tihravy of t:he trheological ^mimxy 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 The Estate of 
 Samuel Henry Gapp 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 
 
 
 in 2014 
 
 
 
 littps ://arcli ive .org/detai Is/in istoryofu n itasfOOdesc 
 
A. HISTORY 
 
 THE UNITAS FRATRUM, 
 
 r ROM 1627 TO 1722. 
 
 By EDMUND DE SCHWEINITZ, S. T. D., 
 
 Bishop of the Church. 
 
A HISTORY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNITAS FRATRUM 
 
 FROM ITS 
 
 Overthrow in Bohemia and Moravia 
 
 RENEWAL AT HERRNHUT, 
 
 BASED UPON SOURCES NOT HERETOFORE DRAWN FROM, AND SHOWING THAT 
 THE TIME OF THE HIDDEN SEED MUST BE REDUCED TO LESS 
 THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY. 
 
 By Edmund de Schweinitz, S. T. D. 
 
 Bishop of the Church. 
 
 BETHLEHEM: 
 MORAVIAN PUBLICATION OFFICE. 
 1877. 
 
 TO ITS 
 
 1627 to 1722, 
 
THE UNITAS FRATRUM, 
 
 FROM 1627 TO 1722. 
 
 The history of the Unitas Fratrum from 
 the end of the Bohemian Anti-reformation, 
 in 1627, which was the occasion of its over- 
 throw in its original seats, to its resuscita- 
 tion at Herrnhut, in Saxony, in 1722, is 
 involved in much obscurity. Some of our 
 authorized works, as for instance. Cram's 
 History of the Brethren, and Holmes His- 
 tor// of the Protestant Church of the United 
 Brethren, say very little about this era. 
 The most complete account of it is found 
 in John Plitt's MS. History of the Unitas 
 Fratrum, and has been substantially repro- 
 duced in the Geschichte der Alten Bruder- 
 kirche, by Bishop Croeger, 2 vols., Gnadau, 
 1865 and 1866. 
 
 Plitt sets forth the following periods of 
 our church-history : 
 
 The history of the Ancient Church from 
 1457 to 1627 ; the history of the Hidden 
 Seed, from 1627 to 1722; the history of 
 the Renewed Church, from 1722 to the 
 present time. These divisions have been 
 adopted by all our writers since his day, 
 and by all those Professors who lecture 
 on Brethren's History in our Theological | 
 Seminaries. In preparing my own lectures 
 for the Seminary at Bethlehem, I have 
 been led, as touching the second period, 
 namely, that of the Hidden Seed, to con- 
 clusions which differ entirely from those of 
 Plitt, and other German writers, but espe- 
 cially from those which are found in Bishop 
 
 Croeger 's Geschichte der Alten Bruderkirehe. 
 Having communicated the results of my 
 investigations in a paper read, some time 
 ago, before a ministerial circle at Bethle- 
 hem, I was asked to publish them. Ac- 
 cordingly I herewith present that paper in a 
 modified form. 
 
 In doing this I beg the indulgence of my 
 brethren in Germany who have written or 
 lectured on the same subject, and hope 
 that they will look upon my criticisms 
 merely as an effort to reach the truth, and 
 as a humble contribution toward a future 
 history of that period of the Ancient Church 
 of which I am treating. I may say this 
 with all confidence, because such criticisms 
 will recoil, first of all, upon myself, in as 
 much as I taught, in my earlier lectures, 
 the very same points which I now refute, 
 and published them in the Moravian Man- 
 xial, as also in other works. 
 
 There are, I suppose, few intelligent 
 readers of our history who do not lament 
 the length of time which is said to have 
 elapsed between the destruction of the An- 
 cient and the founding of the Renewed 
 Church. For five years less than a cen- 
 tury the Unitas Fratrum, it is asserted, ex- 
 isted only as Hidden Seed. If there really 
 was such a gulf between the Ancient and 
 the Renewed Church, and if it was bridged 
 over only by the episcopacy, is the claim of 
 the latter to be organically connected with 
 
4 THE V NIT AS FRATBUM. 
 
 tho former as strong as we would wish it to I same author, Edinburgh, 1851; 5th, an 
 be? And when answering the inquiries ot j ^rh'c/e on Amos Comenius, by Palacky, 
 
 othei-s, do we not sometimes find it hard to 
 explain, in a satisfactory manner, how a 
 church could exist as a Hiddeu Seed, with- 
 
 published in 1829, in the " Monatschrift der 
 Gesellschaft des Voter Idiidischen Museums, 
 in Bohmen;" 6th, an Article by Gindley, 
 
 out any visible organization whatsoever, for on Ainos Comenius published in 1855, in 
 so long a time, and then suddenly reap- 1 the Sitzungsbericht der Kaiserlichen Akade- 
 pear, with a visible organization, and take ?>i/e der Wissenschaften, Vienna; 7th, The 
 
 its former place in Christeiulon 
 
 Life of Comenius by Daniel Benham, Lon- 
 
 It will, therefore, be the object of this don, 1858. To these must l)e added two 
 
 article to try to show : 
 
 First, that the Ai 
 Church, when it had been ii\ ( nluown in 
 Bohemia and ]\Ioravia, in 1()_'7, did not 
 (■(inie to an end, but continued to e.xist in 
 otiier countries, as a fully organized Uni- 
 tas Fratrum, for twenty nine years longer. 
 
 Second, that even after its new centre of 
 government had Ixeii destroyed, in 1656, 
 and if had received tl 
 it never recovered, it i 
 a visible and in(le|ieiident cliurch ttt tlie 
 very end of tlie seventeenth cent 
 disappeared very gradually. 
 
 older and well known sources, namely, 
 lirethren's Reg envolscii Sy sterna historico-chronologicum 
 iluown in Ecclesianiin Slavonicarum, Ultrajccti, 1Q52, 
 and the sixtli volume of Rieger's Bohmische 
 Bruderhistorie. 
 
 THK HISTOKY OF THE UXITAS FRATRUM 
 FROM 1627 TO 1656. 
 
 In the year 1627, the Bohemian Anti- 
 lildw from which reformation, inaugurated by Ferdinand II, 
 I flieless remained came practically to an end, resulting in 
 the complete overthrow of Protestantism 
 ihI in Bohemia and Moravia, the emigration 
 of many thousands of Protestants, of whom 
 Third, that the period of the real Hidden a huge part were Brethren, and the over- 
 Seed, that is, the time in which, as far as throw of the Unitas Fratrum in its original 
 we know, there existed no churches at all of seats. In the same year, according to our 
 
 the Brethren, instead of extending throi 
 ninety-five years, must be reduced to 
 than twenty-five. 
 
 In discussing these points 1 will refei 
 
 rli (rerman writers, its Polish Province united 
 ss with the Reformed Church of Poland, and 
 disappeared as a distinct and independent 
 to organization. This year, consequently, is 
 
 some authorities which have but recently «et forth as the last of its history proper, 
 come to my knowledge, and which, together i and here, it is said, the history of its Hidden 
 with others that I have hatl for some years, ' Seed begins. 
 
 have helped chiefly to shape my views. 
 These authorities are: 1st, Lukasczevich's 
 
 The Geschicltte der Alten Bruderkirche, 
 p. :)4(), following Plitt, says : " At the 
 
 Geschichte der Kircke der Bohmischen close of this same year (1627), in which 
 Sriirfer i«. Crimspoto), Posen, 1835, a work the Brethren's Church of Bohemia and 
 
 which I have in vain tried to secure, 
 but copious extracts from which 1 have 
 found in : 2nd, Fixcher's Versuch einer Ge- 
 schichte den Reformation in Polen, 2 vols., 
 Gratz, 1855; Wrd, Histonrn] Skefrh of the 
 Rise, Progrexs and Decl'nK oi' llic. It< faruKi- 
 tion in /'oland,by dount Kraslnski.. 2 vols., 
 
 Moravia received its last blow through the 
 edict of July 81st, the Brethren in Great 
 Poland themselves put an end to the former 
 independence of their church, and amalga- 
 mated with the Reformed ('hurch of that 
 eouiitry.'" Again, p. 047, "Thus the fields 
 of tlie Brethren '.s Unitv which had flowered 
 
 Ix)ndon, 1840 ; 4th, iSketeh of the Religious | so pleasantly and hopefully in Bohemia and 
 History of the Sclavonic Nations, by the j Moravia were trodden down and laid waste ; 
 
AND ITS HIDDEN SEED. 
 
 jii while in Poland nothing whatever could 
 be recognized of that tillage upon which so 
 fj, much care had been bestowed." Again, 
 p. 349: "A time of humble waiting, pro- 
 j 1 longed for one hundred years, was to come 
 ^ before the Lord would redeem His captive 
 5. people." And in another place, p. 3ol : 
 "The historv of the Brethren's Church, as 
 an ecclesiastical union which seceded from 
 the Romish Establishment and entered into 
 a close fellowship with the Evangelical 
 Church, has, properly speaking, reached its 
 end with the year 1627. For it was de- 
 stroyed in Bohemia and Moravia, and, in 
 Poland, it disappeared among the other 
 evangelical churches. Single remnants 
 only remained, ruins of the city of Goil, 
 amidst which we hear a venerable bishop 
 bewailing the fall of his people, and, at the 
 same time, invoking, like Jeremiah, the 
 God of his fathers for a new season of grace 
 and glory, when the time of well-deserved 
 chastisement .should be over." In the same 
 strain, although very briefly, Burkhardt, 
 in his Zinzeiidorf und die Brudergemeine, 
 says, p. 3: "In the year 162" the Breth- 
 ren's Unity no longer existed. For in 
 Poland, too, where it had spread since 
 1548, it had succumbed, about the same 
 time, i. e., 1627, to the intrigues of the 
 Jesuits." 
 
 According to these authorities, therefore, 
 first, the Polish branch of the Unitas Fra- 
 trum was absorbed by the Reformed Church, 
 in 1627, or, as one of then\ says, destroyed 
 by the Jesuits ; second, its exiled members 
 from Bohemia and Moravia did not re- 
 organize ; hence, third, there existed no 
 Brethren's Church after that date. These 
 positions a subsequent statement of the Ge- 
 schichte der Alien Br'uderkirche, p. SoU. 
 merely modifies, and does not controvert. 
 That authority says, that a church of ex- 
 iles was formed at Lissa, and that it seemed 
 as if the Brethren's Unity were again to 
 revive at that place and to embrace repre- 
 sentatives of the three nations from which 
 
 I its membership was originally made up, 
 namely, the Bohemian, German and Polish, 
 
 ' adding that the Brethren found a second 
 asylum at AVlodawa, in Lithuania. Indeed 
 
 [ this brief reference to Lis.*a is hardly to be 
 understood even as a modification of what 
 has been previously said. The whole spirit 
 of the narrative shows, again and again, 
 that the Church is deemed to be extinct. 
 Let us examine these position?; criticallv. 
 In order to a proper comprehension of 
 what follows, it may be well to remember 
 that Poland, at the time of which I am 
 treating, was divided into the following 
 three provinces : namely, Great Poland, to 
 which belonged Cujavia, ]\Iasovia, and 
 Polish Prussia ; Little Poland ; and Lithua- 
 nia, including Samogitia, Szamaiten, and 
 Courland. 
 
 Now an investigation of the sources 
 shows, in the first place, that, in 1627, the 
 Polish branch of the L^nitas Fratrum was 
 not absorbed by ti ])art of the Reformed 
 Church of Great Poland, but, just the con- 
 trary, that a part of the Reformed Church 
 of Great Poland, namely that of Cujavia, 
 was absorbed by the Polish branch of the 
 Unitas Fratrum. For Regenvolscius, p. 
 120, speaking of a union-synod held at 
 Ostrorog by the Brethren and the Re- 
 formed of Cujavia, in December of 1627, 
 says: "For then the Helvetians (?. e. Re- 
 formed), their Senior, Daniel Micolajovius, 
 their Consenior, Jacob Gembiciuvs, and 
 others, united, or coalesced (coaluerunt), 
 with the Bohemian Brethren in one order 
 and discipline, and this in such a way, that, 
 from that time, they held the same assem- 
 blies and the same synods, governed by 
 common councils, and were called by a 
 common name the Brethren of the Unity." 
 Now if the Brethren had disappeared 
 among the Reformed, would not Regen- 
 volscius have said : " The Bohemian Breth- 
 ren coalesced with the Helvetians in one 
 order and discipline," and not, " the Hel- 
 vetians coalesced with the Bohemian Bretii- 
 
6 
 
 THE UNITAS FRATRUM, 
 
 reu?" ^In unum ordineni et disciplinam 
 coaluerunt cum Fratribus Bohemicis Hel- 
 vetici.) 
 
 In order, however, that there may be no 
 doubt on this point, Fischer, going more 
 into details of the case, presents the follow- 
 ing narrative, Geschichte d. Ref., in Polen, 
 II, p. 157 : " The most important of the 
 many synods held by the Bohemian Breth- 
 ren was undoubtedly the one which con- 
 vened at Ostrorog, in December of 1 627 ; 
 for on that occasion the Calvinists of Great 
 Poland actually went over to, or, rather, 
 were really amalgamated with, the Bohe- 
 mian Brethren. We have, in preceding 
 pages, set forth that the most of the evan- 
 gelical churches of Cujavia succumbed to 
 the Romish bishops Karnkowski and Roz- 
 razeweski, and that, at last, the important 
 centre at Radziejow was destroyed, on the 
 26th of March, 1615, by order of Bishop 
 Wolucki. Thereupon Daniel Mikolajewski, 
 the Reformed Senior, and -Jacob Genibicki, 
 the Consenior, felt themselves constrained, 
 for the sake of the greater safety and strength 
 which it would give them, to carry out that 
 plan of amalgamation for which the way 
 had been prepared at an earlier lime, esj)e- 
 cially at the Synod of the Boliuiuian iJreth- 
 ren held on the 8th of September, 1620, at 
 Ostrorog. Accordingly, they went over, 
 with their remaining seven parishes and 
 church edifices, as Weugierski says, in uni- 
 tatem fratrum conj'essionis Bohemicae. Mi- 
 kolajewski entered the ranks of the Bohe- 
 mian Brethren as a Superintendent, and 
 the membership of their churches was, through 
 the addition of these Reformed, increased by 
 several hundred souls." 
 
 This history of the transaction at Ostro- 
 rog, in 1627, sets forth its true character. 
 A remnant of Reformed churches in Cuja- 
 via was absorbed by the Polish branch of the 
 Unitas Fratrum. Moreover, as if to make 
 assurance doubly sure, we are told by Re- 
 geuvolscius, p. 322, that, before the Synod 
 adjourned, Mikolajewski was consecrated a 
 
 bishop of the Unitas Fratrum. The offi- 
 ciating bishops were John Turnovius, Mar- 
 tin Gratian Gertich, and, in all probability, 
 John Cyrill, the presiding bishop. If the 
 Polish branch of the Unitas Fratrum had 
 been absorbed, or. this occasion, by the 
 Reformed, is it likely that the Reformed 
 Superintendent would have been constituted 
 a Bishop of the extinct church ? Is it not 
 far more probable that the Bishops of the 
 Polish Brethren would thereafter have been 
 known merely as Reformed Superinten- 
 dents ? 
 
 Nor was the consecration of Mikolajew- 
 ski a solitary instance. The continued in- 
 dependence of the Polish branch of the 
 Unitas Fratrum is, furthermore, conclu- 
 sively shown by the fact, that within its 
 communion other Bishops were, from time 
 to time, elected and consecrated, not, as the 
 Geschichte der Alien Bruder Kirche, p. 421, 
 intimates, in the persons of Reformed Super- 
 intendents, but as Bishops of the Unitas 
 Fratrum, with all the functions and privi- 
 leges of this office. The above authority 
 says very little of these bishops ; nor are 
 their biographies found in any other Mora- 
 vian work. Hence, before proceeding with 
 the argument, I will give a brief account 
 of them. 
 
 The first was Paul Paliurus, born in 
 Moravia, and educated in the most cele- 
 brated schools and universities of Germany 
 and Switzerland. At the age of twenty- 
 two years he was appointed rector of the 
 school at Lobsenz, in Poland, and subse- 
 quently, labored for twenty years as pastor 
 of the Brethren's Church at Grebocin, near 
 Thorn. He was elected and consecrated a 
 bishop on the 6th of July, 1629, at the 
 Synod of Lissa, by Bishop John C/yrill, Gre- 
 gory Erastus, and others, and took up his 
 residence at Ostrorog, where he died No- 
 vember 27th, 1632. The only thing which 
 the Geschichte der Alten Briiderkirche says 
 of him is, that he translated the Bible into 
 Polish. But this is a mistake. The ver- 
 
AND ITS HIDDEN SEED. 
 
 sion to which the Geschirhte refers wati a | 
 mere revision of" an old translation, under- \ 
 taken by Mikolajewski and John Turno- j 
 vius, and not by Paliurus. ( Fischer II. p, 
 184.) " ' 
 
 The second bishop was Martin Orniinius 
 born at Wiernszewo. He served a number 
 of Brethren's churches in Great Poland, \ 
 Cujavia, and Lithuania, until his elevation 
 to the episcopacy, April 17, 1633, at the 
 Synod of Ostrorog. He died December 31, 
 1643. 
 
 The third was John Rybinski, a son of 
 Bishop Matthias Rybinski, educated at ' 
 Lissa and Thorn, and at several German i 
 universities. After graduating, he traveled j 
 extensively, as far as France and England, 
 returning to Poland in 1 623. He was or- 
 dained to the ministry at the Synod of Os- 
 trorog in 1625, appointed rector and Polish 
 preacher at Lissa, and subsequently called 
 to Kwilcz and Grebociu. Elected and con- 
 secrated to the episcopacy at the same time 
 with Orminius, he took up his abode at 
 Ostrorog. AYhen this important seat suc- 
 cumbed to the intrigues of the Jesuits, and 
 fell into their hands, in 1637, he went to [ 
 Obrzycko, where he died September 13, 
 1368. i 
 
 The fourth was Martin Gertich, a nephew 
 of Bishop ^lartin Gratian Gertich, born j 
 1591, at Lasswitz, and educated at Beuthen, 
 in Silesia, and at Thorn. In 1640 he was j 
 elected an assistant bishop, and on the 16th 
 of April, 1644, bishop, at the Synod of i 
 Lissa. There he took up his abode until 
 the destruction of the town, when he fled 
 to Silesia, and died at Ursk, December 10, 
 1658. i 
 
 The fifth was John Buettuer, elected and 
 consecrated at the same time with Gertich. 
 He was born in 1602, educated at ThoriT^ 
 and had charge of various parishes of the 
 Brethren prior to this elevation to the epis- 
 copacy. After that he took up his resi- 
 dence at Lissa. We will hear more of him 
 in another connection. 
 
 All these men, as we have said, were, in 
 every sense, bishops of the Polish branch of 
 the Unitas Fratrum, and not Reformed 
 ministers. 
 
 From what has thus far been set ibrth, I 
 think, therefore, that the continued inde- 
 pendence of this branch must be conceded, 
 and the idea that it was absorbed, in 1627, 
 by the Reformed Church, given up. 
 
 Turning in the next place to those Breth- 
 ren who were exiled from Bohemia and 
 Moravia, a further investigation of the 
 sources shows, that, instead of losing them- 
 selves among other churches, they reorgan- 
 izrd and fully re-estabHshed their branch of 
 the Unitas Fratrum. The almost total 
 silence of our authorized writers on this 
 important point is hard to understand. 
 
 When driven out of Bohemia and Mora- 
 via the Brethren emigrated chiefly to 
 Poland, Hungary, and Prussia. In these 
 countries they organized about one hun- 
 dred churches, exclusive of tho.se which the 
 Polish branch had previously had. There 
 were, moreover, several old parishes in 
 Silesia. More than one hundred ministers 
 of the Bohemian-Moravian branch settled 
 in Poland alone. All its bishoi)s found a 
 refuge there. They reorganized the Ex- 
 ecutive Council, a body corresponding in 
 character to the Unity's Elders' Conference 
 of the Renewed Church. Synods, both Gen- 
 eral and Provincial, were regularly held, 
 and the transactions of many of them, be- 
 ginning with the year 1632, are still extant, 
 and have been gathered by Gindely in the 
 Deh-eten der Bruderunitat, published in 
 the Monumenta Historiae Bohemica, Prague 
 1864 to 1870. The town of Lissa, at that 
 time in Great Poland but now in Prussia, 
 was constituted the new centre of the 
 Church. There the Bishops and the Coun- 
 cil had their seat. There an elementary 
 school, which the Brethren had founded in 
 earlier times, was raised to the rank of a 
 Gymnasium, or College, and a full account 
 of its work has come down to us. There a 
 
8 
 
 THE UNITAS FRATRUM. 
 
 Theological Seminary Was added to it, in 
 1637, when the Brethren had lost their 
 seat at Ostrorog, at which place it had for- 
 merly been located. And there, finally, a 
 publication-office was opened. 
 
 These enterprises were rendered possible 
 through the munificence of Count Raphael 
 Lecinski, the lord of Lissa, and a member 
 of the Brethren's Church, with which his 
 fathers had been connected before him. He 
 gave the College a charter and endowment^ 
 and helped to organize a Bohemian church 
 for the Brethren, besides which there were, 
 in the same town, two others in fellowship 
 with them, the one Polish, the other Ger- 
 man. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that Lissa could 
 take its place by the side of Jungbunzlau, 
 or of any other former centre of the Unitas 
 Fratrum in Bohemia and Moravia. 
 
 Comenius, in his Manuahdk, published 
 in Amsterdam, in ] 658, says of tliis town : 
 "Our chief place of refuge wa:^ Lissa, a 
 city pointed out to us by the tiii^u( j' ct' ( ind 
 himself. It constituted a Si'gur, whither 
 all godly Lots took their way, a Pella, 
 whither the Lord brought us out of Jeru- 
 salem, when His judgments burst upon this 
 city. At Lissa we enjoyed a public and 
 peaceful worshi]), rejoicing like Jonaii be- 
 neath his gourd, when it sheltered liini from 
 the great heat of the sun, and like Paul, 
 when he was saved from shipwreck and 
 hospitably entertained by the inhabitants 
 of ]\Ialta. We opened our worship at 
 Lissa, with souls famishing for the want of 
 God's Word and with voices that rang out 
 for joy. Many gentry and common people 
 and nearly fifty of our ministers, were 
 present." 
 
 Another principal scat in Poland was 
 Schockeu, a domain belonging to Count 
 Andrew Rej, who was a member of the 
 Churcli. On many other estates, especially 
 where the Polish branch had its parishes, 
 settlements were begun. In some cases 
 new church-edifices were built, tor instance. 
 
 at Orzeszkowo and Sieroslaw. Besides 
 these two, and those at Lissa, Schocken, 
 and Ostrorog, we know of parishes at Wlo- 
 dawa, Kobuitz, Kwilcy, Debnica, Cienin, 
 Marszewo, Swierczynek, Karmin, Lasswitz, 
 Mielecin, Kosminek, Lobsenz, Grebocin, 
 Choraentowo, and Wolalaszkowska. These 
 churches, however, many of which had ex- 
 isted before the immigration from Bohemia 
 and Moravia, constituted only a small part 
 of the Unitas Fratrum in Poland. There 
 were many other parishes, whose names 
 have not been preserved. 
 
 In Hungary the chief seat of the Churchy 
 was at Skalic, on the March, where John 
 Efronius and Paul Vetterinus were sta- 
 tioned as pastors. Other parishes were 
 found at Lednic, in charge of John Soli- 
 nus; at Pucho, in charge of Laurinus ; and 
 at Saros-Patak, the residence of the Prince, 
 where Bishop Comenius lived for a time. 
 Many more existed in this country, whose 
 names we do not know. 
 
 In Silesia we hear of Karolath, Kuttlau, 
 Militsch, and Freistadt. I have not been 
 able to find the names of any of the par- 
 ishes in Prussia. 
 
 Including the original Polish churches, 
 the Unitas Fratrum, after its destruction 
 in Bohemia and Moravia, must have com- 
 prised at least one hundred and fifty to 
 sixty parishes and as many ministers. It 
 consisted, moreover, of two parts, the one 
 the old Polish Province, which was now 
 increased by the amalgamation with it of 
 the Reformed of Great Poland, and the 
 other the new province of the exiled Breth- 
 ren from Bohemia and Moravia, with its 
 churches scattered through Poland, Hun- 
 gary, Silesia, and Prussia. 
 
 This second Province kept up the epis- 
 copacy as well as the first. Laurentius 
 Justiuus, Matthias Procop, Amos Comenius, 
 and Paul Fabricius were all elected and 
 consecrated at a Synod convened at Lissa, 
 on the Gth of October, 1632. In short, the 
 work of the Unitas Fratrum was carried on' 
 
\ 7 
 
 AND ITS HIDDEN SEED. 
 
 until 1656, as vigorously and in the same 
 way, as in former times. Many of the 
 exiles, however, were greatly impoverished, 
 and depended for help, in part, upon their 
 Polish brethren, and, in part, upon their 
 friends in other countries. It was, there- 
 fore, a God-send that two wealthy members 
 left legacies to the Church, in this period 
 of its history. In 1630, the Baroness Sa- 
 dowsky willed to it over $7,000 ; and, in 
 1638, Baron Kocourovsky his entire estate 
 (Gindely, p. 532). Whether the Unitas 
 Fratrum, in its new form, increased, as it 
 did in its old seats, I cannot tell. I think 
 it did not, more especially as it suffered in 
 Poland, along with other Protestants, not a 
 little, during this whole period, through the 
 enmity of the Roman Catholics, and par- 
 ticularly of the Jesuits, who took away a 
 number of its church edifices. On the 
 other hand, I presume that it held its own. 
 But even if it did not, its decrease was not 
 rapid. Such a decrease began in a later 
 period. The standing which it had, and 
 the influence which it exercised, are shown 
 by the prominent part it took in the so 
 called Colloquium Charitativum, held at 
 Thorn, in 1645, at the instance of King 
 Vladislaus IV., by the Protestants and the 
 Catholics. Bishop Buettner was one of 
 the Presidents of that conference.* Nor 
 must we forget that, until the Peace of 
 Westphalia, in 1648, the exiled Brethren 
 were sustained by a strong hope of return- 
 ing to their native laud. This helped to 
 give life and stability to their Church. 
 
 The foregoing narrative is based upon the 
 sources offered by Lukasczevich, Fischer, 
 Gindely, and Krasinski. It establishes, I 
 think, my second point. The Brethren, 
 when driven out of Bohemia and Moravia, 
 did not scatter and give up their church- 
 organization, but renewed it, and, together 
 
 * The Gescliichte der Alien Bruderkirche con- 
 tains a mere allusion to this important event, and 
 seems to misunderstand the connection of the 
 Brethren with the Colloquium. 
 
 with the Brethren of the old Polish Province, 
 constituted a new Unitas Fratrum which 
 existed for twenty-nine years subsequent to 
 1627, and which numbered more members, 
 more parishes, and more ministers, than the 
 American and British Provinces of the 
 Renewed Unitas Fratrum combined number 
 at the present day. 
 
 It is an interesting fact that Cranz, in 
 his History of the Brethren p. 85, acknow- 
 ledges the existence of the Unity after 1627, 
 saying : " In Poland, indeed, the exiles 
 kept to the congregations of the Brethren." 
 In the very next sentence, however, he 
 falls into a grievous mistake, asserting that 
 they were not allowed to organize in any 
 other country. Holmes, too, in his History 
 I p. 148, although he passes over the period 
 we have been considering in a few lines, 
 fully acknowledges that the Unity con- 
 tinued to exist 
 
 In order to still further substantiate the 
 position here taken, I will adduce two ex- 
 tracts, the one from Gindely, the other from 
 Lukasczevich. 
 
 The former says, pp. 483 and 484 : "As 
 regards the Bohemian Brethren, they fur- 
 nished to the emigration a contingent which, 
 compared with others, was three or four 
 times larger. This tenacious hold which 
 they kept of the usages that had become 
 dear to them and that had been incorpo- 
 rated, one might say, with their very flesh 
 and blood, won for them the respect of 
 foreigners. Nor did they scatter, like the 
 Lutherans, into all the corners of Germany. 
 Nor were they mostly desti'oyed in the 
 Thirty Year's War, in which they took no 
 part, whereas it carried off many of their 
 countrymen, who did engage in it. On the 
 contrary, they emigrated to Hungary, where 
 the Protestant Confession was free, and to 
 Poland and Prussia, whither their grand- 
 fathers, constrained by a like fate, had 
 gone in 1547. The number of Brethren's 
 churches in these countries amounted to 
 about one hundred. They settled in col- 
 
i 
 
 THE VNITAS FRATRTJM, 
 
 onies, in various places, and soon developed 
 a new centre for their government, so tliat 
 the eyes of all, however far away tliey 
 might be, might be directed to one spot. 
 For the first time, the world at large had 
 a picture of this comj)act mass of Brethren 
 before its eyes." 
 
 Again he says, speaking of Comenius, p. 
 48^ : " Through its eloquent representative, 
 this Church, which liad thus far remained 
 in obscurity" — a singular assertion, when 
 we think of the j)rominent position the 
 Brethren had occupied theretofore both in 
 Germany and Poland — " nOw became 
 known far and wide, and excited universal 
 sympathy." 
 
 Lukasczevich (quoted by Fischer) says p. 
 191 &c.: " The majority of the exiles came 
 to Great Poland. R:ipli:u>l Lcszezyuski, 
 Palatine of Belz and Ivord of Lissa, and 
 Andrew Rej, lord of Schocken, hospitably 
 received on their domains several thousand 
 of their Bohemian and Moravian brethren 
 after a common faith. The rest settled in 
 other baronial cities of Great Poland, where 
 there were churches of their confession. 
 The royal cities were closed to them, 
 through the influence of the Catholic clergy. 
 With these exiles more than one hundred 
 ministers of the Bohemian Brethren arrived 
 in Great Poland. Tlius thL^ro arose in this 
 eountry,in addition l<i ilic I'olish Brethi-cn's 
 Church, a Boliciuiiui-.Monivian Church 
 of the same confession, which had its own 
 government and constitution. John Cyrill 
 was their presiding Bishop. At Schocken 
 and Lissa pujalic services were held in the 
 Bohemian language." 
 
 THE UKITAS FRATRUM FROM 1656 TO THE 
 DEATH OF COMENIUS, IN 1670. 
 
 In the mysterious providence of God the 
 Unitas Fratrum in its new form and new 
 seats met with a disaster almo.st as terrible 
 as the Anti-reformation in Bohemia and 
 Moravia, and that was the beginning of its 
 
 end. It would lead me entirely too far to 
 give the details of this part of its history, 
 although they are very interesting and 
 have never appeared in full in any of our 
 Moravian works. Suffice it to say in brief, 
 that, upon the death of Vladislaus IV, who 
 was a humane and liberal monarch, his 
 I brother, John Casimir, a bigoted Catholic 
 and a worthless man, wa.s elected to the 
 \ throne of Poland in 1 648. It was a time of 
 ! dire confusion and distress in the kingdom, 
 i A terrible revolt of the Cossaks, under 
 Chmielnicki, was raging ; and, in 1654, the 
 I Czar of Russia came to their aid. In the 
 ! mid.st of such calamities John Casimir, who 
 "was a pretender to the throne of Sweden," 
 says Krasinski, "with that species of claim 
 ! which the descendants of James II, had to 
 ' the crown of Great Britain," mortally of- 
 fended Charles X, when he received the 
 Swedish crown from Queen Christina upon 
 her retiring to Rome in 1654, by protesting, 
 through the Polish ambassador, against 
 such a transfer. The result was a declara- 
 tion of war, on the part of Sweden, in the 
 following year (1655). A Swedish army 
 of 17,000 men immediately invailed Great 
 Poland. Casimir was very unpopular. 
 Many of his nobles and people openly es- 
 poused the cau.se of Sweden. This was the 
 ! case among his Protestant subjects in par- 
 I ticular, and, it seems undeniable, among 
 j the Brethren especially. The Swedish in- 
 vaders tic atcd the Catholics in a barbarous 
 nuinm r, alllioiigh the accusations of some 
 Polisii wiitcis that this was owing to the 
 siiii-,a'sti()iis of the Protestants are false. 
 Charles X himself appeared in the country. 
 I Casimir fled, and the greater part of Poland 
 fell into the hands of Charles, who re- 
 ; turned home, but left an army behind. 
 : Thereupon many of the Polish nobles, 
 i among whom Charles had become even 
 j more unpopular than Casimir, roused them- 
 ' selves from their lethargy, and began to 
 raise troops, on their own responsibility, 
 I with which to drive out the Swedes. About 
 
AND ITS HIDDEN SEED. 
 
 11 
 
 that time, Lissa had a Swedish garrison of 
 several hundred men. Accordingly a body 
 of the newly levied Polish troops, under 
 Opalenski, approached the town, on the 
 27th of April, 1656, and demanded its sur- 
 render. Lissa had grown to be a little 
 city of ten thousand inhabitants, a majority 
 of whom were members of the Brethren's 
 Church. It is said that Bishop Conienius, 
 who evidently still hoped for good from 
 Sweden, in spite of his bitter disappoint- 
 ment in connection with the peace of West- 
 phalia, persuaded the inhabitants and the 
 garrison to defend the town to the last. 
 Hence the Poles were refused admittance, 
 and began an attack, but were defeated and 
 had to retire. On the following day, April 
 28th, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, intelli- 
 gence was brought that another large body of 
 Polish infantry was approaching the town. 
 One account adds, that the new owner of 
 the place, another Count Lecinski,a Roman 
 Catholic, sent in a letter ordering the gates 
 to be opened. In any case, a terrible and 
 most unaccountable panic seized the in- 
 habitants. They threw away their arms 
 and fled with their families. By six o'clock 
 in the evening the town was^deserted. The 
 Polish troops took possession of it, allowed 
 the peasants of neighboring villages to 
 plunder it, and then laid it in ashes. Thus 
 fell the new and prosperous centre of the 
 Unitas Fratrum, and every parish felt the 
 shock. About the same time Czarnecki, a 
 Polish General, marched into Great Poland 
 with an army of Wallachians, who, in 
 spite of his exeilions, raged as fiercely 
 against the Protestants, as the Swedes had 
 raged against the Catholics. The Protes- 
 tants fled in every direction ; among them 
 many Brethren, bishops, ministers, nobles, 
 and common people. A number of the 
 ministers, and not a few of the members, 
 were killed by the Wallachians. Several 
 of the former suffered martyrdom in ex- 
 cruciating forms at other hands. For near- 
 ly two years, no public services were held 
 
 in Poland, according to the ritual of the 
 Brethren, or by any of their clergy. 
 
 From this year, therefore, the year 1656, 
 and not the year 1627, dates the actual 
 decline of the Church. But, even now, it 
 was by no means extinct. 
 
 For, in the first place, the parishes in 
 Hungary, Prussia, and Silesia remained ; 
 and, in the second, while many of its fugitive 
 members, who fled to more distant countries, 
 were thereafter lost to history, the majority 
 of them found a refuge in the Silesian par- 
 ishes, especially at Carolath, on the estates 
 of Baron Schoneich, their fellow-member, 
 and in other places of that Province, such 
 as Ursk, the domain of Baron Kauniz, 
 and at Militsch, whence, with few excep- 
 tions, they returned to Poland. In 1657, 
 the nobles reappeared; in 1658 some of the 
 ministers; and, in 1660, after the peace of 
 Olive had been concluded between Sweden 
 and Poland, nearly all the rest. The 
 church at Lissa was rebuilt, and consecrated 
 on the 18th of September, 1658; the col- 
 lege, too, was rebuilt and opened on the 
 19th of February, 1663. 
 
 Of the three bishops who were living at 
 the time of the destruction of Lissa, Gertich 
 died in Silesia ; Comenius went to Holland, 
 and settled at Amsterdam ; but Buettner 
 came back to Poland in 1664. He resided, 
 first, at Schocken, and then at Lissa ; cor- 
 responded regularly with Comenius ; held 
 Synods again ; and superintended the 
 Church in every other respect. But it no 
 longer flourished. Lissa, although rebuilt, 
 was not the influential centre which it used 
 to be. The Church in general, moreover, 
 was greatly impoverished, so that large 
 amounts of money were raised for its benefit, 
 especially in England, where Hartman, in 
 1657, collected .£5,900 ; many of its mem- 
 bers had died of the plague, or been killed 
 in the war ; others fell away to the Catholic 
 Church, and the number of such perverts 
 continually increased ; it lost its prestige ; 
 and its influence waned more and more. 
 
12 
 
 TBE r NIT AS FE irRl'M. 
 
 Hence it was In this period, from 1656 to 
 1700, that the union, formed between tlie 
 Brethren and the Reformed of Cujavia in 
 1627, began to change its character. The 
 former now leaned upon the latter in all 
 important matters; and the controlling 
 element became the Reformed. 
 
 Nevertheless, while such a decline was 
 unquestionably going on, the Geschichte der 
 Alten Bruderkirche is grievously in error 
 when it says, p. 376 : " The Bretliren's* 
 Unity now existed only in siniilc fugitives, 
 and in the few menihers of the Rcfoi nied 
 churches of Great Poland, who had lorni- 
 erly been members of the Brethren's ( 'h u n-h, 
 and who maintained its memory in their 
 hearts, or in outward church grades." 
 
 The account which I have given, on the 
 authority of Lukasczevich and Fischer, of 
 the restoration of the Church in Poland, 
 after the war with Sweden, is a sufficient 
 refutation of this view of the case. Several 
 thousand Bi-ethren returned to Poland, and 
 reorganized their former churches. We 
 find, moreover, that the parishes in Hun- 
 gary, Prussia, and Silesia, clung to their 
 independence with a tenacity which, as is 
 well known, forms a prominent trait in the 
 Bohemian character. They were absorbed 
 by other churches in the same slow way as 
 in Poland, and only because this country 
 offered less and less of an ecclesiastical 
 centre. 
 
 Nothing, however, proves, more conclu- 
 sively, the continued existence of the lireth- 
 ren's Unity in the period under considera- 
 tion, than the jealous care with which the 
 episcopal government was maintained. 
 
 It is generally supposed that bishoj)s 
 were consecrated, at this time, merely in 
 order that the succession might not die out ; 
 as also that Comenius was the first to urge 
 their appointment, and the chief agent in 
 carrying it through. Both these suppositions 
 are erroneous. As touching the latter, it 
 was Bishop Buettner who, in a letter dated 
 January 15, 1658, inibrming Comenius of 
 
 the death of Bishop Gertich, first of all, 
 proposed that a successor should be elected. 
 He says, among other things [Rieger's B. H. 
 VI, pi 739 cl'c: 
 
 " I beseech you to cortsider the propriety, 
 yea the necessity, of electing a third Senior, 
 or Bishop, either ft-om among the Bohe- 
 mians or the Poles, in order that our regu- 
 lations (unsere Ordnung) may be main- 
 tained, and in order that that which has 
 been kept up in our Brethren's Church for 
 two centuries, in uninterrupted succession, 
 and which now centres in us two alone, may 
 not, after our death, become extinct." 
 
 And when the war with Sweden, which 
 prevented an immediate election, had come 
 to an end, it was again Buettner who re- 
 sumed the negotiations, and pressed the 
 matter very earnestly. 
 
 The incorrectness of the other supposition 
 is shown by the fact that two new bishops 
 were elected by a Synod of the Brethren 
 held at Mielecin, in Poland : the one, Peter 
 Jablonsky, Comenius' son-in-law, for the 
 Bohemian-Moravian branch, in xpem contra 
 sprm, as the phrase ran ; the other, Nich- 
 olas Gertich, for the Polish. They were 
 consecrated by^ishop Buettner on the 5th 
 of November, 1662, and both labored, 
 after their consecration, as they had done 
 before, within the communion of the Unitas 
 Fratrum, although Gertich was, at the 
 same time, the chaplain of the Duke 
 of Liegnitz. Moreover, in the document 
 which Comenius sent to the Synod giving 
 his consent to their consecration, he ex- 
 pressly acknowledges the existence of 
 (diurches of the Brethren in Poland and 
 other countries. He says, Ripija'a B. //., 
 VI, p. 744: "It does not become me and 
 the Brethren of my people (the Bohemians) 
 to envy you in Poland, because the Father 
 of spirits chastises yon in a milder way 
 than us. On the contrary, we must bear 
 witness to the fellowship of joy which ex- 
 ists between us, that you (/. c-, the ministers 
 assembled at the Synod) are permitted to 
 
AND rrS HIDDEN SEED. 
 
 IS 
 
 remaiu in your churches in the fatherland, 
 and to set them an example both in doc- 
 trine and lite." Again, when speaking of 
 j the proposed election and consecration, he 
 says: that both must be undertaken, "in 
 order that, through the erection of new- 
 pillars for the ministry, those of your 
 churches which still remaiu," namely, in 
 Poland, "and those of ours which are 
 scattered," namely, in Hungary, Prussia, 
 and Silesia, " may be properly cared for." 
 And yet, in spite of the document contain- 
 ing such staten.ents, the GfS'hir/ite ihi 
 A/fen Biuilerkinhe says, p. 421 : "The old 
 episcopate of the Brethren's Unity de- 
 scended from Coinenius to his grandson, 
 Jablonsky, (that is, Daniel Ernst ), in the 
 form of a Superintendent's office in the Re- ; 
 formed Church, set over the few Reformed 
 parishes which remained in Great Poland. 
 From the scantily gathered particulars of 
 our narrative it becomes clear, that this 
 episcopate, for the two generations that in- 
 tervened between Comenius and David 
 Nitschmann, was preserved in Poland 
 among the Reformed, and not in the Polish 
 branch of the Unitas Fratrum, and, further, 
 that the trace and the memory of the an- 
 cient system of the Brethren showed them- ■ 
 selves in ecclesiastical forms, such as the 
 holding of Synods and the order of bishops, 
 rather then in the spirit and acts of the men , 
 who were invested with the episcopacy." ] 
 That this is ah utter misconception of the j 
 true state of the case, needs no further ar- 
 gument. 
 
 THE USITAS FRATRUM FROM THE DE.\TH 
 OF COMENIUS, IN 1670, TO THE BEGIX- 
 NIXG OF THE EIGHTEENTH 
 fENTURV.,^ 
 
 Bishop Comenius died, at Amsterdam, 
 on the 20th of November, 1670. Did the 
 TTnity of the Brethren come to an end at 
 that time? C)r did it continue to exist; 
 even now ''. 
 
 The Geschir.hte der Alien Bruderkirche \ 
 
 says, p. 413: "The death of Comenius 
 may be considered as the close of the his- 
 tory proper of the old Brethren's Unity, 
 yea even of its last remnants. Between 
 Comenius and Christian David, or Zinzen- 
 dorf, there lies more than half a century, 
 which can show no Brethren's congrega- 
 tion like that at Lissa, and no bearer of 
 their ecclesiastical system like Comenius, 
 but only isolated reminiscences of the 
 foi-mer Unity: in the Polish branch efforts 
 to keep up its ecclesiastical forms, in the 
 Bohemian-Moravian, signs of spiritual 
 life — both divine preparations for the re- 
 newal of the Unitas Fratrum." This 
 authority, therefore, maintains that even 
 the remnant of the Church disappeared 
 and that only reminiscenses of it remained. 
 
 Gindely, p. 536, asserts, substantially, the 
 same thing, saying : "The death of Comenius 
 wa.s not only the death of the head of the 
 Brethren's Unity, but also the end of the 
 Unity itself. Thenceforth its single mem- 
 bers were lost among the Lutherans, the 
 Calviuists, and the Anglicans, according to 
 the place of abode which they had chosen." 
 
 Even Daniel Ernst Jablonsky, in his 
 letter of October 31, 1729, to Count Zin- 
 zendorf, seems to agree with these views, 
 for he writes, Kolhlmj)' Bischofthum d. B. C, 
 p. 24 and 25, "At the time of my father's 
 death" — Bishop Peter Jablonsky, who died 
 in the same year with Comenius, — " the 
 number of the exiled Brethren had de- 
 creased very much, and the remnant of 
 them in Poland had united with the Poles, 
 the hope of a return to their native country 
 being entirely dissipated." 
 
 I am again forced to dissent from these 
 views, in so tar as an absolute extinction of 
 the Church is concerned. Jablousky's 
 language is rather vague. He probably 
 means to enforce the fact, which is un- 
 doubted, that the Unita.s Fratrum was 
 dying out. He cannot mean that it was 
 extinct. He must have known that there 
 were a number of its churches in existence 
 
THE UNIT AS FRATBUM, 
 
 in 1670. Gindely's view I deem worth- 
 less, because it is given at the end of his 
 article on Comenius, and relates to a period 
 of history which he has evidently not ex- 
 amined with any degree of attention. 
 Having finished his subject, he jumps at a 
 conclusion which invests his hero with a 
 new and mournful interest. While the 
 Geschichte der Altcn Bruderkirchc merely 
 keeps u}) the argument which it began with 
 the supposed extinction of the Brethren's 
 Unity in 1627. 
 
 It is true, the few sources which we have 
 say very little with regard to this period. 
 Nevertheless we can gather enough to show 
 that the Unitas Fratrum still existed and 
 was represented by a number of inde- 
 pendent churches in Poland, and, therefore, 
 it is reasonable to add, by others in Hun- 
 gary, Prussia, and Silesia also. 
 
 In the first place, Fischer says that the 
 church at Lissa was kept up until the very 
 end of the seventeenth century, John To- 
 bian being its last minister (Fischer II p. 
 160). He says, again, that an independent 
 organization, which seems to have consisted 
 of a net-work of parishes numbering sev- 
 eral thousand members, was maintained at 
 Kurcewo until the end of the century, and j 
 was then relinquished in consequence of a 
 general apostacy to the Roman Catholic 
 Church (/'Wte/- II, p. 384.) He speaks, 
 too, of a number of noble families which 
 were connected with the Brethren's Unity 
 as late as 1686, and which consequently | 
 must have had parishes of this name on j 
 their estates. And, finally, he often makes 
 other allusions to the existence of such 
 churches in this period. 
 
 In the second place the view I am urg- 
 ing is established still moi'e fully by the 
 continued election and consecration of 
 Bishops, who were not Reformed Superin- 
 tendents, but stood at the head of the 
 Unitas Fratrum, for whose welfare they 
 faithfully labored, in spite of its decline. 
 
 Nicholas (Jertich died in 1671. Conse- 
 
 quently the only Bishop who remained wae 
 John Buettner. He convened a Synod at 
 Lissa, which body elected Adam Samuel 
 Hartman. He was consecrated by Buett- 
 ner on 28th of October, 1673. Hartman, 
 a son of a minister of the Brethren, himself 
 one of their ministers, who had labored all 
 his life in their schools and churches, was 
 a remarkable and very learned man, whose 
 interesting biography, previous to his con- 
 secration, I nuist pass by. After he had 
 been made a bishop, he had his seat at Lissa, 
 but undertook long journeys in the interests 
 of the Church. The most important of 
 them was that to England in 1683. He 
 brought with him a commission from the 
 Synod of Lissa, dated February 16, 1683, 
 appealing for aid. This appeal was sus- 
 tained by the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 and the Bishop of London, and resulted in 
 a perpetual fund for the education at Oxford 
 of candidates /or the ministri/ connected with 
 the Brethren's Church. Does this savor of 
 an absolute extinction of that church? 
 Hartman himself, moreover, received, with 
 many flattering ceremonies, the honorary 
 degree of Doctor of Divinity from the 
 University of Oxford, and in the diploma 
 he was entitled a bishop of the Unitas Fra- 
 trum ( Riajer VI p. 738 and Fischer II p. 
 346). What is still more interesting, how- 
 ever, he consulted with the dignitaries of 
 the Anglican Establishment about the pro- 
 priety of consecrating a bishop of the 
 Brethren for England, who 'was to look 
 after those of them that had settled in that 
 country. Daniel Ernst Jablonsky in his 
 letter to Archbishop AVake gives an account 
 of these negotiations. ( Acta Fratrum in 
 Anylia p. 114.) For some unknown reason 
 they were eventually dropped. Does not 
 all this presuppose that the Unity was still 
 in existence? 
 
 At an earlier period, after the death of 
 Bishop Buettner, February 2, 1675, John 
 Zugehor, a minister of the Brethren, and 
 laboring in their parishes, had been elected 
 
AND ITS HIDDEN SEED. 
 
 15 
 
 to the episcopacy, and consecrated by 
 Bishop Hartman on the 13th of August, 
 1676. Five years later Hartman died at 
 Rotterdam, while on his way to visit Eng- 
 land a third time, May 29, 1691. Mean- 
 while Bishop Zugehor had taken up his 
 abode at Zyciilin, and for twenty-two years 
 superintended the remnant of the Breth- 
 ren's Churches, the ftrst fifteen ^vears in 
 conjunction with Hartman, and the last 
 six in conjunction with Joachim Jiilich. 
 Jiilich, like his predecessors, a minister of 
 the Brethren, whose Synod elected him to 
 the episcopacy in 1692, having been conse- 
 crated by Zugehor on the 26th of June, 
 stood at the head of their churches for 
 eleven years, and died on tlie 14th of No- 
 vember, 1703. 
 
 In as much, therefore, as all these men 
 were real bishops of the Brethren, and 
 governed what remained of them in the 
 same way in which the bishops in other 
 days had governed, and did this down to 
 the beginning of the eighteenth century, we 
 are forced to conclude that the Unitas 
 Fratrum still existed, however weak it may 
 have been. 
 
 THE PERIOD FROM 1700 TO 1722. 
 
 The history of the Hidden Seed proper 
 opens with the new century. After 1700, 
 we hear nothing of an independent Breth- 
 ren's Church. Xor do we know anything 
 of the bishops whom Daniel Ernst Ja- 
 blonsky — elected by a Synod at Lissa in 
 1699, — consecrated, namely, Opitz, David 
 and Paul Cassius, and Christian Sitkovius. 
 They were, without doubt, what has been 
 incorrectly asserted of their predecessors. 
 Superintendents of the few remaining Re- 
 formed churches which constituted the le- 
 gitimate outgrowth of the union between 
 the Brethren and the Reformed effected in 
 1627. 
 
 Such churches still exist, and, as is well 
 known, the Renewed Brethren's Church, 
 in recent times, recommitted to them that 
 
 I episcopal succession which it had obtained 
 through them in 1735. On the 16th of 
 June, 1844, their Superintendent, Dr. 
 Siedler, was consecrated a bishop at Herrn- 
 hut, by Bishop Curie and others, and 
 when he went over to the high church 
 wing of the Lutheran Establishment, his 
 
 , successor. Dr. Gobel, was consecrated a 
 bishop, at Gnadenberg, by Bishop Nitsch- 
 mann and others. 
 
 Returning to the days of Bishop Joachim 
 Jiilich, we find that, from the close of his 
 episcopate, in 1703, to the founding of 
 Herrnhut, in 1722, extends an interval of 
 only nineteen years. Therefore the last 
 position which I have taken is likewise es- 
 tablished. The period in which there were 
 no independent churches whatever of the 
 Ancient Brethren dwindles down to less 
 than a quarter of a century. 
 
 It is, moreover, a very important fact, 
 that there was at least something of a con- 
 nection between the last independent Breth- 
 ren's churches and those Moravian refugees 
 through whom the Unitas Fratrum was re- 
 newed at Herrnhut. We know that the 
 
 [ zeal which IMartin Schneider, in Moravia, 
 displayed, in holding private services among 
 
 I the descendants of the Brethren, was in- 
 flamed by the secret visits which some of 
 their ministers from Skalic, in Hungary, 
 paid to Zauchteuthal. And, in general, 
 we may say that simultaneously with the 
 final extinction of the independent churches 
 began a new life from God among the 
 Hidden Seed in Bohemia and Moravia. 
 It was only four years after Bishop Jiilich 
 had passed away, that the Neissers were 
 gathered around the death-bed of George 
 Jaeschke, at Sehlen, and heard his pro- 
 phetical anticipations of a renewal of the 
 Church. 
 
 In conclusion, it must be clear, that we 
 i have far more reason for calling the Re- 
 newed Brethren's Church an organic contin- 
 uation of the Ancient Church than our 
 authorized Histories set forth. Not a quar- 
 
16 
 
 THE UNTTAS FRATRVM, AND ITS HIDDEN SEED. 
 
 ter of a century after the last parishes of j the Spirit of the living God, gathered up 
 the latter had disappeared in Poland, and [ the threads of a development that had been 
 while there were, perhaps, a few churches i going on for nearly two centuries and a 
 still lingering in Hungary, a hidden rem- half, and presented to the world the won- 
 nant of the descendants of the Brethren derful spectacle of a dying church renew- 
 came forth from Moravia, and, enabled by ' ing its youth like the eagle's. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 [While this paper was going through the press, I was informed by my friend, Mr. William 
 G. Malin, of Philadelphia, that his library contains a copy, in the original Polish, of Lukasze- 
 vich's, or Lukasznvicz's, HiMorij of the Brethren in Poland. In this form the work uafortunately 
 remains for ine a sealed book. There exists a German translation of it, but it is very rare. 
 Mr. E. StoifTi r, III' New York, a well-known publisher and importer, tried his best to secure it 
 for me, but was unsuccessful. In the copy belonging to Mr. Malin, however, there was 
 found, ill inanuscript, a (iennjin version of the title and contents, together with a brief extract 
 from the Preface. From this extract it appears, that the author, Joseph Lukaszewicz, was 
 the librarian of Count Ras/.ynski, at Posen, and that the sources for his history were the fol- 
 lowing: The Archives of the Hohemian Brethren at Lissa; the Archives of several Polish noble- 
 men ; as also the Archives of a number of towns, churches, and villages of former domains in 
 Great Poland. This information is very important, and shows that one of the chief sources 
 from which I liave drawn my argument in the above paper is a work whose authority is based 
 upon original doeuineuts, and which must, therefore, be reliable. From the table of contents 
 I see, that Lukas/ewicz pives an alpliabetical list of the churches of the Brethren in Great 
 Poland, numbering seventy -nine ; and also a list of all the Polish Bishops.] 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U J30/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAVLORD 
 
 
 
 
Lja\flord 
 
 PAM PHLET BINDER 
 
 = Syrocuie, N. Y. 
 : : Slockton, Colif.