closely the devout meditations of Thomas à Kempis. Still, however, there was an unholy familiarity, and it was soon followed up by a dangerous mysticism, which overspread, and had nearly destroyed, the Moravian Church. Wesley soon discovered this; and his respect for the Moravians abated until he withdrew from all further intercourse with them. He thought their minds narrow, and their discipline severe; but, in truth, Wesley never was known cordially to approve of any discipline, except that which he himself imposed. But we must resume the subject in our next Number.

TIME OF MORNING PUBLICATION OF BANNS.

[The Rev. S. C. Wilks gives the following arguments in favour of the publication of Banns after the Nicene Creed, in his "Memorial" presented, at the requisition of Lord Chelmsford, to the "Royal Commission on the Laws of Marriage," and printed by the Commissioners in their "Responses of Evidence."]

THE proposed Banns Statute would afford a favourable opportunity for settling a moot question which has vexed the Church for more than a hundred years: namely, whether, during Morning Service, banns should be published after the Nicene Creed, or after the second lesson. An enactment would not be wanted, but only a declaration that the statute of 26 George II. (or our modern Act, 4 George IV.) did not change the time for announcing morning banns as set forth by the rubric prefixed to the marriage office; I mean the genuine sealed book rubric, as inserted by statute in the Prayer Book, and never by law expelled,-not the modern unauthorized substitute for it. This declaration would quiet many controversies, introduce uniformity of practice, be grateful to the clergy of all shades of opinion, and unite England and Ireland upon a question which irritatingly divides what ought to be an United Church. To show the importance of the matter, it is only necessary to say that the Marriage Act of 4 George IV. enacts that a clergyman convicted of knowingly and wilfully marrying persons without "due publication of banns" (I omit the question of licences) shall be transported as a felon for 14 years; and that the marriage is "null and void" of persons knowingly and wilfully so marrying. Ignorance, proved not to be wilful, may save the offender, but it does not alter the law, or decide what is "due publication." In Ireland, to which the English marriage law did not extend, morning banns have always been published after the Nicene Creed; but in England and Wales the post-second-lesson practice has extensively, I might say generally, prevailed during many years, from what I believe most persons who have carefully examined the question now consider to be a misconstruction of the statute. The question, What is "due publication?" in regard to this point has never been decided by the Courts; but any person who wishes to upset a marriage may have it tried, and the decision, whatever it might be, would cause much anxiety, and perhaps serious danger, to many families. A short clause declaring the true

construction, validating all past marriages celebrated by banns hitherto published either way, and forward to (say) 12 months, and indemnifying the privileged printers and the clergy up to that time, would be a blessing beyond what those who have not looked into the matter would anticipate.

The introduction of the word "due" into the statute of 1823, which was not in that of 1753, has made the matter more serious than it was formerly. The statute of 1753 declared marriage "without publication of banns" to be "null and void." It specified nothing but publication or no publication. Dr. Burn, who took the post-second-lesson construction, writing shortly after the passing of the Act of 1753, said that if a father came into the church before the second lesson, expecting his minor son's banns would be published, and they were not, and he went away, and they were published after the Nicene Creed, the clergyman would not be "in a desirable situation." He goes on laying down the law in an authoritative manner, which led me, in some remarks which I published in my Banns tractate, from an imperfect note, to suppose that he was proceeding with the words of Lord Mansfield, whose observations upon the law of banns he had been quoting: but he, not Lord Mansfield, was contending that the statute had relegated morning banns to after the second lesson. Still, either way, the judges might decide that there was some sort of publication; whereas now they would have to settle the question whether the wrong time publication is "due" publication. It is contended that there cannot be two ways of "due" publication; and that the wrong way is null and void. Sir Herbert Jenner recognized this distinction when he said: "It seems to me that a marriage was void under the statute of 26 Geo. II., only when there had been no publication at all. Undue publication was not sufficient to void it (as it is under 4 Geo. IV.), unless it amounted to the absence of all publication." Many learned authorities, and especially the late Baron Alderson, have maintained that post-second-lesson morning publi cation is, in law, no publication; that the modern foisted rubric is illegal, and every act done under it invalid; and that the sealed book rubric ought to be restored. Judge Bailey in his Prayer Book, published in 1820, gave the old rubric; but whether advisedly, or because the printer used an edition which gave it, I cannot say.

The object of the Marriage Act, in this behalf, I think clears up the meaning. By the law of the Church, banns were to be proclaimed on holidays as well as Sundays. Thus Lyndwood says, "Si tres dies successivi festivi concurrant, sicut contingit in hebdomadâ Paschæ et Pentecostis, sufficit quot singulis trium dierum hujusmodi bannæ edantur." This law was em