about them, and shall not do it, unless some strong reason compel me."

In his reply to a second letter from his friend Reuss, he recapitulates his former observations respecting the Brethren, and then answers Reuss's inquiry, "Whether home-born persons, who had embraced the Moravian persuasion, ought to be allowed to establish themselves into branch communities." Bengel's answer runs thus :-" The whole Moravian community of foreigners and natives, is a lump leavened throughout; and seems disposed to become something better still, by extending its influence to places hitherto uncultivated. Such new settlements I contemplate with mingled fear and pleasure; with fear, lest the original parent mass should dry up and be neglected, when its ramifications at a distance come to thrive more. Still I cannot but indulge the pleasing hope, that new and flourishing offsets may serve to provoke many of the old stock to still holier jealousy. It has been often a dormant idea of mine, that if I had to guide the helm of a christian establishment, I would first be careful to find out in what districts of my superintendence a zealous minister here and there already resided: and these I would allow to obtain coadjutors likeminded with themselves, wherever they could find them. Over such I would have to be appointed for their dean, the man of their number whom they judged to be the worthiest; then I would appoint as the chancellor of their deanery, that layman in whom they could place the most confidence; and they should have full power to choose their own assistants, schoolmasters, superintendents of street districts, and of families; likewise to adopt such regulations as they could agree upon to be the best, for the furtherance of evangelical instruction, and the maintenance of church discipline, &c. The great difficulty after all would still consist in practical particulars out of doors; how to meet aggressively the manifold ignorance and indifference of the raw multitude. This, however, does not form a part of your present inquiry, which relates only to persons who are seeking what is good; so that I can the more easily say to you something positive in answer to it. Such undertakings then (of the Moravian brethren) ought certainly not to be discouraged; only they call for much prudence (on your part.) A small commencement, and nothing more, might at first be permitted them by way of trial; and their leading persons should be prevailed with to subscribe some plain, definite, and reasonable points of agreement, for the prevention of any erroneous and strange

doctrines. But you might allow them freely to adopt whatever regulations their brethren at Herrnhut have already acted upon with good effect. All correspondence with that settlement could not well be interdicted; but you might reserve to yourself the right of watching its intention and result," &c.

In the year 1746, Mr. Becherer, the parochial minister of Dornhan, in Würtemberg, who had written a pamphlet of strictures upon Zinzendorf, requested Bengel's opinion and advice previous to its publication. The pamphlet related chiefly to the Count's views of the doctrine of the Trinity. For the twelfth supplement to the Brethren's collection of hymns having now appeared in print, as also another of their publications, entitled, "The present Form of the Kingdom of the Cross," had excited considerable notice, because these works represented the doctrine of the Trinity in a manner that could not but offend all orthodox Lutherans.

Bengel then advised Becherer to keep to that one subject; and having given him hints upon the best method of arranging it, he supplied him with some communications for it, and reminded him not to forget prayer, love, meekness, humility, and self-renunciation.

Early in the next year, the Count made another attempt to effect a union of his own community with the church of Würtemberg. Though in the various settlements which he had established, he had gathered around him chiefly protestants, that is, persons of the Moravian, Lutheran, and Reformed churches, still he dreaded falling under the suspicion of forming a religious medley, or of introducing any kind of innovation. Therefore having arranged those of the two churches last mentioned into two distinct classes, which he designated Bands, or Forms, he wished each of these to be subject to the general superintendence of some German consistory, and thought he could not do better than commend the Lutheran portion to the church of Würtemberg, especially as this church had (in 1733) shown itself so kindly disposed towards him. He therefore sent an address (on the 27th of March, 1747,) to the Würtemberg consistory, as also to its president, G. B. Bilfinger, the substance of which was to this effect:-"That whereas, at his ordination, he had solemnly promised to maintain all intimate connexion with the church of Würtemberg, and whereas from Weissmann's Church History, recently published, it might be seen that the real condition of the Brethren's church was very imperfectly known in that

country; therefore, to acquit his own conscience of any faulty concealment of the truth upon this subject, he felt it a duty to propose, that the consistory, at their next synod, should depute commissioners, say Bilfinger, Fischer, Bengel, Cotta, and Cantz, to hold an ecclesiastical visitation of the Lutheran portion of his community, in like manner as the King of Prussia's principal chaplain in ordinary, Cocchius, would be deputed to visit the Reformed part." This address occasioned much deliberation among the Würtemberg clergy, who for the present could only resolve that Weissman and Bengel be requested to communicate their sentiments upon it to each consistorial member privately. After this, the Theological Faculty transmitted to the privy council a document drawn up by Weissman, which stated that they thought such a visitation unnecessary, as there was already sufficient evidence before the public, that the Brethren's teachers had in many important respects departed from the doctrine of the Lutheran church. That even their aversion to subscribe the Confession of Augsburg, showed, that such a visitation was not likely to be attended with any favourable result. That it was to be considered how disparagingly the Count, in his discourses and hymns, had expressed himself concerning the Lutheran church and its ministers in general; having stigmatized this church as a very Laodicea, whereas he had represented his own community as a Philadelphia, and, of course, infallible; therefore it was impossible to give him credit for wishing to hold pure communion with the church of Würtemberg; and that he desired this connexion merely to answer his own purposes. Consequently it would be imprudence and folly to grant him the right hand of fellowship, which would only increase the umbrage already taken by the other Lutheran churches at the reply of the church of Würtemberg, given from Tübingen, in 1733, (in favour of Count Zinzendorf, &c.) And that if such a deputation as he requested were even sent with full commission to Herrnhut, they would probably be as far as ever from gaining any satisfactory knowledge of the (Brethren's) community, &c. Accordingly, the consistory transmitted the following decision to the Count, on the 19th of March, 1747. "The visitation you desire, appears to us unsuitable, and insufficient either to convince the evangelical Lutheran church of the accordance of your institution with her principles, or to effect those changes for its conformity with her, which such a visitation might find necessary. We recede not from our answer given you on the 13th of April, 1733; but we

66

must remind you, that it was given on a presumption of your accordance with the whole system of the Lutheran church; whereas, many things, which have subsequently appeared in your doctrine and discipline, are at open variance with it. We therefore take this opportunity of deferring to you, whether you are willing to produce, for the satisfaction of the evangelical Church, a full and authentic account of the doctrine and discipline of the Brethren's community, which shall be so explanatory of both, as to sift, one by one, the objections before the public, and entirely to do away the offence which has been so generally taken at your innovations in christian instruction, or, at least, at your peculiar and questionable mode of imparting it." Unfavourable as was this reply, professor Timæus, the Count's emissary, continued some time longer in Würtemberg, endeavouring to promote his cause, chiefly in private conferences; after which, in the beginning of June, he went to Herbrechtingen, where he had personal interviews with Bengel; who gives an account of them in a letter to consistorial councillor Fischer, dated January, 1747. was willing to hear every thing professor Timæus had to say; but at intervals I explained to him, at his request, the main points of doctrine which I had set forth in my expository writings. During the Friday afternoon we conversed together for some hours, and went into all principal matters. I held him, as you had desired me, to the doctrinal articles; I pointed out to him the incorrectness of Zinzendorf's New Testament translation specimen, (second edition.) I next conversed with him about God, in respect of his manifestation of himself in the works of creation, and in the New Testament; of the Adyos (Word,) and the reasons of this appellation; of the Holy Spirit; and, in particular, of the impropriety of applying unscriptural expressions to the third person of the blessed Trinity. Upon many points he was obliged to leave the Count undefended; many others he reserved for further consideration; but upon not a few he remained immovable. I expressed to him my opinion, that the matter in debate contained such a strange mixture of good and bad, that, unless genuine remedies were speedily applied, it was likely to issue in some great evil. We conducted our conversation, as we had agreed to do, with openness and mutual forbearance. Our most essential desideratum was de norma veritatis, or the rule we are to adopt for distinguishing what is true from what is specious. As to this, he agreed with me that nothing ought to be received or admitted contrary to the instruction of Holy Writ; but he

thought that believers, especially as a community of saints, have the power from their own spiritual stock of light and strength (from which, he said, even the prophets of the Old Testament deduced the testimonies they delivered,) to become acquainted with truths which are not expressly mentioned in scripture; one of which he considered to be, that a kind of maternal character belongs to the office of the Holy Spirit. Here we see the general principle of all their peculiar tenets; and if they cannot be persuaded to abandon it, any other endeavours to set them right will be only superficial and useless. At the conclusion of the above conversation, I thought it requisite to drop a word of caution and advice, especially upon the necessity of converting the Count's monarchical regime into an aristrocratical one. He thought that the church of Würtemberg had foregone a great blessing, by refusing to send commissioners to the Brethren's synod; and I tried to persuade him that this was but an imagination of his own."

By a letter which Timæus wrote to Dr. Reuss, Bengel's sonin-law, who was very much attached to the Brethren, it is further seen in how amicable a spirit this conversation was conducted. "I was last week at the house of your dear and venerable fatherin-law, and stayed with him two days and a half. The Saviour was with us, for we had met together in His name: and I believe that our conference will be blessed to my benefit and his own, as well as to the common good."

The year 1748 brings us again to notice Mr. Steinhofer, at Ebensdorf. The growing approximation of the church in that town to the Brethren's constitution, seemed likely to bring about a union between the two communities; which Steinhofer had neither inclination nor ability to prevent; but he wished to make every possible provision against its becoming injurious to any party, and indeed that it might be as beneficial as possible to all. To effect this, however, was no easy matter; for he was hampered, he said, between the door and the hinge; between the party at Halle, and that at Herrnhut; a situation which perplexed him not a little; as the Halle party, with state-councillor Moser at their head, decidedly opposed his proceedings. Moser, after the union took place, left Ebersdorf in disgust; and others soon followed his example. Moreover, the Herrnhut party themselves took umbrage at Steinhofer shortly after; so that, in 1748, he was obliged to return to Würtemberg, and seek another appointment. Meanwhile, Moser, and the rest at Halle, used all their