churches," where also the difference is clearly and intelligibly pointed out between the European Diaspora and American Home Missions. If our brethren in the West should mean to say, that the discussion also on this subject in the Synod of 1848 has not been sufficiently prudent and faithful, we could only answer, that they would give judgment,-as they actually do in reference to the manner of preaching,-before having heard the seven American witnesses in the case.

In reference to the second article on the Brethren's Church, sketching her peculiar origin; a careful study of our history will show that we have stated nothing, that could not be corroborated abundantly by historical facts.

As regards our third article on the peculiar mission of the Brethren's Church, we would only request to compare it carefully with the "Unanimous Declaration of the Ministers' Conference at Bethlehem in 1852," in which one at least of the four brethren, who signed the "Unanimous Declaration of Principles of Western Ministers' Conference" fully concurred-a year ago.

We might have added a fourth article in reference to the policy to be pursued by the American branch of the Unitas Fratrum, but we refrained from it, chiefly, because this ought to be left to the deliberations of our Provincial Synods. However, as our views on the subject have been formed long ago, and have been published already in a German essay, we have no objection, to translate them into English, to satisfy those who would seem to insinuate, that we would wish to "stifle enquiry into the state of the Church."

"The historical developement of the American Brethren's Church -we said a year ago and now repeat it as our conviction,-is in some respects different from that of the European Church. In Europe the congregation was formed first, in 1727, and the ecclesiastical rights were obtained later, in 1735. In Pennsylvania on the contrary the Brethren acted at once as members of an organized Church, using among Lutherans, Reformed and others their ecclesiastical rights and privileges. The three original German Churches of Pennsylvania, the Lutheran, Reformed and Brethren's Church, date their origin to the religious movements from 1742 till 1748.

The Brethren's Church, acknowledged in 1749 by an Act of Parliament, became very gradually, since 1769, a Brethren's Con. gregation, partly by closer union with the European branches of the Unity, and partly by a gradual cessation of the Provincial Synods.

Since 1818 the connection with Europe became more loose again, until in 1849 the American branch was re-organized, in an ecclesiastical point of view, by the first Provincial Synod and the election of the Provincial Helpers' Conference, which hitherto had been appointed by the Unity's Elders' Conference.

The different historical developements of the European and the American branches of our Unity show plainly, that in Europe the Brethren's Church has retreated more and more into the Brethren's Congregation, and in this form she has become and is still a blessing for the Church Universal.

In America on the contrary, as can be proved by history, the most extensive activity has been displayed in those times, in which the Brethren's congregation acted as a Church, i. e. in the first twenty-five and the last twenty years. From 1770 to 1830, during the middle part of which time our place-congregations flourished most, very little was done for the extension of the Church.

This would seem to be a providential indication, that in our country the Church element ought to predominate, however, without entirely suppressing the Congregation element, the essential characteristic of the Brethren's Church.

The Brethren's Congregation and the Brethren's Church are not however terms which contradict each other. Together they form the Brethren's Unity. To this we will hold. Though the forms of worship, the regulations of outward affairs, and even the church government in the different provinces of the Unity are different, still let us try to preserve the bond of spiritual union, which connécts us as Brethren in the Lord and Elder of our covenant."

From the above our brethren in the West will perceive, that we -and probably not a few others besides,-fully agree with them in the principle of our independent position as a distinct branch of the Christian Church Universal, i. e. independent from all other churches, but not separated from the Unitas Fratrum.

We wish to see more action of the Church, and are progressive in our views in this respect; but at the same time, we are conservative as to the character and PRINCIPLES OF MORAVIANISM.

We defined the position of our Church, in relation to other Churches, as standing in the middle between opposite extremes, and said among the rest, that Moravianism, as we understand it, takes a central position between Puritanism and Puseyism. Our brethren in the West say, they can neither appreciate nor understand it, they make no reference to our explanation of this very mysterious expression, but rather give one of their own, saying: This must mean: half Puritans and half Puseyites! And a little further on we read, by way af application of Rev. 3. 15, 16. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold i. e., in connection with the preceding Puseyite, nor hot, i. e., Puritan; so then because thou art lukewarm, i. e. Moravian, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." We are astonished, to hear such a perversion of Scripture, to hear it from four ministers of the gospel, to hear it from those who say: "We love our Zion, we esteem her above any earthly institution, we prefer her above our chief joy." Will such undigested matter do any good to the Church? Will

any of her members love her more, for hearing her slandered by her own ministers?

The brethren in the West tell us : "We look upon the Puritan churches as most eminently biblical, faithful in their teachings, most marvellously consistent throughout their whole history, and apparently the instrument which God is now using for furthering his great day of millenial glory." Thousands of Christians in the United States have exactly the same views, and therefore join one of the Puritanic churches at once, and deserve praise for their consistency. If you look upon Puritanism as the highest development of Christianity,-well and good; we shall not find fault with your views, although we cannot participate in them ;—but we marvel, why you do not become Puritans in practice as well as in theory.

That Moravian Christians, Moravian ministers can be most eminently biblical, faithful in their teachings and most marvellously consistent throughout their whole conduct, could be proved most abundantly both by the history of the past, and by the practice and experience of the present time. But still we repeat it: Moravianism, as it is, and as it has been,-Moravianism of the past and the present time stands in the middle between Puseyism and Puritanism.

We believe, with our western brethren "that the Brethren's Church has ever, even amid blood and fire, been a most faithful and conspicuous witness of the truth as it is in Jesus. Her whole history is one great protest against the Romish heresy." True, but the protest of Moravianism has always been of a very different kind from the protest of Puritanism. Look into our works of history. Will you find one instance on record, that a Moravian or Bohemian or Polish brother had drawn the sword against the armies of Rome, or taken up the pen to attack the errors and superstitions of Popery? Persecuted and hunted down by their cruel oppressors, they never made use of carnal weapons, but literally obeyed the injunction of our Savior: "When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another." Matth. 10, 23. Their patient suffering, their consistent walk and conversation amidst reproach and shame, unlike that of the fighting Hussites, was their only protest against Popery, and, we believe, the most biblical testimony for the truth as it is in Jesus. Peter Paul Vergerius, formerly a roman catholic bishop and legate of the pope, afterwards a faithful minister of the evangelical Church, wrote in 1557 concerning the Brethren: "Some time ago, when by the Providence of God led from Germany to Prussia, Lithauania and Poland, I there met forty congregations of the Brethren, which in truth gave me exquisite delight. amongst them the voice of the gospel resounds pure and harmoniously, so much so, that neither in their doctrine, nor among their teachers I could observe or suspect any error or controversy. Their

For

ceremonies are the purest and most simple, so far removed from popish superstitions and gesticulations, that not even a vestige remains. This character of the ancient Church of the Brethren has been retained, by the grace of God, in the renewed Brethren's Church, viz: purity of doctrine, careful abstaining from controversy whenever possible, and in the church ceremonies a careful avoidance of popish superstitions. But still the Brethren of more modern times have not escaped reproach and shame, and even in America they had to suffer persecutions, not from the Romans, but from their greatest antagonists, the Puritans. Even laws were passed against the Moravians as disguised Papists, until they were acknowledged by an Act of Parliament in 1749 as a Protestant Episcopal Church.

There may be some in modern times, who as individuals take a decided stand against Rome, or lean in their private views very far towards Puritanism, though we do not believe that there is any one among the Moravian ministers, whose views could be assimilated with Puseyism. But our Church, as a whole, has never,-as far as we know—inclined to either extreme; but, though often assailed, carefully avoided controversies with any other denomination, being willing and always ready to offer the hand of brotherhood to true believers of every denomination.

That this may remain the position and the character of the Moravian Church in the United States is the fervent wish of

Litiz, Nov. 1853.

LEVIN T. REICHEL.

TO THE BRETHREN

H. G. Clauder, H. Bachman, F. R. Holland and E. T. Senseman.

Dear Brethren :

Your communication contained in the November number of the Moravian Church Miscellany, is a declaration of principles. As I am induced to offer some remarks in reply, allow me to observe in the very outset, that important as I deem it to have principles, and to understand them with perfect clearness, it is not my present design to examine these principles themselves, but rather to point out the practical consequences flowing from the principles stated in your essay. May you receive in love my free and brotherly reply, in which I will strive to abstain from all personalities, but to keep the main subject closely in view. As I do not intend to withhold my name, I think it necessary to preface my remarks by a few personal observations. Though a member of our P. E. Conference

for upwards of nineteen years, I do not write in the name of this Conference, or in any official capacity whatsoever; yet my services in this body, which have been of considerable length of time and full of experience, and in which I have grown grey, must naturally exercise great influence upon my views and expressions. My chief field of labor is, you know, in the economical or financial department of our ecclesiastical administration. But I have notwithstanding never regarded our external and financial matters as being of equal, much less of superior importance to the internal or spiritual concerns of our Church. I am convinced, however, that, in accordance with the wise appointment of God, who is a God of order, we should humbly recognize our dependence on external institutions and means of help, even in the attainment of spiritual objects, and strive sacredly to fulfil, in financial matters also, the responsibilities accruing from them; inasmuch as the opposite course of conduct, even if flowing from the best motives, might bring the greatest reproach upon the cause of God.

But I have endeavored to do my part as far as possible, not merely in reference to the payment of our debts, but also for the increase of our revenues as a religious society; not in order to make us a rich Church, but to obey our Savior's admonition, not to bury the talent entrusted to us, and, with the blessing of God, to secure to every minister of our Church, his just maintenance, a matter in which we have hitherto been most shamefully remiss. And if, in my subsequent remarks, I should appear to you to be a friend of the old peculiarities of our Church, which may seem as not altogether consistent with what is known to you of my past labors, I request you to bear in mind the difference existing between the changing, improving, or even removing of single parts of a system, and the rejection of the whole system itself. In my opinion, the system of our town-congregations, (or the lease-system) was ripe for an entire change in America, and belonged, upon the whole, to a very small part of our Church in this country. But it is equally my decided conviction, that if our Church should be divested of all her characteristic features, she would cease to be a peculiar Church, and also, that our Church still possesses at the present day, beauties peculiarly her own, to surrender which would prove very painful to me at least. And in your introductory remarks, you too, dear brethren, declare most strongly and unequiv ocally your love, veneration and attachment to our little Zion, "esteeming her above any earthly institution, preferring her above your chief joy." But upon what ground? Not, because our Church is at present what she is, nor, in general because she is what she has been since she is the Renewed Brethren's Church. For you say" that she was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. This has been proven, because she is a Church, whose members became martyrs for the sake of purity of doctrine, and liberty of faith and