bound by special vows, of those who were regarded as truly sincere and holy, and the adoption of a distinct mode of life and spiritual discipline, adapted to such seraphic beings. Bengel detected this weakness in the System, in the outset; saw in it the germs of mischief, and witnessed against it. This feature of Moravianism seems to cling somewhat to the System even now. Its members, apparently, do not wish for such identification in the One Body of Christ, as shall ignore their pretension to superior sanctity. They seem to be reformers, a "peculiar people," by profession. A similar exhibition we have seen in our own day, in those Spiritual Homes or Communities, which grew out of the intense Spiritualism of a quarter of a century ago, and yet which, as a matter of fact, have become the dens of such abominable uncleanness and impiety. Zinzendorf's rejection of Creeds and adoption of feeling, as the only test of piety, led, to some extent, to just such results. His biographer, Spangenberg, who was his personal friend and admirer, and also a "Bishop," though he writes with great caution, yet admits, incidentally, the degree to which this intense spiritualism, and mysticism, and sensuous emotionalism, perverted the judgment, and was fruitful in ungodliness of living. We shall see more of this, hereafter, and especially in the Letter of Whitefield, which we shall give presently.

As a specimen of the religious discipline of the Moravians, we cite a passage or two from his friendly biographer, Spangenberg. The Count determined, in 1741, "to bear testimony to the Genevese Church, where, formerly, the great John Calvin had taught." So, taking forty or fifty chosen "brethren and sisters," he goes to Switzerland. His biographer says:—

"The Count's residence, therefore, constituted a little Church in Geneva, with all its different choirs. Each choir held first its own matins. The whole Church then came together, and the Count then gave them an address. At eight o'clock in the evening, they again assembled, and edified each other with singing; on which a Bible lesson followed, with some of the learned brethren, at which others were also present. Afterwards, the brethren and sisters assembled, who divided the hours with each other, from four in the morning till midnight, for intercession and converse with the Lord. At the same time, there was an evening service for those who were not of that com

pany; and from twelve till four o'clock, there was a night watch for prayer, which was held by the brethren in turns," &c.*

Whitefield, in the Letter which we shall give below, alludes more particularly to the manner in which these services were conducted.

To show the extent to which spiritual delusion grew up among the Moravians, we make another extract from his biographer.

"About this time, various gifts and spiritual powers manifested themselves in the Church at Herrnhut, and, in particular, many miraculous cures. Its members believed, in filial simplicity, the words which the Saviour spoke respecting the hearing of prayer; and when any particular affair pressed itself upon them, they spoke with him concerning it, and expected every good thing from him; and it was done unto them according to their faith. The Count heartily rejoiced at this, and secretly praised the Saviour, who looks with such condescension on the poor and needy.t"

What this biographer calls the Count's "familiar intercourse with the Saviour," was another feature which helps to explain his character. In the Count's address at Geneva, he says; "for more than fifty years, I have conversed, as it were, personally, with the Saviour, and feel happier every day in doing so." And in his earlier years, the biographer tells us, that sometimes, when he had pen, ink and paper before him, he wrote a little note to his beloved Saviour,-told Him in it how his heart felt towards Him, and threw it out of the window, in the hopes that He would find it." &c., &c.‡

It is not strange, that with a man like Count Zinzendorf, a man of high civil rank and office, which he still retained, a man of large wealth, around whom devotees from different governments and principalities gathered, bound together and to him, by secret vows; and all this, too, where the Union of Church and State obtained; and where civil and religious Wars raged furiously-we say, it is not strange that the Moravian communities became a frequent source of suspicion and political trouble. In consequence of complaints made to the Privy Council, the Count was banished from Herrnhut, and

* Spangenberg's Life of Count Zinzendorf. London: 1838. p. 283.

from Saxony, for ten years; at a later date, the Moravian settlers at Herrnhaag were banished by the Government at Büdingen, and sought refuge in America; and he himself was banished, by the Empress of Russia, from her territories. So also, though on different grounds, the Synod of Holland issued a Pastoral Letter, warning "the members of the Dutch Church" against "opinions which did not accord with the doctrines of Christ and His Apostles."* In England, whither he went repeatedly, and where he spent a considerable portion of the later years of his life, he sought and obtained from Parliament, in 1749, a recognition of the United Brethren, as "An Ancient Protestant Episcopal Church," and he also had frequent conferences with Archbishop Potter, Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London, and the Bishop of Lincoln. In 1737, Archbishop Potter made a formal statement to the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, that the Moravians were an Apostolic and Episcopal Church; and this he did, in part most certainly, on testimony which Count Zinzendorf himself laid before him ;† and so the Moravian Missionaries passed into the employ of the Venerable Society. This was the one point aimed at by Parliament, and the English Bishops; and, ostensibly, it was so, on the part of Count Zinzendorf.

The most, then, that can be fairly drawn from the recognition of the Moravians by Parliament in certain Acts, and by the English Bishops, is, that the Moravians were Episcopal in form, and held to the Augsburgh Confession; and so might be looked to, to help supply the pressing spiritual wants in the American Colonies. If the statement of Archbishop Potter, in 1737, seems to mean more than this, yet there is proof in the testimony of Dr. Doddridge, as given by the biographer of Whitefield, which we shall cite presently, that the Archbishop subsequently had occasion to change his opinion as to the Moravian Episcopate.

On this point of the recognition of Moravian Episcopacy in England, there are several things to be noticed. Dates are

* Life of Zinzendorf, p. 247.

+ Пb. p. 227.

sometimes an important item in an argument. Spangenberg, the Count's biographer, says :

"The Count, seeing that these Prelates, [the Bishop of London, and the Bishop of Lincoln,] as well as others of the Church of England, would be glad of a more particular account of the Doctrine, Constitution, and practice of the Moravian Church, wrote a copious treatise upon the subject in English.'

This was in 1749, twelve years after the statement of Archbishop Potter; and it shows, clearly enough, that the true Churchly character of Moravianism was not, by any means, a settled point in England. Besides this, during all this time, American Churchmen in the Colonies were pleading and interceding with the English Church for an Apostolic Episcopate.† Why were not these men referred to the Moravian Bishops, two of whom, Hitschman and Zinzendorf, had both travelled in this country? The English Church Missionaries, in their correspondence with the Mother Church, allude to these Moravian Bishops;" but never in a manner as recognizing the validity of their Orders. Subsequently, when Seabury went to England to obtain a primitive and Apostolic Episcopacy, why was he not reminded of the Moravian Episcopate? This was unshackled by State fetters, and might have put an end, at once, to all his difficulties, if it were what he wanted. That Moravian Episcopacy was alluded to in Seabury's interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury; but never as acknowledging its validity; while the Correspondence of Dr. Berkeley, son of the noble Dean and Bishop, with Bishop Skinner, of Scotland, is negative proof, of the strongest possible kind, that the spurious character of Moravian Episcopacy was perfectly well understood.§ This whole subject of the origin and character of the Moravian Episcopate is, however, thoroughly examined in the paper of the Hon. and Rev. Dr. Perceval, which we give below, and to that we now refer the reader.

That, in seeking recognition from the English Bishops, and from Parliament, Zinzendorf had also in view an increase of his own personal authority and power, is more than intimated by

* Life of Zinzendorf, 389.

+ See Am. Quar. Church Review Vol. IV. pp. 548-579. Hawks' and Perry's Documentary History, Vol. II. p. 101. VOL. XVII.

21

§ Ib. pp. 238-9.

Whitefield, in the Letter to which we have alluded.

Certain

it is, that so much cumbersome machinery, and becoming all the while more and more difficult to manage, demanded one ruling and directing head, in order to its working smoothly; and that agency, the Count supplied in his own person. His biographer says:-" At the Synod held in London, in 1741, he had been commissioned, after mature deliberation, to take charge of the affairs of the brethren, and their Missions, with unlimited authority, and continue to do so, as long as the case required it."

In England, the Count, of course, attracted the attention of Mr. Whitefield, and of the Wesleys, whose spiritual life had been quickened by the preaching of the Moravian preacher, Peter Möhler. These men studied carefully the character of the man, of his measures, doctrine, and system. Won, at first, by the earnest zeal of a man whose apparent aim was to revive pure and undefiled religion, they soon found cause to withdraw, utterly, from all association with him. The biographer of Charles Wesley says, Zinzendorf's "theology, as he advanced in years, became more unsound, and his influence increasingly mischievous;" while John Wesley was estranged, as by other causes, so also by the Antinomianism of the Moravians, and their Quietism, which they had learned from Madame Guion and other French mystic writers. Mr. Whitefield took equally decided ground, not only in renouncing, but denouncing the Sect, when he saw what corruptions had already arisen in it. Mr. Philip, in his Life and Times of Whitefield, says, the vagaries of the Moravians,

"First alarmed, and then alienated, both Watts and Doddridge, as well as Whitefield and Wesley. Doddridge was right, too, in supposing that they produced the same sentiments in the Archbishop of · Canterbury.' Potter could forgive much to a people whom he recognized as an Apostolic and Episcopal Church; but he seems to have doubted, eventually, whether Zinzendorf was elected their Bishop, 'plaudente toto cœlesti choro. "

Whitefield met the matter boldly. He wrote publicly to Count Zinzendorf, in the spirit of a man whose confidence had

* Life of Count Zinzendorf, pp. 340-1.

Life of Whitefield, p. 410.