Herrnhut: The Formation of a Moravian Community, 1722–1732 9780271092478

Citation preview

Herrnhut

Editor Craig D. Atwood Director of the Center for Moravian Studies, Moravian Seminary Volumes in the Pietist, Moravian, and Anabaptist Studies Series take multidisciplinary approaches to the history and theology of these groups and their religious and cultural influence around the globe. The series seeks to enrich the dynamic international study of post-­ Reformation Protestantism through original works of scholarship. Advisory Board Bill Leonard, Wake Forest University Katherine Faull, Bucknell University A. G. Roeber, Penn State University Jonathan Strom, Emory University Hermann Wellenreuther†, Georg-­August-­Universität Göttingen Rachel Wheeler, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

Paul Peucker

HERRNHUT The Formation of a Moravian Community, 1722–1732

The Pennsylvania State University Press University Park, Pennsylvania

Published with financial support of the Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. This book is published in German as Herrnhut, 1722–1732: Entstehung und Entwicklung einer philadelphischen Gemeinschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Peucker, Paul, 1963– author. Title: Herrnhut : the formation of a Moravian community, 1722–1732 / Paul Peucker. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : The Pennsylvania State University Press, [2022] | Series: Pietist, Moravian, and Anabaptist studies. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Examines the early years of Herrnhut religious community and places its development in the context of German Pietism of the early eighteenth century”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021056829 | ISBN 9780271092393 (cloth) Subjects: LCSH: Moravians—Germany—Herrnhut—History— 18th century. | Pietism—Germany—Herrnhut—History—18th century. | Herrnhut (Germany)—Church history—18th century. Classification: LCC BX8569.G3 2022 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021056829 Copyright © 2022 Paul Peucker All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-­free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

This book is dedicated to the town of Herrnhut and to all those who have called it home during the past three hundred years.

contents

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Editorial Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Prologue: A Moravian Face Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Berthelsdorf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2 The Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3 The Moravians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4 Dissent and Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 5 Beliefs and Ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 6 Life in Herrnhut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 7 The Herrnhut Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

illustrations

Figures 1 Dedication of the memorial marker for the felling of the first tree . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Portrait of Nikolaus Ludwig Count Zinzendorf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3 View of Berthelsdorf from the southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4 Door in the manor house in Berthelsdorf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5 Laying of the foundation stone for the Great House in Herrnhut . . . . . . . . 56 6 Frontispiece of the Berthelsdorf hymnbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 7 Portrait of Christian David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 8 The manor house in Herrnhut as seen from the garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 9 View of Herrnhut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 10 Portrait of Johanna von Watteville, née von Zezschwitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 11 Bird’s-­eye view of Herrnhut from the northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 12 Formation of a funeral procession in Herrnhut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 13 Interior of the meeting hall (Saal) in the Gemeinhaus in Herrnhut . . . . . . 170 14 Portrait of Melchior Scheffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 15 Portrait of Friedrich von Watteville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Maps 1 Upper Lusatia in the eighteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2 Moravia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3 Herrnhut in 1729 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Tables 1 Offices in Herrnhut, 1725 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 2 Population and number of houses in Herrnhut, 1722–1739 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

acknowledgments

This book would not have been written without the help of many. My sincere gratitude goes to all those who have helped me in various ways during the past six years. This project began with hundreds of digital images taken at my request by Thomas McCullough, assistant archivist at the Moravian Archives in Bethlehem, PA, during his study visit to Herrnhut, Germany, in March of 2015. Since then I made several visits to the Unity Archives in Herrnhut, where I was able to collect digital images of thousands of pages. I am thankful to the staff at the Unity Archives, archivist Claudia Mai and assistant archivist Olaf Nippe, who have helped me with this project in so many ways. Olaf Nippe and Peter Kubath provided me with the most pleasant accommodations during my research visits. Originally I planned to extend my research to archives in Dresden, Görlitz, and Bautzen, but COVID-­related travel restrictions made it impossible to visit these archives. I was able to visit the archives of the Franckesche Stiftungen in Halle before the pandemic. Fortunately, many libraries have digitized their holdings, which proved very useful to me. Christina Petterson read an early draft and gave me many helpful suggestions. Many others contributed to this project with their advice, guidance, and useful tips: Jared Burkholder (Grace College), Thilo Daniel (Dresden), Katherine Faull (Bucknell University), Dennis Glew (Moravian University), Scott Gordon (Lehigh University), Manfred Jakubowski-­Tiessen (Göttingen), Uwe Kahl (Zittau), Josef Köstlbauer (Bremen), Ulf Lückel (Bad Berleburg), Gisela Mettele (Jena), Dietrich Meyer (Herrnhut), Dirk Panke (Reichensachsen), Ines Peper (Vienna), Colin Podmore (London), Nelson Rivera (Moravian Theological Seminary), Edita Sterik (Darmstadt), Peter Vogt (Herrnhut), and Alexander Wieckowski (Wurzen). I thank Moravian University for granting me library privileges. I would like to express my special gratitude toward the Board of Directors of the Moravian Archives. They granted me a sabbatical in the fall of 2019, during which I was able to write a large portion of the manuscript. During the subsequent COVID-­19 pandemic, which resulted in a slowing down of

xii      acknowledgments

public life, I was able to complete the book. The Archives’ board also supported the book with a publication grant. For assistance with the images I thank Corey Dieterly (Reeves Library, Moravian University), Konrad Fischer (Heimatmuseum, Herrnhut), Olaf Nippe (Unity Archives, Herrnhut), and Bianca Slowik (Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg). I am grateful to Jonathan Ennis and Michael Kießling for scanning images. I am particularly grateful to Michael Schulze (Bad Boll) who created the three maps. I thank Penn State University Press: Craig Atwood, series editor; Kathryn Yahner, acquisitions editor; John Morris, copyeditor; and Maddie Caso, editorial assistant. It has been a joy to work with the team at the Press. My deepest gratitude is to Jeffrey Long, who was there with me throughout the entire project. He shared my joys about discoveries and new insights, edited hundreds of draft pages, and agreed to put our house renovations on hold so I could finish the book.

abbreviations

AFSt Archives Francke Foundations, Halle, Germany BethCong Records of the Bethlehem Congregation BethSS Records of the Single Sisters in Bethlehem BHZ Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Zinzendorf-­Forschung BS Büdingische Sammlung GN Gemeinnachrichten HG Herrnhuter Gesangbuch (1735–48), with number of hymn JMH Journal of Moravian History KJV King James Version MAB Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania NadB Nachrichten aus der Brüdergemeine PuN Pietismus und Neuzeit TMHS Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society UA Unity Archives, Herrnhut, Germany UL Wrocław University Library, Wrocław UnFr Unitas Fratrum: Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Gegenwartsfragen der Brüdergemeine ZBG Zeitschrift für Brüdergeschichte

editorial note

Most manuscript sources are from the holdings of the Unity Archives in Herrnhut, Germany. The repository for manuscript sources is mentioned only if the original is held in another repository than the Unity Archives. Many of the printed sources and much of the secondary literature is available in the library collection of the Moravian Archives in Bethlehem. Place names are referred to by their historic (German) names. The current Czech or Polish names are between parentheses when the town is first mentioned. The village of Hennersdorf had its name changed in 1768 to Grosshennersdorf. All translations, unless indicated differently, are my own. Most of the original German has been translated; when relevant, the original German has been included in the footnotes or it can be found in the German translation of this book. Biblical quotes are from the King James Version (KJV), unless otherwise indicated. In a few cases the text was translated from the German Luther translation.

prologue: a moravian face mask

“When you see a person wearing a black mask, everybody knows it is not a comedian but someone who is protecting themselves from the bad air.”1 At a Moravian gathering in 1744, Moravian leader Count Zinzendorf explained the metaphor of face masks. Wearing a face mask in public is a form of protection from something bad, like “poor air or dust,” the count explained. “So is the mask of the Moravian Brotherhood. It has no intentions, no special secrets other than to protect from today’s bad air and dust, swirled up in the churches and among theologians.” Zinzendorf was talking about the commotion and criticism his Herrnhut movement had encountered from the beginning. “The best way to make it through is by wearing a mask,” he advised. This mask was the identity of the “Moravian Brotherhood,” or the renewed Unity of Brethren, adopted by the Herrnhuters in 1727. To the outside world the Herrnhuters gave the impression of being descendants of an ancient church, thus protecting their true identity from outside attacks. Hiding behind the Moravian mask was a true Christian: “Everybody knows who is hiding behind this mask, namely a servant of Christ, a plain and simple servant of Jesus Christ, who rejects and detests rituals, unnecessary business, and boastful titles.” For Zinzendorf and eighteenth-­century Moravians, a true Christian was someone who had left the divided denominational churches behind and become part of the apostolic church. Zinzendorf ’s “true Christians” had encountered so much opposition, however, that they needed to protect themselves with a mask: the mask of the adopted identity of the Renewed Moravian Church. Strangely, wearing masks has become familiar to modern readers. Just hours before I wrote this, the governor of Pennsylvania made it obligatory to wear masks in public. It is one of the ways the COVID-­19 pandemic has changed many aspects of our lives. One rare positive, for me, was that because of the pandemic, the lockdown, and the slowing down of public life, I suddenly found time to complete this book. Hopefully, by the time the book is published, masks will have become a thing of the past again.

xviii      prologue

But Zinzendorf ’s Moravian mask remains an excellent metaphor of what I would like to argue in this book. This book will explain how the Moravians discovered their mask. Paul Peucker Bethlehem, Pennsylvania July 1, 2020

Introduction

Zinzendorf: So, why did we come together back in 1722? Watteville: To be a Philadelphia! Zinzendorf: Because we were. —Conference at Lindsey House, Chelsea, September 25, 1753

Just outside the town of Herrnhut, somewhat sheltered under the tall trees of the forest along the road to Zittau, stands a stone marker. On the front of the simple, cubiform shape a cast-­iron plaque informs the passerby that this is where Moravian settlers felled the first tree for the construction of Herrnhut. On June 17, 1822, a century after the founding of Herrnhut, a large crowd gathered at this location to dedicate the historical marker. For them the felling of the first tree on June 17, 1722, marked a new phase in the history of a church that had long been thought dead. It was the beginning of a worldwide fellowship of affiliated communities in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa that originated at this spot. In 1822 Herrnhut was the center of a global church with fifty thousand members, and this spot in the woods was where it all began.1

Herrnhut The earliest years of Herrnhut are the topic of this book. We will examine how this new religious community was able to survive in a time when secular and religious authorities usually did not permit religious activity outside the recognized churches.

2      herrnhut

Fig. 1  Dedication of the memorial marker at the location of the felling of the first tree for the construction of Herrnhut. Engraving by L. Beste, 1822. Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, DP f.242.6.

In June of 1722 three families from Moravia arrived on the estate of Count Zinzendorf, who allowed them to settle on his land. On June 17, they began construction of the first house, and in October the families were able to move in. During the following years, as other exiles joined them, the settlement grew. Herrnhut was not a typical colony of Protestant refugees from the Habsburg Empire, such as the ones elsewhere in the region along the border with Bohemia and Moravia. Herrnhut was a religious community that developed its own organization and religious practices, separate from the local Lutheran parish. Herrnhut was part of a project, centered in the pious household in Zinzendorf ’s manor house in nearby Berthelsdorf and led by a group of Pietist friends. It would be wrong for the Herrnhut story to focus exclusively on the Moravian refugees. The reception of Protestants from Moravia was but one component of the overall plan to establish an Anstalt, a religious enterprise or institution with the goal of extending the Kingdom of Christ. Besides religious refugees from Moravia and Silesia, Pietists from other European regions came to live on the Berthelsdorf estate. By 1727 Herrnhut had a total of 224 inhabitants, 120 originally from Moravia and 104

introduction      3

from elsewhere.2 Other religious refugees were accepted on the Berthelsdorf estate as well. In 1726 a group of Schwenkfelders from Silesia arrived, but their presence on Zinzendorf ’s estate ended abruptly with their expulsion from Saxony in 1733/34, something the Moravians were able to avoid. In 1727 Zinzendorf took a leave of absence from his position at the royal court in Dresden and permanently moved to his estate. Rather than living in the manor house in Berthelsdorf, the Zinzendorf family took up residence in one of the houses on the town square in Herrnhut. During the summer of 1727, fierce discussions about the relationship of the community with the local parish were resolved with the introduction of formal rules and regulations for life in Herrnhut. And on August 13, during the celebration of Holy Communion, the Herrnhuters experienced a revival as a transformative moment, binding them closely together as an independent religious community. They believed God had formed them into a separate congregation, similar to the church of the ancestors of the Moravian settlers. Within years of its founding, the Herrnhut community was in correspondence with the King of Prussia, the Queen of England, the Crown Prince of Denmark, and even the pope in Rome. Under the leadership of Zinzendorf, who was not only their secular lord but also their spiritual leader, this “renewed Moravian Church” quickly spread throughout the European continent, Britain, and North America. Moravian missionaries went to the enslaved in the Caribbean, to the Inuit in Greenland and Labrador, to the American Indians, and to the Khoekhoe in southern Africa. Within a few decades, Herrnhut had become the center of one of the most significant transatlantic religious movements of the eighteenth century, attracting Germans, Dutch, English, Scandinavians, American Indians, and enslaved men and women in the Caribbean. This quick expansion was remarkable for a religious group that did not belong to one of the three officially recognized religions in the Holy Roman Empire. Herrnhut was able to survive by developing a successful defense narrative that made it more acceptable to the authorities by obscuring its true identity. This will be called the Herrnhut model: Herrnhut was a separatist religious community that masked its separatism behind a pretense of affiliation with the Lutheran Church and behind a chosen historical identity, that of the renewed Unity of Brethren. The seemingly remote community of Herrnhut developed against the background of a larger discussion regarding the changing nature of Protestantism in Europe. The relationship of the state and religion was changing as eighteenth-­century religion began to distance itself from the older confessional framework. Religion became more individual as the emphasis shifted

4      herrnhut

from doctrine to the lived experiential faith of the laypersons. During a time when the religious landscape in Europe was often characterized by fairly homogeneous regions, nonconforming groups began to demand toleration, while rulers began to realize the economic and social potential of minority groups.3 The Herrnhut community, small as it may initially have been, was carving out space within the confessional state. The Moravian network that eventually evolved transcended the boundaries of both the confessional state and confessional religion. On the Berthelsdorf estate, two unlikely partners found each other: a group of Pietist friends centered around Zinzendorf and a colony of Protestant exiles from Moravia. How did these two groups find common ground? As I will argue in this book, the success of the Herrnhut community was due to the fact that the ideals of Zinzendorf and his Pietist friends were often compatible with the expectations of the Moravian settlers. As we will find, the Protestants from Bohemia and Moravia adhered to a generic form of Protestantism and did not care to become integrated into the Lutheran Church, nor were they interested in the distinctions between Lutheran and Reformed confessions. Confessional indifferentism often caused problems when exiles were forced to integrate into the confessional framework of the communities where they settled. In Herrnhut no such coercion existed, as Zinzendorf and the other leaders were intent on establishing a community of the true children of God, regardless of their denominational background. Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian ecclesiology and the confessional indifferentism of the Moravian settlers were compatible. Another compatibility was the desire of the settlers to conduct prayer meetings with Bible reading, singing, explanation, and sometimes discussion. This was the worship style that was familiar to generations of crypto-­Protestants. Often, local pastors and authorities in the regions where refugees were allowed to settle did not allow such prayer meetings, since they were considered conventicles and therefore outlawed. In Herrnhut this was not the case. Zinzendorf, influenced by the traditions of Pietism, considered prayer meetings the optimal form for true believers to gather and worship. Zinzendorf and his Pietist friends recognized the desire of the Protestant settlers as a valid form of devotion. Despite this compatibility, ample potential for disagreement and conflict remained for the inhabitants of the Berthelsdorf estate. There was the political reality of early modern Germany, where one could not simply establish a religious body outside the official church. Thoughts about the relationship of the Herrnhut community with the Lutheran Church differed among Zinzendorf, his Pietist friends, and the Moravian settlers. During the 1720s this question caused repeated discussions. The most dramatic dissension took

introduction      5

place during 1727, when Zinzendorf ultimately organized Herrnhut as its own religious community, separate from the Lutheran Church and only loosely connected to the local Lutheran parish of Berthelsdorf.4 And even after the summer of 1727, when the newfound unity about organizational questions was sealed by what was believed to be the outpouring of God’s spirit, this debate flared up from time to time. Important for the identity of the Herrnhut community was the belief that God had renewed the extinct church of their ancestors. I will argue that this narrative of the renewal of the ancient Unity of Brethren was a useful model for the Herrnhuters, enabling all participants to find common ground. I will also argue that for many this narrative was not the primary motivation for joining the Herrnhut community. In 1727, 45 percent of the Herrnhut residents were not of Moravian origin. In the past, historians have argued that Zinzendorf tried to temper the Moravians’ desire to renew the Moravian Church, or even that he was opposed to it.5 I will argue the opposite: it was Zinzendorf who invented and promoted the idea of renewing the Unity and appropriating its history. The idea dates to the summer of 1727, after the introduction of the statutes of Herrnhut, when he found parallels between the rules and practices of Herrnhut and the constitution of the Unity of Brethren. He presented it to the Moravian settlers and other residents, who gladly went along.

Lutheranism In order to understand the character of the Herrnhut community, we have to understand its relationship to the Lutheran Church and its claimed connection to the Unity of Brethren. We also have to understand the relationship to Pietism and Philadelphian ideas. There are two schools of thought regarding Zinzendorf ’s relationship to the Lutheran Church. According to the first tradition, Zinzendorf was a Lutheran who wanted to keep Herrnhut within the Lutheran Church. Only because the Lutheran theologians of his time failed to understand Zinzendorf ’s intentions was Herrnhut excluded from the Lutheran Church and forced to form an independent religious organization. This manner of reading Zinzendorf dates back to the eighteenth century, especially to Spangenberg and the official Moravian historiography of the post-­Zinzendorf era.6 Of course, this was the position Zinzendorf himself took whenever he defended his enterprises for ecclesiastical and secular authorities. Bernhard Becker, in his influential study of Zinzendorf ’s theology (1866), argues that

6      herrnhut

“as a true Lutheran Zinzendorf never intended this movement to develop into a new, independent denomination.”7 The interpretation of Zinzendorf as a Lutheran who wanted to integrate the Herrnhut community into the Lutheran Church is a continuation of the apologetics of the eighteenth century and can be found especially among historians close to the Moravian Church.8 The second school sees in Zinzendorf a radical Pietist who left the Lutheran Church and made Herrnhut into a separate religious body.9 This interpretation also goes back to the eighteenth century. In Abriss der Brüder­ gemeine (1751) Johann Albrecht Bengel recognized the Philadelphian motives of Zinzendorf ’s endeavors, which the count often clothed in Lutheran-­ sounding assertions.10 In the nineteenth century it was Albrecht Ritschl who read Zinzendorf as a Philadelphian aiming to find souls among all religious traditions whom he united in his community. According to Ritschl, Zinzendorf claimed to adhere to Luther’s teachings without actually understanding Lutheran theology. Ritschl did not believe Zinzendorf ’s assertions that he had a positive appreciation of the Lutheran Church: the members of his Philadelphian congregation did not have to leave their churches, not because Zinzendorf considered the churches to be living branches of Christianity but because he regarded them with indifference.11 Twentieth-­century historians such as Wilhelm Lütjeharms, Otto Uttendörfer, Ingeborg Posselt, Sigurd Nielsen, Leiv Aalen, and Hans Schneider have recognized Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian principles.12 Schneider argues that Herrnhut was not a Lutheran ecclesiola in ecclesia based on Spener’s model but rather a heterogeneous religious community, separate from the Berthelsdorf parish and beyond the oversight of Lutheran pastor Rothe.13 This study will expand on these findings and argue that Herrnhut was intended to be a separate body of Philadelphian believers outside the Lutheran Church. Philadelphians considered such gatherings not part of the institutional church but congregations of a higher order. A separate religious body would have been met with vigilance and great concern by the authorities. Therefore, the impression that Herrnhut was indeed a separate community had to be avoided. In early modern Germany separatism was illegal, and any semblance of separatism was therefore full of risks. Zinzendorf knew it was his responsibility to protect his undertakings from attack. As a nobleman, trained in law and well versed in theology, Zinzendorf was able to find the right arguments to defend his endeavors and to depict the community of Herrnhut in an innocuous manner. Many apologetical and defensive texts were written to downplay Herrnhut’s separate identity in order to appease the authorities, both secular and religious. Later histories of the Moravian Church, such as Spangenberg’s Zinzendorf

introduction      7

biography, often repeat this apologetic view. Consequently, it is not difficult to find statements by Zinzendorf claiming the opposite of what is argued here: namely, that Herrnhut by no means separated from the Lutheran Church and that everything Zinzendorf ever did was to keep Herrnhut based upon the foundation of the Lutheran Church.14

Pietism The events in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut during the 1720s were part of a larger phenomenon, usually referred to as Pietism, a movement within Protestantism that started many decades earlier. Pietism is generally considered a reform movement of believers who gathered in small groups (conventicles) within and outside of official church congregations, promoting religious and societal change.15 The term Pietism has been used since the second half of the nineteenth century as a comprehensive label for various reform movements within the Protestant churches of the European continent during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Originally, it was a polemical label with a strong pejorative connotation. The discussion on the definition and duration of Pietism dates back many decades.16 Recently, Veronika Albrecht-­Birkner proposed “early modern Reform Protestantism” as an umbrella term for the range of reform movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.17 The goal of this Reform Protestantism was to complete the Reformation, which, depending on one’s perspective, was either left unfinished or had fallen into decline. Characteristic of Reform Protestantism was the relativization of confessional boundaries and the use of ideas borrowed from other confessional traditions. Albrecht-­Birkner distinguishes between top-­down Reform movements (e.g., Francke’s network) and bottom-­up movements (e.g., Zinzendorf ’s Moravians). Lucinda Martin has pointed out that these reformers are part of a long tradition of criticism of the church. The reformers denounced the rigid character of the churches (Mauerkirchen), which focused on rituals and outward faith rather than on a religion of the heart. The reformers emphasized the idea of an invisible church, a union of true believers, in a church without walls. Zinzendorf was one of these reformers of early modern Europe who wanted to unite God’s children from all denominations, nations, and classes.18 Pietism was an international movement, and perhaps in no other movement of the time did this internationality become as manifest as in Moravianism. The beginnings of Pietism are usually traced back to Philipp Jakob Spener in Frankfurt am Main.19 In 1675 Spener published a tract, Pia Desideria, that is often considered the founding text of the reform movement. Spener

8      herrnhut

propagated a reform of church and society through reform not from above, by a ruler or church leadership, but rather from within, by promoting a more pious way of life among the laity. Spener called for a true implementation of the Christian message. According to Spener, “true Christianity” means a profound change of a person’s behavior. Faith is alive when it is a matter of the heart rather than of the mind and when a person actually practices faith in their life.20 According to Spener, both church and individual believer should follow the example of early Christianity in order to reach perfection.21 Spener called for conventicles, collegia pietatis, small gatherings of the pious to foster true piety by study of the Bible, prayer, and group discussion. By stressing the concept of the priesthood of all believers, Spener encouraged participation of laypeople on all levels. These small groups would serve as ecclesiola in ecclesia, little churches within the church, enlivening and strengthening the overall church.22 Although the idea of small group gatherings could find justification in Luther’s works,23 these conventicles often raised suspicions among church leaders and secular rulers alike as they considered these groups, where ordinary men (and women) were given opportunity to interpret the Bible, a challenge to their authority and to the established order. Among some of Spener’s followers, the push for reform went even further. They stopped attending church regularly and were unwilling to take Communion together with the “unconverted,” who in their eyes were “unworthy” of the sacrament. The meetings of these separatists were beyond the control of the ministry. Strom and Lehmann call this the “ongoing tension” within Pietism between those who wished to reform the church from within and those who had given up on the established church and had broken away.24 In early modern Central Europe, where a ruler determined the confession of his subjects, the religious community and the civil community were one and the same. By separating from the church, a person appeared to place themself outside of the civic community as well, causing concern from both religious and secular authorities. Pietists who separated from the church are usually called “radical Pietists,” while those who attempted to reform the church from within are called “church” or “ecclesial Pietists.” A second wave of Pietism emanated from Leipzig in the late 1680s.25 Theology students in Leipzig around August Hermann Francke conducted conventicles that also included local townspeople. After the authorities took action and the students left Leipzig, the collegia pietatis spread through central and northern Germany. Ecclesiastical and civil authorities in many places criticized the conventicles, reinforcing the Pietists’ conviction of the corrupt nature of the established church.26 Francke himself went to Erfurt, where his sermons attracted large crowds until he was expelled by city authorities after

introduction      9

only fifteen months. He then accepted a position at the University of Halle, combined with the office of pastor at Glaucha, located just outside of the city. Here Francke founded various institutions, including schools, a printing office, and an apothecary. With its university and the institutions founded by Francke, Halle became the center of Pietism. A new generation of Pietist ministers, often trained at Halle, tried to reform the church from within. Some of these regenerate ministers soon found themselves in trouble. Their demands for a better life for their parishioners, combined with their outspoken criticism of local traditions such as dances, wedding celebrations, fairs, and christening banquets, together with their refusal to give Communion to offenders against their moral rules of a Christian life, caused division within the communities. Through his pragmatism and by distancing himself from radical elements, Francke succeeded in gaining recognition of Pietism as a reform movement within the church, even though many ecclesial Pietists continued to experience difficulties. The radical Pietists were not as moderate and did not hide their criticism of the doctrine and practice of the institutional church. They espoused ideas that did not conform to orthodox Lutheran or Reformed teachings. Their views of the church deviated from the ecclesiologies of the established Protestant churches; they often separated from the church, which they condemned as “Babylon.” Needless to say, many radical Pietists encountered opposition and even oppression.27 Schneider sees the emergence of organized communities among radical Pietists as “a new phenomenon” in the eighteenth century.28 Earlier generations of radical Pietists mostly rejected the formation of such congregations. They believed God should be worshipped “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), for which the established church was not needed, nor did they find it right to organize new “sects.” In many German territories special decrees prevented Pietists from organizing themselves independently from the established territorial churches. The formation of organized radical Pietist communities was possible only in areas with tolerant governments willing to violate imperial law. The stipulations of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) recognized the right of the sovereign to determine the religion of his subjects while outlawing any religion within the Holy Roman Empire other than the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches. In addition, the peace treaty guaranteed nonconforming Christians the right to devotions held privately in their homes, as long as these groups had been present in the region in the deciding year of 1624. Toleration and acceptance of other religious groups was explicitly outlawed. Even when individual rulers were willing to tolerate dissenting groups,

10      herrnhut

their position remained uncertain, as they were often expelled for openly criticizing the government or for causing offense.29 In the case of Herrnhut the local lord himself was the instigator and leader of the community. The Herrnhut community therefore enjoyed a great deal of freedom within the confines of the political constellation of Upper Lusatia. Still, Zinzendorf was not the sovereign, and there were bounds to the latitude in religious matters he enjoyed, as he was to experience on multiple occasions. As we will find, it appears that Zinzendorf tried to appeal to the regulation that private worship of nonconforming believers was to be allowed. Similar to the modern distinction between radical and ecclesial Pietists, Zinzendorf distinguished between “two branches of so-­called Pietism”: the “mystics,” on the one hand, who gave up their offices and positions in the church, and the “eager Christian ministers” on the other hand, who remained within the church. He found fault with both groups. He criticized the “mystics” for sometimes changing their teachings and deviating from Christian doctrine, and also for allowing offensive and troublesome elements in their communities, while he faulted the Pietist ministers within the church for having lost some of their original zeal. When, however, according to Zinzendorf, the separatist mystics and the church Pietists would join together, as at the court of his in-­laws in Ebersdorf, “true blessing will result in teaching and practice.”30 These words from 1746 also adequately describe Zinzendorf ’s position on piety, church, and separatism in relation to developments in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut during the 1720s. Together with the Pietist ministers Scheffer and Rothe, Zinzendorf formed a religious community that incorporated elements of various backgrounds and traditions. For Zinzendorf, true doctrine was not a matter of reason but rather the inwardly experienced religion of the heart, as expressed in the devotion of the suffering and death of Jesus; Christian life was defined in the statutes and regulations formally adopted in 1727. The irony of Zinzendorf ’s model, however, was the fact that by combining radical and moderate elements in an organized religious community, Herrnhut became detached from the institutional Lutheran Church. And although Zinzendorf himself was perhaps reluctant to take this step, pressure from within the community in early 1727 forced him to separate Herrnhut from Berthelsdorf. We will see that the position of radical Pietists regarding the established church and separatism varied. Historians warn not to draw the lines between radicals and the more moderate church Pietists too sharply: some Pietist pastors who chose to stay within the church had radical ideas, whereas not everyone who separated from the church necessarily adhered to radical beliefs.31 We will find that those involved with the project on the Berthelsdorf

introduction      11

estate had different ideas about their relationship with the Lutheran Church and on separatism. Andreas Rothe was an example of a Pietist minister who willingly participated in Zinzendorf ’s project on the Berthelsdorf lands but who, after his installation as parish pastor, became more attached to the Lutheran Church and warier of religious activities outside of the church. Melchior Scheffer in Görlitz was much more outspoken against the established church than Rothe, but when confronted with the possibility of disciplinary action from church authorities, Scheffer gave in to the pressure. In the end both Rothe and Scheffer chose to remain loyal to the Lutheran Church, which meant their relationship to Herrnhut grew more distant. Zinzendorf strove to give the impression that he remained attached to the Lutheran Church while he actively pursued plans that were clearly outside the confines of the institutional church. Christian David openly pushed for separation of the Herrnhut community from the church. Rothe, Scheffer, Zinzendorf, and David represented differing degrees of separation from the church. Important for our understanding of Zinzendorf, his relationship to the Lutheran Church, and his ecclesiology are his Philadelphian ideas.

Philadelphianism The ideas of the nonconformist reformers in late seventeenth-­century Germany about an invisible church of true believers were similar to religious reform movement ideas in England. The Philadelphian movement in England quickly became a significant influence on radical Pietists in Germany at the end of the seventeenth century.32 Philadelphian ideals were of great importance for the development of the Herrnhut community as well, as will be argued throughout this study. The origins of the Philadelphian movement are to be found in England. The Philadelphian Society in London consisted of followers of the tenets of Jacob Böhme under the leadership of John Pordage (1607–1681), Jane Lead (1623–1704), and Francis Lee (1661–1719).33 Translated into German and printed by publishers in the Netherlands, the publications of the Philadelphian Society found a keen audience among radical Pietists in Germany. In 1702 the Philadelphian Society in London adopted statutes that they hoped to introduce among the Philadelphian friends on the European continent as well. This attempt failed because most German Philadelphians declined to become part of a formal organization. The German Philadelphians feared adoption of formal rules would make them into a new “sect,” which went against their core conviction.34 Following Lead’s death in 1704, the

12      herrnhut

Philadelphian Society in London dissolved. Her ideas, however, remained influential in Germany for several decades. The goal of the Philadelphians was to reform the church, which in their view had deviated from the “Apostolic Rule” and was hopelessly divided among countless “sects” (denominations), all claiming to be the true church of Christ.35 For a Philadelphian, the word sect referred not to religious cults outside of the accepted denominations, but to these denominations themselves. The Philadelphians wanted to reestablish the unified church through apostolic faith and a spirit of brotherly love among the faithful. Significant for the worldview of the Philadelphians were the letters to the seven churches in the biblical book of Revelation and the resulting historical periodization. Philadelphians believed these letters were not directed only at the seven churches but retained their validity to later generations of Christians. Thus they applied the image of the church of Sardis, the church that although it had a name that lives was actually “dead” (Rev. 3:1), to the institutional churches of their own time. The church of Philadelphia represented the true Christians throughout the ages, “without Fault and Blame,” who with but little strength keep the word of Jesus and hold on until the end (Rev. 3:8–13).36 At the same time, the term philadelphia also referred to the impartial brotherly love (φιλαδελφία) that characterized true Christians (John 13:34–35) and would conquer the differences among the Christians. Eventually the age of Philadelphia would replace the age of Sardis.37 According to a summary of the ideas of the Philadelphians found in the Propositions Extracted from the Reasons for the Foundation and Promotion of a Philadelphian Society (1697), the church on earth had to be made “conformable” or uniform with Christ by the Holy Spirit, which is universal and one, without the “Narrowness, Partiality, or Particularity of Spirit” that characterized the existing churches. The Philadelphians found that God “is stirring up” people in different European countries “to Wait in Faith and Prayer . . . till such a Pure Church may arise.” The faithful had to prepare for the “Resuscitation of this Spirit,” individually but also jointly as a group,38 and to wait and pray for “Divine Learning,” which went beyond human knowledge. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit will cure “the many Divisions and Sects of Christianity, all pretending to be the True Church.” The divisions could not be healed by human learning, political measures, or power. By retaining their mutual love and by strengthening faith among Christians of all denominations the Philadelphians would be able to overcome the “imperfections” and “corruptions” of the denominations. The two “Grand Pillars” of the Philadelphian ideas were “Catholick Love and Apostolic Faith,” and the goal of this apostolic faith was “the Revelation of the Kingdom of God within the Soul,”

introduction      13

an internalized, experiential faith rather than a rationalized theology based on doctrine, finally resulting in a “Virgin Church.” The faithful gathered in the apostolic congregation of true believers. Until “such a Philadelphian Church on Earth” had been established, Christ would not return to earth.39 Zinzendorf ’s ecclesiology was very much influenced by Philadelphian ideas on the relationship between the institutional churches and the apostolic congregation of true believers. Important to note is that according to Philadelphian ideas, the apostolic church was of a higher order than the existing churches. According to the Philadelphians, corruptions were to be found in the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed churches, and the Church of England alike, the dogmatic differences over which these denominations had been arguing for centuries were mere human “imperfections.” This claim caused their critics to accuse Philadelphians of indifferentism and disrespect for the institutional church.40 Philadelphian ideas could be considered an attack against the confessionalism of the time.41 Philadelphians characterized dogmatic differences among the denominations as mere “Perswasions or Opinions.” True Christians were to abstain from theological discussions and refuse to decide who was right or wrong among “the contending Parties.”42 Philadelphians were advised to remain “in the Bond of Peace in the Visible Unity of the Church.”43 They were not to condemn the “Externals or Rituals of the Christian Religion,” nor were they to make much of them. As they considered the teachings and rites of the institutional churches of secondary importance, they were able to continue to worship in these churches without the need to separate. Philadelphians were to “Worship the Father, through his Son, in Spirit and Truth [John 4:23] in whatever Temple, or Place they may appear as to their Outward Persons.”44 Philadelphians believed that later generations had departed from the original theology of the apostolic church, but that these human additions to the “apostolic faith” were temporary and could eventually be eliminated.45 Philadelphianism relativized the truth claims of the confessional churches, preparing the way for a worldview of religious diversity. This Philadelphian viewpoint is significant for Zinzendorf ’s ecclesiology. The following from Lee’s State of the Philadelphian Society summarizes Zinzen­ dorf ’s own position regarding the relationship of Philadelphians to the institutional church: “They [the Philadelphians] differ not from the Protestant Churches as to external Communion; they do not refuse Communion with them, either in hearing the Word, or receiving the Sacraments, and therefore make no Schism.”46 This is where he has often been misunderstood: when Zinzendorf claimed he intended to remain within the Lutheran Church or when he urged others not to cut their ties with the institutional

14      herrnhut

church, he did so not out of a particular esteem for the church but rather out of a deeply held Philadelphian conviction. The congregation at Herrnhut was intended to be such an apostolic gathering of Philadelphian Christians, waiting and preparing for the unification of Christ’s church on earth while continuing to worship in the parish church at Berthelsdorf. Zinzendorf ’s ideas on separatism will be further discussed in chapter 7. Philadelphians believed the reason for the demise of the denominational churches, both Catholic and Protestant, was that they had abandoned the faith and practice of the apostolic church. Therefore, Philadelphians did “diligent Research after the Primitive and Original Model of the Church of Christ, while it kept its first Love [Rev. 2:4].” By restoring the apostolic church they hoped to “re-­establish the Catholick Unity in the Band of the Spirit.”47 Herrnhut was intentionally designed as an “apostolic congregation,” and as we will see, this Philadelphian ideal played a crucial role in the development of the community, such as the call of Pastor Rothe in 1722, the establishment of offices in 1725, and the introduction of the Brotherly Agreement of 1727. During the history of Christianity many reform movements have aimed to restore the early church. The Unity of Brethren is one such group.48 In the late seventeenth century the lost purity of the early church became a popular theme among many seeking renewal.49 Influential was Gottfried Arnold’s voluminous book Die Erste Liebe, das ist Wahre Abbildung der ersten Christen (The first love, which is a true portrayal of the first Christians; 1696). Arnold’s intention was to show his contemporaries how far the established churches of his day were removed from the “first love” (Rev. 2:4) of the early church, to which they needed to return. He held up the early Christians as an example of a true religion of the heart and an active Christianity without institutions, rites, or ceremonies. His book gained great popularity among Pietist circles. Several groups, separating from the established churches to restore apostolic ideals, looked to Arnold for guidance on how to re-­create the true community of the faithful.50 Later the recognition of parallels between the Unity of Brethren and the organization of Herrnhut based on the shared apostolic example led to the profound experiences of August 13, 1727, as we will see in chapter 4. Philadelphian ideas found a receptive audience among radical Pietists on the European continent, while radical thought from the Continent was discussed in England.51 In the Netherlands the Collegiants, dating back to the early seventeenth century, had similar ideas about tolerance among believers from different denominations, the corruption of the institutional churches, and the ideal of restoring apostolic Christianity.52 Spener’s ideas on gathering the pious in collegia pietatis had its parallel in the Philadelphian concept

introduction      15

of the apostolic congregation as the assembly of true Christians awaiting Christ’s return. Many German radical Pietists read Philadelphian publications that were translated and published in the Netherlands. Some German Pietists, such as Gottfried Arnold, the Berleburg separatists, and the Petersens, began to correspond with Lead in London. Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm Petersen in Niederndodeleben, west of Magdeburg, became the principal advocates for Philadelphian ideas in Germany.53 Zinzendorf admired the Petersens; he visited Petersen in the summer of 1724, not long after the death of Eleonora Petersen, and again in August 1726. We know that Zinzendorf particularly liked Eleonora Petersen’s Geistlicher Kampff der Erstgebohrnen (Spiritual battle of the firstborn), an exposition of her Philadelphian ideas, which he recommended to his Berthelsdorf friends and also to his mother.54 Most Philadelphians did not want to found a new church: the bond with other true Christians was maintained through correspondence and through conversations and loosely organized meetings. Some groups, however, adopted formal rules and a common belief system, something generally considered contrary to Philadelphian ideas.55 Zinzendorf was confronted with the same dilemma: would the group on his estate remain a loosely organized fellowship with close relations to the local parish, or was it to become a more distinctly organized religious association? Zinzendorf encountered Philadelphian ideas at different times in his life, possibly as early as childhood while growing up in his grandmother’s house. In retrospect, he described his grandmother, Henriette Katharina von Gersdorf, as a Philadelphian: “She did not know of any difference between the Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed religions; anyone who had a heart and came to her was her neighbor.”56 A recent analysis of her library reveals that Gersdorf owned a great number of Philadelphian books, such as Jane Lead’s Offenbahrung der Offenbahrungen (Revelation of Revelations) and books by the Petersens.57 Schneider suggests that an important opportunity for Zinzendorf to become familiar with Philadelphian publications occurred in the summer of 1719, when he stayed in Utrecht in the Netherlands for three months during his grand tour. Here Zinzendorf became personally acquainted with Loth Fischer, the translator of Philadelphian works into German.58 Fischer, who lived on Ganzenmarkt in Utrecht, was a follower of Gichtel and a member of the Collegiants, the Dutch society that adhered to ideas similar to the Philadelphians. In 1719 Fischer finalized a complete edition of Jane Lead’s works in German, and it seems likely that he shared these books with the young count.59 These publications contain the core principles of the Philadelphian Society, many of which we see reflected in Zinzendorf ’s

16      herrnhut

own ideas during the following years. The importance of his encounter with Loth Fischer can hardly be overstated. Overall, the grand tour was an opportunity for Zinzendorf to be exposed to a variety of different churches and religious groups, of which he took full advantage.60 At the end of it he spent time at the court of the Reuss family in Ebersdorf, where he experienced in practice how a Philadelphian congregation functioned.61 There, already influenced by general Philadelphian notions during his upbringing and having received a further understanding and appreciation of these ideas by reading the books Fischer shared with him in Utrecht, Zinzendorf came to understand how Philadelphianism could be practiced. From then on he decided to become “an instrument and worker in [God’s] Philadelphian church.”62 By reading Zinzendorf as a Philadelphian, we will gain a richer understanding of his intentions and of the development of the religious community at Herrnhut. The main actors in the founding and early development of Herrnhut were all influenced by Philadelphian ideas, including Andreas Rothe, Christian David, and Melchior Scheffer.

The Present Study In order to understand the Moravian movement of the eighteenth century, we need to understand its formative years. Accordingly, in this book we will be investigating a short but crucial period in the movement’s history: its first ten years. These years coincide with Zinzendorf ’s ownership of the Berthelsdorf estate, which he purchased in 1722 and, under pressure from the authorities, sold in 1732 to his wife, Erdmuth Dorothea. The investigation by Saxon authorities and the resulting sale of the property to Erdmuth will be the end point of our investigation. Besides Zinzendorf, other significant actors in the formation of Herrnhut include Lutheran pastors Melchior Scheffer and Andreas Rothe; Moravian settlers such as Christian David; and Pietists from other regions such as Friedrich von Watteville, Johanna von Zezschwitz, Johann Georg Heitz, and Erdmuth Dorothea von Zinzendorf. However, as local lord and leader of the Herrnhut community, Zinzendorf was undeniably the most influential person, and, more importantly, he dominates the archival record, as most of the surviving records come from what originally were his family archives. The story of early Herrnhut is not unknown. The events of August 13, 1727, are celebrated each year in every Moravian Church around the world,

introduction      17

offering plenty of opportunity for historical reflection. Many aspects of the history of eighteenth-­century Moravianism have been studied in recent years. Academic journals, conferences, and book series are devoted to the study of Moravian history. Scholarly discussion of the formative years of Herrnhut, however, is not as exhaustive as one might expect. The most recent comprehensive history of the beginnings of Herrnhut in German dates from 1959.63 The most recent English publication on the early years of Herrnhut dates from 1946; it is a translation of a German publication from 1922.64 Meanwhile, many studies of individual aspects of early Herrnhut and of Zinzendorf ’s biography and theology have been published. In recent decades the study of German Pietism has really taken off. Especially with the founding of the Interdisciplinary Center of Pietism Studies in Halle and the improved access to so many relevant archives after the end of communism, great progress has been made in many fields relevant for the understanding of early Herrnhut: radical Pietism, the history of Upper Lusatia, and the history of crypto-­Protestantism in the Habsburg Empire. The existing monographs on the early history of Herrnhut are generally older. Gerhard Reichel (1874–1953), professor of church history at the Theological Seminary in Herrnhut, wrote two studies based on thorough archival research: Die Anfänge Herrnhuts (Herrnhut’s beginnings, 1922) on the founding of Herrnhut in 1722, and Gottes Wunderführung im alten Herrnhut (God’s miraculous guidance in ancient Herrnhut, 1927) on the revival of August 13, 1727.65 Volume 2 of Erich Beyreuther’s three-­volume Zinzendorf biography, Zinzendorf und die sich allhier zusammen finden (Zinzendorf and those who here together are assembled, 1959), deals with the history of Herrnhut from its founding until 1732.66 Beyreuther (1904–2003) taught church history at the University of Leipzig until he immigrated to West Germany in 1962. He was a historian of Pietism, and his book on early Herrnhut testifies to his great knowledge of the archival record. Another relevant study is Hanns-­ Joachim Wollstadt’s Geordnetes Dienen in der christlichen Gemeinde (Orderly serving in a Christian congregation, 1966). Wollstadt (1929–1991) was a Protestant pastor in East Germany, and the goal of his detailed study of the communal organization of Herrnhut during the 1720s and ’30s was to find usable elements in the past for the church of his day.67 Even though no monographs on the origins of Herrnhut have been published during the last five decades, many articles and book chapters on the early years of the Herrnhut community have been written.68 Especially important are the studies by Hans Schneider, church historian in Marburg, Germany, who has convincingly described the Philadelphian principles at play in the Moravian Church of the eighteenth century.69 During the last few

18      herrnhut

decades the study of Pietism in all its variants has produced many new insights that make it opportune to revisit the history of early Herrnhut.70

Archival Sources There is an astounding abundance of archival records relating to the early years of Herrnhut. Hundreds of letters, many detailed lists of inhabitants, diaries, and early histories of the new town dating from the first ten years are preserved; not even the notes from the postmaster in Löbau, to name but one example, have been discarded.71 Two factors contribute to the existence of so much archival material: Zinzendorf ’s role within the community and the belief of the Herrnhuters that, as a community of true Christians, they needed to document the wonders of God in their midst.72 For noblemen like Zinzendorf it was quite common to keep record of their activities. Incoming letters were archived, and his secretary, Tobias Friedrich, his close friend Friedrich von Watteville, and others copied and filed outgoing letters. The Moravians began preserving their records early on. After Zinzendorf ’s death, the records of the family, often inseparable from the records of the church, were incorporated into the newly founded Unity Archives (1764), which have been continuously cared for and fortunately survived the destruction of Herrnhut during World War II. In addition to the records of the central administration of the church kept in the Unity Archives, the Herrnhut congregation kept its own records in the Gemeinhaus located on the main square. This building, including the original meeting hall and the archives, was lost in 1945 when Russian soldiers set fire to many of the buildings in the center of town. The surviving finding aid of the congregational archives, however, indicates that not many records from the earliest years remained in the congregational archives when it burned, as they had already been transferred to the Unity Archives.73 Because Zinzendorf resided in Dresden much of the time during the early years of Herrnhut, he was kept informed by letter. Therefore, many matters regarding the community were discussed in writing. Pastor Scheffer in Görlitz was actively involved in the planning of the Herrnhut community; two hundred of his letters survive.74 Letters by Pastor Rothe, another key player during these formative years, however, are much rarer as they fell victim to the destructive zeal of archivist Christlieb Suter in 1802, who rid the Unity Archives of anything shedding a critical light on the church.75 Because of this,

introduction      19

the position of Rothe in the ongoing discussion between him and Zinzendorf during these early years is much harder to examine. Two genres of archival records need to be mentioned here, as they are typical for the Moravians: the congregational diary and the memoirs (Lebensläufe). The congregational diary of Herrnhut begins in April of 1727, when Zinzendorf took up residence in Herrnhut after taking a leave of absence from the court in Dresden. Day by day, the Herrnhut diary records the important events in the development of the young community. Keeping a diary became customary for each Moravian community; some continue well into the twentieth century. A Moravian diary is different from a regular chronicle, in that it was intended as a story of special divine action and contains many miracle stories.76 The 1727 diary was compiled several years after the fact, probably in 1732 or 1733, from various sources, including Zinzendorf ’s own diary, Martin Dober’s diary, and texts by Christian David.77 For the most part, the congregational diary was kept by Zinzendorf ’s secretary, Tobias Friedrich, or by the count himself; therefore, the diary is very much in Zinzendorf ’s own voice. A few personal diaries also exist, such as the 1731 diary of Martin Linner and the 1730 personal diary of an unidentified single woman.78 What remains of Zinzendorf ’s personal diary are fragments, often written as travel reports to the congregation in Herrnhut.79 Memoirs or Lebensläufe of many early Herrnhuters also contain relevant information about the 1720s. It became customary for Moravians to write a biographical account of their spiritual journey to be read at their funeral service.80 The memoirs of the Moravian settlers reveal many details about life in Moravia and their spiritual development. Edita Sterik quotes extensively from these memoirs in her work. One needs to be aware, however, that the memoirs were not written until the authors had been living in Herrnhut or another Moravian community for some time, where, trying to satisfy the expectations of the church, they were influenced by the language and theology.81 The abundance of surviving records enables us to take a detailed look at the origins and early developments of the Herrnhut movement. The wealth of archival material available for Herrnhut provides us an amount of historical detail often lacking for comparable communities. Chapter 1 will introduce the main actors and explain how their desire to reform the church on the basis of the ideals of Philadelphianism united them. Chapter 2 will look more closely at the plans for the religious community on Zinzendorf ’s estate and at the historic development of Herrnhut.

20      herrnhut

This chapter will argue that Herrnhut was planned from its conception as a sizable community consisting of various “institutions”; the reception of Protestant refugees was only one of the projects. These projects were coordinated by a group of associated friends, the so-­called Brotherhood of Four. Care for the Protestant settlers from Moravia was the most visible of the projects the Brotherhood of Four took on. Chapter 3 deals with the Moravian settlers in more detail, arguing that their expectations matched the plans and ideals of Zinzendorf and his friends. Because of the freedom resulting from Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian ecclesiology, the settlers, who were not affiliated with a particular Protestant confession, were not forced to become part of the Lutheran Church as they were in other places. On several occasions during these formative years, dissent arose among the pious on the Berthelsdorf estate, stemming from ecclesiological questions: were the pious people on the estate merely members of the Lutheran parish and subject to the rules, requirements, and oversight of the pastor and the local lord, or did they constitute a separate group that determined their relationship to the local church themselves? Chapter  4 will deal with this debate and with the agreement that was ultimately reached in 1727, when Zinzendorf separated Herrnhut from the Berthelsdorf parish, making it into an independent religious body. Herrnhut was very much a community of laypeople in which ordained ministers did not play a dominant role. The theology of the community is the topic of chapter  5, while chapter  6 investigates various aspects of life in Herrnhut: liturgical life, organization, and the heterogeneous character and self-­identity of the community. The religious activity on Zinzendorf ’s estate did not escape the scrutiny of the authorities, both secular and religious. In 1732 the demise of Herrnhut seemed imminent as August the Strong, Elector of Saxony, wanted Zinzendorf to sell his possessions and leave the country. The final chapter examines how Zinzendorf was able to avert such disaster by creating a public identity for Herrnhut that concealed its controversial characteristics. In order to safeguard Herrnhut from persecution, Zinzendorf invented an identity of an older Protestant church for the Herrnhut community. According to Zinzendorf ’s narrative, this group desired to be affiliated with the Lutheran Church as much as they could without abandoning their own principles. This narrative enabled Herrnhut to survive and develop into one of the most successful religious movements of the Atlantic world in the eighteenth century.

1 Berthelsdorf Isn’t his name glorious in Berthelsdorf? Doesn’t the uninterrupted sound of the gospel ring from here into all the earth? How many hundred souls have already been lit by the light on the candlestick from Berthelsdorf? —Zinzendorf to the congregation at Herrnhut, July 19, 1728

The story of Herrnhut begins on June 8, 1722, with the arrival of three families from Moravia to the village of Berthelsdorf. During most of its history, Berthelsdorf, located in the southern part of Upper Lusatia between Saxony and Silesia, had been a fairly unremarkable village, but this was going to change.1 The previous month Berthelsdorf had welcomed Nikolaus Ludwig, Count Zinzendorf and Pottendorf, as the new lord of the manor. Zinzendorf intended to make Berthelsdorf the center of his wide-­reaching religious endeavors. He wanted to establish a community of “children of love” (Kinder der Liebe) on his estate, and the settlers from Moravia would be part of his plan.2 At the same time, Zinzendorf called Pastor Johann Andreas Rothe to Berthelsdorf to help realize the plans. Rothe was an idealistic pastor who was part of a Pietist circle in Görlitz. Through Rothe, Zinzendorf was introduced to other members of that group: Pastor Scheffer, leader of the group, and Christian David, a carpenter from Moravia who was an advocate for persecuted Protestants in his home country. Herrnhut was the result of the close collaboration between these men. This chapter will examine how David, Scheffer, Rothe, and Zinzendorf became acquainted and what they had in mind for this community of “children of love.” What united the men was their desire to reform the church on the basis of the ideals of Philadelphianism.

22      herrnhut

Christian David Not only did Christian David bring many Protestant refugees out of Moravia to Zinzendorf ’s estate, but he also played a decisive role at crucial moments in the early years of Herrnhut. David was a spirited and impulsive man who never stayed in one place for long.3 His strong-­willed nature caused a tense relationship with Zinzendorf at times, but in the end, he remained faithful to the Herrnhut plan. In addition to visiting many places throughout Europe during his lifetime, he traveled as far as Pennsylvania and Greenland (twice!). He was known for dropping everything he was doing and leaving for the Habsburg territory to preach and encourage Protestants to emigrate to Herrnhut. Many knew him as the Buschprediger (bush preacher). During the early eighteenth century, Buschprediger were itinerant Protestant preachers who traveled through the Habsburg territories, where they led (illegal) worship services outdoors.4 David himself was uncertain of the exact date of his birth: “Around 1692 I was born into the world in Senftleben in Moravia, a mile from Neutitschein,” he wrote.5 For a long time his birth date of “presumably” December 31, 1690, was used, but David was proven correct in 1934 when his baptism in the Roman Catholic church of Senftleben (Ženklava) was discovered to have been mistakenly recorded in the register of a nearby church.6 The date of his baptism was February 17, 1692. His mother, Rosina, was German, and although his father, Jan, was Czech, David must have been raised speaking German, as he was unable to understand “bemisch” (Böhmisch, Czech).7 David describes his quest for religious truth and his journey from zealous Roman Catholic to awakened Pietist. He would kneel in front of a statue of Mary, he says, “burning with devotion like a hot oven.” The earliest religious struggles he recounts were over “impure thoughts.”8 David apprenticed as a carpenter in Söhle (Žilina) and later in Holleschau (Holešov) with a family “who were Catholics in name but otherwise they were Lutherans.”9 These crypto-­Protestants challenged his Catholic belief in statues, pilgrimages, and religious images. In Holleschau he witnessed the imprisonment of twelve Protestant men who sang “night and day” in their prison cell. He also attended the synagogue in Holleschau, which was home to one of the largest Jewish communities in Moravia, and began to question his own faith. David writes, “I did not know if the zeal of the Roman Catholics, or that of those who sat in jail, or if the zeal of the Jews was the true zeal and true religion.”10 After finishing his apprenticeship in Holleschau in 1713, he began traveling through Central Europe as a wandering journeyman. His goal, however,

berthelsdorf      23

was not to gain experience in his trade but rather “to become a Protestant.” Trying to find Protestants who would accept him, he traveled to Trentschin (Trenčin), Tyrnau (Trnava), and Modern (Modra) in modern Slovakia. In Modern the minister, whom he asked to be received as a Protestant, advised him to go to Saxony as he feared difficulties if it became known that they had accepted a Roman Catholic proselyte. David first continued southwest to Ödenburg (Sopron), from where he decided to travel north to Leipzig in Saxony. By then it was 1715. However, David’s high expectations of Lutheranism were shattered in Saxony when, instead of true Christianity, he found “such terrible ungodliness among the Lutherans.” According to his own account, people advised him not to convert but to remain with the confession into which he was born. Disillusioned, David now also began to question his profession as carpenter, sold his tools, and decided to enroll as a soldier in the Prussian army. So he continued north to Berlin. To his disappointment, the recruiters in Berlin turned him away because they were not allowed to enroll a Habsburg subject. Instead, they gave him a civilian position as a sutler, selling provisions to the soldiers. During the many weeks he spent waiting in Berlin for his first deployment he encountered “the young Mr. Schmidt,” a Lutheran pastor, who officially received him into the Lutheran Church after instructing him for eight days.11 After serving during the siege of Stralsund (July—December 1715), David returned to his former profession as a carpenter and continued his travels. He went to Silesia, where he found work in the cities of Breslau (Wrocław); next to Schweid­nitz (Świdnica), where a fire in September of 1716 had destroyed a large number of houses; and lastly to Görlitz, where the northern part of the city burned down to the ground on July 31, 1717. In Görlitz the restless David finally found a community of like-­minded people who welcomed him. This was the group around Pastor Melchior Scheffer, Lutheran pastor at the Trinity Church. “There I found Magister Scheffer and other children of God. We rejoiced with one another. Never in my life had I found anyone who was of one mind with me.” The spiritual fellowship David experienced in Görlitz gave him the fulfillment he had been looking for during the previous years. In 1719 David married Anna Elisabeth Ludwig from Niederwiese (Wieża).12 For the next few years, until they moved to Berthelsdorf in 1722, Görlitz was their home. Though the years of constant travel had come to an end, David had lost none of his wanderlust. After twelve weeks in Görlitz, when he engaged in many discussions with members of the Görlitz group about “the inner man and the Kingdom of Jesus,” he decided to return to Moravia to visit with his relatives and friends and tell them about his experiences during the four

24      herrnhut

previous years of travels. On his return, the friends in Görlitz took great interest in what he told him about the situation in Moravia and about the spiritual hunger he reported having found. He soon returned to Moravia, this time with Hans Jacob Forwerg, a weaver.13 The interest of the Görlitz group had apparently been piqued.

Melchior Scheffer Melchior Scheffer’s role in the Herrnhut project cannot be overstated. “Without him,” Zinzendorf wrote, “neither Herrnhut nor the community house [Gemeinhaus] would exist, nor would we have been able to help our neighbors with publications and other things.”14 Scheffer’s conventicle in Görlitz provided Christian David with a spiritual home, and he established, together with Pastor Rothe, the connection with Zinzendorf. He supported and sometimes coordinated the immigration of settlers from Moravia, was actively involved in the development of the plans for the Herrnhut community, distributed Zinzendorf ’s publications in Silesia, and gave financial support to the various projects. Early on, Scheffer obtained a copy of a hymnal of the Bohemian Brethren, giving Zinzendorf access to the hymnody of the ancestors of the Moravian settlers.15 Scheffer was born on October 28, 1682, in Lauban (Lubań) in Silesia, twenty-­five kilometers east of Görlitz.16 His father, Melchior (1648–1724), was a merchant and mayor in that town; Scheffer’s mother was Anna Blandina Kirchbach (1650–1723). A portrait engraved by Gottfried Böhmer shows a friendly, somewhat corpulent man. He must have spoken with a strong local Lausitz accent, which Zinzendorf mimicked once when he quoted Scheffer phonetically: “Nu gloob ichs, wenn wuas ist mit Herrnhuth, so ists duas.”17 Scheffer studied theology and philosophy in Leipzig, where he received a magister degree in 1706.18 During his years in Leipzig he had experienced a personal awakening after reading a sermon by Philipp Jacob Spener about the fruits of Jesus’s passion.19 In 1709 he received a call as Lutheran minister in Holzkirch (Kościelnik), just south of Lauban, and in 1712 he was called to Trinity Church in Görlitz. On October 30, 1713, he married Martha Gehler (1696–1752), with whom he had four sons and seven daughters.20 The Scheffers lived through the devastating fire of 1717, when over four hundred houses and two churches burned and 375 people died, traumatizing the rest of the population. Scheffer’s Trinity Church survived without damage.21 Martha Scheffer was not in good health; several times he feared for her death. Scheffer himself suffered from gout and from a skin disease (“a scorbutic

berthelsdorf      25

rash”), for which he sought treatment in the hot springs in Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary).22 Scheffer’s ministry was very much influenced by Pietism: in addition to regular church services, he held prayer meetings, catechesis, house meetings, and song meetings. He distributed inexpensive Bibles and devotional publications. He offered sermon repeats, founded a school for the poor, and made Arndt’s Of True Christianity the topic of his evening meetings.23 But Scheffer also had more radical, Philadelphian ideas. Accusations against Scheffer of “indifferentism” regarding dogmatic differences between denominations and of disregard for the sacraments and for the institutional Lutheran Church, with its books of order and its creeds, were not as far-­fetched as Rothe suggests in his published eulogy for Scheffer. Rothe tried to depict Scheffer— and by doing so he also tried to justify himself—as a moderate, faithful Lutheran pastor, while downplaying his Philadelphian ideas. The reality was quite different. In his sermons Scheffer did not hide his criticism of the rich and powerful. His letters to Zinzendorf and other Herrnhuters, of which more than two hundred are preserved, speak a Philadelphian language. Scheffer writes about the “sectarian division” of Christianity, the fight against the institutional churches (“Babel”), and his disapproval of the ordained ministers (“Leviten”), and he stresses the importance of nonpartisan, brotherly love above everything else.24 “The living God and the doctrine of his Son  .  .  . will free us from all legalism, ecclesiasticism, and sectarianism. We shall serve him in spirit and in truth [John 4:24], even when only two or three are gathered together [Matt. 18:20]; there is spirit, word, sacrament, heaven, and salvation.”25 Scheffer’s criticism of the institutional church is summarized, for example, in comments he made to Zinzendorf about Socrates, a critical periodical Zinzendorf launched in the fall of 1725. After receiving the second issue, Scheffer suggested topics for future issues: “You should soon write about confession; about oratorical preaching; the so-­called spirituality the clergy claims for itself to the exclusion of any laymen who also possess this character; the observance of the Sunday as it is taught and practiced; the administration of the church; the forced tolerance of so-­called Christians for the same reason as one is to pay tribute—no matter if one wants to or not. If I were able to write like that, I would gladly help.”26 Scheffer’s unorthodox activities and preaching got him into trouble with the Görlitz magistrate and with the church authorities (Oberkonsistorium) in Dresden.27 In 1727 the Dresden Consistory initiated an investigation into Scheffer’s alleged statements against the ministry and the sacraments and into his conventicles. Scheffer’s capitulation to the pressures of the church

26      herrnhut

authorities caused a rift with Zinzendorf—even though Scheffer tried his utmost to mend the relationship during the subsequent months.28

The Görlitz Group When Christian David came to Görlitz in 1717, he was welcomed by a group of people closely connected to Scheffer. Five years later this same group would direct him to Zinzendorf. We do not have much information about the Görlitz friends during these early years. They were probably members of Scheffer’s church who also attended the special prayer meetings he offered. David describes how, not long after his arrival to Görlitz, he fell ill and was nursed in the house of the Baumgarts, while members of the congregation supported him financially.29 Elias Baumgart was a baker who was imprisoned for five days in 1727 for his participation in Scheffer’s conventicle.30 Several people from Görlitz later joined the Herrnhut community: Gottlieb Wried, Christoph Wiegner, Scheffer’s daughter Anna Dorothea along with his widow Martha, and Christoph Paus.31 Zinzendorf made regular visits to Görlitz, and friends from Görlitz came to Herrnhut.32 In 1728 Zinzendorf attempted to formally organize the Görlitz group in a similar manner to what he had done in Herrnhut and Berthelsdorf.33 In one of his letters to Zinzendorf, Scheffer describes the meetings he offered in addition to the official church services: “On Sundays after the song service I offer an evening prayer, during which everyone may share their thoughts—not without blessing. I started similar meetings four times a week at my house at 4 o’clock in the afternoon and twice a week in the church on Thursday and Saturday. May God give his blessing for many true good things!”34 In order to better accompany the singing in his house meetings, Scheffer purchased a “house organ.”35 The house meetings began with the singing of several hymns from the Halle hymnal, as described by Scheffer.36 The main part of the meeting was a reading from a book of the Bible by one of the participants (for a while Scheffer’s nine-­year-­old daughter was the reader), followed by a group discussion. Scheffer called it his methodus analyticus catecheticus: all participants were encouraged to ask questions and discuss the text together. The gatherings closed with prayer. Scheffer’s conventicle caused controversy among the other Lutheran pastors in Görlitz. Senior Pastor Samuel Laurentius preached repeatedly against conventicles, and for many years Scheffer had to defend himself before the city magistrate and church authorities.

berthelsdorf      27

Some of the members of Scheffer’s conventicle developed an interest in the Protestants in Moravia. Through Christian David, Scheffer and the Görlitz friends received information about the Protestants he regularly visited in Moravia and their desire to strengthen their faith despite persecution by the local authorities. David brought the Moravian Protestants such books as “a hymnal and a prayer book,” and it seems likely that the Görlitz friends helped with this endeavor.37 During one of these visits “the dear brethren” in Söhle asked him to direct them to a place “where Christian folk lived so that they might be strengthened in the truth.” David’s account continues, “When I returned to Görlitz, I mentioned this to several brethren and it happened that I was introduced to the Count Zinzendorf. .  .  . And because other brethren informed the count of the situations of the suppressed brethren, he called for me.”38 The person who introduced David to Zinzendorf was yet another Lutheran minister, Rothe, who for many years had been associated with Scheffer.

Andreas Rothe Johann Andreas Rothe was born on May 12, 1688, in the parsonage at Lissa (Lasów), fifteen kilometers north of Görlitz.39 Rothe was well educated, attending the city school (gymnasium) in Görlitz from 1699 until 1706 and the gymnasium in Breslau from 1706 until 1708. He went on to study theology at Leipzig. After graduating from Leipzig University in 1712, Rothe moved to Görlitz, where he found employment as a supply pastor, preaching in the city and in the surrounding villages as needed. In a Pietist manner, he felt reluctant to accept a full position as pastor and wanted to wait until he became certain of the divine nature of his calling.40 At the same time Rothe moved to Görlitz, Scheffer was called there. During the following years a friendship developed between the two pastors. Rothe’s biographer Teufel presumes that Rothe became influenced by Pietist ideas through his friendship with Scheffer. Rothe was part of the pious group around Scheffer that met for prayer meetings, promoted religious tolerance, and advanced active Christianity. It was through this group that Rothe got to know Christian David.41 In 1719 Rothe accepted a position as private tutor for the Schweinitz family in Leuba, fourteen kilometers south of Görlitz. This is where he met Zinzendorf in September of 1721, when Zinzendorf made his acquaintance with Rothe. Rothe had the reputation of being a charismatic preacher, and he was regularly considered for a position as a pastor, including by two of Zinzendorf ’s

28      herrnhut

relations. At the time, Zinzendorf, having returned from his grand tour, resided with his grandmother in Hennersdorf.42 Hennersdorf was only fourteen kilometers southeast of Leuba, so acquaintances who were considering calling Rothe thought Zinzendorf might be able to provide information about him. These inquiries piqued Zinzendorf ’s curiosity about the pastor. In order to get to know Rothe, Zinzendorf visited the Schweinitz family residence in mid-­September of 1721.43 That encounter marked the beginning of a warm friendship. In Zinzendorf ’s words, Rothe’s heart “like the heart of Jonathan was knit with the heart of David.”44 Zinzendorf considered Rothe someone who shared his Philadelphian beliefs.45 When Rothe heard of Christian David’s desire to find a place where pious families from Moravia could settle, he referred him to Zinzendorf. And when Zinzendorf unexpectedly needed a pastor for the parish church in Berthelsdorf, he called Rothe.

Zinzendorf The encounter between Zinzendorf and Rothe occurred during a time when Zinzendorf was preparing for his life as an adult nobleman: organizing his household, buying an estate, finding a position, and getting married. Zinzendorf was born on May 26, 1700, in Dresden but spent most of his childhood living with his grandmother in Hennersdorf in Upper Lusatia, thirty-­five kilometers southeast of Bautzen. His grandmother, Henriette Katharina von Gersdorf, was an educated woman who was connected to influential Pietists such as Spener, Francke, and also the radical Pietist couple Johanna Eleonora and Johann Wilhelm Petersen.46 Zinzendorf attended Francke’s Paedagogium in Halle but went on to study law in Wittenberg.47 Because of his involvement in a compromising incident involving a falsified signature, Zinzendorf had to break off his studies prematurely.48 During his subsequent grand tour he gathered experiences that would shape his adult life. In the Netherlands he interacted with representatives of various religious groups, including Loth Fischer, publisher of the translated works of the English Philadelphian Jane Lead.49 As we saw above, Philadelphian ideas became prominent in Zinzendorf ’s undertakings in the following years. In Paris he made the acquaintance of Cardinal Louis-­Antoine de Noailles, with whom Zinzendorf continued to correspond until his death in 1729. From Paris he traveled on to Basel, Switzerland, in May of 1720, where he visited his school friend Friedrich von Watteville. Two years later Zinzendorf

Fig. 2  Portrait of Nikolaus Ludwig Count Zinzendorf (1700–1760). Engraving by Jonas Haas, 1750. Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Malin 635.

30      herrnhut

persuaded Watteville to join him in Dresden and to help him realize his plans in Berthelsdorf, something we will return to in the next chapter. From Switzerland Zinzendorf continued on to visit two aunts: Margarethe Susanne von Polheim in Oberbürg near Nuremberg and Dorothea Renata von Castell-­Remlingen in Castell in Franconia, both sisters of his father. The sojourn in Oberbürg is important to our story, not because he nearly proposed marriage to his cousin Juliane, but because he met his aunt’s steward, Johann Georg Heitz.50 Zinzendorf and Heitz, a widower from Zürich, quickly developed a close relationship and spent many hours together. The pious Heitz conducted regular prayer meetings for the servants in Oberbürg. Heitz was also the author of a poetical text on the passion of Christ, which Zinzendorf published in 1722, together with additional verses and prayers by his own hand.51 Zinzendorf was so impressed with Heitz that he invited him to become steward of his future household. In July of 1721, after an initial exploratory visit in June, Heitz joined Zinzendorf in Hen­ nersdorf. Until he resigned the position two years later, Heitz oversaw the realization of the plans in Berthelsdorf. In Castell, Zinzendorf met fourteen-­year-­old Tobias Friedrich, who was playing the bass at an inn in Castell when Zinzendorf ’s secretary Heimburger noticed him. Zinzendorf took an immediate liking to the boy (“at first sight”) and invited Friedrich to become his servant.52 In his later role as Zinzendorf ’s secretary and steward, Friedrich proved indispensable during the formative years of Herrnhut. Zinzendorf also thought, again, that had found a marriage candidate: his cousin Sophie Theodora von Castell-­Remlingen. Cousin Theodora did not seem averse to Zinzendorf ’s proposal, and the count, full of hope, left Castell during the first week of 1721 to discuss his marriage plans with his grandmother in Hennersdorf. Only a few weeks later, with her consent, he hurried back to Castell. This time his journey took him through Ebersdorf in Thuringia, where Heinrich XXIX Reuss, another schoolfriend from Halle, had his home. The sojourn to Ebersdorf turned out to be significant for Zinzendorf ’s life in many ways. When he realized the Reuss family had chosen Theodora von Castell to be Heinrich’s bride, he quickly decided to rescind his marriage offer to his cousin.53 In Ebersdorf, where he stayed for the next several weeks, Zinzendorf became acquainted with Heinrich’s younger sister, Erdmuth Dorothea. He eventually decided to marry Erdmuth instead. They got engaged on August 16 of the following year and were married in Ebersdorf on September 7, 1722, exactly one year after Heinrich and Theodora were married.54

berthelsdorf      31

Zinzendorf ’s experience of court life with the Reuss family proved important for another reason. The Reuss court was very much influenced by Philadelphian ideas, the same ideas Zinzendorf had been familiar with for quite some time and that he had encountered more specifically in the books Loth Fischer had shared with him in Utrecht. Seeing how these ideas could be realized and practiced in a small, pious court setting with people of different religious backgrounds living together left a deep impression on the young count. He later recounted the impact this visit had on him: Twenty-­four years ago, before the small group in Berthelsdorf began, I was fortunate to come to Ebersdorf where I saw such a congregation for the first time. . . . In Ebersdorf I came across a group of souls who had united together with their hearts, regardless of their religion [denomination], regardless of everyone’s private convictions and without distinction of outward constitutions. . . . In Ebersdorf there was my mother-­in-­law, living as a recluse. There were three or four separatists. There were Hallensians. There were people from the old awakenings in Darmstadt, Frankfurt, and Wurttemberg. Among the pious there were several orthodox of the kind that recently has been emerging again; they were the preachers. I have seen these people united all together for many years, united in such a way that one could not detect any difference among these people, even though they each went their own, different ways and stuck with their own opinions and their own practices.55 For Zinzendorf this experience at the Ebersdorf court was “undeniable proof ” that the formation of a Philadelphian community was indeed possible. Something else Zinzendorf learned to appreciate in Ebersdorf was its particular piety, with its emphasis on the importance of the blood and wounds of Christ as symbols of the atonement.56 Over the course of his time in Ebersdorf it had become clear to him what kind of household he wanted to establish himself. First, however, Zinzendorf needed to find a position. While on his grand tour, according to Reichel, he was still weighing several options for his future life: staying in Oberbürg, staying in Castell, or perhaps taking up residence in Ebersdorf.57 In May of 1721, however, Zinzendorf traveled to Halle to discuss possible employment within the institutions of August Hermann Francke. Schneider has shown how Francke and his colleagues were highly skeptical of the whimsical count. Zinzendorf may have misinterpreted their

32      herrnhut

encouragement to spend more time in Halle to build his character and faith as an invitation to return and work in Halle. According to Zinzendorf, Francke offered him a position as director of the Bible Institute.58 Zinzendorf ended his grand tour by visiting his mother, Charlotte Justine von Natzmer, née von Gersdorf, in Berlin. To his great disappointment, she made it clear that the family had different plans for Zinzendorf ’s future. What they had in mind for him was not an unassuming position at Francke’s institutions but a more suitable and more prestigious office at the royal court of the Elector of Saxony in Dresden, where his father and uncles had held positions in the recent past. Zinzendorf strongly objected, but eventually he gave in to the will of the family.

Dresden On October 22, 1721, Zinzendorf moved to Dresden. A few days after his arrival, he was confronted with a question of conscience: before he could assume his position as aulic counselor (Hof-­und Justizrat) in the government of the King of Saxony, he was required to take an oath on the formula concordiae, a Lutheran confessional statement from 1577. Zinzendorf immediately raised objections: he refused to swear an oath on a document containing “men-­made” doctrine that so clearly rejected the teaching of other Protestant traditions. As a Philadelphian he did not want to be bound by such a confessional statement of a particular denomination. Zinzendorf suggested taking an oath on Luther’s catechism instead, since its text “was taken verbatim from Scripture,” but this compromise turned out to be unnecessary as the government soon dropped the requirement for an oath altogether.59 Initially, Zinzendorf lived with his uncle Gottlob Friedrich von Gersdorf in his house on Wilsdruffer Strasse. In June of 1722 he moved to a residence owned by Augustin Beyer on Moritzstrasse, conveniently located across the street from where a conventicle met that he regularly attended. Around the time he got married he moved into an even larger apartment in a house on Pfarrgasse owned by burgomaster Schwarzbach. According to a visitor to Zinzendorf ’s lodgings, it consisted of “four rooms on the front of the house, three floors up, for 100 thalers a year.”60 In 1724 the Zinzendorfs moved once again, this time to Kohlmarkt, in a part of the city north of the Elbe River called Altendresden (now Neustadt).61 His household consisted of Johann Georg Heitz as his steward (Hofmeister), Heinrich Christoph von Larisch as page, and Tobias Friedrich as valet and house musician. Christiane Oertel was the housekeeper.62

berthelsdorf      33

Zinzendorf described his typical workday as follows: “Every day I have plenty to do at the government, starting at half past seven or at seven until around noon or often 1 o’clock, if other business does not hold me up. During the afternoon I have so many visitors and correspondence that not much time is left to breathe.”63 Zinzendorf ’s aversion to living in Dresden was soon alleviated when he discovered there were more “children of God” there than he had expected. An important characteristic of Zinzendorf ’s piety was his desire to practice his faith in community with others.64 Within weeks of his arrival, he had found a group of like-­minded people with whom he attended prayer meetings. He also found his colleagues in the administration less opposed than he had expected and some even well-­inclined to the cause of true Christianity. In the beginning Zinzendorf attended religious meetings in the house of Johanna Margarethe Lincke on Moritzstrasse. “There is such a sweet harmony among the few children of God here,” he wrote to his future bride, Erdmuth, “that it could not be any better. Oh, how I wish you to be here, dear countess.”65 Throughout the years he resided in Dresden, Zinzendorf conducted religious meetings at his apartment. His steward Heitz assisted him with these meetings, until Heitz moved to Berthelsdorf to oversee work on the estate.66 Whenever Zinzendorf was absent during his visits to Berthelsdorf or while traveling elsewhere, the house meetings were suspended. The participants eagerly awaited his return, as the letter of one of his upstairs neighbors, organ builder Johann Gottlob Klemm, reveals: “Many are already looking forward to the prayer meetings when our dear lordship will return.”67 During these meetings Zinzendorf would discuss a Bible chapter or a religious publication, repeat a sermon he had heard in church, or give a sermon (Rede) himself. In 1722 he read and discussed Gottfried Arnold’s The First Love, an idealized description of the life of the early Christians, intended as an example for the pious Christians of his time.68 There were discussions with participation by those in attendance, prayers, and the singing of hymns, accompanied on a harpsichord that Zinzendorf had in his apartment. Beginning in 1725 he was able to conduct the meetings “in a large hall that I obtained.”69 Descriptions of the meetings are found in the reports of two young men who described Zinzendorf ’s conventicle in December of 1726. The reports were requested by Superintendent Valentin Ernst Löscher, who, after years of turning a blind eye to Zinzendorf ’s conventicle, decided to take action.70 Löscher’s interest in Zinzendorf ’s conventicle coincided with an official investigation into Zinzendorf ’s controversial Bible edition by the consistory in Dresden.71 One of Löscher’s informants described “a hall in Count

34      herrnhut

Zinzendorf ’s house in Altendresden with many chairs and benches, where more than fifty people gather who brought their Bibles and hymnals.” During the meeting a “servant,” most likely Tobias Friedrich, played a positive organ. Another informant, a theology student, counted “a hundred people” and reported that Zinzendorf told his audience that a true Christian did not need an ordained minister and that the institutional church had departed from the “apostolic religion.”72 A few weeks later, on December 30, 1726, the king ordered Zinzendorf to cease his conventicle immediately.73 Nevertheless, Zinzendorf announced on January 1 that he would continue with his house meetings as long as he resided in Dresden—“which perhaps would not be for very much longer,” he added in his diary. Meanwhile, guards were placed in front of the doors to Zinzendorf ’s building.74 What was unreported during the investigation—and most likely unknown to church authorities—was that Zinzendorf was also celebrating Holy Communion with his friends. These gatherings were held in secret, open only to a select group of people whom Zinzendorf considered true Christians. Many radical Pietists objected to taking Communion in a church together with the many “unconverted,” who, in their eyes, were undeserving. Zinzendorf administered these services as a layman, which would have been unacceptable to church officials. His religious activities in Dresden were obviously of a radical Pietist nature.75 Although Zinzendorf was the leader of a well-­attended conventicle in which radical Pietist ideas against the established church were expressed, was critical of the institutional church, and even conducted conventicles, he did not refrain from regularly attending the Lutheran Church as well. According to his Dresden pastor, Paul Christian Hilscher, Zinzendorf faithfully attended church on Sunday mornings at the Three Kings Church in Altendresden, where he and his wife observed the service from their private loge.76 As a confirmed Philadelphian he believed that he needed to continue attending church, despite its obvious deficiencies. We will see a similar attitude regarding the parish church on his Berthelsdorf estate.

Berthelsdorf Before Zinzendorf left for Dresden in October of 1721, his grandmother had agreed to sell him the Berthelsdorf estate, part of her property in Upper Lusatia, six kilometers northwest of her own residence in Hennersdorf. Little is known about the conversations leading to the sale of Berthelsdorf. It appears that Zinzendorf had originally expected to make Hennersdorf his

berthelsdorf      35

residence after returning from his grand tour, but a strained relationship with his aunt Henriette Sophie von Gersdorf had thwarted such a plan. Aunt Henriette (“die Tante”) had never married and lived with her mother in Hennersdorf. In 1717 she became owner of Hennersdorf. Following Zinzendorf ’s return, the close relationship they had shared seems to have changed, and he decided to take up residence elsewhere.77 Perhaps the family’s agreement to sell him the Berthelsdorf estate was a form of compensation for his consenting to accept the position in Dresden. Berthelsdorf was a small village of 530 inhabitants.78 The Berthelsdorf estate had been the property of members of the Gersdorf family for several centuries. Over time it had been divided into an upper, middle, and lower estate. The middle estate was sold to someone outside of the Gersdorf family in 1633 to pay off a debt of the owner at the time. In 1687 Nicolaus von Gersdorf, husband of Henriette Katharina, purchased the middle estate, and four years later he bought the lower estate. After his death in 1702 he left Ber­ thelsdorf to his youngest son, also named Nicolaus. After running into debt himself, Nicolaus Jr. sold Berthelsdorf to his mother for 30,000 thalers in 1710. Eleven years later she decided to sell Berthelsdorf to her grandson Zinzendorf.79

Fig. 3  View of Berthelsdorf from the southwest, with the church (left), the manor house (center), and a procession of men and women coming from Herrnhut (right). Engraving by Christian Meder, 1754. Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, DP f.175.1.

36      herrnhut

The sale was concluded on May 15, 1722, for 26,000 thalers.80 Even before Zinzendorf became the official owner, he began to renovate the existing manor house, which had suffered from neglect and was in disrepair.81 Zinzendorf ’s stepfather, Gneomar von Natzmer, expressed his disbelief over Zinzendorf ’s premature actions: should Henriette Katharina die before the contract of sale was signed and executed, everything would have been for nothing.82 Although not completely finished, work on the manor house had progressed enough by May of 1722 for the homage ceremony, when the new lord would be presented to his subjects, to take place inside. On May 19, the homage ceremony began at 8 o’clock in the morning with a service in the small village church. Pastor Schwedler from Niederwiese gave a three-­hour sermon on King David’s proclamation of his son Solomon as his successor (1 Chron. 28:8–9). After the sermon an aria was performed and the “Te Deum Laudamus” was sung. At the conclusion of the service Zinzendorf, in the company of his servants and two officials, left the church in procession and walked the short distance to the nearby manor house. In the hall eighty-­four subjects pledged submission to their new lord by handshake. The ceremony was simple, without any show of splendor or secular power; rather, the religious elements were predominant. Zinzendorf intentionally presented himself as a pious lord who promised to lead his subjects “with bands of love” and to help “carry their yoke” (Hos. 11:4).83 Shortly before Zinzendorf officially became owner of Berthelsdorf, Johann Horn, who had served as Lutheran pastor at the Berthelsdorf church since 1710, suffered a stroke and died on February 11, 1722. Zinzendorf saw it as divine providence.84 Horn, an orthodox Lutheran pastor known for his legalistic sermons, would have most likely caused difficulties for the realization of Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian plans.85 The unexpected vacancy enabled Zinzendorf to call a new pastor according to his own heart. On May 19, immediately after the homage ceremony had concluded, he handed Pastor Rothe his call as pastor of the Berthelsdorf parish.86 On August 30, 1722, after the conclusion of the usual six-­month grace period for the widow of the deceased predecessor, Rothe was installed in his new position.87 With Rothe as local pastor Zinzendorf hoped to transform Berthelsdorf into a Philadelphian community. Teufel notes that Zinzendorf omitted certain elements from the standard clause required for pastoral calls in Saxony. Rothe’s call letter included the commission to preach according to the “prophetic and apostolic scriptures and the unaltered Augsburg Confession and its Apology” (as required) but omitted any reference to the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s catechisms, and the Formula of Concord. Zinzendorf apparently did not want to bind Rothe

berthelsdorf      37

to any texts that were too associated with one specific denomination. For Zinzendorf the Augsburg Confession was not so much a Lutheran denominational document as a pure Philadelphian creed, as Holger Bauer has convincingly argued. Zinzendorf considered the Confession the creed of the true, invisible, and dispersed children of God and believed the other texts from the Book of Concord to be unnecessary additions. Rothe’s call letter heralded Zinzendorf ’s objectives for Berthelsdorf.88 With the purchase of the Berthelsdorf estate, Zinzendorf intended to realize his religious ideals. He wanted to establish a pious household in Berthelsdorf in accordance with his Philadelphian principles. In an extensive letter to his grandmother, written shortly after returning from his grand tour, Zinzendorf explained that although he might give in to his family’s demands to accept the position in Dresden, the experiences of the grand tour during the past few years had taught him that God had different plans for him. Zinzendorf was convinced that God had chosen him to be “an instrument and worker in his Philadelphian church.” In order to follow his calling, Zinzendorf wanted to establish a “retreat” in the countryside where he believed he could be a blessing. However, because his family “ordered” him, he would obey and become a court official in Dresden.89 Zinzendorf intended to alternate his time in Dresden with retreats to his country estate.90 What he had in mind for Berthelsdorf was most likely similar to what he had experienced in Ebersdorf: a small pious community of Philadelphian Christians. Johanna Sophia von Zezschwitz, one of the women who would soon join him in Berthelsdorf, summarized her expectations regarding life in Berthelsdorf. After a conversation with Pastor Rothe, who had apparently presented Ebers­ dorf to her as the model for what was to be accomplished in Berthelsdorf, she wrote to Zinzendorf, “Magister Rothe has told me many good things about the work in Ebersdorf. Such work gives glorious reward. How much do I already rejoice in spirit that we too, with the help of God, will do God-­ pleasing work in Berthelsdorf, which we one day will find again in heaven.”91 Berthelsdorf was located in the south-­central part of Upper Lusatia, a territory in Central Europe located between the Elbe River in the west and the Queis River in the east, with a partly Sorbian and partly German population and a distinct political organization. Traditionally, Upper Lusatia did not have a sovereign ruler who resided in the territory; practically, it was ruled by the diet (Landtag), consisting of the landed estates and the six cities of the Lusatian League (Sechsstädtebund). Since the late Middle Ages, Upper Lusatia had been under the crown of Bohemia. Without a resident ruler to determine which confession his subjects belonged to, this decision fell to the local nobility and landowners. The landowners, according to their

38      herrnhut

right of patronage and depending on their confession, called a Lutheran minister or a Roman Catholic priest for the churches on their land. This gave local landowners, including Zinzendorf, much authority in religious matters. Even after 1635, when Upper Lusatia was transferred from the Bohemian crown to the King of Saxony, religion remained largely a local matter. Unlike Saxony, Upper Lusatia had no consistory nor superintendents. A consistory was a branch of the government that exercised the religious authority of the sovereign, while a superintendent was the link between the consistory and the local pastors and congregations and had the responsibility of supervising and controlling the local churches. In Upper Lusatia the Oberamt (main department) in Bautzen exercised these functions. Important matters were passed on to the Privy Council in Dresden; if needed, the Privy Council consulted with the consistory in Dresden.92 The highest official of the ruler was the Landvogt, who together with the Amthauptmann in Bautzen and in Görlitz and their secretaries formed the royal administration in Upper Lusatia. From 1691 until his death in 1702, Zinzendorf ’s grandfather Nicol von Gersdorf was Landvogt. After that the office was held by the Crown Prince of Saxony. As a landlord in Upper Lusatia, because of its particular constitution, Zinzendorf had relative freedom to realize his plans, free from the direct oversight of the church.

The Settlers Zinzendorf gives differing, sometimes conflicting accounts of how he first learned about the Protestants in Moravia, of their desire to settle in Saxony, and of his first encounter with Christian David. The reason for these discrepancies depends upon the purpose for which he wrote a particular account: in those written to defend himself before secular or religious authorities, he reduced his own role in the acceptance of the refugees and minimized the distinctiveness of the Berthelsdorf project as much as possible. If they were written to document “the extension of the Kingdom of God,” he greatly elaborated on the way God used his people as instruments to accomplish his goals. Based on the different narrative accounts, combined with the surviving correspondence and the other records, we can reconstruct the events. Zinzendorf first learned about Christian David and his desire to find a place for his Moravian friends to settle when he met Rothe in Leuba in September of 1721. In the third person he writes, “Upon Count Zinzendorf and Pottendorf ’s return from his travels in 1721, Johann Andreas Rothe, in the home of the noble Schweinitz family where he was a tutor, told him the

berthelsdorf      39

following: there were two fathers with their families in the margravate of Moravia who were moved by the word of the gospel in a forceful way and who were willing to abandon their worldly possessions in order to gain their freedom of conscience. Rothe maintained that carpenter Christian David had told him this and asked him to remember his poor fellow believers occasionally.”93 After hearing about their plight, Zinzendorf offered his help and promised to allow the Moravians to settle on the estate that he intended to purchase.94 A month later Rothe visited Zinzendorf in Hennersdorf, where he preached on October 19. Their initial conversation about helping the persecuted Protestants in Moravia most likely continued at that time.95 Other accounts, also written by Zinzendorf, make his role appear more passive: Zinzendorf claims that after hearing about the Moravians’ desire to leave their country, he approached owners of other estates to receive these refugees on their lands. Such accounts, however, are often of an apologetic nature, in which Zinzendorf tries to reduce his role in the events as much as possible.96 At the same time, by diminishing his own agency, Zinzendorf gave greater prominence to God and emphasized the creation of Herrnhut as solely God’s work.97 Nothing indicates that Zinzendorf met Christian David in person at this time; their first personal encounter took place in May of 1722, when Zinzendorf returned to Upper Lusatia to finalize the purchase of the estate, arrange for his inauguration as lord of the manor, and call Rothe as pastor. Zinzendorf states, “Around Pentecost [May 24] 1722 Christian David was presented to me by Pastor Rothe as a carpenter who was looking for accommodation for a few people from Moravia. I promised it to him as an eventuality, not realizing at the time it would come to me.”98 Again, Zinzendorf claims he was thinking about other estate owners and did not really commit to the offer. David gives a different version, and his rapid response following their encounter speaks differently as well. David describes his first impression of Zinzendorf: “As I came to him, his loving and humble appearance delighted me. He questioned me a lot about how things were going in Moravia. As I told him, he said ‘If they want to come to me I will sustain them. But I do not have any money as I have been a refugee myself. From the little money I had I bought an estate and if you like it you may come in the name of the Lord and settle here. If you want to seek God, that would please me.’ ”99 David believed the time was right to guide his friends from Söhle to Zinzendorf ’s estate: “Soon I went back to Moravia and told them how God had chosen a count who is a faithful child of God and who had purchased an estate and, because the former minister had died, called someone whom I

40      herrnhut

have known for a long time and who is also a faithful witness of Jesus Christ. They were all extremely pleased.”100 Two brothers from Söhle, Augustin and Jacob Neisser, together with their wives, Martha and Anna, along with their children, Friedrich Wenzel, Joseph, Juliana, and Anna, their uncle Michael Jäschke, and a fifteen-­year-­old niece, Martha Neisser, decided to follow David’s appeal to leave their homes and possessions and follow him to Berthelsdorf.101 On May 27, after going about their daily business as usual, they left Söhle at 10 o’clock at night and walked across the border into Silesia. They made a stop along the way in Niederwiese, where Pastor Schwedler took them in. Jäschke stayed behind in Niederwiese while the others continued on to Görlitz. On June 6, nine days after leaving Söhle, they reached Görlitz, where Pastor Scheffer and his supporters welcomed and accommodated them.102 Two days later, on June 8, David, together with one of the Görlitz friends, took the Neisser brothers to Hennersdorf and Berthelsdorf. Along the way they stopped in Leuba to see Rothe. With a letter of recommendation from Rothe addressed to Heitz, they continued to Hennersdorf.103 Zinzendorf was back in Dresden, but they were able to pay respects to his grandmother von Gersdorf. They also met with Heitz in Berthelsdorf that same day. Heitz, who stayed in Berthelsdorf to manage Zinzendorf ’s affairs while the count had returned to Dresden, showed them rooms in the the Lehngut, a nearby farmstead, where the settlers could live until their houses were completed.104 About a week later, on June 14, the two Neisser families left Görlitz and moved into the Lehngut in Berthelsdorf. Moving in with them were the Davids: Christian, his wife, Elisabeth, and their young son, Gottlieb Benjamin. To his joy David was able to withdraw from the carpenters’ guild in Görlitz so he could move to Berthelsdorf with the Neissers.105 On June 17 they felled trees and began the construction of a house, not in Berthelsdorf but along the trade route that ran along the south end of the estate. With the arrival of the three families, an important part of the plans for a pious community on the Berthelsdorf lands was accomplished. From the beginning the Moravian settlers were an intentional component of these plans. When Rothe met Zinzendorf and learned about his intention to live as a pious lord, Rothe told him about Christian David and his friends in Moravia. Zinzendorf immediately included them in his vision for Berthelsdorf as a pious center, with the manor house as the residence of Zinzendorf ’s household, Rothe as minister, and the Moravian Protestants as the first inhabitants of a new town for regenerate Christians to be founded on the other side of the Hutberg hill.

berthelsdorf      41

The decision to build the new houses not in the village but in a location where the community could freely develop demonstrates that Zinzendorf and his friends had grander objectives than just a small ecclesiola in the manor house. It is also important to note that Christian David and his wife did not remain in Görlitz but, without hesitation, moved to Berthelsdorf together with the Neissers. The Davids were seeking fellowship with the settlers and decided to live with them. This is further evidence that Herrnhut was not intended simply as a place to house displaced refugees but rather as the site for the projects Zinzendorf and his friends wished to develop on the Ber­ thelsdorf estate. In the next chapter we will examine the plans for Herrnhut in more detail.

2 The Plan And nonpartisan brotherly love will create heaven on earth for us here. —Melchior Scheffer to Zinzendorf, February 19, 1727

On June 17, 1722, three days after moving into the Lehngut in Berthelsdorf, the Moravian settlers went into a wooded area along the main road to Zittau, to a location where steward Heitz had marked several trees for them to fell. Three weeks later, on July 7, the wood was hauled to the construction site, which was only a half kilometer to the northwest along the same road. On August 12 the structure was raised, and a week later the roof was clad with shingles, donated by Zinzendorf ’s aunt Henriette Sophie von Gersdorf. At the beginning of October, Augustin and Jacob Neisser moved in with their families; Christian David, with his wife and son, followed on October 28. This was also the day this first house of the new community was dedicated during a small ceremony conducted by Heitz.1 The home for the Moravian settlers was built not in the village of Berthelsdorf but on the other side of the Hutberg hill, on an unused plot of land along the trade route between the towns of Löbau and Zittau. This was an important decision, since it allowed the new community to quickly develop into its own town. From the outset the new community was laid out around a central town square rather than as a colony for a few refugee families. In addition to homes for the refugees, the initial town plan included houses for non-­Moravian residents, structures to be used as an orphanage, a school, and an inn, and also a market.2 This chapter will argue that Herrnhut was planned from its conception as a sizable community consisting of various “institutions”; the reception of the refugees was only one of various projects. The projects were coordinated by a group of associated friends, the so-­called Brotherhood of Four. Zinzendorf was an important member of the association, but he was not

tHe PlAn

Map 1

43

Upper Lusatia in the eighteenth century.

the only person developing plans for the project on the Berthelsdorf estate. And, despite its name, women were also part of the Brotherhood of Four. The plans for a larger town with various institutions already existed when Heitz pointed out the location intended for the new town. They possibly date back even earlier, to conversations between Zinzendorf and Rothe in the late summer of 1721 about their common objectives and ideals. This chapter analyzes the development of the Herrnhut community during the early years, as well as the objectives that were formulated for the new town. Herrnhut was never the project of a single person: besides Zinzendorf and Erdmuth, Rothe, David, Heitz, Scheffer, Zezschwitz, Watteville, and many of the settlers were also involved. Their interaction is important for our understanding of the Herrnhut community. Halle watched the developments on Zinzendorf ’s estate with caution, regarding the undertaking as a serious competitor to their own work.

Herrnhut Although Herrnhut’s location on the main road proved advantageous in the long run, there were several drawbacks involved with this choice. The area was “fairly infertile,” and there did not appear to be a convenient water

44      herrnhut

source.3 Worried about not finding water at the site along the road, the settlers would have preferred building their home in the village.4 Zinzendorf ’s grandmother von Gersdorf suggested building the settlement on the north side of Berthelsdorf because of the presence of good water there.5 Finding water indeed proved difficult and costly. Several times Heitz rose before dawn to look for mist rising from the fields. When he believed he had found the right spot, he had someone dig for water. Heitz hired a “well master” to construct a well, but it was not until November 4 that he was able to successfully report, “Water in Herrnhut is fully there!”6 By then the settlers had already moved into the first house. Unsurprisingly, all through the summer and into the fall many locals mocked the construction activity in Herrnhut.7 The well in Herrnhut’s town square could not keep up with the growing number of inhabitants, and efforts to find more sources continued over the years. With great effort, a system was constructed to bring in fresh water through wooden pipes from a spring on the other side of the Hutberg hill.8 These obvious disadvantages suggest that Zinzendorf had determined the location of the community at an earlier time, without considering the practicalities. Gottfried Marche describes how he and Zinzendorf had envisioned establishing a Pietist institution in that spot. Marche, who held a degree in theology from Leipzig, was a private tutor for three of Henriette Katharina von Gersdorf ’s grandchildren in Hennersdorf.9 His memoir describes a conversation with Zinzendorf that must have taken place in the summer of 1721: “Riding out once together, they came to the Place where Herrnhuth now stands, immediately a thought darted into Brother Marche’s mind, and he turn’d to the Count, and said: ‘My Lord, when you shall have your Estate in your own Hands, you can build an Orphan-­House here.’ ”10 Zinzendorf must have agreed and instructed his steward, Heitz, to find an appropriate spot along the main road.11 Building the town at this particular location despite the obvious difficulties became a matter of trusting divine providence. As it turned out, the Neissers, who were cutlers, probably had better access to customers along the main road than if they had set up shop in Berthelsdorf. Heitz’s letters give us an indication of the conceived layout of the new settlement. From the outset the plans envisioned a fairly sizable community around a town square. On the day they felled the first trees, the settlers were instructed “that they should lay out these first houses in such a way that over time the successive houses are to form a four-­sided square and that the entire place can be closed off with two gates so that when coachmen stay overnight, their goods are left in a locked town. This enclosed place will be very convenient when eventually a few markets can be established. The well, which will

the plan      45

be somewhat expensive to dig because of its depth, will be in the middle of the town square. We can have good cellars, etc.”12 Marche had indicated his intention to build an orphanage on one side of the square, and Heitz was also planning for an inn where coachmen and other travelers could be housed. The town layout was indeed realized as planned, with the houses of the first settlers located on the southwest side and a school in the Great House (later called Gemeinhaus) on the northeast side of the square. Even though Marche’s project for an orphanage was rejected by Zinzendorf, the Great House was converted to house an orphanage in 1727.13 Whenever Christian David spoke to Protestants in Moravia, he depicted Herrnhut to them as a city. The actual sight of the small community, especially during the first years, was almost disheartening to some of the settlers. David Nitschmann (weaver) describes the reaction of his fellow travelers when they first saw Herrnhut on May 12, 1724: “Because Christian David had always described it to us as the place where a city was to be built, the place looked fairly small to us. I said: If three houses make a city, then Herrnhut is not the worst one.”14 Very soon the community also had a name: Herrnhut. Heitz, who came up with the name, wrote to Zinzendorf, “May God grant your Excellency to build a city at the foot of this hill, which is called Hutberg, that is not only under watch by the Lord [‘unter des Herrn Hut’] but also where all the residents may be on watch for the Lord [‘auf des Herrn Hut’] who keep not silence day nor night.”15 The biblical allusions are obvious: the city upon a hill (Matt. 5:14) and the watchmen on the walls of Jerusalem who keep not silence day nor night (Isa. 62:6). There is a third biblical allusion in Heitz’s letter: Isaiah 21:8. This text uses the metaphor of the Hut (ward, KJV): “My Lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights.” Zinzendorf takes up Heitz’s metaphor “on watch of the Lord” from Isaiah 21:8 in a letter to the Berthelsdorf congregation read at Rothe’s installation on August 30, 1722, in which he paraphrased Isaiah 21:6, 8: “See, he is set a watchman over you. He shall warn you on behalf of God; he is set in his ward.”16 The continuation of this passage has a further reference that Zinzendorf did not explicitly allude to in his letter but that may still have resounded in the ears of some of the listeners: “Babylon is fallen, is fallen” (Isa. 21:9). Babylon is the institutional church, whose days were now numbered. As we will argue later in this chapter, Herrnhut was intended to be a Philadelphian community, a refuge for anyone desiring to leave the corrupted, institutional

46      herrnhut

church, for which many radical Pietists liked to use the image of Babylon (“Babel”).17 The existing toponym Hutberg inspired Heitz to create the name Herrnhut. The name Hutberg is not unique to Herrnhut; other Hutberge exist in several other locations throughout Lusatia and elsewhere in Germany. A Hutberg was presumably a hill (Berg) where cattle were tended (hüten). Another explanation is that a Hutberg was used as an observation post against possible military attacks. One source connects the names Hutberg and Herrnhut with an original protective function. A Swiss pastor, Hieronymus Annoni, who visited Herrnhut in 1736 writes, “We went up a nearby hill, covered with fir trees and called Hutberg, from which Herrnhut derives its name. Previously during times of war a guard or a watch [Hut] was kept here. From this hill one has a beautiful view all around; that is why a small cabin was built here.”18 A merchant from Amsterdam who visited the Moravian community of Heerendijk in the Netherlands in 1738 was told that the name Herrnhut was derived from an older toponym: Kampfhut. According to one of the men living in Heerendijk, the geographic area was originally called zur Kampfhut, which had been changed to Herrnhut.19 The name Herrnhut immediately stuck. It was initially spelled with an article and a possessive s (“in der Herrnshuth”), but both disappeared by the end of 1726.20 Not only did the name Herrnhut have biblical connotations, but hopes for the new community were framed in similar images. The common theme was the image of the heavenly Jerusalem and the city upon a hill. During his sermon for the installation of Rothe as pastor of Berthelsdorf, Scheffer wished that “God would let a light shine from these hills that will shine in all the lands.”21 Christian David, upon seeing the intended location for their settlement, recited the verse “the sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself ” (Ps. 84:3). At the dedication of Herrnhut’s first house, Heitz spoke about Revelation 21: the new Jerusalem where God shall dwell with his people.22 For radical Pietists the heavenly Jerusalem was the opposite of the fallen city of Babylon, the image of the depraved institutional church. In Geistlicher Kampff, one of Zinzendorf ’s favorite books during the early 1720s, Johanna Eleonora Petersen uses the imagery of the “new Philadelphian Jerusalem” as opposed to the “old Sardian Jerusalem”: Philadelphian Jerusalem is the congregation of the true Christian believers, whereas Jerusalem of Sardis stands for the corrupted institutional churches. According to Petersen, God will call people to build a new Jerusalem on earth and destroy the old Jerusalem: “the end goal of the true Philadelphian warriors is to be changed themselves into the beauty and glory of the new Jerusalem by the Spirit of the Lord

the plan      47

(2 Cor. 3:18).”23 Herrnhut would be the new Philadelphian Jerusalem, a true apostolic congregation.24

The Community in Berthelsdorf While the first home for the settlers was being constructed on the south side of the Hutberg, the community in the manor house in Berthelsdorf also began to take shape. Zinzendorf put Heitz in charge of the renovations, which had begun in the summer of the previous year. Although work had progressed far enough for the homage ceremony to take place there in May of 1722, more work was needed before the Zinzendorfs could move in. What was left of the original dilapidated roof had to be taken down and rebuilt. The kitchen was in disrepair, and the vaulted ceiling had to be reconstructed. The rooms on the upper floor, intended for the family of the count, were uninhabitable until July of 1723, when the Zinzendorfs stayed in the manor for the first time. Even then, Zinzendorf was frustrated with the slow progress of Heitz’s accomplishments: “à peine trois chambres pour y loger.”25 A great amount of work still needed to be completed over the subsequent fifteen months. It took until January of 1724 for the finished floors to be boarded, door handles and locks to be mounted, and the last heating stoves to be installed. Zinzendorf selected Bible texts and hymn verses to be painted onto the blank wood surfaces of some of the interior doors.26 Above the exterior door a hymn verse and two Bible verses were inscribed.27 Finally, in the fall of 1724, the kitchen and the meeting hall were completed. The meeting hall in the center of the upper floor was painted in shades of pale pink and was often used for worship.28 The wooden surface of the main entrance door was not painted but only treated with oil, “because that looks more palatial.”29 The stucco of the façade was white, “but the windows and corners are accented in a different color.”30 Heitz lived on the ground floor while construction work continued in other parts of the manor house. But the rooms on the ground floor could hardly be described as habitable: the renovations created large amounts of dust, and during heavy rainstorms not even the rooms on the ground floor stayed dry.31 During the summer of 1722 Heitz arranged for Apollonia Catharina Hanitsch, whom he knew while they were both serving at the court of the Polheims in Oberbürg, to come to Berthelsdorf. On September 9, 1722, they were married in the church in Loschwitz near Dresden. Catharina Heitz then joined her husband in the management of the Berthelsdorf estate.32 In addition to the Heitzes, a farm couple also lived on the ground floor.33

Fig. 4  Door in the hall of the manor house in Berthelsdorf with a Bible verse (Luke 10:42) and a hymn verse by Johann Anastasius Freylinghausen (“Höchste Majestät, König und Prophet”). In 1724 Zinzendorf selected texts to be painted on the doors. During the recent restoration the texts were discovered under old layers of paint.

the plan      49

As he had done in Oberbürg and Dresden, Heitz began to conduct daily prayer meetings in his rooms in the manor house. He described the meetings in a letter to Zinzendorf from late September of 1722: “God gives me and my wife some refreshment during the evening after work by touching the hearts of the Moravian folks and also of several others to join us during these long nights to be uplifted by prayer and contemplation of God’s word, something that God, who looks upon the humble, crowns with much blessing.”34 The meetings were intended for members of the manorial household and the Moravian settlers, but soon a growing number of villagers attended as well. By November sometimes more than thirty people were present. These gatherings can be considered the beginnings of a pious community on the Berthelsdorf estate.35 In early December of 1722 Rothe and his wife, Juliane Concordia, finally moved into the parsonage.36 Even though Rothe had been officially installed as parish minister on August 30, he had to wait until the widow of his predecessor had vacated the parsonage before assuming office. During this time of transition varying neighboring pastors came to preach in the village church.37 By the time Rothe assumed office, Heitz’s prayer meetings in the manor house were well established. When confronted with these relatively large gatherings, Rothe did not appear overly pleased. Earlier, when Heitz’s prayer meetings had just started, Rothe had expressed his intention to participate “as soon as we find a larger space where it is not leaking”; now, perhaps realizing the size and character of the gatherings, he seemed concerned.38 The prayer meetings caused immediate friction between Rothe and Heitz. Heitz framed the disagreement in Philadelphian terms: “It is true that the outward church, although it is the right one, will still always persecute the invisible true church at all times.”39 This is the earliest instance of a lingering discord that would continue during the following years, sometimes more, sometimes less pronounced: Rothe had difficulty accepting independent religious activities outside of the church, despite his great sympathy for the devout nature underlying such activities. Rothe’s dilemma was having to choose between supporting the Lutheran Church as an official Lutheran minister and advocating for the pursuit of true piety. One of the regular attendees of Heitz’s prayer meetings was Johanna Sophie von Zezschwitz, who would play an important role during the following years. She was born on September 9, 1697, on her parental estate in Pischkowitz (Piszkowice) in Lower Silesia. She grew up in Gersdorf ’s household at Hennersdorf, where she later served as a lady’s maid. She came under the influence of Zinzendorf during the time he was living in his grandmother’s house between his return from the grand tour and his departure for

50      herrnhut

Dresden. She decided to move to Berthelsdorf in September of 1722, together with her two older sisters, Agnes Louise and Agnes Elisabeth. In a perhaps typical Pietist self-­denying manner, the three sisters had their quarters above the stables in one of the outbuildings of the manor house. After Louise and Elisabeth left Berthelsdorf in the summer of 1723, Johanna began construction of her own house near the Berthelsdorf parsonage, where she founded a girls’ school once the house was completed in December of that same year. In 1724 she married Zinzendorf ’s school friend Friedrich von Watteville.40 Watteville met Zinzendorf during a game of battledore and shuttlecock (Volantenspiel) at the Paedagogium in Halle when they were both fifteen years old.41 He became one of Zinzendorf ’s closest friends during the remaining months they both studied in Halle. In May of 1716 Watteville left Halle and returned to Switzerland, where he began to work for the Malacrida Bank in Bern. In May of 1720, while on his grand tour, Zinzendorf met up with Watteville in Basel and asked if he wanted to come with him. Watteville’s father did not agree, wanting him to stay with the bank. In June of 1720 the bank sent Watteville to Paris, and a month after his arrival there the South Sea Bubble burst, causing an international financial crisis. Malacrida Bank became insolvent, and in March of 1722 Watteville returned home.42 His father, who had lost his entire fortune in the crisis, then gave his son permission to choose a different path in life and join Zinzendorf. Though he was unsure how much longer he would remain in Dresden, Zinzendorf hoped that as his secretary, Watteville would assist him with his extensive correspondence. That June Zinzendorf told Watteville about his pending marriage and mentioned that he wanted to leave Dresden, “where depravity is universal,” so he could “retire to my estate where God is opening a great door for me.”43 Based on his tardiness in responding to Heitz’s repeated requests for instructions and advice, it has been suggested that Zinzendorf lost his commitment to the Berthelsdorf project following his move to Dresden.44 His letter to Watteville indicates the opposite: he wrote enthusiastically about the door God had opened for him in Upper Lusatia. “Opening the door” is an apparent reference to one of the essential Philadelphian Bible verses: “behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name” (Rev. 3:8). In 1743, when Moravians purchased a ship to cross the Atlantic Ocean in order to expand their work overseas, they named her The Little Strength, based upon the same text. This letter to Watteville was written only weeks after Zinzendorf had acquired the Berthelsdorf estate, Rothe had been called, and the Moravian settlers had arrived.

the plan      51

The news of Zinzendorf ’s plans to marry and his intention to give up the position at the Dresden court made Watteville hesitant: would Zinzendorf ’s marriage affect their close friendship, and would Zinzendorf still need him if he retired to his estate?45 Zinzendorf ’s response reassured him: “Even though I will soon be married, I still love you. Just try it and come to us.”46 After their wedding in Ebersdorf, Zinzendorf and his wife, Erdmuth, returned to Dresden in November of 1722, where they found Watteville waiting in their apartment on Pfarrgasse. Watteville then took up residence in Zinzendorf ’s previous rooms on Moritzstrasse, where the lease was not set to expire until Easter.47 On December 22, 1722, Ludwig and Erdmuth Zinzendorf, together with Friedrich von Watteville, left Dresden to celebrate Christmas in Hennersdorf. During the previous months Zinzendorf had been preoccupied with the arrangements for his marriage. This was his first opportunity since May to inspect the progress on his estate. As their carriage entered the forest, only a few miles shy of his grandmother’s castle, Zinzendorf noticed a house that had not been there before. In 1727, speaking of himself in the third person, Zinzendorf described this moment: “When he saw this house in his forest against all expectation, either because he was ignorant of its construction or he could not remember having heard about it—he went inside and fell to his knees together with the brethren, praying with all of his heart that God may keep his hand over the house. He encouraged them and assured them of God’s mercy and faithfulness.”48 Zinzendorf ’s claim to have been surprised is puzzling and could easily be interpreted as meaning he had not been really interested in Herrnhut.49 Little should be made of this, however. As we know from Heitz’s letters, he was very well informed about the events taking place on the estate. He knew about the arrival of settlers, about the construction and completion of the first house, and about the layout of the planned town. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a servant would have engaged in such activities on the estate without the express approval of his master. Although it is certainly possible that Zinzendorf was not thinking about the settlers at that particular moment and was truly surprised by their home, it is more likely that he was using a literary trope. Over and over again in different circumstances throughout his life, we find Zinzendorf pretending ignorance about situations he was actually very much involved with. The purpose of this supposed passivity may have been to suggest a greater, divine authorship behind his own agency. On the other hand, it may have served apologetic purposes: things happened through no fault of his own, and Zinzendorf only tried to steer matters in the right direction and to prevent worse from happening.50

52      herrnhut

This was the first encounter between the Neissers and Zinzendorf. Two days later Ludwig and Erdmuth Zinzendorf, along with Watteville, attended the Christmas Eve service in the parish church at Berthelsdorf, where Rothe had just begun his pastorate.51 Over the next four months, until April of 1723, Zinzendorf and his wife remained in Hennersdorf. During this time the first frictions between the Berthelsdorf regenerates occurred. Zinzendorf may have envisioned a Philadelphian community in Ber­ thelsdorf that was similar to Ebersdorf, where people of different denominational backgrounds harmoniously lived together.52 The realization of this ideal, however, proved difficult. For the most part, 1723 was plagued by conflicts between members of the group, resulting in the resignation of Heitz in August and the threatened departure of Watteville in September. That summer the prevalent strife among the Berthelsdorfers tested Philadelphian ideals.53 Heitz believed that Rothe’s dislike of his prayer meetings was caused by “ jealousy,” and it is indeed possible that Rothe assumed Heitz was encroaching on his competence as parish pastor. Denominational differences between the two men were also a factor. Heitz found Rothe’s first sermon too outspokenly Lutheran (he called it “sectarian”). An unnamed minister in Dresden informed Zinzendorf that Rothe had preached against Roman Catholics and Calvinists. Zinzendorf wrote Rothe asking him to ignore the denominational differences with Heitz and to treat him with love.54 Rothe’s disapproval of the prayer meetings also affected his relationship with the new settlers, especially with Christian David. Moreover, David and Rothe disagreed on the subjects of confession and predestination. David’s radical Pietist position on these issues differed widely from the official position of the Lutheran Church that Rothe was to implement in Berthelsdorf. According to the Lutheran Church in Saxony, every parishioner was required to go to confession before taking Communion. As a Lutheran pastor, Rothe naturally rejected the (Reformed) doctrine of predestination.55 It has been suggested that David was under the influence of the Reformed Heitz in these matters.56 This is certainly possible, but it is questionable whether Heitz, who was critical of “sectarian” positions, indeed promoted specific Calvinist teachings in his prayer meetings.57 Heitz emphasized that the conflict between Rothe and David was unrelated to the prayer meetings.58 Pastor Scheffer felt it was his responsibility to mediate: “It is certain, for God’s kingdom is not in word or opinions but in power, and on this we fully agree [1 Cor. 4:20].” Telling is Scheffer’s insertion of the word opinions (Meinungen), the Philadelphian term for doctrines, into the biblical verse. Scheffer urged David to “remain silent on such grave matters” so as not to

the plan      53

disturb the peace.59 Scheffer considered a controversy about denominational doctrinal issues irrelevant and believed love should overcome all differences of opinion. The situation, however, only worsened. After Zinzendorf and his wife returned to Dresden in April of 1723, the conflict between Rothe and Heitz intensified. Heitz even claimed Rothe had an “irreconcilable hatred” (“unver­ sönlicher Haß”) toward him. Rothe continued to be critical of Heitz’s prayer meetings and even began to preach against Heitz. Around Easter, Heitz ceased his prayer meetings altogether.60 Because most of Rothe’s letters have been destroyed, we are uninformed about Rothe’s perspective on the situation.61 It is significant that Rothe, whom Zinzendorf believed to be a Philadelphian, adhered to Lutheran denominational polity as soon as he took office in Berthelsdorf.62 Involuntarily, Watteville found himself in the middle of the conflict.63 In June of 1723 Zinzendorf sent Watteville to Berthelsdorf in order to audit the accounts of the estate. Watteville first stopped in Herrnhut, where he found the Moravians in an agitated state: they told him Heitz was threatening to leave Berthelsdorf and that, in their eyes, Rothe was at fault.64 During the following weeks Watteville took on the role of mediator and spoke with the parties involved. He believed that he was able to create a mutual understanding between Rothe and Heitz65 and even thought he could change Zinzendorf ’s negative opinion about Heitz. The warm relationship between Zinzendorf and Heitz had cooled considerably by the time Zinzendorf met Rothe in the fall of 1721. Reichel believes that Heitz felt rejected when Zinzendorf directed his friendship toward another man. Zinzendorf, for his part, felt ill-­treated by his steward, whom he considered increasingly impertinent.66 After noticing the lack of progress in the renovations of the manor house, Zinzendorf lost much of his confidence in Heitz. When he read Watteville’s letters excusing Heitz’s behavior and urging Zinzendorf to have sympathy for Heitz’s position, Zinzendorf lost his patience with both Heitz and Watteville. “Laissez moy faire avec Mr. Heiz,” Zinzendorf wrote curtly to Watteville, and added in German, “if a servant, even if he is sixty years old, demands respect from his lord, that goes against God’s order: ‘servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh’ [Col. 3:22].”67 According to Zinzendorf, Heitz did not know his place and therefore had to leave. In August of 1723 Heitz and his wife departed from Berthelsdorf, leaving the disappointed settlers behind. Heitz found new employment as Amtmann (bailiff) for the Buirette von Oehlefeld family in Wilhelmsdorf, near Erlangen in Franconia.68 The following year two Herrnhuters wrote to Heitz, “Martha Neisser spent the week you left Berthelsdorf mostly in sorrow and

54      herrnhut

tears. Augustin and Jacob Neisser also complain that for a long time they kept longing for you.”69 The settlers continued to hold Heitz in high esteem. Several Herrnhuters, including Christian David and Watteville, remained in touch with him during the following years. Over time, Zinzendorf came to realize he might have been too harsh with Heitz and contacted him several times. In 1725 he tried to persuade Heitz to return to Herrnhut; in 1727 he sent him an extensive account of everything that had happened since his departure. Heitz responded with a friendly letter but never returned to Herrnhut.70 He died in November of 1730.71

The Brotherhood of Four In order to advance the project in Berthelsdorf, Pastor Scheffer proposed formalizing the collaboration of the leading personalities by forming a “Bündnüß” (Bündnis) or alliance. As suggested in Scheffer’s proposal from December 4, 1723, the alliance was to consist of Zinzendorf, Rothe, and Scheffer, who were to develop and oversee projects and also raise funds. “A threefold rope does not break easily,” Scheffer wrote.72 After Watteville joined, the group became known as the Vierbrüderbund or Brotherhood of Four. The Brotherhood of Four was formally organized in Dresden on January 31, 1724.73 By 1728 the Brotherhood disbanded because of disagreements between Scheffer, Rothe, and Zinzendorf, but it played a much more significant role in the development of the Herrnhut community than is usually acknowledged.74 Zinzendorf ’s history of the Brotherhood, with its incorrect founding date, has long determined the narrative of its efforts.75 As far as we can tell, the initiative for it did not come from Zinzendorf but rather from Pastor Scheffer. At the beginning Zinzendorf did not even show much interest. On December 4, 1723, Scheffer sent Zinzendorf his proposal to form a union for coordinating efforts that would benefit “the extension of the Kingdom of Christ.” According to Scheffer’s proposal, Zinzendorf, Rothe, and Scheffer would unite and raise funds for the construction of a “house” in Herrnhut that would become the center of their activities. To finance the construction of the house, Scheffer and Rothe would each pledge 300 thalers. Zinzendorf was not to donate cash—apparently he did not have any—but he was to make in-­kind contributions: a lot, timber, and a location for a kitchen garden. They would borrow an additional 400 thalers, so that their starting capital would total to 1,000 thalers. Scheffer expected their investment to yield 6 percent

the plan      55

interest on the income from the institutions they planned to establish.76 Even though he proposed the title of “director” for Zinzendorf and “inspector” for himself and Rothe, Scheffer wanted control over the undertakings to be shared jointly among the three of them. Scheffer mentions several such undertakings: a printing press, factories, stores, and “the matter with the doctor,” probably an apothecary shop. Scheffer intended their activities not to be limited to Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut but also to support and oversee a possible school project in Görlitz.77 Contrary to what its name suggests, the Brotherhood also included women. Scheffer hoped that Dorothea Nichte, a wealthy pastor’s widow, would be willing to contribute the missing amount of 400 thalers.78 Even before Zinzendorf expressed interest in the initiative, Zezschwitz became actively involved. In December of 1723 she opened a school for girls in her own home in Berthelsdorf, contributed 200 thalers in support of the printshop, and did her best to persuade Zinzendorf to respond to Scheffer’s repeated letters.79 Zezschwitz, Erdmuth von Zinzendorf, and Martha Scheffer were all founding members of the Brotherhood.80 In late January of 1724 Scheffer and his wife, Martha, Watteville, and Johanna von Zezschwitz met with Zinzendorf and his wife at their apartment in Dresden.81 Rothe was not present. The meeting was contentious at times, but in the end the six participants each agreed to contribute 200 thalers to the Brotherhood.82 Zinzendorf and his wife both contributed in kind: Zinzendorf donated, as previously noted, timber, stones, and the site for the building and the gardens; Erdmuth contributed the use of the existing houses in Herrnhut. In addition, a joint loan of 700 thalers was to be taken out. Decisions were to be made by majority vote; in case of a tie Zinzendorf, as director, would have the deciding vote.83 The focus of the project was the construction of the building according to drawings discussed in Dresden.84 The lower floor of the structure was to be built out of stone and the upper floor as half-­timber construction, and there would be a tile roof. This building was later known as the Gemeinhaus, but initially it was called the Schulhaus (school building), the Anstaltenhaus (the institution), or simply das große Haus (the Great House). Upon their return from Dresden, Watteville informed Rothe about the decisions and staked out the construction site for the new building on the northeast side of the town square. Breaking ground, however, had to wait a few weeks until five homes for the settlers were completed.85 On May 12, 1724, the foundation stone was laid. Watteville delivered a prayer, about which Zinzendorf later said “everyone present was in tears and I have never again heard anything like

Fig. 5  Laying of the foundation stone for the Great House or Gemeinhaus in Herrnhut on May 12, 1724. Engraving by Daniel Chodowiecki, ca. 1780. Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, DP b.1117.4.

the plan      57

it.”86 Construction continued over the next eighteen months. On November 24, 1724, the final beam was installed atop the structure, and in the fall of 1725 the Great House was completed.87 For the first few years the Brotherhood of Four (along with their wives) was the driving force behind the Herrnhut project. The main objectives of the Brotherhood included publications, education, care for the Protestant refugees from Moravia, the expansion of a network of like-­minded believers through correspondence and visitations, and the proclamation of the gospel.88 We will now turn our attention to the specific projects the Brotherhood intended to realize.

Publications The publication program was the most visible and most expansive enterprise of the Brotherhood of Four during these years.89 Contrary to what has been suggested or even to what Zinzendorf himself claimed when defending his publication program in front of his critical grandmother, the publications were not intended primarily for the count’s subjects living on the Berthelsdorf estate but rather for a wide audience.90 The high projected print runs for the individual publications (e.g., three thousand for the hymnbook and eight thousand for the Bible) confirm that the scale of the intended audience was much larger than just the Berthelsdorf parish.91 According to Zinzendorf, the goal of the associated brethren was “stopping up the broken dam with profound writings in the manner of the dear servants of God at Halle”—that is, they tried to counter the great number of what they considered harmful books with their own publications.92 Although Zinzendorf does not specifically state what genres of books they considered harmful, it appears that they meant religious publications written from a particular denominational perspective rather than philosophical books or perhaps the emerging genre of novels and romances. Interestingly, Zinzendorf states that the associated brethren were following the example of Francke’s institutions in Halle. This refers to Halle’s success in providing inexpensive print material in large quantities. Like the press in Halle, the Brotherhood hoped to reduce the costs of their publications by using the proceeds from the sales to finance future publications and print runs.93 Proceeds from the publications were also needed to pay for their other projects.94 However, the Herrnhut print project did not develop into a large-­ scale, long-­lasting program with publications for a wide religious audience.

58      herrnhut

Over time, Moravian publications became primarily apologetic in nature or focused on printing the ceaseless stream of Zinzendorf ’s discourses and homilies. During the 1720s Zinzendorf and the associated brethren believed they could transform the divided Christian landscape of Central Europe by providing foundational Christian texts such as a hymnbook, catechisms, the Bible, periodicals, and other relevant treatises. Even before the associated brethren had formally organized, several titles had already been published. In 1723 two tracts written by Zinzendorf appeared: Ölblatt des Friedens (Olive leaf of peace) and Schöne Gedancken vom Reden und Gebrauch der Worte (Good thoughts on speaking and the use of words). Both of these tracts are known only from later editions.95 In the same year Zinzendorf published a French translation of Johann Arndt’s Of True Christianity, intended to promote Pietist ideas in France and dedicated to Cardinal de Noailles.96 The fourth publication from 1723 was a catechism, Lautere Milch der Lehre von Jesu Christo, intended to be used with small children. Rothe had reviewed the text before it went to print at the printshop of Ehlerdt Henning Reimers in nearby Löbau.97 Reimers had also begun to print another catechism, the Gewisser Grund (see below), but was ordered to stop after Johann Christian Kunkel, head pastor and censor in Löbau, disapproved of the text. Zinzendorf was so outraged that he decided to hire his own printer, who could work on his own estate, where Rothe would be the censor. Zinzendorf hired printer Abraham Gottlieb Ludewig from Pirna near Dresden, where his father, Georg Balthasar Ludewig, owned a printshop. Previously, Ludewig had worked for Johann Friedrich Regelein, who was known as a printer of radical Pietist works. Ludewig signed his contract on November 30, 1723.98 On January 26, 1724, during their organizational meeting in Dresden, the Brotherhood of Four discussed plans for a series of publications.99 The spectrum of topics the friends planned to publish was broad: “theologica & philosophica,” “ juridica,” “medica,” and “statistica & publica.”100 In addition to publications in German, there was mention of publications in French and Polish as well. The brethren hoped that printer Ludewig would arrive in Berthelsdorf very soon, where his printshop was to be established on the ground floor of the manor house or, once completed, in the Great House on the square in Herrnhut.101 However, the Berthelsdorf printshop was never realized. The authorities in Bautzen prohibited its establishment on the Ber­ thelsdorf estate, and the brethren had to find a different solution. During the summer Ludewig’s press was transported to Ebersdorf, where he established his shop at the court of Erdmuth’s brother, Heinrich XXIX, Count Reuss. On July 26, 1724, a new contract was signed on behalf of the Brotherhood by

the plan      59

Zinzendorf and Watteville,102 and Ludewig was able to begin printing the various publications envisioned by the Brethren.103 In the following we will take a closer look at the Ebersdorf Bible, the catechism, and the so-­called Berthelsdorf hymnbook. While the publishing plan of the Brotherhood may have been modeled after Francke’s publishing house in Halle, the content of the Herrnhut publications was more radical than that of the ones from Halle, as an examination of the individual titles reveals.104 The so-­called Ebersdorf Bible, named after the location where it was printed, has been labeled “Zinzendorf ’s largest publishing enterprise.”105 The Bible was completed in November of 1726, but some of the back matter was delayed and not finished until March of the following year.106 The text of the Ebersdorf Bible closely follows the traditional Luther translation, without changing or correcting the body text. However, the edition also includes additional material that provides an obvious interpretative framework, potentially evoking criticism among more orthodox readers. First, Zinzendorf added summaries to each chapter.107 The summaries were highly critical of the institutional church while at the same time, in line with Philadelphian ideas, they preached tolerance in secondary matters and encouraged unity among all believers. Throughout the summaries Philadelphian language is used: “Sectirerey” (sectarianism), “äußerliche Gemeine” (outward church), “wahre Kirche” (true church), “Ceremonien machen” (creating ceremonies), and “unpartheyisch” (impartial).108 Another section of the Ebersdorf Bible raising concern because of its potential contentiousness was a list of Bible verses that were considered either unclear in Luther’s original translation or mistranslations of the original text. The list was compiled by Rothe and contained suggestions for better translations.109 Both Zinzendorf and Rothe left out many typical denominational (in this case Lutheran) interpretations. For example, Zinzendorf ’s summaries of the Psalms leave out the typical Lutheran Christological interpretation of the Psalms, which, for example, the Reformed rejected.110 Another example is Rothe’s translation of Romans 3:28, the preeminent Bible verse for the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone. Rothe omitted the word allein (alone), which Luther had added for emphasis and which was not included in most other Bible translations. By removing typical denominational interpretations and using radical Pietist language, the Ebersdorf Bible was one of the Philadelphian Bible editions of the early eighteenth century, as Hans Schneider has concluded.111 Pastor Scheffer acted as an agent, selling the Bibles in Görlitz and shipping them to Silesia.112 The great number of Bibles passing through Görlitz

60      herrnhut

did not go unnoticed, causing concern among the city authorities, who had been displeased for quite some time with Scheffer’s conventicles and his critical sermons. According to Scheffer, the summaries that were critical of the “high and the great and the papists [here: false pastors]” had attracted particular attention.113 In November of 1726 the city magistrate ordered a ban on the sale of the Ebersdorf Bible and asked the authorities in Dresden how to proceed. The consistory in Dresden immediately began an investigation into the matter and recommended that the Privy Council insert an official warning into each copy of the Bible that was sold. Zinzendorf responded with his own printed reply.114 Dismayed by the vehemence of Zinzendorf ’s reaction, members of the Privy Council invited Zinzendorf to a conversation, during which they urged him not to write against the consistory. In the spring of 1727 sales of the Bible resumed in Dresden and Görlitz, with the inclusion of the warning along with Zinzendorf ’s statement.115 The objective of the 1724 catechism was similar to that of the Ebersdorf Bible: to foster inner piety rather than (outward) knowledge of a particular doctrine or denominational position. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, catechisms were considered useful for various reasons: Pietists saw them as a way to strengthen the faith of the individual believer, while the confessional churches considered them instrumental for the establishment of a confessional identity. Luther’s Small Catechism was used by every Lutheran minister and was known by every Lutheran person throughout the Lutheran part of Europe.116 Zinzendorf ’s initiative to publish an alternative to the confessional catechisms is indicative of his view of the church. After printer Reimers was ordered to stop printing this catechism, the Gewisser Grund Christlicher Lehre (Certain foundation of the Christian teachings) was completed on Ludewig’s presses in Ebersdorf in November of 1724.117 This catechism was a joint effort of the associated brethren: Zinzendorf compiled the text and wrote the explanation to the frontispiece, Rothe reviewed the text, and Scheffer wrote an extensive introduction. The title refers to Luke 1:4: “that you might know the certain foundation of the teachings, wherein you have been instructed.”118 The catechism, in a traditional question-­and-­answer format, is a so-­called Spruchkatechismus or biblical catechism: the questions were formulated by the author but the responses consisted exclusively of biblical quotes. This was typical for Pietist catechisms: not the word of man (as in traditional catechisms, including Luther’s Small Catechism) but only God’s word has the “strength” (Rev. 3:8) to work in the heart of the believer.119 The goal of a biblical catechism was not to lecture but rather to change the inner state of the reader, leading to a union of the believer

the plan      61

with Christ. Zinzendorf intended his catechism to help lead someone to “Christianity” rather than to the doctrine of one of the established churches. In a letter to Watteville about the catechism, Zinzendorf writes, “I consider this the best maxim: do not say much about the Lutheran Church. Among Christianity there are three churches who call themselves ‘church’ and each one has an appearance that may confuse a simple heart. Our Savior never pointed to the church but only to the word. . . . Therefore I say: speak about the church as if there were only one.”120 The Gewisser Grund is a thorough adaptation of Luther’s catechism, without the denominational framework of the usual editions of the Small Catechism. While outwardly acknowledging Luther, it is critical of the institutional Lutheran Church of its time. The Gewisser Grund does not completely break with Lutheran tradition: as indicated in its title, its structure follows Luther’s Small Catechism, although Zinzendorf did not include all of Luther’s sections.121 Zinzendorf kept Luther’s answers (“Auslegung des Gebots”) and complemented these with many Bible verses as an explanation and biblical proof (“Erläuterung des Gebots und Beweiß der Auslegung”). The biblical verses Zinzendorf selected reveal the Philadelphian perspective of the catechism.122 A third large project of the Brotherhood of Four was the publication of a hymnal, Sammlung Geistlicher und lieblicher Lieder (Collection of religious and lovely hymns), commonly known as the Berthelsdorf hymnbook. Work on the Berthelsdorf hymnbook was already under way in the summer of 1722, but printing had to wait until Ludewig’s press was up and running in Ebersdorf.123 The book was finished and available for use in May of 1725.124 Scheffer introduced it in his public worship services in Görlitz, and doubtless Zinzendorf used it in his private meetings in Dresden as well.125 According to an analysis by Joseph Theodor Müller, the Berthelsdorf hymnbook mainly consists of hymns from the Freylinghausen hymnal: 696 out of a total of 892 hymns are taken from this quintessential Pietist hymnal, first published in Halle in 1704.126 Among the remaining hymns, Müller counted ones written by Zinzendorf (34), his wife, Erdmuth (2), Rothe (3), Heitz (1), Ulrich Bogislaw von Bonin (2), and Benigna Countess Reuss (6). Thirty-­five hymns are attributed to the Bohemian Brethren—obviously because of the Moravian settlers living on the Berthelsdorf estate. We know that Scheffer sent a Bohemian hymnbook to Zinzendorf in 1723. On April 11, 1725, not long before completion of the hymnbook, Christian ­Gutbier, a physician who was helping manage the estate, informed Zinzendorf that among his books he had discovered a hymnal containing hymns

62      herrnhut

of the Bohemian Brethren that he would gladly send to Zinzendorf in Dresden.127 Müller was unable to identify the origins of the remaining 114 hymns, and a closer examination would probably prove useful. A letter from March of 1723 gives insight into Zinzendorf ’s selection criteria, his sources, and the objections fellow associated brethren Rothe and Scheffer had against Zinzendorf ’s predilection for hymns of radical Pietist origin. Zinzendorf listed three sources against which Scheffer possibly would have objections: the hymnbook of the Schwarzenau Brethren, the “Liebeskuss” (Kiss of love), and the Stimmen aus Zion (Voices from Zion).128 The hymnal of the Schwarzenau Brethren is the Jesus-­Lieder für seine Glieder (Jesus hymns for his members), in which every hymn starts with the word Jesus.129 It is unclear which publication was meant by Liebeskuss. There is a popular devotional book, Der Himmlische Liebeskuss (The heavenly kiss of love), first published in 1659 by Rostock pastor Heinrich Müller (1631–1675) and reprinted many times.130 It is not a hymnal, but the text does contain thirty-­three interspersed hymns or hymn verses; however, only four of these are included in the Berthelsdorf hymnbook. Voices from Zion is a collection of hymns written by radical Pietist Johann Wilhelm Petersen. Not only did Scheffer disapprove of “enthusiast” hymns, but so did Rothe. After Rothe raised objections against Petersen’s hymns, Zinzendorf decided to exclude them.131 Noteworthy is Zinzendorf ’s defense of enthusiasts: “they have a better understanding of the strength of Christianity than most of our orthodox reverend clergymen and they write better, stronger, and more sensitive hymns than the latter.”132 The frontispiece of the hymnbook visualized Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian objective with this book and with the other publications: the destruction of Babylon, the Philadelphian metaphor for the confused and degenerate institutional churches of their time.133 For a short period of time a bookshop operated in the Great House in Herrnhut.134 Gottfried Marche opened a bookshop in Herrnhut in 1730,135 in which he sold the publications of the associated brethren, Zinzendorf ’s earlier publications, and other Pietist works.136 The activities of the bookshop immediately drew protest from the booksellers in the region. In a petition to the Oberamt in Bautzen, four booksellers from Bautzen, Görlitz, Zittau, and Lauban asked the authorities to close Marche’s bookshop. Before any action could be taken, Marche moved his shop to Görlitz.137 There he published several books for the Herrnhut congregation until he closed the bookshop in 1763 and together with his wife, Scheffer’s daughter Anna Dorothea, returned to Herrnhut.138

Fig. 6  Frontispiece of the Berthelsdorf hymnbook, 1725, showing the destruction of Babylon (center) and the heavenly Jerusalem (bottom). Engraving by Moritz Bodenehr. Reeves Library, Moravian University.

64      herrnhut

Education Education was an important component of the undertakings of the associated friends. It was perhaps the oldest plan for this location: as we saw earlier, when Zinzendorf and Marche went out for a ride, they spoke about their vision to build an orphanage on the site where a few years later Herrnhut would be built.139 According to Watteville’s account, Zinzendorf had devised a plan for a school around 1721: “Once, after our count returned from his travels [his grand tour], he made a plan for a country school where both noble and non-­noble pupils were to be instructed in the arts and sciences at low expense and brought up in the fear of the Lord.”140 When Zinzendorf shared his plan with Scheffer, he showed immediate interest and encouraged Zinzendorf to found such a school in Berthelsdorf. In order to raise funds for the new school and to find prospective pupils among befriended families, Zinzendorf, Scheffer, and Watteville traveled to Silesia in late August through early September 1723.141 Following their return, Zinzendorf began to reform and expand the educational institutions on his estate. A school for the poor was begun in Ber­ thelsdorf, which Uttendörfer dates to 1723. It is unclear if this “Armenschule” was a new institution or the existing village school, which under Zinzendorf received more attention than in previous years.142 Henriette Katharina von Gersdorf endowed funds to pay for the education of impoverished children and the purchase of school books.143 After completion of the Berthelsdorf church expansion, Zinzendorf contemplated using the remaining stones for the school building.144 In December of 1723 Johanna von Zezschwitz opened her house in Ber­ thelsdorf as a home for both younger and older women.145 In 1726 the associated brethren called Justina Regina Bonacker as teacher at the home for girls in Berthelsdorf. The letter of appointment used the example of the early church to justify the call of a woman to such a position.146 The boys’ school was intended for “adelige und bürgerliche Söhne” (sons of noble and bourgeois families).147 In the records we find different designations for this school: Adelsschule (school for nobles), collegium, paedagogium, or Landschule (country school). Its launch would have to wait until construction of the Great House in Herrnhut was completed, but before that there was a need to provide education for boys on the Berthelsdorf estate. Not wanting to wait, Schweinitz sent two of his sons to Berthelsdorf, where they were educated in Rothe’s house. Rothe was the former tutor of the Schweinitz family and had taught their older brothers a few years earlier in Leuba.148 Another pupil in Rothe’s house was Johann Gottlieb von Kalkreuth.149

the plan      65

Although Rothe was a charismatic preacher, Zinzendorf apparently did not have a high opinion of his teaching skills and tried to call a different teacher.150 He was unsuccessful in calling Christian Andreas Reichmeister, tutor in Ebersdorf, so Scheffer arranged for two brothers, Georg and Christian Knob­ loch, both students in Halle, to come to Berthelsdorf as teachers.151 Teaching materials were acquired for the school. Pastor Marperger in Dresden gave “a number of fine maps and mathematical instruments” in exchange for a number of Berthelsdorf hymnbooks.152 Pastor Schael in Hanau donated an extensive collection of books, which was the beginning of the school library.153 The library was housed in the Great House in a room adjacent to the meeting hall on the upper floor.154 Schael knew Scheffer and Rothe from his time as a student at the gymnasium in Görlitz. He was probably a regular participant in Scheffer’s prayer meetings. Two weeks after the laying of the foundation stone of the Great House, Scheffer invited Schael to serve as director of the school (“inspector”) and to provide pastoral care to the residents of the community.155 Schael declined the invitation, but his donation of books was gladly accepted in Herrnhut. Instead, Dr. Gutbier became director and medic of the school.156 The Great House was officially dedicated as a paedagogium in March of 1726 with public speeches by the pupils and the teachers.157 Twelve rooms in the Great House were available to the paedagogium. Besides Gutbier and the Knobloch brothers, the following men were employed at the school: Franz Joseph Anton Reichwein as librarian; J. C. Riemer and G. Kluge, both former captains in the Swedish army; Johann Gottlob Fiedler as writing instructor; Johann Gottlob Klemm; and Bartholomeus Krumpe.158 The paedagogium did not last long. In July of 1727 Zinzendorf resolved to end his participation in this project and to leave it up to Scheffer and Rothe if they wanted to continue the paedagogium. If so, they would need to find another location, because Zinzendorf wanted to convert the Great House into an orphanage, which he planned to run without their assistance.159 The Brotherhood of Four was beginning to fracture. As the reason for closing the paedagogium, the Herrnhut diary noted “their demand for freedom” (“ihre praetendirten Freyheit”), which confirms Uttendörfer’s suspicion that the teachers were not part of the new spirit that prevailed in Herrnhut in 1727.160 In October 1727 it was decided to close the paedagogium; education in Herrnhut now focused on the religious conversion of children.161 The Herrnhut orphanage was housed in the Great House and in one of its adjacent buildings on the square. In the records these neighboring buildings are referred to as the “Flügel” or “wings” of the Great House. The wings stood on both sides of the Great House on the northwest and southeast sides of the

66      herrnhut

square, but were physically connected to the Great House only by two enclosed walking bridges. In the spring of 1725 Watteville arranged for the construction of these two half-­timbered buildings to begin; Christian David was the master carpenter.162 The original intent of the wings was to house two poorhouses, one for (older) men and one for women.163 These plans were soon abandoned. The wing to the southeast side became a home for the Zinzendorf family when they moved from Dresden to Herrnhut in 1727,164 and the wing on the opposite side of the square housed the girls of the Herrnhut orphanage. On November 10, 1727, ten days after the boys moved into the Great House, the girls’ school moved from Berthelsdorf and became part of the orphanage.165 Zinzendorf had met Gutbier on the journey he took with Watteville and Scheffer to Silesia in the summer of 1723, when they passed through the town of Schmiedeberg (Kowary). There they were introduced to Gutbier, who had lost his wife two years earlier, leaving him alone with five children.166 Zinzendorf offered Gutbier a position in his household. In January of 1724 Gutbier, together with his children, arrived in Berthelsdorf, where he managed matters of the estate, including the final renovations to the manor house, as well as becoming inspector and medic at the paedagogium. When the opportunity presented itself, Gutbier offered an anatomy lesson to the students in Herrnhut. A man who had just arrived from Moravia two weeks prior had fallen off the roof of the manor house in Berthelsdorf, and Gutbier performed an autopsy on the body, with the pupils as observers.167 He also practiced medicine in Berthelsdorf. With Zinzendorf ’s permission, he began to prepare medications using ingredients from the apothecary in nearby Hen­ nersdorf. After completion of the Great House in Herrnhut he moved his apothecary there. He moved away in 1729, and the Herrnhut congregation bought the inventory of the apothecary from him.168 When Zinzendorf visited radical Pietist physician Johann Conrad Dippel in Berleburg in 1730, Dippel gave him “his most proven medical recipes” for the apothecary.169 Of the various projects initiated by the Brotherhood of Four, both the school and the apothecary continued to exist well into the twentieth century.170

Network The members of the Brotherhood of Four envisioned their work as part of a larger network. In order to establish and maintain this network, the brethren made regular visits and engaged in extensive correspondence.

the plan      67

Many kindred souls were found in the immediate region. Especially in nearby villages such as Oderwitz, Seifhennersdorf, and Grossschönau, there was great interest in the religious activity on Zinzendorf ’s estate. Villagers came to the Sunday morning worship service in Berthelsdorf, while itinerant preachers from Herrnhut traveled around the region. In addition to visits to the crypto-­Protestants in Moravia, regular visits were also made to find pious souls in other parts of Germany. Every year Zinzendorf, usually in the company of his wife and other Herrnhuters, traveled for several weeks, making occasional visits to pious groups in Silesia, Thuringia, Franconia, and many other smaller states.171 Visits to the family in Ebersdorf were combined with contacting individuals and groups along the way. On several occasions Zinzendorf visited students and professors at the universities in Halle, Jena, and Leipzig in order to “get to know the friends of God.”172 Zinzendorf ’s noble rank enabled him to have audiences with high-­ranking nobles and members of European royalty.173 In September of 1723 he and Watteville traveled to Prague for the coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI as King of Bohemia, where he tried to procure the ius emigrandi for the Schwenkfelders in Silesia.174 In late November of 1727 Zinzendorf visited Christian Ernst, later Duke of Saxe-­Coburg-­Saalfeld, for several days in Coburg and Saalfeld. According to Zinzendorf, the days spent with Christian Ernst included many joint prayers and conversations about the role of a pious ruler. During this visit, Christian Ernst made Zinzendorf privy councillor.175 In 1731 Zinzendorf went to Denmark to attend the coronation of Christian VI, whose mother-­in-­law was related to Zinzendorf. For a long time Zinzendorf had high hopes of being employed at the Danish court and realizing his pious plans through his connections to the Danish royal family. The Danish king even conferred on him the Order of the Dannebrog. When, however, the relationship between Herrnhut and Halle deteriorated, the Danish king sided with Halle; as a result, Zinzendorf was asked to return the order in 1736, much to his chagrin.176 Messengers went out from Herrnhut to establish important contacts. In September of 1725 Zinzendorf sent Watteville to Paris to present a copy to Cardinal de Noailles of the French translation of Arndt’s Of True Christianity, which Zinzendorf had sponsored. Noailles graciously accepted the book but did not think it could be safely marketed in France because of its content. In 1726 Dutch bookseller van Waesberge agreed to distribute the work in France out of Amsterdam.177 In September of 1727 David Nitschmann (linen weaver) and Hans Nitschmann were sent to Denmark to deliver a copy of the “Newest History

68      herrnhut

of the Brethren from Moravia” to the Danish prince Carl, younger brother of King Frederik IV.178 The following year, messengers were sent to Princess Maria Louise of Orange in the Netherlands as well as to the Queen of England, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and various church officials in London.179 On June 4, 1728, Zinzendorf wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XIII in Rome. Although never sent—Zinzendorf was uncertain how to address the pope without compromising his own position—the letter was soon leaked, causing controversy and concern among critics of Herrnhut. Zinzendorf ’s letter to the pope reveals the scale of his aspirations. Seeking to “avoid debate about opinions” and to “only embrace the crucified Christ,” he wanted to ask the pope for permission to publish his Christ-­Catholisches Singe-­und Bet-­ Büchlein (Christian Catholic song and prayer book) in Latin in Rome in order to “fan the flames of the spirit throughout the entire Roman Church.” The “Christian Catholic” (rather than Roman Catholic) hymnal was intended to spread Herrnhut’s Philadelphian Christianity throughout the world.180 Besides making visits in person, the Brotherhood of Four maintained an extensive correspondence to build the Philadelphian network. The correspondence served to nurture “the connection of the invisible church,” to preserve “the love among the brethren,” and to prevent “misunderstandings”— obviously all Philadelphian objectives.181 The letters were usually conveyed to the congregation to demonstrate the growth of the kingdom of God. The Gemeintage or prayer days were devoted to the reading of such reports. All four brethren participated in this correspondence, but Zinzendorf ’s part was probably the most substantial.182 By the end of 1727 the correspondence had become so extensive that Zinzendorf suggested convening a meeting of the associated brethren to discuss the reorganization of the correspondence. The annual costs of the correspondence had risen to 160 thalers, and unanswered letters were piling up. Zinzendorf proposed establishing a “chancery of the kingdom of Jesus” or writing office, with “concipients” writing drafts, “copyists,” and “speditors,” responsible for dispatching the letters, and with agents in other places.183 There is no indication that such an official chancery was established, and the number of letters remained a burden. Sometimes Zinzendorf skipped attending a service because he was too busy catching up writing letters.184 With relief the diary noted on January 19, 1729, that all outstanding letters from the previous year had been answered, including forty mailed just that day.185 Herrnhut was undeniably not an isolated community. The Herrnhuters may have detached from the world, but they remained in close contact with

the plan      69

kindred souls throughout Europe. Soon they would expand their activities overseas. Proclaiming the gospel was one of the goals of the Brotherhood. Scheffer, Zinzendorf, and Rothe were all gifted and enthusiastic preachers. Scheffer, who believed traditional preaching was ineffective to reach people’s hearts, wanted to explore different methods of proclaiming the gospel. In order to avoid unnecessary opposition to their work, however, as new methods would certainly bring on the critics, they decided to operate within the given framework of the institutional church.186 This line of thought is an indication that the Brotherhood and particularly Zinzendorf were aware their activities could easily cause opposition from the authorities and needed to be presented in an acceptable manner. Later we will discuss how Zinzendorf carefully crafted a narrative that framed Herrnhut in a nonobjectionable and agreeable manner. The preaching methods of the Brotherhood, however, were not entirely orthodox: the religious meetings in Herrnhut, Dresden, and Görlitz became the object of scrutiny by the authorities. Even Rothe’s church services in Berthelsdorf, because of their popularity among the population of the surrounding villages, raised concern among local rulers. Zinzendorf arranged for Rothe and Scheffer to preach sometimes in Saint Sophia’s Church and the Church of the Three Kings in Dresden, where Zinzendorf usually attended.187 To accommodate the numerous hungry souls the Brotherhood was expecting, they decided to enlarge the Berthelsdorf church. The earliest mention of a church in Berthelsdorf dates from 1346. It appears this building was destroyed around 1430, during the Hussite Wars, and was later rebuilt.188 In 1724 the renovation of the small village church began. The church was almost doubled in size by extending the east end of the building. Another prominent feature was the construction of a loge intended for Zinzendorf and his family on the south side of the sanctuary.189 The space underneath the loge became a sacristy.190 After completion of the expansion, Dresden organ builder Johann Gottlob Klemm installed a new organ in the church.191 The church was now large enough to seat the growing population of Herrnhut and the many visitors who came to hear Rothe preach. Later, when the meeting hall in the Great House was available, more services were held in Herrnhut. Even after the dissociation of religious life in Herrnhut from the church in Berthelsdorf in 1727, Herrnhuters were still expected to participate in the Sunday morning sermon and the sacraments and official rites in the Berthelsdorf church. According to their formal agreement, the members of the Brotherhood of Four were to pursue endeavors not only in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut but

70      herrnhut

also in Görlitz. The work in Görlitz consisted of Scheffer’s conventicle and a school that he founded. Although Scheffer contributed financially to the projects in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut, it does not appear that the other members gave financial support for the Görlitz school. In 1725 Scheffer opened an “Armenschule,” or school for the poor. For that purpose he bought one of the structures at Sporergasse that had been damaged in the city fire of 1717. Scheffer considered it a good omen when he found a tablet in the rubble with the inscription “The Word of Our God Shall Stand Forever, 1556.”192 Such a school was one of the institutions Francke had founded in Halle, and many of his sympathizers established similar schools throughout Germany. In order to support the teachers and the students, Scheffer collected donations during the gatherings of his conventicle. For­ werg, the weaver who had accompanied Christian David to Moravia a few years earlier, was to become housefather at the school.193 Unfortunately, we do not have much information about the work of the school. “The school is intended for children and adults who want to learn something,” Scheffer wrote.194 The conventicle that Scheffer previously had conducted from his home was now moved to the schoolhouse, where it convened twice a week, on Mondays and Fridays. From the beginning it was Scheffer’s hope that the Görlitz school would be one of the projects of the Brotherhood of Four. Repeatedly he suggested associating the school with the “Berthelsdorf institutions,” but Zinzendorf showed little interest in it, much to Scheffer’s disappointment.195 Zinzendorf ’s lack of support undoubtedly contributed to the gradual estrangement between the two men. Scheffer continued the work by himself. In October of 1727 the city magistrate of Görlitz ordered him to discontinue his conventicle and school “pro tempore”; later he seems to have reopened the school once again.196 In 1729 Scheffer proposed another charitable project “for the common good and the expansion of the Kingdom of Christ.” He developed a plan for the founding of a “fabrique” where poor brethren would be able to find employment while learning “true Christianity” in a Christian workplace.197 The proposal, which shared similarities with his plan for the Brotherhood of Four from 1723, included the formation of a Christian company of “members of Christ” who would each contribute money according to their ability and “driven by brotherly love.” The common fund was to be invested in a business such as a textile business, and the profit from the business was to be reinvested in the company, unless one of the contributors asked to withdraw their investment. Scheffer advocated converting the workshops in the

the plan      71

members’ homes, where the merchandise was to be produced, into Christian workplaces where workers would be instructed in “true Christianity.” The plan was connected to Scheffer’s school; the children were to receive free education in reading and writing while being employed in the workshops. Scheffer did not intend for this proposal to be printed, but one of his opponents published it as proof that the pastor was neglecting his office by developing schemes to earn money. There are no indications that Scheffer discussed this plan with Zinzendorf or the other members of the Brotherhood of Four; by 1729 the Brotherhood was showing signs of dissolution.198 Considering the undertakings of the associated brethren, it is difficult to miss the similarities with Francke’s institutions in Halle: a printery with a bookshop, a paedagogium, an orphanage, and an apothecary.199 These similarities were intentional: the brethren proceeded “in the manner of the dear servants of God in Halle,” Zinzendorf wrote when explaining the projects in Berthelsdorf-­Herrnhut.200 Francke’s opinion of Zinzendorf had been rather unfavorable for many years, and rather than considering Zinzendorf ’s imitation a form of flattery, he did not value the developments in Herrnhut, perceiving them as a “counter-­institution” to Halle.201 Hans Schneider traces the difficult relationship between Herrnhut and Halle to the time when Zinzendorf attended school in Halle. Francke remembered Zinzendorf as a difficult student and as the instigator of an unwanted dialogue between (Lutheran orthodox) Wittenberg and (Pietist) Halle.202 We already discussed Zinzendorf ’s futile aspiration for a position at Francke’s institutions in Halle in 1721 and Zinzendorf ’s misreading of the signals given by Francke and the other leading Pietists. Francke’s apprehensions about Zinzendorf increased as he learned about the developments on the Berthelsdorf estate. The Hallensians considered Zinzendorf overzealous and not practical enough to manage such an undertaking. Francke observed the founding of schools on the Berthelsdorf estate with great concern. Zinzendorf, on the other hand, displayed a great desire to gain recognition in the eyes of his former teacher. He kept Francke up to date about the progress of his plans and repeatedly visited Halle. Francke’s reservations became obvious to Zinzendorf when several of the associated friends, Zinzendorf and his wife, Watteville, and Johanna von Zezschwitz, went to visit Halle in July of 1724, shortly after the start of the construction of the great schoolhouse in Herrnhut. Zinzendorf wrote, “We found Prof. Francke considerably concerned because of my circumstances in Berthelsdorf.”203 The source of Francke’s concern was an informative letter Scheffer had written to Pastor Schael in Hanau in which Scheffer gave a favorable

72      herrnhut

description of the “Berthelsdorf undertakings for the extension of the Kingdom of Christ.”204 A reader of Scheffer’s letter will find it difficult to avoid the impression that a copy of Francke’s institutions was quickly developing in Upper Lusatia. Furthermore, the letter contained Philadelphian language and undisguised criticism of “the very much corrupted Lutheran Church.” The Halle Pietists, having successfully cast off the image of radicalism and achieved recognition as a reform movement within the church, feared that radical language from Herrnhut could endanger their standing.205 Scheffer’s letter also seemed to suggest that the associated brethren were actively trying to redirect financial support from other charitable enterprises toward Herrnhut. Schneider argues that the reception of Protestant exiles from the Habsburg Empire on the Berthelsdorf estate caused additional concern and irritation in Halle. For many years Halle had supported the crypto-­ Protestants in Bohemia and Moravia by sending pious literature and by supplying the grace church in Teschen (Cieszyn) with teachers and ministers trained in Halle. Zinzendorf ’s activities in Moravia now seemed to impede these efforts.206 Francke became even more concerned when he learned about internal theological discussions among the Herrnhuters. Schneider describes how Erdmann Heinrich Count Henckel von Donnersmarck, a close associate of Francke, was sent to Oderberg (Bohumín) near Teschen in Upper Silesia, where he oversaw the further emigration of the Moravian Protestants.207 From Oderberg Count Henckel reported to Halle that Christian David had passed through Teschen on his way to Moravia in January of 1725. From what David conveyed to Henckel’s contact, it appeared that a serious discussion about the practice of confession had erupted in Herrnhut, dividing the settlers into two camps. As a result, Zinzendorf allowed confession to be abolished in Berthelsdorf while at the same time teaching the Moravian settlers unorthodox doctrine such as apocatastasis, or restitution of all things. Henckel was referring to the Lehrkonferenz or doctrinal conference held in January of 1725, which we will discuss in chapter 4.208 Francke implored Zinzendorf to distance himself from such tendencies, which only caused division within the church and unquestionably led to the failure of any revival. From that time on Francke ceased his correspondence with Zinzendorf. When Zinzendorf and Scheffer visited Halle in the fall of 1726, they noticed the chill.209 Francke died soon thereafter, on May 8, 1727. No improvement was to be expected in the relationship with Francke’s son, Gotthilf August Francke, who would remain in charge of the institutions in Halle until his death in 1769.

the plan      73

The care for the Moravian settlers was the most visible of all the projects the associated brethren took on. Herrnhut and Zinzendorf would forever be associated with the Moravian Brethren. The brotherhood’s care for religiously oppressed groups extended to other groups as well, such as the Schwenkfelders and the Salzburgers. In the next chapter we will consider the Moravian Protestants and the other groups that the associated brethren tried to support.

3 The Moravians For almost one hundred years we were walking in darkness, but now his mercy has dawned on us, and he has returned the candlestick to its former place and given us back his former glory. —Christian David to Heitz, September 11, 1729

On May 5, 1723, a relative from Söhle unexpectedly arrived at the home of the Neissers with news that several family members were preparing to join them in Herrnhut later that summer.1 In order to house the newcomers, the settlers quickly began to construct five additional houses.2 Like the first group, this new group of refugees traveled under the guidance of Christian David, who decided to go to Moravia that July to accompany them. He stayed there for several weeks before leading the new group of eleven people, including sixty-­nine-­year-­old Judith Neisser, across the border. They arrived in Herrnhut on August 23, 1723. Since the new houses were still under construction, everyone lived together in the first house until their homes were completed in March of 1724.3 During the following years many other settlers from Moravia also came to live in Herrnhut. This chapter will examine the circumstances of the Moravian settlers. We will find that a century after the defeat of Protestantism at the Battle of White Mountain in 1620, little actual knowledge about theology and praxis of the Unity of Brethren existed among the crypto-­Protestants in Bohemia and Moravia. It will be argued that the expectations of the Moravian settlers matched the plans and ideals of Zinzendorf and his friends. For the settlers, who were not affiliated with a particular Protestant confession, the freedom resulting from Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian ecclesiology did not force them to become part of the Lutheran Church, as they were required to do in other

the moravians      75

places. Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian Pietism was compatible with the ideas of the Moravian settlers.

The Neissers The first people arriving from Moravia to settle in Herrnhut were the two Neisser brothers, Augustin and Jacob, along with their respective wives, Martha and Anna.4 They came from Söhle (Žilina), a village just south of the town of Neutitschein (Nový Jičin) in a region called Kuhländchen (Kravařsko).5 Although many Moravian refugees left detailed accounts of their lives in Moravia, their decision to emigrate, and their escape to Herrnhut, the Neisser brothers did not provide us with autobiographical texts. The main reason for that is certainly connected to their strained relationship with the Moravian Church in later years, which caused several members of the Neisser family to leave the church without having written a memoir for their funeral service.6 Fortunately, in one of his histories of the origins of Herrnhut, Zinzendorf provides us with information about the Neissers based upon what they had told him. The Neissers told Zinzendorf about their various opportunities to hear the Protestant message: from their grandfather Georg Jäschke; from a cousin; from Samuel Schneider and David Tanneberger in Zauchtenthal (Suchdol); from an “old soldier from Upper Silesia,” Georg Retschel, who traveled through Söhle several times and who was able to spark their faith “as when one adds fuel to the flames”; and from Christian David.7 Christian David may have known the Neissers from the time he apprenticed with a carpenter in Söhle; otherwise he may have met them while passing through Söhle during his annual visits from Görlitz between 1717 and 1722. Söhle is centrally located between Senftleben, where David was born and where his mother and stepfather lived, and Zauchtenthal, a village with many Protestants where David visited regularly. David recounts how the Neissers asked him to find a place where they could live among Christian people and be edified: “the dear brethren asked me to show them a place where Christian people were so that they could be strengthened in the known truth.”8 According to Zinzendorf ’s account, the Neissers discussed their desire to emigrate with David on several occasions. In the meantime, they were able to purchase an old Bible from a shoemaker and to visit the Protestant church in Teschen on at least two occasions. Both times the pastors in Teschen, Steinmetz and his assistant Sassadius, advised them against immigrating to a Lutheran country, painting them an unfavorable picture of

76      herrnhut

Fig. 7  Portrait of Christian David (1692–1751). Oil on canvas by John Valentine Haidt. Unity Archives, Herrnhut, Germany, GS 357.

numerous unconverted and unfaithful ministers serving the institutional church.9 When David visited Söhle again on May 25, 1722, he brought news that he had found a place where things were different: Count Zinzendorf, who offered them shelter on his lands, was a “true child of God,” and the local pastor was “a faithful witness of God.”10 Two days later the Neissers were on their way to Berthelsdorf.

Unity of Brethren Protestantism in Bohemia and Moravia had a long tradition, longer than in other parts of Central Europe.11 Czech Protestantism traces back to the early fifteenth century, when Roman Catholic priest and university professor Jan Hus (ca. 1372–1415) was active in Prague, teaching ideas that did not conform

the moravians      77

to the official doctrine of the church, denouncing the decline of morality among clergy, opposing the sale of indulgences, and preaching against the pope’s crusade against the rival pope.12 Eventually, Hus was ordered to appear before the Council of Constance (1414–1418) to defend his teachings. During his trial Hus refused to renounce and revoke his teachings; he was consequently condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. Back in Bohemia, the news of Hus’s death as a martyr incited a wave of protest and resistance. The ensuing Hussite movement included a large moderate wing, the Utraquists, along with a smaller, radical wing, the Taborites. Central for the Utraquists was Communion under both kinds, namely, to share both wine and bread with the laity during Communion. They reformed (and translated) parts of the liturgy but left many teachings and practices of the Catholic Church unchanged. The more radical and militant Taborites wanted to re-­create the early church of the apostles, believed in the imminent second coming of Christ, opposed the wealth of the church, and championed a strict discipline for all believers. Their original ideal of pacifism, however, would soon be replaced by an active battle against the Catholic Church and anyone else standing in their way. The Taborite movement was short-­lived and was defeated by the Utraquists. In 1452 the last stronghold of the Taborites surrendered, but some of their theology and ideals, according to Craig Atwood, lived on in the Jednota Bratrská, or Unity of Brethren. The Unity of Brethren was formed in Kunvald in eastern Bohemia in 1457 or 1458 by followers of Petr Chelčický (ca. 1380–1458/59).13 Basing his teaching on the Sermon on the Mount, Chelčický renounced violence, bearing of arms, and swearing of oaths and called on believers to follow the true law of Christ. In accordance with Hussite thought, the Unity of Brethren modeled itself on the apostolic church. Halama calls the Unity’s ideal of modeling after the early church an imitatio ecclesiae primitivae.14 They originally called themselves “Brethren and Sisters of Christ’s Law”15 and called each other “brother” and “sister.” The Unity of Brethren believed it was part of the universal catholic church, which consisted of different “unities,” such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Utraquist Church, and the Unity of Brethren. Initially, the group in Kunvald remained within the Utraquist Church, but in 1467 they decided to go their own way by establishing their own priesthood and electing their own bishop. During the first decades of its existence, the Unity practiced pacifism and adhered to a strict separation from the world, not allowing members to live in cities. This attitude often drew persecution from secular authorities. After 1494 the official position of the Unity became less restrictive.16 Oppression, however, continued: on July 25, 1508, Saint James Day, the Bohemian diet reinstated an older decree from 1503 that

78      herrnhut

outlawed the Unity throughout Bohemia. The so-­called Saint James Day mandate required members of the Unity to either convert to the Roman Catholic Church or join the Utraquist Church. It was not until 1609 that Emperor Rudolf II’s Letter of Majesty granted freedom to all groups who accepted the Bohemian Confession of 1575: Utraquists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and members of the Unity. Central to the Unity of Brethren’s theology was the distinction between what is considered essential for salvation, what ministers to salvation, and what could be considered incidental to salvation.17 Critical in their understanding of Communion was the lay chalice, similar as it was for the Utraquists and most other Protestants. They believed Christ was spiritually present during the celebration of Communion, but they rejected the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Important was confession before a priest, who subsequently gave absolution. Women were installed by a bishop to serve as “ judges” and elders to assist in care for the spiritual needs of the women.18 The Unity practiced confirmation of children after a long period of instruction around the age of twelve. The catechisms were also used for the instruction of new adult members. Hymns and singing were important elements of worship; the Unity published several hymnals, and some of their hymns were adopted by other religious groups as well. Although the Unity loosened their rejection of taking oaths and serving in civic functions, they rejected the establishment of Protestant state churches and maintained that true Christianity was voluntary. Between 1579 and 1593 the Unity published a complete translation of the Bible into Czech, printed on their press in Kralice, which became the most widely used Czech translation. Many aspects of theology and practice of the Unity of Brethren appear similar to the ideals of early Herrnhut: the emphasis on the early church, the initial lay character of the movement, their ecclesiology of the one church consisting of different denominational “unities,” avoidance of theological controversy, refraining from criticism of other points of view, addressing each other as brothers and sisters, interest in the Sermon on the Mount, and so on. It might be tempting to read these similarities as an indication of historical continuity between the Unity and the eighteenth-­century Moravian Church. It is, however, highly unlikely that these practices were introduced to Herrnhut by the settlers, drawing from their collective memory of the traditions of the Unity. Below we will see that many historians agree that crypto-­ Protestants in eighteenth-­century Bohemia and Moravia had very little collective memory of the theology and practice of the Unity or other forms of Protestantism.

the moravians      79

The similarities between Herrnhut and the Unity of Brethren originate from a similar general mindset and particularly from a shared interest in the apostolic church.19 In fact, there are many parallels between German Pietism and the ideas of Comenius and the church that brought him forth. Atwood calls the Unity a “proto-­ Pietist movement” and Comenius the “bridge between the Brethren and Pietism.”20 August Hermann Francke already recognized the correspondence between his own ideas and Comenius’s program for religious reform.21 Zinzendorf came to a similar realization when he discovered the resemblance of the Herrnhut statutes to the organization of the Unity. The settlers may have been unaware of these parallels, but they were overjoyed when they were pointed out to them, as we will see in chapter 4.

Crypto-­Protestants and Emigrants Official recognition of Protestants in the Czech lands through Rudolf II’s 1609 Letter of Majesty was short-­lived. At the Battle of White Mountain in 1620 the Protestant nobles of Bohemia were defeated by the Roman Catholic troops of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II, while fighting in Moravia continued until 1623. As a result, Protestantism was quickly outlawed.22 First, in 1621, all Brethren and Calvinists were to convert to Catholicism or leave the realm. In 1622, Lutheran worship services were outlawed, and in 1626 all Lutherans were ordered to convert or to emigrate. It became impossible for non-­Catholics to hold positions on city council, to be members of a guild, to marry, or to own property.23 Consequently, a wave of emigration began into neighboring Protestant countries such as Saxony, Prussia, Silesia, Poland, upper Hungary (modern Slovakia), England, and the Netherlands. Lutherans tended to go to Saxony and Upper Lusatia, while Calvinists and members of the Unity often chose to emigrate to Poland and Hungary. Free people, such as nobility and pastors, were able to leave the country; unfree peasants, on the other hand, were bound to their manor and could only leave illegally. Thomas Winkelbauer estimates that one hundred and fifty thousand people emigrated from Bohemia and Moravia from 1598 to 1660.24 When the Thirty Years’ War ended in 1648, few Protestant ministers were left in the Czech lands. Local, nonordained leaders took on pastoral roles for the remaining Protestants. Sometimes Lutheran pastors visited from bordering regions of Saxony and upper Hungary to conduct Protestant worship services, even though these were officially outlawed. The remaining Protestants went underground and were unable to publicly display their confessional

80      herrnhut

affiliation. Over time the visits by Protestant pastors became more organized: several times a year ministers from Dresden and Meissen in Saxony, Zittau in Upper Lusatia, and Reca (Réte) in upper Hungary visited the crypto-­ Protestants.25 The ministers came to serve Holy Communion and to provide the Protestants with literature, such as Bibles, collected sermons, prayer books, and hymnals. Noller points out that this literature represented a variety of Protestant denominations; crypto-­Protestants read publications regardless of the denominational background.26 A second wave of emigration started after 1670, with most emigrants settling just across the border with Saxony or Silesia. Refugee colonies were founded in places such as Johanngeorgenstadt, Wigandsthal (Pobiedna), Neusalza, Wespen, Gebhardsdorf (Giebułtów), and Neuschweinitz (Nowa Świdnica) near Friedersdorf.27 In various places throughout Bohemia and Moravia the remaining Protestants held house meetings, especially during periods of heightened religious fervor. David Nitschmann (linen weaver) informs us about such house meetings in the region where many of the Moravian refugees in Herrnhut originated: “In Kunewalde Melchior Nitschmann, a young man twenty years old, began to conduct meetings that multiplied in short time that in many places such as, e.g., Söhle, Schönau, Seitendorf, and Senftleben, many people gathered now in one house, now in another house to sing and to be uplifted by God’s word. For a long time it was possible to hold such meetings fairly publicly without much concern.”28 Czech historian Ondřej Macek sees a third wave of emigration beginning around 1720. This is the wave that interests us, as Herrnhut soon attracted many crypto-­Protestants from German-­speaking communities in Moravia and Bohemia. Others went to Hennersdorf near Herrnhut or to Gerlachs­ heim (Grabiszyce) in southeast Upper Lusatia. Many of the Protestant refugees later continued on to Berlin or to Silesia after Silesia had become Prussian in 1742. In addition to visits by ordained pastors during these years, lay preachers regularly traveled around to offer encouragement to the crypto-­Protestants and to evangelize. Some even persuaded them to emigrate. Christian David from Herrnhut is one example of such an itinerant preacher. On his visits David gave instruction on how to read the Scriptures in an “edifying” (erbaulich) manner, how to pray, how to conduct prayer meetings, and how to live a Christian life.29 According to Sterik’s biography of David, he made thirteen journeys to Moravia between 1717 and 1728.30 According to Zinzendorf, while halfway completed with flooring the upstairs assembly hall in the Berthelsdorf manor house in July of 1723, David “dropped his tools and went off

the moravians      81

without his hat.” The next month he returned with the second group of Moravian settlers.31 Zinzendorf was unable to prevent David and other Herrnhut settlers from making such journeys.32 Actively recruiting Habsburg subjects by encouraging them to leave their lords and emigrate was not only illegal but would most likely cause difficulties for Zinzendorf himself and potentially imperil Herrnhut. In August of 1728 David was arrested during one of his journeys in Jablůnka near Vsetín but was able to escape; thereafter, he never returned to Moravia.33 The motivation of the itinerants was not always exclusively religious. Matthias Stohske from Bielitz (Bielsko) in Silesia regularly visited Zauchtenthal, where he sang Lutheran hymns at the doors of the residents. In return, the appreciative Zauchtenthalers gave him alms or took him in for the night. Because of their generosity Stohske kept coming back. He told the people in Zauchtenthal about the church and the pastors in Teschen, and also smuggled books that he offered for sale: hymnbooks and Bibles printed in Halle, Arndt’s Of True Christianity, sermons by Francke, and copies of Christoph Matthäus Pfaff’s Kurzer Abriss vom wahren Christentum (Short summary of true Christianity).34 A few years later another visiting lay preacher was active in the area along the Elbe River near Chrudim east of Prague. Martin Rohlíček, from Velim in Central Bohemia, had immigrated to Vrbovce in modern Slovakia, from where he made regular visits to the Protestants in his home country. With permission from Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I he was even ordained by Johann Gustav Reinbeck and Daniel Ernst Jablonski in Berlin.35 Similarly, Jablonski ordained the Herrnhuters David Nitschmann (carpenter) and Zinzendorf as bishops in respectively 1735 and 1737. Not only men served as itinerant preachers. Magdalene Štěpánová, from Lhota near Königgrätz (Hradec Králové), who immigrated to Gerlachsheim and later to Rixdorf near Berlin, made numerous visits to Bohemia and guided at least one hundred people across the border to communities in Germany.36 David Nitschmann (carpenter) recalled a woman from Teschen who visited Zauchtenthal distributing religious tracts and who encouraged him to cross the border to hear Pastor Steinmetz’s sermons.37 During the 1740s an estimated fifteen thousand Protestants immigrated to Prussia. Political oppression of crypto-­ Protestants continued until the 1781 Patent of Toleration granted religious freedom to Lutherans, Calvinists, Serbian Orthodox, and in 1782 also to Jews within the Habsburg monarchy. The oppressed Protestants in Bohemia and Moravia were actively supported by Halle.38 Francke, who was interested in Comenius’s works, encouraged his printer, Heinrich Julius Elers, to print several works by Comenius.

82      herrnhut

One of these was Comenius’s Historia Fratrum Bohemorum, with an introduction by Johann Franz Buddeus (1702), who later became a professor of theology at Jena. Zinzendorf translated this book during a journey to Silesia in the summer of 1727; it was the first real source on the history of the Unity available for the residents of Herrnhut.39 The Halle printshop published works intended for the Protestants in Bohemia and Moravia: a Czech New Testament (1709), followed by a complete Bible edition (1722)—both using the text of the Kralice Bible—Luther’s Small Catechism in Czech (1709), and a Czech translation of Arndt’s Of True Christianity (1715). Heinrich Milde, a close associate of Francke, coordinated the translation and distribution of several tracts written by Francke. Milde is estimated to have distributed forty thousand copies between 1718 and 1724.40 Milde visited Herrnhut several times as well; in 1724 he even witnessed the laying of the foundation stone for the Great House.41 When a treaty was negotiated between Charles XII of Sweden and August the Strong, Elector of Saxony and King of Poland-­Lithuania, in October of 1706, Francke personally traveled to Altränstadt near Leipzig, where the negotiations were being held, in order to advocate for the sake of the Protestants in Silesia. This resulted in the founding of six so-­called grace churches in Silesia, where Protestants were allowed to freely worship. The grace church in Teschen became especially important. Its location on the border with Moravia and its proximity to Poland made Teschen the center of Halle’s advocacy among the crypto-­Protestants in the region.42 The first Protestant pastor for Teschen, Johann Muthmann, arrived in 1709. In October of 1710 the foundation stone was laid for a new Protestant church that was built on a hill outside the city, together with a parsonage and a school. Francke was influential in the selection of pastors for Teschen, and strong ties with Halle continued to exist. In 1720 Johann Adam Steinmetz was called as minister to Teschen. Born in 1689 in Grosskniegnitz (Księginice Wielkie) in Silesia (all Protestant pastors at the grace churches had to be natives of Silesia), Steinmetz studied theology in Leipzig at the same time as Rothe. Together with four other pastors, he served the church in Teschen until they were all expelled in 1730. During these years Teschen attracted thousands of Protestants from neighboring Silesia and Moravia. Many Protestant books were distributed from Teschen, and the school provided education for dozens of children from Protestant Silesian families. In 1728 problems began. The emperor requested an investigation regarding the school, and Steinmetz was suspended for conducting “conventicles” in which the sermon was repeated and the catechism was used. In 1730 the emperor ordered the five pastors to leave.43

the moravians      83

After the Battle of White Mountain tens of thousands of religious refugees from Bohemia and Moravia immigrated to Saxony. Throughout Saxony there were about four hundred different communities where refugees settled.44 In order to regulate the reception of refugees, the Elector of Saxony issued several decrees. A decree in 1650 stated that only exiles who had emigrated for religious reasons were to be accepted in Upper Lusatia.45 Saxony did not allow the immigrants to profess any faith other than Lutheranism; local authorities were instructed to be vigilant against Calvinists.46 Schunka points out that the Czech immigrants took on the identity of Exulanten, individuals who had left behind their earthly possessions for religious reasons. Even though not all refugees emigrated exclusively on religious grounds, the narrative of religious persecution in their home country established a group identity for the exiles.47 Many exiles went to Dresden. Following a first wave of German-­speaking Bohemians, the number of Czech-­speaking immigrants began to increase during the 1640s. Because the Czechs were unable to follow the (German) worship services in the regular Dresden churches, Elector Johann Georg I granted them use of their own church building, Saint John’s Church. The congregation was also allowed to elect their own Czech-­speaking pastor, but the election still needed confirmation by the Lutheran consistory and superintendent. The Bohemian congregation had to raise the funds for their pastor’s salary. The Czech pastor was allowed to administer Communion and after 1686 also to perform weddings; baptisms and funerals had to take place in their respective regular parish churches. The Bohemian church in Dresden was part of the Lutheran Church in Saxony. The pastor had to be vigilant that “no Calvinist or sectarian” sneaked into the congregation. Metasch finds that after 1709 new immigrants arriving from Bohemia began to express discontent about the orthodox Lutheran worship services at Saint John’s Church. These immigrants, influenced by the efforts from Halle and Teschen, began to meet privately for prayer meetings. Some would travel 120 kilometers east to attend Czech services in Hennersdorf. In Dresden Protestant refugees could only realize their religious desires as long as they fit within the framework laid out by the Lutheran Church.48 Another center for exiles from the Czech lands was the city of Zittau in Upper Lusatia, not far from the border with Bohemia. During the Thirty Years’ War Upper Lusatia was transferred from the Bohemian crown to the Elector of Saxony. Circumstances for the immigrants were even more restrictive in Zittau than in Dresden. Not long after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620, the first religious refugees arrived in Zittau. With permission from the city council, exiled pastors from Bohemia living in Zittau initially held

84      herrnhut

prayer meetings in their houses until 1630, when a hall was rented to serve as worship space. The Czech ministers were allowed to preach, hear confession, and catechize; as in Dresden, the Bohemians had to go to the regular Lutheran pastors in the city for baptisms, marriages, and funerals. The meeting hall soon proved too small for their gatherings, but for years every request to use one of the churches was denied. The council saw no reason why the immigrants could not attend the regular Lutheran services. In 1690 the city council finally granted them the use of a large space (the so-­called Heffterbau), but requests to conduct Communion and weddings in their church were categorically denied until 1804. Not surprisingly, when church services in Czech (including Communion) were offered in nearby Hennersdorf, Bohemians from Zittau went there in droves.49 Only five kilometers to the southeast of Herrnhut, another colony of Protestant refugees developed in Hennersdorf.50 In 1723 Sophie von Gersdorf, Zinzendorf ’s aunt, offered refuge to a group of Protestants who “had remained with the Protestant faith since their ancestors.”51 Different from the German-­speaking settlers in Herrnhut, who predominantly came from Moravia, the refugees in Hennersdorf originated in Bohemia and spoke Czech. In consultation with Francke in Halle, Gersdorf took them in and allowed them to build houses on a hillside three kilometers southeast of the Hennersdorf village. The colony was called Schönbrunn (beautiful spring).52 The government in Dresden permitted the appointment of a third pastor at the Hennersdorf church for the Czechs and also allowed special worship services for the Czechs, during which symbols, such as candles, crucifixes, and images, that appeared too Catholic in the eyes of the immigrants were temporarily removed or covered up. Halle actively supported the colony by sending Heinrich Milde to Hennersdorf in 1724. In 1726 Johann Liberda, trained in Halle, was called as pastor for the Czechs in Hennersdorf.53 Pastor Scheffer was overjoyed about this appointment, considering it an answer to his prayers for Hennersdorf and Berthelsdorf to finally unite.54 The Czech colony in Hennersdorf quickly grew: in 1732 there were about five hundred people from Bohemia living in Schönbrunn. As their numbers increased, discontent among the Czech in Hennersdorf was growing. The living conditions in Schönbrunn deteriorated, as they were not allowed to construct additional houses. Requests for their own meetinghouse (as in nearby Herrnhut) and for a Czech schoolteacher were denied by Gersdorf, and when they conducted their own prayer meetings she ordered them to cease. A group of eighteen men then submitted a formal petition to Gersdorf, to which she responded with an order of deportation for the men, their wives, and children. In defiance of his aunt’s policy, Zinzendorf

the moravians      85

gave approximately one hundred expelled Hennersdorfers refuge in Herrnhut and Berthelsdorf. When Gersdorf demanded that the Czechs take an oath of hereditary servitude, they packed up and left for Berlin in October of 1732. Upon the return of their pastor Liberda, who was away at the time of the Czechs’ departure, Gersdorf had him arrested. Soldiers from Dresden imprisoned him in a jail at Waldheim, Saxony, for encouraging Habsburg subjects to leave their country. It was not until four years later, when Liberda was able to escape, that he rejoined with his Czech congregation in Berlin. There the Hennersdorf Czechs, together with immigrants from Gerlachsheim (Grabiszyce), were taken in by Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I and allowed to settle in Rixdorf.55 In contrast with her initial benevolence, Gersdorf ’s later restrictive policy regarding the settlers on her estate was probably caused by the increasing unrest the settlement was creating throughout the region. Bohemians came from near and far to Hennersdorf. Bohemian worshippers from Zittau encountered mockery and violence from their neighbors in Zittau and from the people they encountered on their ten-­k ilometer walk to Hennersdorf. Sixty Czech settlers from Gebhardsdorf, unhappy with the forced integration into the local Lutheran Church, moved to Schönbrunn without the permission of their lord. Due to the visits many Hennersdorf Czechs made to their former home country encouraging other crypto-­Protestants to join them, Hennersdorf attracted a steady flow of newcomers from across the border.56

Denominational Identity Many of the settlers in Herrnhut self-­identified as descendants of the Unity of Brethren. And even if they did not initially self-­identify as such, they were encouraged to do so by Rothe, Zinzendorf, and the fellow settlers.57 The question is, how much actual knowledge of the doctrine and practices of the Unity did they actually have, a century after the Battle of White Mountain? And how much did these crypto-­Protestants know of the confessional differences among Lutherans, Reformed, and members of the Unity of Brethren? Memoirs and other accounts by the Moravian migrants about their ­history confirm that Protestants in the region of the Kuhländchen, with Zauchtenthal as the stronghold of crypto-­Protestantism, retained memories of the Unity of Brethren. We must realize, however, that most of these texts were written years or even decades after their arrival to Herrnhut, long after the authors had learned additional information about their past. Because the

86      herrnhut

Moravian Church self-­identified as the renewed Unity of Brethren, historical information about their roots, confirming this connection, was projected onto the past. The town of Fulnek, nine kilometers from Zauchtenthal, was the last post of Jan Amos Comenius before he was forced to emigrate to Poland in the aftermath of the Battle of White Mountain. In Fulnek the original school building, the meetinghouse, and the church building of the Brethren remained as physical reminders of the past.58 According to David Nitschmann (linen weaver) an archives and library of the Brethren was kept in a secret, bricked-­up space in the Fulnek church until it was discovered by the “papists,” who took everything away.59 In the oral tradition the memory of the Unity was kept alive: “My father, Hans Kunz, thought highly of the teachings of the ancient Brethren, with which he was raised.” Father Kunz passed his knowledge on to his children: “My father told us sometimes about the ancient Brethren’s Church, especially about Amos Comenius, his prayer meetings, how he was persecuted and how he finally was able to escape from Fulnek and flee to Lissa in Poland, and how he at last lived in Holland for the remainder of his life.”60 According to oral tradition, the church in Zauchtenthal continued to celebrate Holy Communion with bread and wine, long after the Roman Catholic Eucharist had been imposed everywhere else. After authorities put an end to this liberty of the Zauchtenthal church, people in the area began to celebrate Communion with bread and and wine “in deep secrecy.”61 Apparently it was not forgotten that Communion under both kinds was a central tenet of the theology of their ancestors. In some families, literature from the Unity was available. Zacharias Hirschel notes, “My father gave me the Bible and the writings of the ancient Brethren to read.”62 Johann Raschke writes, “From then on until my emigration in 1727 I stayed with my father and diligently read Protestant writings.”63 Such “Protestant writings” were most likely not publications of the Unity but rather a combination of newer publications, brought into the country by traveling preachers and tradesmen, consisting of Lutheran and Reformed sermons and prayer books, and other religious tracts.64 Unity publications conclusively in the possession of some crypto-­Protestants included hymnbooks and catechisms. Some settlers brought hymnbooks along with them in their luggage when they fled to Herrnhut. Such books are preserved in the archives both at Herrnhut and at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.65 David Schneider mentions two hymnals of the Unity that were used in the prayer meetings: “our last, complete and dearest Brethren’s hymnbook was printed in

the moravians      87

Polish Lissa [Leszno] in quarto in 1639; in our days it would often be sold for six or seven guilders.”66 Another edition in use was printed for Comenius in Amsterdam in octavo in 1661.67 Some parents tried to keep their children out of the Catholic schools and taught them reading and writing at home in order to shield them from Roman Catholic indoctrination. Sometimes trustworthy people were available to teach classes. In addition to reading and writing, Martin Schneider (ca. 1600–1673) and his grandson Samuel Schneider (1669–1710) in Zauchtenthal also instructed the children in religion. For this purpose they used Comenius’s catechism, which the children had to learn by heart.68 When Martin Schneider conducted house meetings, according to his other grandson David, he read from “Brethren’s books and Reformed books,” such as sermons by Abraham Scultetus.69 As we saw above, Nitschmann mentioned a few titles that crypto-­ Protestants purchased from a traveling salesman who smuggled books from Teschen: Arndt’s Of True Christianity and Pfaff’s Short Summary of True Christianity, along with Bibles and hymnbooks printed in Halle.70 It is significant that the only Protestant book Liebisch and Schneider identified by title in their essay on the origin of the Moravian settlers in Herrnhut was a book by an orthodox Reformed minister. The reason for specifically naming this publication is explained by the purpose of the essay, which was to provide talking points for conversations with the Reformed.71 From the repeated references to the Dutch Reformed Church in this text in combination with its date (1742), we might conclude that the text was written in preparation for the negotiations about recognition of the Moravian Church in the Netherlands that Abraham von Gersdorf conducted in The Hague in 1742 and 1743.72 Liebisch and Schneider’s text was intended to prove to the Dutch that the settlers from Zauchtenthal were true descendants of the Unity of Brethren and that the renewed Moravian Church was close to the Reformed tradition. If the text intentionally emphasizes the knowledge of the ancient Unity among the settlers, the actual amount of knowledge the authors are able to present is surprisingly small: besides what was known from oral tradition, the crypto-­Protestants were familiar with the hymnals of the Brethren and Comenius’s catechism. The Moravian settlers in Herrnhut obviously had only limited knowledge of the doctrine, practice, and history of the Unity of Brethren. Their faith, like that of most of the crypto-­Protestants, was a generic Protestant faith.73 It was not determined by differences among the Protestant denominations or by an intentional dissociation from other Protestant traditions in order to

88      herrnhut

enhance their own identity. David Nitschmann (weaver) writes, “No one was aware of a particular adherence to any outward religion, but everyone [only] spoke of Jesus.”74 The crypto-­Protestants’ identity can perhaps be best described as non-­ Catholic or anti-­Catholic: they knew they were not Roman Catholic, and they were strongly opposed to anything they perceived as Catholic. When it came to the controversies between Lutherans and Reformed, the Bohemian and Moravian Protestants were not only largely uninformed, they were indifferent. This attitude of confessional indifferentism, which was perhaps unusual in the highly confessionalized environment of early modern Europe,75 becomes clear in various situations: from trial documents from local courts in Bohemia and Moravia when they were asked to register as Protestants after the introduction of the Patent of Toleration of 1781, and from the discussions with their host churches after immigrating to a Protestant country.76 The trial records reveal some of the theological ideas of the crypto-­ Protestants. They were anti-­Catholic and rejected typical Roman Catholic practices and doctrine such as the veneration of the saints and their images, indulgences, the purgatory, the position of the pope, the number of sacraments, and the veneration of Mary. They stressed the desire to hold on to the faith of their parents and ancestors, “going back to Hus.” Macek also finds a disregard for confessional differences: “I want the ancient religion that began in heaven,” or “I desire none of the three confessions.”77 The confessional indifferentism of the crypto-­Protestants becomes even more obvious after 1781, when the Patent of Toleration ended religious oppression within the Habsburg Empire. The Patent guaranteed the practice of religion for Lutherans and Reformed but not for the Unity of Brethren. Many Protestants did not want to choose between one of the tolerated denominations but simply wanted to be “evangelicals in Christ but not according to the convictions of Luther or Calvin.”78 Some Protestants even refused to register at all. They preferred to establish a church based on the traditions of the Czech Reformation.79 Immigrants encountered similar problems when they arrived in the German lands, where they had to fit into the existing religious and ecclesiastical structures. Most of the time the formation of new religious bodies was not welcomed but rejected. In Dresden, Czech immigrants were allowed to form their own congregation within the framework of the Lutheran Church. The situation in Zittau, where the Czechs and their descendants were allowed to worship in their own space, was even more restrictive. Here they were forbidden from having their own Communion services and conducting weddings in

the moravians      89

their congregation. Both in Zittau and in Dresden, baptisms and funerals had to be performed by the regular, Lutheran pastors. In Hennersdorf Czech immigrants, despite an initial friendly reception, were not allowed to organize their religious life according to their ideas and were forced to integrate into the Lutheran Church. When they were also required to become hereditary serfs, they left for Berlin. Their pastor Liberda, who supported their “religious nonconformism,” was convicted and imprisoned, as mentioned earlier.80 In Berlin the Protestants from Bohemia and Moravia were confronted with fewer restrictions and were able to organize themselves according to their own preferences. But here as well they eventually had to fit into an existing confessional structure. In 1747, after a period of disagreement among the Czechs, the Prussian king required that all male immigrants declare to which denomination they wanted to belong. In Berlin, however, they were given an additional option, one that corresponded more to the ideas of the immigrants. In addition to the options Lutheran or Reformed, the Czechs in Berlin could also choose the “Zinzendorfian sect.” Since many believed the Moravian Church was the continuation of the traditions of their ancestral faith, a majority chose this option.81 The confessional indifferentism of the settlers was no secret to Zinzendorf. In 1756 he recounted, “I made the observation that our brethren were not concerned about the differences of the religions [denominations]. When they found something to their liking in a nice collection of Lutheran sermons, they used it; the same with Reformed sermon collections. Few were infected with sectarian ideas.”82 However, their confessional indifferentism did not mean the settlers had no specific desires. We will see that from early on the settlers on the Berthelsdorf estate had expectations, expressed demands, and showed reluctance to accept certain matters. The settlers in Herrnhut did not experience the problems other Protestant refugees had encountered when they were forced to integrate into the local Lutheran Church. As we will discuss in the next chapter, the 1727 statutes established Herrnhut as a Philadelphian community, loosely affiliated with the Berthelsdorf church but with great freedom for the Herrnhuters. While they were required to attend services in the Berthelsdorf church, the statutes allowed them to decide to what extent they wanted to participate in the Lutheran Church while also limiting the role of the Berthelsdorf pastor in Herrnhut. Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian ecclesiology agreed with the settlers’ confessional indifferentism. The settlers were not interested in joining the Lutheran Church, and Zinzendorf did not force them to. This fortunate agreement was crucial to the success of Herrnhut.

90      herrnhut

Motivation What do we know about the motivation of the exiles coming to Herrnhut? Why did they leave when they did, for what reasons, and what were their expectations? Fortunately, many of the Herrnhut settlers wrote memoirs providing information about the circumstances under which they left Moravia. Küppers-­ Braun calls the motivation of Protestant exiles from the Habsburg Empire “multilayered.” For most it was a combination of religious and socioeconomic motives. Many left because of the increased pressure by local secular and religious authorities. Others decided to emigrate out of adventurousness or due to peer pressure.83 For most of the exiles who came to Herrnhut and stayed there, the religious motivation was decisive. Johann Töltschig wrote that “in December of 1723 Christian David came. Hearing him immediately touched my heart. Approximately in March of 1724 the Savior moved my heart so much that I had assurance that all my sins were forgiven. I had not the slightest doubt about it. This got me thinking about leaving the country.”84 Zacharias Hirschel was driven by a desire “to find a congregation as described in the Bible.” First, like Christian David, he went to Upper Hungary, where many exiled Protestant Moravians lived, but he returned home disappointed. He left a second time and went to Dresden, but there he lost his faith. Finally, after hearing about Herrnhut, he went there in 1739, “where I found a congregation as I had always imagined since my childhood.”85 From many memoirs it becomes clear that increased pressure from the authorities often compelled crypto-­Protestants to leave their homes, often as a quick, overnight action. Pressure on Protestants had been mounting during the preceding years. As Marie-­Elisabeth Ducreux has argued, the possession of a Protestant book marked a person as Protestant: “the book was a sign of heresy.” Accordingly, in 1717 and 1721 patents were issued ordering Roman Catholic clergy to trace the presence of any “heretical” (i.e., Protestant) books. A 1726 rescript of Emperor Charles VI codified the penalties for heresy, varying from forced labor to death.86 The inhabitants of the Kuhländchen region noticed the increased oppression. After a period of relative peace and quiet, in early 1722 a new priest was appointed to the parish, who, together with the local administrator, actively began to search for heretical books. They interrogated men, women, and children, searched homes, and held people captive.87 This increased pursuit of Protestants in the Kuhländchen region coincided with the decision of the Neissers to leave Söhle and follow Christian David to Zinzendorf ’s estate.

tHe morAviAns

Map 2

91

Moravia.

The escalated efforts by the authorities to press Protestants to convert to Roman Catholicism occurred simultaneously with increased religious activity among the crypto-Protestants. In the early eighteenth century, Halle Pietists began supporting the underground Protestants with books and visits by itinerant preachers. In 1709 construction of the grace church in Teschen was begun, soon attracting many in Bohemia and Moravia to attend a service and hear encouraging words from the pastors. If the increased activity of the Protestants caused the authorities to intensify their oppression, the heightened persecution efforts by the authorities made many of the Protestants even more persistent. Someone who got caught after a visit to Teschen was sentenced to “wheelbarrowing” (Schubkarren fahren or Karrenstrafe). Anna Schneider from Zauchtenthal had to wheelbarrow for four weeks after going to Teschen and

92      herrnhut

then another four weeks for attending illegal prayer meetings.88 Anna Schenk from the same village writes that these punishments had the opposite effect on her: “we had to dig out the ditch outside the village and move the dirt in wheelbarrows. However, we did not perceive the work as too heavy, on the contrary, we did it with joy and we kept attending the meetings.”89 David Nitschmann (carpenter) describes how the oppression intensified as the number of people attending prayer meetings in Kunewald (Kunín) grew: “On Sunday afternoons about a hundred people gathered, causing a great sensation, and because of that Melchior Nitschmann was put in jail, where he had to endure a lot. Then the persecution started.” Things became precarious for Nitschmann himself as well: “Because I was reported to be the ringleader of all these new things they wanted to arrest me, so I decided to emigrate, together with my four closest brethren, and we decided on a time and place where to meet the next evening.”90 Andreas Beyer recalls similar experiences: “We got to know the great witness: Christian David. He and Steinmetz spoke similarly and many souls were awakened by David. Then they gathered in great numbers. Now the persecution came over us and the secular and religious authorities became active.” Beyer was imprisoned several times. When he was able to escape, he went home, gathered his wife and children, and left for Herrnhut.91 On Easter Monday of 1724 the local authorities raided the home of the older David Nitschmann (wheelwright), who was conducting a prayer meeting with more than 150 people present. From there they went to another home, where yet another meeting took place. Here the participants showed their defiance by repeatedly singing the stanza “And though this world with devils filled,”92 much to the consternation of the intruders, who departed while leaving behind many of the confiscated books. Nitschmann’s daughter Anna, who was a young girl when all this happened, recounts how both her father and her brother were put in jail for attending prayer meetings. Upon their release they left for Herrnhut; other family members followed a few days later.93 Resisting the elevated pressure from the authorities to abstain from attending illegal prayer meetings and to convert to Roman Catholicism, many of the Herrnhut settlers left their homes in Moravia. In many cases the pressure was combined with immediate threats to their physical safety, giving them little choice but to leave. Their motivation was a combination of religious and political reasons, as emigration was often the only way to escape imprisonment. Their expectation was to live in a place where they could exercise their faith undisturbed by such pressure. Most of them had been cautioned by Pietist ministers such as Steinmetz about the state of the Lutheran Church, its ministers, and its congregants in Saxony. In Herrnhut things

the moravians      93

appeared to be different. Here both the local minister and the secular lord were, in the words of David, “faithful children of God.” Some came with idealized expectations: they assumed the people in the country their devotional books came from would live as the books prescribed. Five young men from Zauchtenthal, for instance, were overjoyed when they encountered the first Lutherans along their journey to Herrnhut. When a Lutheran family in Stolz (Stolec) took them in, they pulled out their pious books and wanted to discuss religious matters with them. To their surprise and disappointment, the farmers were unwilling to participate in any of their religious conversations.94 For many exiles, emigration was not permanent; sooner or later they returned to their homeland.95 When their expectations were not met in Herrnhut, some of the settlers returned to Moravia or continued on elsewhere. In 1725 a group of Moravian exiles left Herrnhut for Sorau (Żary), where many other refugees from Moravia already lived.96 Two men from Bohemia who had been inspired by a traveling Herrnhuter came to Herrnhut in October of 1727. Perhaps they only wanted to see Herrnhut and never intended to stay, for after Zinzendorf spoke and prayed with them they returned to Bohemia.97 Some went back and forth: in 1728 a man who had left Herrnhut three years prior came back once again.98 Sterik describes how several members of the Neisser family and others became disgruntled during the 1740s with the way the religious community of Herrnhut had developed and left.99 Since they did not end their lives in a Moravian community, no memoir exists for those who moved on. We know little about their reasons for immigrating, or about their reasons for leaving Herrnhut. During the following decades hundreds of exiles came to Herrnhut and other communities of the Moravian Church. Sterik counts a total of 815 exiles from Moravia and Bohemia who joined the Moravian Church. Eighty-­ seven of those were Czech speakers; the other 728 were German speakers.100 The reception and care of the Moravian exiles was one of the major undertakings the Brotherhood of Four pursued. Their motivation for carrying out this work was closely related to their Philadelphian worldview, in which the Protestants in Moravia were the hidden Christians (Sardis), who were suffering under the rule of the pope (Thyatira). Another image they used was that of God’s oppressed people who were to be delivered from the burden of Egypt. The associated friends believed the many religious stirrings among believers who had suffered oppression for so long were a sign of the coming of God’s kingdom. Zinzendorf believed the exiled Moravians had experienced a “true apostolic revival.”101 As Schneider points out, he referred in Philadelphian terms

94      herrnhut

to the persecuted Moravians whom he provided refuge in Herrnhut: “On May 12, 1727, the Savior has recreated a part of hidden Sardis in Thyatira into Philadelphia.” The Moravians were the hidden Protestants (Sardis) in Thyatira, the church seduced by Jezebel (the papacy), who “teaches and seduces my servants to commit fornication and idolatry” (Rev. 2:18–20), whom Christ transformed into “Philadelphia” at Herrnhut.102 Over time Zinzendorf came to view the Unity of Brethren as an example of a true apostolic congregation as these, according to his Philadelphian view of history, had existed throughout the centuries.103 Christian David also described his activities as helper of emigrants in Philadelphian terminology. When David argued strongly against the integration of the Herrnhut community into the Berthelsdorf Lutheran Church in early 1727 (see below), he feared he had delivered the Moravian settlers from the bondage of Egypt to Babylon, the corrupted institutional church: “otherwise he regretted having brought so many souls out of Egypt into Babylon.”104 Watteville likewise described David’s activities in Philadelphian terms when he related to Francke in Halle how David had brought the Neissers from Söhle to Berthelsdorf in 1722: “Around the holidays of Pentecost Christian David came to them again and now began to speak adamantly about their exodus from Babylon.”105 Pastor Scheffer, who coordinated the passage of the exiles through Görlitz, considered delivering the Protestants a work of God by which “the neck of caesaropapism could at last be broken.”106 Helping “these righteous brethren” from Moravia was the Christian duty of all “true children of God.”107 What set the associated friends of the Brotherhood of Four apart from many others in the region was the extent of their support. Other pastors who were sympathetic to the cause of the crypto-­Protestants, such as Schwedler in Niederwiese and Steinmetz in Teschen, had similar Philadelphian ideas. However, they did not encourage crypto-­Protestants to emigrate, nor did they actively try to find a place for them to settle. Schwedler’s church in Niederwiese was located on the border of Upper Lusatia with Habsburg-­ controlled Silesia. Many Protestants from Silesia came to Niederwiese to worship. According to the account of one of his opponents, Schwedler viewed these Protestants in Philadelphian terms. He believed that “pious believers who are the true church” continued to live among the Roman Catholics, just as previously “the Waldensians, Wyclifites, Hussites, and so forth, who used to be a city on the hill.” In true Philadelphian fashion, Schwedler even wrote that “Catholics will also be saved.”108 Steinmetz in Teschen was the pastor who strengthened the faith of the crypto-­Protestants, but he advised them

the moravians      95

against immigrating to Lutheran regions because of the degenerate state of the institutional church and told them to persist.

Schwenkfelders The sympathy of the Brotherhood of Four was not limited to the Protestants in Moravia and Bohemia. In 1725 another persecuted group requested their help: the Schwenkfelders. The Schwenkfelders, who would also end up on the Berthelsdorf estate, were followers of spiritualist Protestant reformer Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig (1489–1561) who were exposed to increased persecution by the Habsburg authorities.109 They were concentrated in Harpersdorf (Twardocice), sixty-­five kilometers east of Görlitz in Silesia. In 1719 a Jesuit mission was established in Harpersdorf to pressure the Schwenk­ felders to convert. Despite repeated protests by the Schwenkfelders and their local lord to the Habsburg emperor in Vienna, they were ordered in 1725 to either convert to Roman Catholicism or leave the country.110 The Schwenkfelders decided to emigrate and turned to various people for support. Schwedler referred them to Pastor Scheffer, who proved very helpful. Scheffer, who believed there were “true children of God among them,” contacted Zinzendorf and involved members of his conventicle.111 Around Christmas of 1725 two men from Görlitz, Hans Jacob Forwerg and Elias Baumgart, went out to Harpersdorf to visit the Schwenkfelders.112 These are the same men who a few years earlier were helpful to Christian David when he came to Görlitz and who remained connected with the work in Herrnhut. At Scheffer’s request the city authorities granted the Schwenkfelders a temporary stay in Görlitz. In the meantime the Schwenkfelders also wrote to Zinzendorf, inquiring if he was willing to house them over the winter. With his grandmother’s consent Zinzendorf allowed them to stay in Berthelsdorf. Beginning in 1726, they built eight houses and a meetinghouse in Berthelsdorf, some of which are still standing.113 The following year several Schwenkfelders from Görlitz, where they were exposed to attacks from the other Lutheran pastors and the general population, also decided to move to Berthelsdorf.114 A letter from Zinzendorf to his grandmother not long before her death sheds light on his motives for giving refuge to the Schwenkfelders: he found that as their secular lord he had no right to rule over their faith, while entertaining the hope that he would be able to “win them over,” that is, persuade them to voluntarily accept the Augsburg Confession.115 Zinzendorf had used similar arguments when he wrote to Emperor Charles VI on behalf of the

96      herrnhut

Schwenkfelders in September of 1723: a ruler cannot control his subjects’ conscience or else he would create mere hypocrites.116 Making a case for freedom of conscience with the Habsburg emperor in 1723 was, needless to say, unsuccessful. Perhaps Zinzendorf also hoped that some of the Schwenkfelders might consider joining the Philadelphian congregation.117 The relationship between the Schwenkfelders and Pastor Rothe was reserved. As parish pastor he performed their baptisms, weddings, and funerals, but they conducted their own prayer meetings and only rarely attended the Sunday morning worship service in the church.118 Some of the Schwenkfelders, however, participated in the Philadelphian congregation. Schwenkfelder leader Christoph Hoffmann was appointed one of the four chief elders of Herrnhut in 1727.119 Christoph Wiegner, a young Schwenkfelder from Harpersdorf, participated in Scheffer’s group in Görlitz and visited Herrnhut regularly.120 Nevertheless, the Schwenkfelders were unable to stay in Berthelsdorf for very long. The reception of large numbers of immigrants from different Habsburg lands had caused concern among the authorities. After receiving a complaint from Emperor Charles VI, the Elector of Saxony initiated an official investigation by the Privy Council in 1732. As a result of the investigations the new elector, Friedrich August II, gave the Schwenkfelders the consilium abeundi on April 10, 1733.121 In April of 1734 approximately 180 Schwenkfelders left Berthelsdorf for Pennsylvania. Besides supporting Moravians and Schwenkfelders, Scheffer and Zinzendorf also actively helped other persecuted groups from the Habsburg Empire. In 1732 Zinzendorf donated money for a collection Scheffer organized to help the Protestant Salzburgers from Austria.122 In October of that same year Scheffer housed fifty Czechs who had left Hennersdorf out of grievance against the restrictive treatment by Sophie von Gersdorf.123 Before their departure Zinzendorf had given many of the Hennersdorf Czechs refuge in Herrnhut. Because of lack of space the refuge could only be temporary, but Zinzendorf was investigating the possibility of establishing a separate community for the Czechs and calling a minister for them.124 During these years Scheffer and Zinzendorf heard rumors about large awakenings in Bohemia involving thousands of people, allegedly even causing “motus” (commotion) in the city of Prague. Reportedly, the emperor was sending troops to close the northern border with Protestant states. The associated friends’ hopes were high: “Men cannot hinder God’s work,” as Scheffer wrote to Zinzendorf.125 In Herrnhut the Moravian settlers found a place where their ideals of a dedicated Christian life were appreciated. Unlike other refugee colonies in the border region, they were not forced to integrate into the local church. All

the moravians      97

Zinzendorf required was that they participate in the local Lutheran Church, while giving them freedom to conduct their own prayer meetings in Herrnhut. The ideas of the Moravian settlers were not identical with Zinzendorf ’s ideas, but his Pietism and Philadelphian ecclesiology were compatible with their expectations. Differences among the Moravian settlers, Zinzendorf, and the various other members of the religious community on the Berthelsdorf estate were worked out within this framework. Never did the Moravians express a desire to reinstate the church of their ancestors. When this idea first emerged in 1727, it came not from the Moravians but from Zinzendorf himself, as we shall see in the next chapter.

4 Dissent and Agreement My heart is set on community, but community in a sacred order. —Zinzendorf to the congregation in Berlin, August 10, 1738

On several occasions during these formative years dissent arose among the members of the religious community on the Berthelsdorf estate. The first major disagreement happened at the end of 1724 and lasted until February of 1725. The second disagreement began near the end of 1726 and was resolved during the following year by the introduction of formal rules and regulations in May and July of 1727, resulting in a spiritual awakening in August of that same year. The two episodes have interesting parallels. They both centered around the relationship of the developing religious community with the existing Lutheran parish and about the question whether Herrnhuters had to participate in the cultus of the Berthelsdorf church. The first conflict did not result in Herrnhut’s separation from Berthelsdorf, but the one in 1727 led to the establishment of Herrnhut as a congregation separate from Berthelsdorf. In this chapter it will be argued that in both cases the discussion stemmed from ecclesiological questions: were the pious people on the Berthelsdorf estate merely members of the Lutheran parish and subject to the rules, requirements, and oversight of the pastor and the local lord, or did they constitute a separate group that determined their relationship to the local church themselves? What started as a pious household in the Berthelsdorf manor house had quickly developed into an ever-­growing congregation of its own that could not simply be integrated into the Lutheran Church. The pious group became an independent congregation, organized according to the model of the apostolic church and only loosely connected with the Berthelsdorf church. Finally, a new thought came up: the apostolic congregation was

dissent and agreement      99

modeled in a similar way as the Unity of Brethren, which gave the community of Herrnhut its own identity as the renewal of that older church.

Disagreement of 1724–1725 The disagreement and its ensuing resolution of 1724–1725 consisted of three main elements: a discussion regarding the rite of confession, the so-­called doctrinal conference (Lehrkonferenz), and the introduction of offices. In the literature these have been treated summarily and often as separate, unconnected events.1 Ongoing discussion regarding several customary rites and practices in the Lutheran Church of Berthelsdorf came to a head at the end of 1724. For Holy Communion, instead of the plain hosts his predecessor had used, Rothe used wafers with a Lamb or a crucifix embossed onto them.2 Some objected to the cross on the Communion hosts or demanded actual bread instead of wafers. More importantly, the requirement to take confession caused serious opposition. Contrary to the Reformed tradition, confession continued to be practiced in the Lutheran Church. Confession was even considered a third sacrament. In Saxony confession took place in the form of auricular or private confession, whereby penitents individually confessed their sins to a pastor, who subsequently gave them absolution. No parishioner was allowed to take Communion without having received absolution after confession. The practice of private confession encountered criticism, especially among Pietists, who disapproved of the use of formulaic texts by both penitent and confessor, and of the requirement to pay a fee to the pastor for his services. In its often routine manner, the ceremony did not bear witness to a true change of heart of the penitent, and Pietists questioned the ability of a confessor to give absolution, especially if the pastor was not a truly converted Christian himself. Widely known was a controversy in Berlin in 1697 and 1698 involving Pastor Schade, who wanted to restore the original function of confession. In order to meet these objections, private confession was replaced in some places with general confession, a prayer spoken by all worshippers and the pronouncement of absolution by the minister.3 In Upper Lusatia private confession was the common practice, but general confession was allowed if the local lordship, pastor, and congregation all agreed.4 In Berthelsdorf, Rothe required private confession. Elevated on a wooden confessional, Rothe looked the penitents straight in the face in order to judge the sincerity of their confessions.5 This method of confession caused great

100      herrnhut

resentment among many Berthelsdorfers and Herrnhuters. Some claimed private confession was not an old custom but had been recently introduced by Rothe or his predecessor Horn.6 Many radical Pietists on the Berthelsdorf estate objected to confession as an unnecessary ritual. It reminded the settlers from Moravia of Roman Catholic practices in their home country.7 And even Zinzendorf ’s wife, Erdmuth, unfamiliar with the practice of private confession in her home church, refused to take confession.8 Christian David expressed serious objections to the requirement of confession, leading to division among the settlers. The Moravians from Zauchtenthal and Kunewald supported David, while those from Söhle supported Rothe.9 Without confession and the subsequent absolution, no one was allowed to take Communion; a separation from the church seemed inevitable. When Zinzendorf and his wife returned to Berthelsdorf in late 1724 to celebrate Christmas, emotions were running high. In order to resolve the tense situation, Zinzendorf held a Lehrkonferenz during early January of 1725 for the pious residents of the estate to address doctrinal matters.10 Müller, although he was unable to find much information about this gathering, claims this conference was Zinzendorf ’s successful attempt to have the Moravian settlers agree to adhere to the Augsburg Confession. Acceptance of the Confession, he expected, would ensure toleration for the Moravians in Saxony.11 The little we know about the doctrinal conference does not, however, seem to confirm that the settlers were instructed in Lutheran doctrine or encouraged to accept a Lutheran confessional statement. On the contrary, the outcome of the conference was the abolition of the (Lutheran) rite of confession in Berthelsdorf. Furthermore, the language of the surviving sources is very Philadelphian, suggesting that the purpose of the conference was not so much to impose Lutheranism as to convince all to adhere to principles of tolerance and mutual love in church matters. By removing confession as a requirement for Holy Communion, Zinzendorf prevented any member of the pious group from separating from the Berthelsdorf church. Three existing sources describe the doctrinal conference, and two of them are quite similar, as they both present Christian David’s account of the gathering. The first is a letter written by David in September of 1729 to former estate manager Heitz, with whom Watteville, David, and other settlers continued to be in contact.12 The other is a letter from Erdmann Heinrich Count Henckel von Donnersmarck in Oderberg to August Hermann Francke in Halle.13 Henckel’s source was an unnamed person who had spoken with “a pious carpenter” or “bush preacher” from Herrnhut when he was passing through Teschen in January of 1725. The pious carpenter, of course, was

dissent and agreement      101

Christian David. Although Henckel’s description is a third-­hand account, it remains relevant because it was written much closer to the date of the doctrinal conference than David’s letter to Heitz. The third source is a letter by Zinzendorf reassuring Francke in Halle, who, after receiving Henckel’s report, had expressed great concern about the strife among the settlers on Zinzendorf ’s estate. Francke feared the abolition of confession, combined with the separatist tendencies among the settlers, might have a negative impact on the Pietist movement in general and put at risk Halle’s support for the oppressed Protestants in Bohemia and Moravia.14 According to David, Pastor Rothe was too “partial” to bring about an agreement in the conflict that had arisen or to achieve a lasting union among the faithful living in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut. This meant that David did not consider Rothe’s denominational Lutheran position helpful in this situation. He found that Zinzendorf, on the other hand, was not only “impartial” but also had the gift of explaining things “clearly and plainly.” During the doctrinal conference, which lasted three long days and to which no outsiders were admitted, Zinzendorf explained “God’s entire household” from creation until the present day, how God had revealed himself through the ages, the reason for the existence of different “sects,” and the core teachings of Christianity. [Zinzendorf] explained to us God’s ways even more diligently, opened the Scriptures for us and made us understand them correctly. He went through the entire household of God from our first parents up to the present; how God had spoken to the fathers and finally through the Son; how and in what manner God had revealed himself to mankind before the Law and under the Law and the gospels; why God presented the secret of his will to man through images and dark terms and in all kind of parables; what the origin and cause had been of all sectarianism; and especially, what the main foundation is upon which everything depends. Thus he unfolded the entire plan and idea of religion and the ways of the faithful. This lasted three whole days and nights, during which he gave us food and drink.15 Henckel’s letter describes the subject matter of the conference in similar terms but is more specific about the issues at hand: confession and Holy Communion. Count Zinzendorf . . . convoked the entire congregation and presented to them the entire economy of the New Testament and showed them

102      herrnhut

what was to be preserved in our times as godly and what could be abandoned as something of human origin. Among the latter he may have comprised not only confession but also Holy Communion. He may have explicitly stated that if he was the lord of the land, he would abolish Holy Communion (if I and my informant have understood it correctly) or at least organize it differently. The latter seems more credible to me; perhaps he only meant the abuse of Communion.16 In his letter to Francke, Zinzendorf wrote that in order to solve the discord among the settlers he discussed the Bible with them “for twelve to eighteen hours” and found that the disagreement was based “on nothing more than opinions.”17 Opinions (Meinungen) was the term Philadelphians used to refer to the doctrines of the denominations that in their eyes were of secondary importance. This formulation implies that the discussion was about confessional matters and the solution had been to agree that “opinions” for Philadelphians were of lesser concern. As a result of the three-­day meeting, the requirement to take confession was abolished and a split among the pious folks on the Berthelsdorf estate was avoided. On Epiphany Sunday, January 7, 1725, the new regulation was announced. Anyone wanting to take Communion was no longer obliged to go to confession.18 The announcement was made by Pastor Scheffer, who preached that day in Berthelsdorf while Rothe preached in Görlitz. The accounts regarding Rothe’s attitude differ, and it is unclear if the pulpit exchange had been arranged previously or if Rothe was reluctant to make the announcement. Because many of Rothe’s letters were destroyed and none survive, his position on many matters remains unclear. In an undated statement Rothe expressed a liberal attitude regarding confession: it was not a necessary condition for a communicant to take Communion, but he deemed it advisable in case other communicants would be upset if some took Communion without prior confession.19 Although it is unknown what exactly was discussed regarding the practice of confession, it seems likely, based on the accounts of the doctrinal conference and on what we know about Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian ecclesiology, that Zinzendorf explained that confession was a later, human institution that was not part of the original apostolic practice of the church, and therefore it could be made optional or abandoned altogether. In none of the three texts is there mention of the Augsburg Confession, although it is not impossible that during his exposition of church history from a Philadelphian perspective Zinzendorf presented it as the most perfect and most Philadelphian of all creeds.20 He was able to persuade his subjects to continue attending

dissent and agreement      103

church services in Berthelsdorf. Two years later, when similar dissension arose, a solution could only be found by creating a more far-­reaching separation between the Herrnhut community and the Berthelsdorf church. One month after the doctrinal conference and the abolition of confession, another measure to placate the desires of many of the regenerate residents of the estate was announced. On Friday, February 2, 1725, Candlemas Day, Rothe announced the institution of a series of offices among select members of the Berthelsdorf congregation. This was the first time an organizational element was introduced that was not part of the regular Lutheran structure of the parish. It is significant that Rothe, who soon became increasingly critical of many innovations that went beyond the regular customary configuration of the Lutheran Church, was the one who introduced the offices. By the time they were announced, Zinzendorf and Erdmuth had already returned to Dresden and thus were absent from the ceremony. Later Zinzendorf claimed that Rothe had acted on his own accord, but Wollstadt has proven convincingly that the count was actively involved with the preparations for the offices and the selection of the individuals to hold them.21 Following the morning service and the afternoon prayer service in the church, Rothe attended the prayer meeting in Johanna von Watteville’s home. After the meeting concluded, he asked those people who were called to an office to stay.22 He then called thirteen men and women to the offices listed in table 1.23 This was a well-­conceived combination of men and women, of Moravian settlers, (awakened) Berthelsdorf parishioners, and members of Zinzendorf ’s original pious household. Most of the offices existed for both the men and the women; this gender separation soon became typical for the pastoral offices in the Moravian Church. Table 1  Offices in Herrnhut, 1725 Office

Names

Prophets (Weissager)

Friedrich von Watteville and his wife, Johanna, née von Zezschwitz

Overseer (Aufseher)

Gottfried Hahn, a gardener; Susanna Quitt

Exhorters (Ermahner)

Jacob Neisser and Rosina Friedrich

Preachers (Lehrer)

Johann Friedrich Mordelt, a tailor; Frau Hahn, wife of Gottfried Hahn

Deacon and deaconess (Diaconus, Diacona)

Augustin Neisser; Magdalena Mordelt

Sick nurses (Krankenwärter)

Christian David, with Gottlob Hahn, “a lame boy,” as his assistant; Annalene Anders, a maid

Elder (Ältester)

Pastor Andreas Rothe

104      herrnhut

Rothe himself took on the office of elder (Ältester).24 The fact that Rothe, who, of course, was already parish pastor, took on this office suggests that this arrangement was intended to exist not within the regular Lutheran congregation but rather for a group independent of the Berthelsdorf church. The offices were modeled on Rothe’s and Zinzendorf ’s reading of the organization of the early church, especially of Romans 12:7–8, and were referred to as “apostolic offices.”25 In a surviving sermon by Rothe, which was most likely held in advance of the announcement of the offices, he spoke extensively about the apostolic character of the offices: the apostles assigned offices to members so that they could keep “discipline and order” within their congregations.26 According to Philadelphian ideas, the apostolic congregation was the gathering of true believers who had overcome the imperfections of the denominational churches and were awaiting the return of Christ. The introduction of the offices in 1725 was an important step in the formation of an apostolic congregation that was separate from the regular parish. As we will see below, there are some apparent parallels between the events of 1725 and 1727, especially in the way they were remembered. Both disagreements were about the relationship of the pious group to the institutional church and the requirement to participate in the rites of the church. Both times offices were instituted: shortly after the doctrinal conference in 1725, and also in connection with the introduction of the Herrnhut statutes. While the discord of 1727 led to the introduction of formal regulations, no such rules were introduced in 1725. However, in his sermon from January of 1725, Rothe repeatedly mentions how the apostles instituted “discipline and order,” suggesting that an apostolic congregation was based on formal order. According to Christian David, Zinzendorf had studied “our foundation and origin” in preparation for the 1725 doctrinal conference.27 Two years later Zinzendorf ’s study and translation of Comenius’s Historia Fratrum Bohemorum played an important role in the revival on August 13. David also mentions that Zinzendorf “gave us food and drink” during the three-­day conference. In August of 1727 Zinzendorf called for food from his kitchen after the Communion service, according to the reports about that day. It is obvious that when David wrote this account he was impressed by the August 13 revival and considered the 1725 concord to be a foreshadowing of the union of 1727: “And from that time on we have found the true light and foundation, making straight paths and walking without offense. The love of each brother has grown and increased and we learned to understand, bear, and spare one another. That was the first great change and union among the brethren.”28

dissent and agreement      105

Krüger A second disagreement occurred in late 1726 and into the spring of 1727. This time the discord was more profound and led to a serious division within the community. According to the traditional Moravian narrative, the strife was not fully resolved until the memorable celebration of Holy Communion on August 13, 1727. The conflict can be traced back to Johann Siegmund Krüger, who arrived in Herrnhut in the late summer of 1726. Soon Krüger caused serious discord among the pious Berthelsdorfers and Herrnhuters, which continued even after he was institutionalized with a mental breakdown in January of 1727. What to some appeared to be a case of madness appeared to others to be an admirable attempt at self-­mortification.29 What little we know about Johann Siegmund Krüger’s biography can be inferred from his surviving correspondence with Zinzendorf. He was probably born in a small village called Werchow in the Spreewald region of Lusatia; at least that is where his father, Balthasar, was living in 1725 and 1726. Krüger was trained in law, and his wife was Johanna Sophia, née Schmid, with whom he had several children. He was a prosecutor with the administration of Upper Lusatia (Oberamtsadvokat) in Bautzen.30 Krüger contacted Zinzendorf for the first time in early 1724. A religious tract he wrote was rejected by the book censors in Dresden, so Krüger asked Zinzendorf to intervene for him at the Privy Council in order to release the text and to print it on his press in Berthelsdorf.31 At the time Zinzendorf was himself experiencing difficulties with the authorities about his Berthelsdorf printing press and was unwilling to agree to Krüger’s request. Despite Krüger’s repeated appeals over the following years, Zinzendorf never agreed to print any of Krüger’s writings. Although Zinzendorf did not support Krüger’s publications, he did help Krüger find a position as legal councillor at the court of his in-­laws in Ebersdorf. In February of 1725 the Krügers arrived in Ebersdorf.32 It is unclear why Krüger gave up his prestigious position in Bautzen. One source tells us that he once became an object of ridicule when he tried to cast out demons by the laying on of hands with people in mental institutions.33 If these attempts took place in Bautzen, they may have compromised his position and contributed to his decision to leave that city. It did not take long for Krüger to cause discord at the Ebersdorf court. He was not hesitant to speak his opinion, especially in front of people with religious or secular authority—something that easily got him into trouble within the strictly ordered society of the eighteenth century. Not long after his

106      herrnhut

arrival in Ebersdorf he shared his unpublished tract with court chaplain Heinrich Schubert. An intense discussion ensued over its contents, and Schubert even accused Krüger of Socinianism. Krüger claimed—contrary to orthodox Christian theology—that Christ died on the cross not as a human being, but only in his divine nature. Most Western Christians taught that Christ was both fully divine and fully human. This doctrine, according to Krüger, implied that Jesus died on the cross as a human; the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ diminished the value of Christ’s death, according to Krüger.34 As neither Schubert nor Krüger was willing to concede, the conflict soon escalated. In November of 1725 Schubert excluded Krüger from Holy Communion. Krüger, taking a spiritualistic position, responded that he did not need an ordained minister to receive Communion, but could have Communion with Jesus in his soul.35 At the same time, Krüger withdrew from his worldly position: he asked Zinzendorf to cease using his title Advokat and requested Countess Erdmuthe Benigna Reuss to release him from the oath he had taken when he assumed office in Ebersdorf.36 Zinzendorf, who had recommended Krüger to the Reuss family, was soon drawn into the conflict. He tried to appeal to the Philadelphian views of the Ebersdorfers. Together with Scheffer, Rothe, Watteville, Georg Abraham von Schweinitz, and Erdmuth he submitted an “impartial” assessment that downplayed the theological question itself and argued against academic theology. They agreed with Krüger and criticized Schubert’s “unscriptural” position and “Jesuitical” approach, which according to Zinzendorf was typical for “educated theologians and preachers.” Scholars had their “systemata,” but in Herrnhut “we only believe the spirit of the Scriptures.”37 Needless to say, this assessment was not well received in Ebersdorf. The issue not only strained relations within the Reuss-­Zinzendorf family but also complicated Zinzendorf ’s position in Halle. Heinrich XXIX indicated he would be submitting the matter to Halle, but it is unclear if he actually did. Schubert, who remained close with Halle, left Ebersdorf in 1726 for the newly built Holy Ghost Church in Potsdam. To make matters worse, Krüger printed one of his tracts on the Ebersdorf press without ever requesting permission from Count Reuss. Unsurprisingly, Krüger received his dismissal and left Ebersdorf at the end of June of 1726. Under these circumstances, Zinzendorf felt obliged to offer him an opportunity to come to Herrnhut.38 In August of 1726, Krüger arrived in Berthelsdorf, leaving his wife and children with his father in Werchow. Now Krüger began to turn against Zinzendorf and Rothe as well. His relationship with Zinzendorf had already suffered because of the affair of the unauthorized

dissent and agreement      107

publication. Krüger criticized Zinzendorf for agreeing with his brother-­in-­ law and even questioned Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian convictions: “Impartial and true children of God will not trouble me about the printed treatise.” A Christian trying to exist both in the world and in God’s kingdom cannot be a genuine Christian, Krüger wrote; instead he only “obstructs the true growth of Christ’s kingdom in the worst way.”39 These two points, Zinzendorf ’s alleged disingenuous Philadelphianism and his position as secular lord, would develop into Krüger’s main criticism of Zinzendorf, and soon Christian David and others would adopt this criticism as well. Zinzendorf underestimated the potential problem and left Herrnhut for Moravia and Dresden.40 When he returned to Berthelsdorf at the end of October, he was surprised to find Krüger and his supporters treating him with contempt. When he gave Krüger, who was employed in the count’s household, a few documents to copy, Krüger returned them to him, saying “his Father did not allow him.”41 Meanwhile Krüger had gathered a group of followers and denounced anyone else, including Zinzendorf and Rothe, as worshippers of the whore of Babylon.42 Christian David, one of Krüger’s strongest supporters, used similar language from the book of Revelation, calling Pastor Rothe “the false prophet” and Zinzendorf “the beast” who authorized the prophet to lead the Moravian settlers astray by teaching false doctrine.43 For Protestants of the Reformation, the whore of Babylon was an allegory for the opponent of the true believers and for the Roman Catholic Church. Krüger urged his followers to refrain from taking Communion and to stay away from the Lutheran church in Berthelsdorf, where Rothe was parish pastor and Zinzendorf was lord of the manor. Krüger’s call for separatism and his criticism of Zinzendorf were a condemnation of Zinzendorf ’s position of secular power, by which he kept his subjects within the institutional church. In order to reason with the Herrnhuters, Zinzendorf invited Pastor Steinmetz, whom many of the Moravian settlers used to hear preach at the Protestant church in Teschen when they still lived in Moravia. Steinmetz arrived in Herrnhut in December of 1726.44 Much to Zinzendorf ’s surprise, he took the side of Krüger and his supporters. He was especially impressed by Krüger: “Jesus’s spirit shone from Krüger’s eyes; he loved him dearly and was delighted about his earnestness.” He even found fault with the leadership of the Berthelsdorf-­Herrnhut congregation. Steinmetz found Rothe “a faithful servant of Christ yet a pure Lutheran” who participated in the Herrnhut project not out of principle but rather to please Zinzendorf.45 Steinmetz had a similar opinion about Zinzendorf, whom he found “too sectarian” and “too Lutheran” and having “no idea of a true congregation of God.”46 In a sermon

108      herrnhut

about the Philadelphian topic of brotherly love, Steinmetz again sided with the critics, strengthening them in their convictions while blaming Zinzendorf and Rothe for the division because of their alleged partisanship for the institutional church.47 Steinmetz’s criticism hit hard as it questioned the core of Zinzendorf ’s belief. Throughout his life he would recall this painful episode on multiple occasions.48 When Steinmetz visited Herrnhut, Krüger was already not doing well; only a few weeks later he left Herrnhut in a confused state. The first signs of a mental disorder appeared in the fall of 1726, when he disappeared from Herrnhut on several occasions, wandering around the region without anyone knowing his whereabouts.49 When he returned around December 19 from one of those absences, he was in a bad state: For many days he has been rolling around in the dirt, soiling himself with dust. Bystanders had to wipe off the spittle coming out of his mouth, including the mucum narium [snot from his nose]. Today he took his clothes off several times and made strange gestures. Meanwhile he listens closely to everything that is being said, and when one tries to speak quietly, he starts to move around as if to show that he knows what is being said, which to me appears very worrying as I have never seen anything like this. One moment he is very submissive, apologizes to the bystanders for not loving them and kisses their feet and licks up the dirt on the ground. The next moment he complains that he has made peace with idolaters.50 Krüger refused to take the medicine Gutbier gave him, nor did he eat or drink. He did not want to sleep in a bed, tried to take his clothes off, and ate snow.51 Gutbier described Krüger’s condition as “Ecstasis”; other leading Herrnhuters labeled him “insane,” “mad,” or “delirious.”52 Krüger’s supporters, on the other hand, stood by him because they considered his behavior an ultimate attempt at self-­purification. For them Krüger’s fasting and praying were a means to deliver himself from the devil. They believed Krüger was becoming Christ-­like and was able to perform miracles.53 Rothe urged the count to intervene and use his authority as lord of the manor, but Zinzendorf was reluctant to get involved. He felt that he ought to respect his subjects’ freedom of conscience. He returned to Dresden and from there asked the Herrnhuters to be patient: “Poor Krüger! He dared to go too high and his wings are melting. Keep thee with the lowly.”54 In Dr. Gutbier’s opinion, Krüger’s situation was deteriorating by the day. Sometimes he started to laugh out loud while his body was shaking. He

dissent and agreement      109

stopped answering to his name and claimed, “His name is no longer Krüger but Tobias.” Gutbier suggested sending Krüger back to his wife, and Herrnhut residents contributed to pay for his transportation. On January 15, 1727, Gutbier wrote to Zinzendorf that Krüger was gone.55 Krüger did not stay with his wife and parents for very long. He went on to Berlin, where he hoped to speak with the King of Prussia. When he came to Potsdam, near Berlin, he was—much to the surprise of both—confronted with his former adversary, Pastor Schubert from Ebersdorf. At Schubert’s instigation, Krüger was sent to the Friedrichshospital in Berlin, which served as an orphanage and hospital for people with mental disease. He shared a room with another radical Pietist, Victor Christoph Tuchtfeld, a Lutheran minister who had lost his position because of his radical ideas and journeyed around as an itinerant preacher. After his release from the hospital a few years later, Krüger returned to Herrnhut on November 1, 1731. Although he assured Zinzendorf that he need not worry about his future behavior, Zinzendorf did not allow him to remain there. About ten years later he reappeared in Ebersdorf, walking around in rags like a beggar. That is the last mention of Krüger on record.56

Ongoing Dissent Even though Krüger had left, peace did not return to the Herrnhut community. Pastor Scheffer reported to Zinzendorf in Dresden, “In Herrnhut it appears as if the devil wants to throw everything into turmoil.”57 Krüger’s sympathizers continued their resistance, now under the leadership of Christian David. In his recollections Zinzendorf recounted how most Herrnhuters sided against him while only a few remained loyal: Friedrich von Watteville, Martin Dober, Leonhard Dober, David Nitschmann (weaver), and Dr. Gutbier.58 The majority of the community supposedly opposed him or was, at least, utterly confused. Critics identified in the records, besides David, included Justina Regina Bonacker, Georg Hinner, Johann Friedrich Klemm, and “wax bleacher” Jacob Blahe.59 Bonacker, a follower of Gichtel, was Erdmuth von Zinzendorf ’s former lady’s maid from Ebersdorf, whom we find in Berthelsdorf beginning in 1723.60 Her father, Gustav Bonacker, was a judge in Meissen. She was Zezschwitz’s successor as head of the Berthelsdorf girls’ school until she suddenly resigned from this position when she came under Krüger’s influence, stating God had inspired her to do so.61 When Christian David and his wife, out of protest, built a new house just outside of Herrnhut, thus also

110      herrnhut

physically removing themselves from the Herrnhut community, Bonacker moved in with them.62 Unfortunately, due to lack of source material, we know very little about her personal ideas, except that she was strong-­minded and did not easily submit to Zinzendorf ’s authority. The diary describes her as “a prophetess who did not want to give in.”63 Zinzendorf called her Jezebel, the false prophetess from Revelation 2:20.64 Bonacker developed a close relationship with Georg Hinner, whom she gave spiritual guidance. Because of her dealings with Hinner, Zinzendorf compared her with Eva von Buttlar, the leader of a millenarian society who was accused of having sexual intercourse with her followers.65 Georg Hinner was a carpenter from Schönau (Šenov) in Moravia who arrived in Herrnhut in 1726. One time he retreated into the woods for two days in order to pray and fast. Strictly opposed to pastoral interaction between men and women, Zinzendorf prohibited the meetings between Hinner and Bonacker in August of 1727, provoking Bonacker’s anger. Hinner left Herrnhut after he was excluded from the congregation in November of 1728.66 Johann Friedrich Klemm was a law candidate from Dresden. Not much else is known about him.67 In order to distinguish him from the organ builder Klemm, he was called “young Klemm.” Friedrich Klemm accompanied Krüger on a visit to the nearby town of Löbau in December of 1726, from where Krüger returned in a confused state. In February of 1727 Klemm passed around a “Currente” (circular) “in which he almost completely denounced the lordship.”68 Jacob Blahe, the “wax bleacher,” is usually identified only by his trade, which entailed bleaching (yellow) beeswax in the sun. The wax-­bleaching workshop was located in nearby Hennersdorf, so we may assume Blase was one of the locals who participated in the Herrnhut community. In 1727 and 1729 he lost a son shortly after birth; both were named Johann Jacob. Blahe was repeatedly involved in reprimanding Bonacker, but not much else is known about him.69 Christian David did not give up his opposition after Krüger’s departure. We learn more about David’s criticism during these months from a long letter he sent to David Schneider.70 Again we find the apocalyptic language he had used earlier against Zinzendorf, Rothe, and Scheffer: “Now the beast and the false prophet and the whore of Babylon have taken hold of the sanctuary and the pearls.” According to David, the leaders (i.e., Rothe and Zinzendorf) taught a false doctrine, they were the blind leading the blind, and as what they planted was not planted by God it would be uprooted (Matt. 15:13–14). David cautioned that the leaders were deceiving their people by

dissent and agreement      111

keeping them in the institutional church and dismissing the harmfulness of being exposed to the doctrine and practice of that church. “They may say that human teachings and the Babylonian church do no harm,” David wrote, but in reality this was only leading to “lukewarmness” and false “certainty.” Lukewarmness, of course, referred to the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14– 16, to whom was spoken, “because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.” In his explanation of the depravity of the church and its ministers, David articulated typical radical-­Pietist criticism: the institutional church was led by ministers making a good living because of the fees they received for performing funerals, baptisms, and weddings; these were ministers who had trained at the universities until they knew how to twist the word of God; and when they were ordained—by “unconverted” ministers—they took an oath that they would adhere to the official doctrine of the church, which went against Christ’s commandment not to take an oath (Matt. 5:34). So when such leaders are allowed to lead the church, “even the chosen will be seduced.” Thus far Zinzendorf had tried to keep the regenerate community on his estate within the Lutheran Church. He did so because, on the one hand, a true separation was illegal under the law of the land, and on the other hand, according to his Philadelphian views, the apostolic congregation could exist without cutting its ties with the institutional church. Philadelphians believed no harm was found in worshipping in the churches because their teachings and their rites were of secondary importance. The latter point, however, was the weak one in Zinzendorf ’s argumentation, according to David. By forcing his subjects to stay in the church he exposed them to “false teachings” and “harmful” ecclesiastical practices. The only way the apostolic congregation could exist was by loosening its ties to the institutional church and by making any participation truly voluntary. This was the dilemma Zinzendorf faced. During the next few months he decided to implement a plan to dissociate the Herrnhut congregation from the Berthelsdorf parish. Krüger was not the only person causing commotion in Herrnhut; others were also propagating ideas that created division among the Herrnhuters in late 1726 and early 1727. These divergent ideas were mostly found among the teachers at the paedagogium, but additional research is needed to understand their beliefs.71 Johannes Tham was a theology student from Copenhagen who taught in the school from 1727 until his departure in 1728. Though Zinzendorf called him a “fantast” and Dr. Gutbier labeled him “heretical,” Tham does not appear to have been very vocal.72 More outspoken were two men who were always referred to as the “two captains,” J. C. Riemer and G. Kluge. Both former captains in the Swedish army, they came to Herrnhut in 1726 to

112      herrnhut

teach at the boys’ school. They questioned the divinity of Jesus, and, based on Gutbier’s comment that they “sowed a bad seed” among the Herrnhuters, we may assume they had more influence than Tham. The two captains left for Hamburg on June 14, 1727.73 In response to the confusion and division among the Herrnhuters, Zinzendorf at last issued a pronouncement from Dresden confirming the dual nature of Christ as both human and divine, declaring whoever believes otherwise and does not keep silent “is not my brother.” Although the pronouncement dealt with doctrine, Zinzendorf was careful to avoid ruling over the conscience of his subjects, limiting only public, not private, discussion of differing ideas about the nature of Christ.74 At the same time, relations between Zinzendorf and Rothe became strained yet again. “Oh, how sorry am I,” wrote Johanna von Watteville to Erdmuth, “that the dear count wrote this letter to Mr. Rothe, as he does not understand Mr. Rothe.”75 The cause of the falling out was a church service conducted by Rothe in early February of 1727, which many, in fact, found very “uplifting” (erwecklich). During the service Rothe encouraged the congregants to subscribe to a declaration consisting of seven points. Watteville enthusiastically described it as follows: For the past two weeks Mr. Rothe has been extraordinarily uplifted. On the Friday when we departed from here he gave such a wonderful sermon about the enclosed seven points that many people had to admit never having heard anything like this before. Many souls were moved and revived by it. . . . The following Sunday he had the seven points copied several times and distributed to several children of God. After the sermon he announced that he was going to repeat Friday’s sermon in the church during the afternoon and invited the leaseholder, the judges, and the entire community, especially those who pride themselves on having the mindset the seven points require, who follow Jesus with their entire heart and who have the firm intent and to profess him without shame to all people, etc., etc. They should go up to the altar and the women sit in the first four rows on both sides, which happened. During this repeat a great revival occurred again; this has not been without fruit and blessing.76 Rothe was known as a charismatic preacher, and the inspirational service had an uplifting effect on many of the parishioners. “It may have been somewhat sectarian,” Watteville had to admit, and this “sectarian” aspect of the service was exactly what prompted Zinzendorf ’s disapproval. In this context,

dissent and agreement      113

“sectarian” does not refer to ideas outside of the established churches but rather to ideas defining these denominations. For Philadelphians, “sectarian” meant the opposite of their own, nondenominational viewpoint—namely, elevating and promoting the ideas of one particular denomination above those of other institutional churches. The ensuing discussion between Zinzendorf and Rothe allows us a rare insight into the disagreement between the two men, about which we know so little. Zinzendorf ’s objections were to Rothe promoting Lutheran orthodoxy. Although Rothe’s seven points do not survive, we may assume that from a Lutheran perspective they were most likely fully adequate; from Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian standpoint, however, they were “sectarian” and completely unacceptable. “So now we have publicly become sectarians?” Zinzendorf responded to Watteville, and, referring to the doctrinal conference of 1725, during which he believed to have settled all non-­Philadelphian, denominational discussion, he added, “I cannot forget my three-­day discussion.”77 As a Lutheran minister Rothe had done nothing improper, but Zinzendorf did not want his apostolic congregation to be a Lutheran church. Time and again this was the point of contention between Rothe and Zinzendorf. In the end Rothe remained a Lutheran pastor and was disinclined to fully subscribe to Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphianism. It was at this point that Zinzendorf realized it might be time to part ways with his collaborator Rothe (and also with Scheffer, as we will see below) and to pursue his plans for Herrnhut by himself: “I believe this will result in the future separation of the Herrnhuters and the Berthelsdorfers against Rothe’s intention.”78 Zinzendorf responded to Rothe’s “seven points” with his own statement, distancing himself as a Philadelphian from Rothe’s denominational Lutheran (“sectarian”) standpoint: “(1) I myself am not a sectarian. Holding up all sects to the divine light, I find they do not abide in the pure word of God but rather add and take away according to their own fantasy and wisdom. I am therefore fully neutral regarding the internal circumstances of the sects; regarding outward matters I am a Lutheran whenever the Lutheran religion has the upper hand, as I cannot find anything absolutely sinful in its cultus, though much of it is irrational.”79 Zinzendorf might outwardly be a Lutheran and attend their services, but he found much of Lutheran cultus “irrational” and considered many elements of Lutheran theology unnecessary additions. Zinzendorf was most displeased with Rothe’s statements about infant baptism and Holy Communion. We may infer the essence of Rothe’s seven points from Zinzendorf ’s response. Rothe claimed that infant baptism could be “clearly” proven from the Scriptures rather than by deduction. Zinzendorf was not convinced of

114      herrnhut

that; at best, infant baptism was for him a Lutheran interpretation of biblical texts (“opinion”). Neither did he consider baptism—contrary to orthodox Lutheran teaching—a guarantee of rebirth and true faith.80 The other point of contention was Rothe’s position on Holy Communion. In accordance with Lutheran teaching, Rothe stated—again, based on Zinzendorf ’s response— that Communion was “a necessary part of Christianity, instituted for the forgiveness of sin.” Zinzendorf, like other radical Pietists, questioned whether Communion was indeed necessary for salvation. Furthermore, Rothe had apparently also stated that confession was a meaningful rite in connection with Holy Communion. Zinzendorf thought confession was “an overt absurdity” and could not believe Rothe had dredged up a matter that Zinzendorf believed to have resolved ever since the doctrinal conference two years prior. Instead of preaching Philadelphian tolerance, Rothe, much to Zinzendorf ’s dismay, was promoting Lutheran orthodoxy. From Zinzendorf ’s perspective, agreeing to the seven points, as Rothe had encouraged the congregation to do, meant becoming Lutheran. Zinzendorf refused to agree that “Catholics, separatists, and Reformed, who have joined with us here in love should become Lutherans.” Even if Rothe had acted “honestly and without malice,” the time had come for Zinzendorf to prevent his Philadelphian project from failing.

Zinzendorf Moves to Herrnhut While discord was growing in Herrnhut, Zinzendorf ’s position in Dresden became increasingly compromised. As we saw in chapter 1, on December 30, 1726, the Elector of Saxony placed guards at the door to Zinzendorf ’s apartment building to ensure that the ban was observed. The ban on his conventicle, however, was not the only matter complicating Zinzendorf ’s position within the government. His publishing activities were also causing difficulties for him. Three years earlier, in 1724, the Brotherhood of Four had been forced to move their printing press from Berthelsdorf to Ebersdorf. At the same time Zinzendorf continued to use other printers, including printers in Dresden. In 1725 he published two periodicals. One of them, Der Parther, was very short-­lived; between March and April of 1725 only three issues came out before the periodical was discontinued altogether.81 In the fall of 1725 he initiated the publication of another periodical, Le Socrate de Dresde.82 It contained critical essays about church, society, and the government, causing an immediate sensation in the city. Zinzendorf deliberately kept the publication from the censors; printer Johann Heinrich Schwencke was even told the

dissent and agreement      115

author was a gentleman “who was not subject to any censorship.”83 According to Thilo Daniel, the publication was intended as a provocation.84 Its provocative content, in combination with the violation of censorship regulations, caused city authorities to immediately initiate an investigation into Socrates. In December of 1725 printer Schwencke was sentenced to six weeks in prison.85 Zinzendorf avoided further problems by printing Socrates on the press in Ebersdorf, beginning with issue 4. Printing outside of Saxony, however, was not a guarantee for circumventing the authorities in Dresden, as would soon become apparent with the publication of the Ebersdorf Bible, which had not been submitted to the censors either. As explained in chapter 2, in November of 1726 the city magistrate of Görlitz alerted the Main Consistory and the Privy Council in Dresden to the publication of this Bible. It seems likely that the ensuing investigation into the Ebersdorf Bible caused the authorities to scrutinize Zinzendorf ’s conventicle as well, quickly leading to its ban on December 30, 1726. Continuing to conduct the outlawed conventicle, supporting compromised Pastor Scheffer, publishing controversial books without seeking prior permission, combined with suspicious activities on his estate—all this, without doubt, compromised Zinzendorf ’s position within the elector’s administration. From his concerned uncle, privy counselor Gottlob Friedrich von Gersdorf, Zinzendorf learned how he was perceived at court: “He was told that with me it was truly tu [ne cede malis sed] contra audentior ito. I do not seem to care about any rescripts, I deride every official order, and do what I want.”86 Zinzendorf did not see a future for himself in Dresden, and to Scheffer in Görlitz he indicated his desire to “leave the world.”87 With his position at court compromised, there was nothing keeping him in Dresden. In February of 1727 Zinzendorf asked the king for an indefinite leave of absence from his office in Dresden, and shortly after Easter he moved back to his estate together with his wife, Erdmuth, and their one-­year-­old daughter, Benigna. Traditionally, this move has been presented as Zinzendorf ’s response to the strained situation among the people in Herrnhut.88 As has become clear by now, this was not the full story. Over the years Zinzendorf had repeatedly announced his imminent departure from Dresden.89 This time he actually left his position. At first this was meant as a temporary leave, but in 1732 he submitted his full resignation from the court.90 Zinzendorf no longer planned to live in Berthelsdorf but rather in Herrnhut, because the center of his apostolic congregation had shifted from the manor house to the settlement on the other side of the Hutberg. However, their new home on the town square in Herrnhut was not finished until June of 1727, so for the first eight weeks the Zinzendorfs lived in Berthelsdorf. On

116      herrnhut

Fig. 8  The manor house (Herrschaftshaus) in Herrnhut as seen from the garden. Pen and watercolor on paper by C. Quandt, ca. 1780. The image shows the original manor house before it was torn down in 1781. Heimatmuseum der Stadt Herrnhut, Germany, Inv. 197.

June 15 the Zinzendorf family was able to move into the “wing” on the southeast side of the main square. Because of their presence, this structure became known as the Herrschaftshaus (the lordship’s house).91 In 1728 a formal garden was laid out behind the house that was often used for communal gatherings. The Berthelsdorf manor house was then rented out to Gottlob Ehrenreich von Gersdorf, Zinzendorf ’s cousin.92

Separation With Zinzendorf taking permanent residence on his lands, the history of the Herrnhut congregation truly begins. The first entry in the Herrnhut diary, written as a continuous chronicle of this apostolic congregation, is Sunday, April 20, 1727, a week after Easter and a few days after Zinzendorf had moved from Dresden. Significantly, the opening event in the narrative is the separation of the community of Herrnhut from Berthelsdorf, which had to take place before Zinzendorf could begin his work. The diary states, “After the Communion service we went to Mr. Rothe. The count declared he felt compelled to divide the work with Mr. Rothe, leaving the congregation in Ber­ thelsdorf to [Mr. Rothe] while he himself would take on the souls in Herrnhut,

dissent and agreement      117

because he had observed that the matter was too wide-­ranging for the former and too much damage would be done if neglected any longer.”93 The diary entry could perhaps be read as an attempt by Zinzendorf to alleviate Rothe’s workload. A later account from 1747, however, leaves no question that the reason of the separation was to make Herrnhut independent from the church in Berthelsdorf: “After the sermon on Quasimodo Sunday [April 20, 1727] the brothers and sisters were called together and we told them, because we could not bear one another, we wanted to separate. I wanted to leave Berthelsdorf to Mr. Rothe and keep Herrnhut to myself. From that time on Mr. Rothe has sovereignly ruled in Berthelsdorf for ten years, and during those ten years I went there so rarely that I have not slept there a single night.”94 This dissociation of Herrnhut from Berthelsdorf was a crucial moment. From now on Herrnhut developed into its own religious body, largely outside the oversight of the parish pastor. During the next few weeks Zinzendorf formalized this separation with the introduction of formal rules and regulations for the Herrnhut community. Both the separation and the statutes were Zinzendorf ’s answer to the criticism Christian David and Siegmund Krüger had expressed. The narrative of the Herrnhut diary confirms this. The entry for the day the Manorial Commandments were officially introduced (May 12) makes a connection between the introduction of the regulatory documents and Krüger’s and David’s criticism. According to the entry, Zinzendorf “fully agreed” with David that it was wrong to integrate the settlers from Moravia into the Lutheran Church: “The main argument was as follows: Christian David said, what good does it do us to risk one’s life when the souls, as Mr. Steinmetz had foretold us before we went out, are integrated into the common Lutheran Church, seduced, and misled, . . . and excluded from true conversion? . . . The count fully agreed with him, although he had hoped to escape this danger in a different way.”95 By separating Herrnhut from Berthelsdorf and its Lutheran pastor, Zinzendorf made Herrnhut into its own community, both as a local village and as a religious congregation. Zinzendorf accomplished the separation that Krüger and David had demanded. In a letter to Heitz, David confirmed this was the solution he and his supporters wanted: “This was the opportunity for a regulation that we separatists had wished for.”96 For Zinzendorf the separation was a dilemma he had struggled with for quite some time. According to his Philadelphian ecclesiology the members of an apostolic congregation could very well live in close relationship with an institutional church without the need to formally separate. Things became problematic, however, when both the members of the congregation (i.e., David)

118      herrnhut

and the pastor of the institutional church (Rothe) did not agree with the terms of this peaceful coexistence. David feared harm from participating in the church; Rothe required the congregants to commit to Lutheran doctrine and practice. When a Philadelphian collaboration does not succeed, separation becomes necessary. It has been called the “foundational dilemma of the Philadelphian movement”: each attempt to create a community of regenerate believers implies the introduction of formal rules and a common belief system, something of which Philadelphians generally disapproved.97 In a text written during the summer of 1727, Zinzendorf refers to his own concerns about founding a new church (“sect”) against his principles: “The count fully opened his heart in prayer to his Savior: how he does not seek anything but to guide souls to simplicity; how he does not approve of the insincerities of the external constitutions of the churches while understanding that [establishing] a new sect has little benefit as it would only degenerate after a few years but how he would rather help to sanctify everything in the church of which he was part.”98 Zinzendorf ’s solution was to enshrine the Philadelphian principles of openness and tolerance, nondenominational “apostolic” doctrine, and the voluntariness of the relationship to the institutional church into the rules of the congregation. Thus, he hoped to prevent Herrnhut from becoming a new “sect” itself. He compared the separation between himself and Rothe with the separation between Lot and Abraham (Gen. 13): sometimes it was better to part ways and remain good friends when people did not agree on the method of proclaiming God’s truth or on their formal constitution.99 The division was a conceptual separation rather than a legal disconnection: legally, Herrnhut remained part of the Berthelsdorf parish until 1758. The statutes of 1727 prescribed an amicable separation between Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut: for the most part Herrnhuters continued to attend Sunday morning worship service in the parish church, Rothe conducted the rites he was rightfully entitled to, and the regenerate Berthelsdorfers stayed in close touch with the Herrnhuters.100 Rothe was actually involved in crafting the statutes for the Herrnhut community and, for the time being, continued to be involved with the governance of the school.101 Soon, however, this would change. On July 22 Zinzendorf announced that he wanted to close the paedagogium and convert it into an orphanage “under his own leadership.”102

Statutes After accomplishing the separation, Zinzendorf focused on organizing the Herrnhut congregation. He is said to have done so, first of all, by making

dissent and agreement      119

personal visits to clear the misunderstandings and to solve the mutual disagreements among the settlers. Not much is known about these visits, and the diary does not reveal much.103 Earlier that year Watteville had also begun to make personal visits in Herrnhut: “Tomorrow I will begin to go from one person to the other in all of Herrnhut out of curiosity to investigate what they all have against one another in order to know why exactly there is so much tumult up there. God shall bring it to pass.”104 Second, Zinzendorf enhanced worship life in Herrnhut. He held daily prayer meetings in Herrnhut and moved services that were previously held in Berthelsdorf to Herrnhut, such as the song service (beginning May 11) and the repeat of the sermon (June 1). On May 21 David Nitschmann initiated a night watch and the “bands,” small pastoral groups, were introduced on July 9.105 These religious activities will be discussed further in chapter 6. Third and most importantly, from April 20 onward Zinzendorf worked on developing rules for the Herrnhut community. He did so together with Pastor Rothe, Christian David, and Gotthelf Marche, a lawyer in Bautzen. Gotthelf was the younger brother of Gottfried Marche, who had served as a tutor in Hennersdorf and had been involved with the founding of Herrnhut.106 The original version of the statutes contained a total of eighty-­five paragraphs regulating both spiritual and secular life in Herrnhut. Soon, however, the original statutes were split into two documents: the Manorial Commandments, regulating life in the new town, and the Brotherly Agreement, establishing the basis of the spiritual community.107 Zinzendorf, as a trained lawyer, understood that he had to distinguish between the combined inhabitants of Herrnhut as a village and those select people who “had a desire for Christ.” He realized that he could not coerce his subjects into becoming true Christians in the same manner he was able to force them to obey rules regarding civic behavior, order, and taxation. Furthermore, membership in the congregation was not limited to residents of Herrnhut but also included kindred souls in other places, as the signatures on the Brotherly Agreement attest. From the original draft Zinzendorf extracted forty-­one paragraphs as the “Manorial Commandments,” which were introduced to the Herrnhuters on May 12, 1727. Early that Monday morning the residents of upper Berthelsdorf, a part of the Berthelsdorf estate Zinzendorf had purchased earlier that year, were to pay homage to the count during a carefully choreographed ceremony.108 Zinzendorf took this opportunity to impose rules on the inhabitants of Herrnhut, something that had not yet happened but was customary for newly founded communities, as he claimed.109 After the ceremony in Berthelsdorf was concluded, another ceremony took place in Herrnhut during the afternoon. After a three-­hour address concerning the purpose of the

120      herrnhut

regulations, Zinzendorf demanded that residents express their support for the Manorial Commandments by handshake.110 A month later, on June 15, the Manorial Commandments were publicly read again and signed by Zinzendorf. The Manorial Commandments (“Herrschaftliche Gebote und Verbote”) regulated civic life in Herrnhut and granted important liberties to the Herrn­ huters.111 After recognizing the special position of the original founders of Herrnhut in its opening paragraph, the commandments indemnified all Herrnhut residents from any bondage and serfdom.112 The commandments defined the obligations and duties of the inhabitants of Herrnhut in relationship to taxes; care for the welfare of the community; oversight of roads, wells, and the construction of houses; and obligatory participation in the night watch. Most of the paragraphs defined and regulated the responsibilities of the elders and overseers. An interesting paragraph is no. 38, granting freedom of conscience to Roman Catholics. We know that some of the wives of Moravian refugees were not “converted” to Protestantism and had come to Herrnhut because they followed their husbands.113 As a true Philadelphian ruler, Zinzendorf did not want to interfere with the denominational affiliations of his subjects. Even though the Manorial Commandments seemed not to restrict the freedom of conscience of the villagers, they did prescribe moral life in a Pietist manner: dances were banned, and so were sumptuous meals at weddings, baptisms, and funerals. Before the second reading of the Manorial Commandments on June 15, elders, overseers, and almoners were selected and appointed. After enforcing the Manorial Commandments, Zinzendorf continued to work on the voluntary Brotherly Agreement (“Brüderlicher Verein und Willkür”), which would lay down the Philadelphian principles of the Herrnhut community. It was to be signed on July 4, 1727.114 Paragraph 2 determined that the Herrnhuters were to remain in continuous love with all children of God in all denominations and abstain from religious arguments with anyone of a different opinion. Paragraph 3 defined a “true brother.” The members of the brotherly association were free to subject themselves to the religious rites of the Lutheran church in Berthelsdorf, as they were only human institutions (“menschliche Satzungen,” 5). Nobody was coerced to go to confession (6), a requirement that had caused much controversy during previous years as we saw above. Many paragraphs regulated relations among the members of the congregation, which, similar to the first Christian church, was to be founded on mutual love (15). The Brotherly Agreement did not foresee a role for trained pastors but allowed any layperson who had received the gift to preach (16). The doctrine of the Herrnhut congregation was defined, not as the Augsburg

dissent and agreement      121

Confession or any other denominational creed, but, in a Philadelphian manner, in the most general terms as the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, without any later human additions (37): “The specific and general rule of our teachings, exhortation, and prophecy shall be the simple teachings, examples, and rules of Jesus and his apostles.” Beginning on July 4, everyone who agreed to be a member of the religious society in Herrnhut, both men and women, personally signed the Brotherly Agreement. In addition to the signatures of Herrnhut residents, we also find signatures of people who did not live in Herrnhut included on the Brotherly Agreement, such as Pastor Scheffer in Görlitz, Pastor Liberda in Hennersdorf, Pastor Gottlob Manitius in Hauswalde, and merchant David Gottlob Buchs in Hirschberg.115 Their presence indicates that the Brotherly Agreement was voluntary and not obligatory for Zinzendorf ’s subjects. It is also an indication that the brotherly union established here extended beyond Herrnhut. Some have wondered where the idea for the statutory organization originated. Aalen suspects that the 1702 statutes of the Philadelphian Society in London served as a model and inspiration for Zinzendorf.116 As these statutes were not printed until 1865, it is questionable whether Zinzendorf actually knew of their contents; it is possible, however, that he had heard about the (failed) attempts of the London Philadelphians to introduce the statutes on the European continent.117 In any case, a comparison of the text of the 1702 statutes with Zinzendorf ’s statutes from 1727 does not suggest a textual dependency. An obvious inspiration for the Herrnhut statutes was Arnold’s Erste Liebe. Many elements of life in early Herrnhut found parallels with Arnold’s idealized description of the early Christian church. The similarity of the title of a chapter in Erste Liebe (“Von ihrer brüderlichen Vereinigung ins gemein” [Of their brotherly association in general]) with the German title of the Brotherly Agreement (“Brüderlicher Verein und Willkür” [Brotherly association and voluntary decision]) is striking.118 Another possible source for Zinzendorf ’s desire to have all Herrnhuters sign a binding document can be found in Luther’s writings. In his 1526 Deutsche Messe und Ordnung des Gottesdienstes (German Mass and Order of Divine Service) Luther describes three forms of worship, including house gatherings for those “who are desirous of being Christians in earnest.” In this section Luther required people attending such house meetings who “profess the gospel with hand and mouth” to “register their names.”119 Zinzendorf repeatedly referred to this text to justify his own undertakings,120 and it is not impossible that it motivated Zinzendorf to design such a document for the Herrnhuters to sign.

122      herrnhut

August 13, 1727 After the statutes were signed, the narrative of the Herrnhut diary becomes a succession of miraculous events, revivals, and other inspiring occurrences, culminating in the spiritual awakening of August 13, 1727. Throughout the story as written in the diary, God was preparing his people in Herrnhut through countless signs for the outpouring of his spirit on August 13. As a symbol of God’s blessing, the diary notes how on May 17, days after the Manorial Commandments were issued, “the most beautiful and abundant water” began flowing from the well on the square.121 The diary mentions unexpected outcomes when the lot was used for making decisions, memorable deathbed stories, sudden recoveries from impending death, and many remarkable coincidences.122 For example, on June 7, the evening before August Hermann Francke died in Halle, the Herrnhut congregation, not knowing of his imminent death, sang Francke’s hymn “Gottlob! Ein Schritt zur Ewigkeit.”123 Young people were given leadership positions that, against all expectations, they conducted remarkably well.124 The diary includes many accounts of people having a change of heart after they heard a particular hymn or a meaningful meditation. Johannes Liberda, pastor of the Czech refugees in Hennersdorf, held his first sermon in German during the annual village fair, “with great force.”125 Erdmuth von Zinzendorf felt called to preach and began giving addresses to the women.126 Rothe’s sermons were so powerful that Zinzendorf had transcriptions made that were hastily printed in time for the repeat of the sermon that same afternoon.127 On July 2 a revival took place. Pastor Schwedler came from Niederwiese to preach, but the crowds from the surrounding villages were too large for the Berthelsdorf church. To accommodate these people Rothe preached outside in the churchyard while at the same time Zinzendorf conducted services in the meeting hall in the Great House in Herrnhut. After each service—there were three in total—people exited one side of the hall while more people entered the other side. In the afternoon Schwedler preached in the open air on the square in Herrnhut while standing on a wooden platform that Christian David had quickly assembled.128 On July 18 a woman convicted of murderous arson was executed in the neighboring village of Strahwalde. The Herrnhuters took on her case and prayed for her over the course of several days. These prayers, according to the diary, “were the beginning of the subsequent workings of the living and moving spirit of God.”129 On July 22 Zinzendorf departed for Silesia. During his absence the revivalistic fervor in Herrnhut continued. In the Great House daily prayer meetings took place, during which the topic of love was discussed according to the

dissent and agreement      123

Fig. 9  View of Herrnhut. Engraving, copied in Amsterdam in 1735 after an engraving by Johann Daniel de Montalegre from 1732. Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Malin 780.

Epistles of John. Some of the men, together with the women, decided to gather in a smaller circle on the Hutberg for prayer and singing.130 And when a letter by Zinzendorf arrived from Silesia, it “brought great revival, giving off flames; our lights were burning.”131 The letter that caused so much fervor came from Hartmannsdorf (Miłos­ zów). Together with David Nitschmann (carpenter) and Dr. Gutbier, Zin­ zendorf had accompanied his cousin Gottlob Ehrenreich von Gersdorf to his home in Hartmannsdorf. During the journey Zinzendorf worked on a translation of parts of Comenius’s Historia fratrum Bohemorum. He had borrowed this Latin book from the city library in Zittau and wanted to make its content accessible to the settlers in Herrnhut.132 “The history of the Bohemian Brethren is completely finished, thanks to God’s extraordinary help,” Zinzendorf wrote back to Herrnhut. “You will find therein such amazing wonders of God that you will praise him.”133 The news of these coming “wonders of God” kindled the religious fire in the community. On August 4 Zinzendorf and his travel companions returned to Herrnhut. Zinzendorf brought with him the translation of Comenius’s history, showing great similarities between the Herrnhut community and the organization of

124      herrnhut

the Unity of Brethren. Especially the Brotherly Agreement that had been adopted the previous month showed an unmistakable resemblance to the statutes of the ancient Unity as presented in Zinzendorf ’s translation. In fact, Zinzendorf asserted that the Brotherly Agreement and the order of the Unity of Brethren were “found in all parts identical.”134 The realization of this resemblance led to strong reactions among the Herrnhuters: “They were deeply astonished that, unbeknownst to them, this entire arrangement had been realized among them again.”135 Christian David’s account links the reactions of the Herrnhuters to the spiritual awakening the following week: Meanwhile on August 4 the count returned and brought with him many good reports from Silesia, especially a translated history of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, which we heard for the first time. And because much of it was according to our liking and in agreement with the organization of our household and regulations, and with how God’s guidance was connected with our origins and foundation, we recognized the finger of God and his wonders. And under the cloud of grace of our fathers we were baptized with their spirit and their fire into one body and have been made to drink into one Spirit. Then their spirit came over us again and in these days many wonders and signs happened among the brethren and great grace was among us and throughout all the region.136 In other words, when the settlers recognized the agreement between the regulations in Herrnhut and the organization of their ancestors, combined with the similarities between their own history and how God had led their forebears, they saw the hand of God at work. This, according to David’s account, led to an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the formation of the congregation as one body. This discovery was so powerful that the religious enthusiasm of the previous weeks intensified even further. On August 6 the diary recorded the conversion of Susanne Kühnel, an eleven-­year-­old girl. On August 10 the participants in the Sunday noon meeting were so beside themselves they continued praying and singing until midnight. Pastor Rothe, who attended this meeting, was so moved that he decided to invite the congregation to celebrate Holy Communion the following Wednesday, August 13, in the church at Berthelsdorf. This was the first Communion since the adoption of the Brotherly Agreement that constituted the formation of their community and was therefore treated differently than the usual public Communion services.137 The service

dissent and agreement      125

was probably conducted according to the usual Lutheran liturgy, but it was not open to all parishioners. Beforehand, everyone was examined to determine if they were worthy of attending. Two women were taking Communion for the first time and were therefore confirmed the night of August 12.138 That same evening the Herrnhut statutes or Brotherly Agreement were signed by all brothers and sisters.139 The following day the Herrnhuters walked down to the parish church in Berthelsdorf. According to the diary, a spirit of reconciliation and bonding prevailed that day.140 On their way down, people were talking to one another, “and here and there pairs were banding together.” At the beginning of the service Pastor Rothe blessed the two women. The congregation knelt down, and during the following hymn “one could not distinguish if people were singing or crying.” Central in the account of the diary is a prayer preceding Communion. The prayer asked God to “save those coming out of the house of bondage from sectarianism and separation.” The biblical image of the house of bondage or Egypt (Exod. 13:3) was used for the oppressive situation for Protestants under Habsburg rule. The prayer continued to ask for a right understanding of the church and of the theology of the cross and to preserve the brotherly love among them. After absolution was given, Pastor Siese from Hennersdorf administered Communion, as Pastor Rothe wanted to be part of the congregation that day.141 The diary is brief about the remainder of the service and about what happened next: “we were quite beside ourselves when we all went home.”142 And “we passed this day and the following days in a silent yet joyful state of mind and learned to love.” This final phrase, “we learned to love,” has traditionally been seen as the quintessence of the event: from then on the Herrnhuters learned to accept each other’s differences and to form a community of brotherly love. These words are indeed the crux of the narrative of this day. Love, in Zinzendorf ’s definition, defines an apostolic congregation; love is the essential quality of the followers of Jesus; and love is what was missing in the institutional churches, reducing them to fellowships of people united merely by shared ideas.143 The words “learning to love” also appear in a hymn from 1725, written by Zinzendorf explaining the frontispiece of the Berthelsdorf hymnbook. The last two stanzas of the hymn help us understand the words in the diary. “Love” is true brotherly love, the characteristic of a true Christian. Unless faith is truly a matter of the heart, rationality or speaking out against the wrongs in the institutional church (“Babylon”) is insufficient: “Forget what you know, and learn to love.” Only those who actually practice brotherly love and do good can be children of God. They “can be Zion,”

126      herrnhut

the heavenly Jerusalem, the congregation of true Christian believers.144 In other words, the experience of August 13, 1727, was recounted as a Philadelphian event.

Comenius’s History The Communion service on August 13, 1727, was the spiritual ratification of the founding of a Philadelphian community. This breakthrough had become possible because of what Zinzendorf had discovered in Comenius’s history, namely, that the ancient Brethren were organized on a footing very similar to the Herrnhuters. Let us now examine Comenius’s text and Zinzendorf ’s translation. The 1702 edition of Comenius’s history of the Unitas Fratrum was one of the books published in Halle to support the crypto-­Protestants in Bohemia. It was edited by Johann Franz Buddeus and contained different texts written by Comenius. The section of particular interest to Zinzendorf was the historical account “Eccllesiae [sic] Slavonicae ab ipsis apostolis fundatae . . . Brevis Historiola.”145 Based on his reading of Comenius, Zinzendorf claimed that the original constitution of the Unity of Brethren showed great resemblance to the Brotherly Agreement of Herrnhut. He combined his translation of Comenius’s “Brevis Historiola” with his own history of Herrnhut, which he titled “The Newest History of Herrnhut.”146 He explained the similarity to the Herrnhuters as “a miracle of God.” This divine guidance has proven to be a delicate issue in Moravian historiography. Eighteenth-­century Moravian historians Cranz and Spangenberg claim that Zinzendorf, supposedly aware of the demands of the settlers to introduce the constitution of the Unity of Brethren, wrote the statutes of Herrnhut after studying the history of the ancient Unity and consulting with other theologians. In their narratives the similarities between the Brotherly Agreement and the constitution of the ancient Brethren were therefore not a miracle but intentional.147 The similarities were indeed intentional; however, the Brotherly Agreement was not written to match the constitution of the Unity of Brethren. It was actually the other way around. Zinzendorf translated the history of the ancient Brethren to match theology and practice of the Herrnhut community. Zinzendorf ’s text is not a verbatim translation but rather a paraphrasing and adaptation of Comenius’s Latin text. It serves a clear purpose: to prove that theology and practice of the community of Herrnhut were in accordance with the Unity of Brethren. For example, Zinzendorf replaced

dissent and agreement      127

Comenius’s paragraph on the works of Jan Hus with a summary of Hus’s teachings. The summary, however, is an exemplary synopsis of Philadelphian principles, which are strikingly similar to Zinzendorf ’s own unceasing admonitions to the Herrnhuters: “1) that one has to abolish all sects and human institutions; 2) that the Brethren are to preserve their unity and avoid separatism; 3) that one has to become perfect in an evangelical sense; 4) that one should not argue about spiritual matters.”148 Nowhere in Comenius’s original is this advice to be found. By paraphrasing Hus in this manner, Zinzendorf made Hus into a Philadelphian avant la lettre. Zinzendorf took other liberties as well. Comenius’s history does not include any statutes of the Unity, but Zinzendorf inserted an extensive summary of “the most important points” of the earliest statutes of the Brethren. Zinzendorf based this summary on the “Ratio Disciplinae,” an exposition of the discipline of the Brethren dating from 1633, also included in Buddeus’s edition.149 Zinzendorf believed he was able to reconstruct the earliest statutes of the Brethren based on the 1633 discipline. He inserted his version of the statutes into his translation of Comenius’s text, stating, “These were the regulations of the Brethren around the year 1461.”150 German Moravian historian and archivist Joseph Theodor Müller, an expert on both the history of the Bohemian Brethren and early Herrnhut, closely analyzed Zinzendorf ’s version of the statutes of the early Brethren. According to Müller, Zinzendorf deliberately misconstrued the regulations of the ancient Brethren to match the Herrnhut statutes. Opportunities for publication were quickly diminishing in 1937 Germany, and Müller never published his findings. His typewritten manuscript, with an extensive introduction, was deposited in the Herrnhut archives and has since attracted little attention, as it appears to be just another transcription of Zinzendorf ’s “Newest History of Herrnhut,” such as can be found in many other locations. The fact that Müller’s introduction to this transcription contains the claim that Zinzendorf “forged” the document has therefore gone unnoticed.151 Zinzendorf ’s reconstruction is problematic for many reasons. First of all, he left out everything that did not match his intent. For example, he excluded everything relating to the organization of the Unity of Brethren as an independent church, “which was quite a lot,” Müller comments.152 He also added elements. Müller notes that the regulation for “those summoned to come before the Elders’ Conference shall appear without objection” cannot be found in the “Ratio Disciplinae” but is taken almost verbatim from the Brotherly Agreement (no. 35). He also includes references to the love feast, which was familiar to the Herrnhuters but unknown to the ancient Brethren.

128      herrnhut

Zinzendorf writes, “They distinguished public church Communion from love feasts. Many Brethren gathered for this as often as they wanted.”153 At that time, Zinzendorf still used the term “love feast” the way many radical Pietists did: for the celebration of Holy Communion among a select group of true Christians, as opposed to public Communion for all congregants.154 Zinzendorf suggests that the ancient Brethren made a similar distinction between Communion in the parish church and Communion among the truly converted. The original text, however, does not make this distinction, nor does it use the term “love feast.” The original describes Communion as a celebration only for those who were worthy. During the days preceding the service, the pastor would visit each household to investigate every person’s behavior; those who appeared to have misbehaved were not admitted.155 For his translation, Zinzendorf suggestively chose terms that were familiar to the Herrnhuters and that corresponded to established practices in Herrnhut. Thus, diaconi became Diener (servant), presbyteri became Ältesten, and senatus ecclesiasticus or consistorium Unitatis became Ältestenkonferenz (elders’ conference).156 A prime example of Zinzendorf ’s method is his reference to the Wiederholung or repeat of the sermon. According to the “Ratio Disciplinae,” during the summer the Unity added a fifth service to the Sunday schedule: a catechetical instruction for the youth. Zinzendorf writes, “During the summer they added the repeat, which was usually held by means of questions.”157 The sermon repeat, or Predigtwiederholung, was a typical institution of Pietism. In Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut it had been popular from the beginning. It was not, however, the same as the catechization service of the ancient Brethren. Another popular Pietist practice that became typical for Herrnhut was the Singstunde, or song service. According to Zinzendorf ’s reconstruction, the Unity’s ministers in training conducted Singstunden after dinner: “After supper there was a song service, which was concluded with prayer.”158 Any Herrnhuter hearing such a statement immediately associated this with the song services held every evening in Herrnhut, which were also concluded with prayer. The original “Ratio Disciplinae,” however, does not mention a worship service here but rather describes how students spent leisure time after supper practicing music before evening prayers concluded the day.159 Zinzendorf appears to have captured the spirit of the original text by selectively paraphrasing it and using terminology familiar to his audience, but by doing so, he changed what Comenius had the text originally say. Müller was shocked by Zinzendorf ’s liberal approach and labeled it Urkundenfälschung or “forgery.”160 Urkundenfälschung is a legal term for a crime consisting of the alteration of a legal instrument (Urkunde) with the specific intent to

dissent and agreement      129

defraud. In Zinzendorf ’s case, we are not dealing with a legal instrument, and it is questionable whether there was a specific intent to defraud. However, if Müller had used the term Fälschung (falsification), he would have been correct. Within the field of historical criticism Fälschung applies to a text that in its entirety or partially is something different than it purports to be.161 Because Zinzendorf altered the text and made it say something different from Comenius’s original intent, his text can rightfully be labeled a falsification. Zinzendorf summarized and paraphrased the text with the obvious intention to convince the Moravian refugees in Herrnhut that the Philadelphian statutes they had adopted that summer resembled the discipline of the church of their ancestors. From the much longer “Ratio Disciplinae” Zinzendorf selectively chose what he needed to convince the Herrnhuters of his point, and since he was translating, he chose words in German that matched the terminology of the Herrnhut community. By leaving out what did not match the situation in Herrnhut, he enhanced the impression that the original fifteenth-­century statutes corresponded with the Brotherly Agreement. Zinzendorf may have been just as impressed as the Herrnhuters with the similarities he found; he considered these parallels a possible means to overcome the last objections of the Moravians to his Philadelphian plans. By pointing out the resemblance of the constitution of Herrnhut to the ancient Unity, he in fact introduced a new element: the idea that Herrnhut was the regeneration of the old Unity of Brethren. There seemed to be only one explanation for the unexpected similarities: this was God’s doing. Soon Herrnhuters began to believe that God had renewed the extinct Unity of Brethren in Herrnhut. This conviction was something quite different from anyone’s original intent and raised many new questions regarding the self-­understanding of the community and its place within the religious and political landscape of Upper Lusatia. Let us now examine the ideas and beliefs of the Herrnhut community.

5 Beliefs and Ideals May eternal Love fasten the bond of his Spirit among the brethren and the children of love and extend the Philadelphian congregation. Amen! —Watteville to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, January 5, 1724

Philadelphianism, Pietism, Unity During his grand tour in 1719 Zinzendorf became acquainted with Cardinal Louis Antoine de Noailles in Paris. For the next ten years, despite an age difference of forty-­nine years, Zinzendorf and Noailles engaged in a correspondence about theological and ecclesiastical matters. One letter that is particularly informative about Zinzendorf ’s ecclesiology was written in March of 1726. It is Zinzendorf ’s lengthy response after Noailles criticized him for separating from the church and pleaded to preserve the unity of Christianity.1 Zinzendorf expounded on his ideas of the church, on the relationship between the various denominations, and about the character of his community in Herrnhut.2 Zinzendorf emphasized to Noailles the importance of the early church as the basis for his ideas: “the time the closest to Jesus Christ and his disciples . . . provides me all materials for my system.”3 The unity of the church, which Noailles urged him to preserve, was long lost, Zinzendorf countered, not only because of the activities of Luther and the other Protestant reformers but also because of the centuries-­long persecution of dissenters by the Roman Catholic Church. Zinzendorf did not pursue a “union exterieure” but a “communion interieure,” a spiritual union of all the elect. The universal church was the church of which Jesus was the Husband and

beliefs and ideals      131

Head, uniting all the elect. This “Corps Mystique de Jésus-­Christ” was the spiritual gathering of true believers. The universal church, therefore, was not represented by one institutional church, nor was it a union of ­various institutional churches; the universal church consisted of true believers, independent of their affiliation with an institutional church. To Noailles he defined true believers not as those who followed a particular “Docteur” (such as Luther or Calvin) but rather as those who were born of God (John 1:13). Zinzendorf distinguished between Lutheran theology and the institutional Lutheran Church. As he explained to Noailles, he considered himself a Lutheran, finding that Lutheran theology conformed to the Bible. The practice of Lutheran doctrine, however, was “not worth much,” nor was this any different for the other denominations.4 The Lutherans, Zinzendorf wrote, “slavishly” clung to their rites, as described in the Book of Concord. Zinzendorf was indifferent to the Lutheran cultus (“ je suis indifferent sur le Culte de celle”), although he was willing to attend Lutheran worship and participate in the church. None of the institutional churches, Zinzendorf wrote, had any semblance to the bride of Christ, who was “completely holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27).5 All of this conformed to the Philadelphian ideas we discussed earlier. Zinzendorf described Herrnhut to Noailles as the town where he practiced the ideals of brotherly love with a group (“fraternité”) of followers of different backgrounds and with divergent ideas. Zinzendorf assured Noailles he did not use his position as secular lord to control the conscience of his subjects, and although they differed in their opinions, they considered the usual theological controversies and disputes nonsense (“fadaise”). Besides being united with these brothers and sisters in Herrnhut, Zinzendorf felt he was part of a “majestic plenitude of men of God, spread throughout the universe,” which included many representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.6 The universal church that Zinzendorf believed he was part of was not the one defined by Noailles as an institutional church but the invisible, Philadelphian church of true believers. This chapter will examine the ideals of the Herrnhut community. Piety in Herrnhut consisted of a combination of Philadelphian and Pietist components: the exemplariness of the early church, a relativization of confessional boundaries, criticism of the institutional churches, an emphasis on brotherly love as the distinguishing feature of the true believer, the voluntariness of any involvement in the institutional church, and the importance of the conventicle. Some of these elements, such as the indifferentism to confessional

132      herrnhut

distinctions and the high regard for prayer meetings, were compatible with the ideas of the crypto-­Protestants from Moravia. Zinzendorf was the most influential person when it came to determining faith and piety of the community, and university-­educated theologians such as Rothe and Scheffer were influential, but religious belief in the Herrnhut community was predominantly a matter of lay theology.7 Until his ordination in Tübingen in 1734 Zinzendorf had been a layman himself, and despite taking an official theological exam in Stralsund that same year, he never received any formal theological training.8 Theological discourse in Herrnhut took place among unlikely candidates, such as craftsmen, members of the nobility, and women as well as adolescents and children. Lay men and women gave meditations, lessons, and prayers.9 Their voices were considered to be authentic and genuine, speaking of true religious experience. In this chapter we will examine the beliefs and ideals of the Herrnhut community. We will look at the role of laypeople, possible influences that shaped the Herrnhuters, and how their faith was expressed, and we will explore various topics that were important in Herrnhut—not in order to design a systematic theology but rather as illustrations of their piety.

Lay Organization Characteristic of life in Herrnhut was the leadership of laypeople. Once in a while befriended ordained ministers held a meeting, but most of the time laypeople conducted the meetings. Lutheran pastors such as Rothe from Ber­ thelsdorf or Liberda from Hennersdorf regularly attended these meetings, but mostly as participants.10 The Brotherly Agreement, stating that any person who had “received the gift” was to speak in the religious meetings, assigned the role of preaching to laypeople rather than to ordained pastors.11 With this paragraph Zinzendorf had not only himself in mind but even more so the many men who regularly conducted the meetings in Herrnhut: Christian David, David Nitschmann (weaver), David Nitschmann (carpenter), David Nitschmann (shoemaker), Martin Rohleder, Augustin Neisser, Martin Dober, and Melchior Nitschmann. Some of these men were used to conducting prayer meetings at their homes in Moravia before they immigrated to Herrnhut. In his “Description of Herrnhut” David emphasizes that they were not educated theologians: “There are six preachers [Lehrer] who speak during the public meetings in Herrnhut. These are common people who only speak from experience.”12 Although David described the role of the women preachers (“Lehrerinnen”) differently from that of the male preachers, women did

beliefs and ideals      133

also conduct religious gatherings and sometimes even preached, as we shall see below.13 Jonathan Strom summarizes the following characteristics of radical Pietist ideas on preaching: they encouraged lay preaching, they were more open to spiritualist interpretations, and they separated preaching from an ecclesial context. Moravians believed lay preaching was a characteristic of early Christianity.14 As Strom notes, “the inclusion of non-­traditional preachers from carpenters like Christian David to noblemen like Zinzendorf was part of the Moravian success.”15 The 1728 Herrnhut diary notes, “On February 6 Augustin [Neisser] spoke so marvelously in the prayer meeting that our dear brethren from Hennersdorf said it reminded them very much of the times of the apostles.”16 Soon thereafter, during the 1730s, Moravians began ordaining their lay leaders, both men and women. Even so, during most of the eighteenth century Moravian ordination did not require formal university training but rather the right state of one’s heart. All of this complied with a Pietist understanding of preaching and the ideal of the priesthood of all believers, combined with an aversion to intellectualism in regard to matters of faith.17 Zinzendorf sometimes juxtaposed the wisdom of the world with the insights of the heart, as when he recounted how visiting theologians discussed theological matters with the lay preachers, such as with Martin Dober: “At 9 o’clock a count, a nobleman, or a professor would meet with him to find him barefoot in his workshop. They sat down in front of his potter’s wheel and were hanging on his every word.”18 The Herrn­ huters may have been uneducated, but they spoke from the experience of their hearts. Similarly, Anna Nitschmann was celebrated as an example of the ideal of anti-­intellectualism. Anna, who became eldress of the women at the age of fourteen, combined three characteristics that would make her seem unsuitable in the eyes of the world for her position: she was uneducated, she was a woman, and she was young. A Moravian image from 1747 shows young Anna at her spinning wheel while learned men came to consult her on theological issues.19

Women Women often played leading roles within the Pietist movement,20 and this was very much the case in early Herrnhut. Their active participation in the life of the community was believed to be in accordance with apostolic traditions. Spener did not specifically encourage women to play active religious roles, but by stressing the equality of all believers, he allowed opportunities

134      herrnhut

for stronger female participation in the church. Radical Pietists such as Gottfried Arnold had argued that women were equally part of the early church and that they instructed not only other women in the faith but men as well.21 Crucial for Arnold was a text from the book of Acts: “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren” (Acts 1:14). According to Arnold, for God there was no difference of gender. Interestingly, the strict gender separation in Herrnhut advanced active roles for women. Because close contact between single men and women was prohibited, pastoral care among women had to be provided by the women themselves.22 One reason for the strict gender separation was to gear pastoral care toward the needs of each group. Another reason was a fear of transgressing boundaries, which could result in inappropriate behavior. A common criticism against Pietist groups was the “mingling” of men and women in the collegia pietatis. The visibility and active roles of women in conventicles often resulted in scandalous rumors.23 Herrnhuters were also accused of this. For example, in 1728 there were rumors that Zinzendorf was caught alone with a maid.24 Pastor Scheffer wrote, “I know before God that I strongly advise against speaking alone with sisters, especially when they please the eye. Because I know the tricks of the fiend.” Scheffer considered anyone who denied being susceptible to lustful thoughts in the presence of the opposite sex “imaginary or deceitful.”25 When Zinzendorf drafted guidelines on organizing prayer meetings for an unnamed community, he recommended that women be completely excluded from the gatherings of the men. Women were to have their own meetings, “for in Christ Jesus neither male nor female is given preference above the other in inward matters.”26 Separation of the genders in Herrnhut led to a parallel structure among the men on one side and the women on the other side. This parallelism would become an essential feature of the Moravian Church throughout the eighteenth century. Women in Herrnhut were active in various capacities: they provided pastoral care to other women, they held offices, they conducted prayer meetings and preached, they gave substantial financial support, and they expressed their opinions. Women visited other women in their houses, admonished other women, and hosted meetings of the bands (pastoral prayer groups).27 The leaders of the various women’s bands met together for consultations under the leadership of Countess von Zinzendorf.28 Women also taught in the schools. When Rothe introduced the apostolic offices in 1725, he assigned women in parallel to men. There was one exception, however: there was no female equivalent of the (highest) office of eldress. Rothe reserved the office of elder

beliefs and ideals      135

for himself and did not appoint a woman to a parallel role. Even after Herrnhut was made more independent from Berthelsdorf in 1727, that office was initially occupied only by men. This changed when statutes were also introduced in Berthelsdorf in 1728 and besides three male elders four women eldresses were appointed.29 Finally, when the statutes were revised in Herrnhut in November of 1728, twelve eldresses, including four chief eldresses, were appointed for the Herrnhut community. Perhaps the Herrnhut women had questioned the lack of eldresses, because the justification for the appointments seems somewhat apologetic: “Because the community continued to grow and because competent subjects are also found among the women themselves, and because it was deemed a good thing that each sex serves itself and takes care of both external and internal congregational matters, the elders and the warden [Zinzendorf] agreed to also appoint eldresses among the sisters.”30 In 1730 the twelve eldresses were reduced to one chief eldress: Anna Nitschmann, assisted by two helpers, became eldress of all women and girls.31 Beginning in 1725, women were appointed to the office of preacher, although other women also conducted prayer meetings and preached. We already found that Johanna von Zezschwitz not only hosted prayer meetings at her home in Berthelsdorf but also conducted the meetings herself. Zinzendorf ’s wife, Erdmuth, conducted “revival meetings” for women, during which she gave an address and spoke about biblical texts. The elders authorized Dr. Gutbier’s wife, Dorothea, to “instruct” the young girls.32 Soon other women began to preach as well. After receiving instructions from Zinzendorf in giving religious addresses, Anna Helena Anders began to preach: “Anna Helena gave a marvelous address to all the women.”33 Unlike Zezschwitz or Erdmuth Zinzendorf, Annalene, as she was usually called, came from humble origins. She was one of the local villagers who joined the religious community on the Berthelsdorf estate. Anna Helena Anders was born in October of 1703 in Berthelsdorf, where she had a difficult childhood. She lost an eye and did not receive much education. According to Zinzendorf, she was easily startled because of her frightening experience of having to tend sheep by herself at dusk on the Hutberg, “where, as people say, it was unsafe.” While employed as a maid by Zezschwitz, she was drawn into the religious community. Annalene was appointed sick nurse when Rothe installed the apostolic offices in 1725. On May 14, 1726, she married David Nitschmann, the linen weaver and later syndic. This unlikely union of a wealthy linen weaver and an indigent woman with one eye was often proudly presented as an example of a marriage based upon true faith. Moving in with her husband in Herrnhut did not make things easy for her.

136      herrnhut

Fig. 10  Portrait of Johanna von Watteville, née von Zezschwitz (1697–1762). Oil on canvas by John Valentine Haidt. Unity Archives, Herrnhut, Germany, GS 073.

Annalene was considered an outsider among the Moravian settlers in Herrnhut while at the same time she became estranged from many villagers in Berthelsdorf because of her close affiliation with the Herrnhut community. Over time, however, she earned the respect of the Herrnhuters. In 1728 she became one of the first group of eldresses in Herrnhut. According to Zinzendorf ’s eulogy for Annalene, she converted “unbelievably many souls among the women,” and many women admired her. On the other hand, she suffered from physical pain and chronic disease. On March 20, 1734, she died in Herrnhut.34 An overview from early 1728 lists five women preachers (Lehrerinnen), and in November of 1728 a total of fourteen women preachers is mentioned.35 What did the office of Lehrerin entail? Their responsibilities were in fact somewhat different from those of a (male) Lehrer. The German word Lehrer means “teacher,” and it appears that the office of Lehrerin indeed included the responsibilities of a teacher: instructing women before their reception into the congregation, giving the schoolgirls religious education, and teaching them to read and write.36 But this was not all: the Lehrerinnen were also leaders of the small pastoral bands, and women in Herrnhut definitely preached. Women usually only preached before other women, but in some cases they appear to have spoken in front of mixed audiences. Although Christian

beliefs and ideals      137

David’s claim that women should “keep silent” (1 Cor. 14:34) and only speak in front of the congregation when a female confirmand was presented seems to have been the rule, women in Herrnhut were not completely silent. Two young women prayed “heartily in public,” it was noted in November of 1727.37 “Four sisters were confirmed, at which Annalene gave a truly majestic address to them about which we all felt unsettled. Both great fear and joy had come over the congregation.”38 Another occasion where Annalene spoke in the meeting hall before the entire congregation was on the day of the wedding of Tobias Friedrich and Catharina Elisabeth Heintzel on November 8, 1728. At the conclusion of the wedding service three sisters were confirmed “after an earnest address by Annalene.” After the men and women present had wished the bride and groom well by citing hymns and Bible verses, “the congregation departed with blessing.”39 When a royal commissioner visited Herrnhut in January of 1732, Zinzendorf took him to the morning devotions at the girls’ school to hear a woman give a meditation on 1 Corinthians 15.40 Women also played important roles among the pious groups affiliated with Herrnhut in the neighboring communities. In Seifhennersdorf Anna Dorothea Paul was called the “instrument” through whom many were converted.41 Women gave financial support to many Pietist projects, although their contributions often remained anonymous.42 Zinzendorf ’s grandmother Henriette Katharina von Gersdorf is known to have contributed to both Spener and Francke.43 After her initial opposition to Zinzendorf ’s plans with Ber­ thelsdorf, she changed her mind in May of 1724 and donated “a considerable amount” to the planned projects of the Brotherhood of Four.44 As mentioned above, this association, contrary to its name, did not consist only of men; women such as Erdmuth von Zinzendorf and Johanna von Zezschwitz actively participated in the planning and the financing of the projects. Another financial contributor was Dorothea Gutbier, who was also one of the women preachers in Herrnhut. Dorothea Tugendreich Nichte, née Pfeiffer, was the widow of Pastor Gottfried Nichte in Leschwitz, four kilometers south of Görlitz. She married Berthelsdorf physician Johann Christian Gutbier in 1724.45

Apostolic Faith As stated in the previous chapter, the Brotherly Agreement defined the doctrine of the Herrnhut community in a very general manner as “the simple teachings, examples, and rules of Jesus and his apostles.” The general formulation of this statement was intentional. Herrnhuters believed there was an

138      herrnhut

original, apostolic doctrine to be found in the biblical text that had been obscured and misinterpreted by later generations of theologians. At the same time, this statement implied a rejection of the official doctrine of the various institutional churches. The example of the early church as a model for true, authentic Christianity was of great significance in early Herrnhut. For example, when Zinzendorf invited the father of his friend and collaborator Friedrich von Watteville to move from Switzerland to Herrnhut, he described the town as “a blessed specimen of early Christianity in all its purity where people from different sects were united to one church.”46 The establishment of an apostolic congregation in Herrnhut was directly connected to Philadelphian ideals. The apostolic character of the Herrnhut community has been acknowledged before, but its embeddedness in Philadelphianism is only rarely recognized.47 Philadelphians wanted to reestablish the original “apostolic faith” and modeled their societies on the example of the early church, without the later additions or corruptions that they thought were so prevalent in the institutional churches.48 Zinzendorf, together with the members of his conventicle in Dresden, read Arnold’s book on primitive Christianity, Die Erste Liebe.49 In later years he recalled that he conducted his life and private meetings in Dresden “in the fashion of the first Christians.”50 As patron (Kollator) of the Berthelsdorf parish church, Zinzendorf tried to fulfill this role in an apostolic manner. So when he called Rothe as pastor to Berthelsdorf in 1722, he wanted to follow procedures “that without doubt were followed in the earliest and purest church,” whereby each individual member was to be asked about the candidate for the office of pastor. Realizing the impracticality of this procedure, he asked the congregation as a body, “How did you like today’s preacher?”51 This method, however, did not really differ from the common procedure in Upper Lusatia at that time, which allowed all parishioners the right to express their opinion when a new pastor was called.52 The apostolic offices that Pastor Rothe, with Zinzendorf ’s approval, announced among select members of the Berthelsdorf parish in February of 1725 were not regular offices for a Lutheran congregation; they were meant to pastor those people who were part of the group of regenerate believers. The fact that Rothe was elder under this arrangement confirms that the offices were intended not for the regular parish but for the “apostolic congregation” as it developed on the Berthelsdorf estate. Two years later the formation of an apostolic congregation was further realized with the introduction of the Brotherly Agreement for all “Brethren in Herrnhut to Enter into a Single Apostolic Statute,” as the original title of

beliefs and ideals      139

the document states. The Herrnhuters were to practice love among each other: “Brethren shall do all things unto one another for love in freedom according to the manner of the first church, as far as possible” (no. 15). And the core of preaching in Herrnhut was to be “the simple teachings, examples, and rules of Jesus and his apostles” (no. 37).53 Surprisingly, the topic of a community of goods was considered only for smaller units within the congregation rather than for the entire community. In his authoritative work on primitive Christianity, Gottfried Arnold praised the way the first Christians shared material goods. True children of God, according to Arnold, shared whatever they owned. This was a sign of equality among believers; true believers love one another, and from love springs community of property. For Arnold community of property was a characteristic of a “true brotherly community.”54 Zinzendorf and most Herrnhuters, who used Arnold as a guide in many other matters, did not follow his advice on issues of property and worldly goods when it came to the organization of the community as a whole.55 When smaller entities within the community began living together, however, the concept of a communal household was indeed considered. In February of 1728 the single men introduced a common household according to the example in the book of Acts. The single women soon did the same thing.56 Later, Moravians practiced large communal households in such communities as Heerendijk, Netherlands; Bethabara, North Carolina; and especially Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. These were not strictly communities of goods where property was communally owned, but they were communal households where everyone worked for the common good and received in return what they needed (food, shelter, and clothing).57 Besides Zinzendorf, important sources for the piety in early Herrnhut are Christian David and Martin Dober. Their texts, complemented with details from accounts written by others, provide a further understanding of the piety and worldview in early Herrnhut. Christian David was by far one of the most important voices of early Herrnhut. He preached wherever he went, and a large number of the Herrnhut residents had made the decision to immigrate after hearing him preach. Many of his religious treatises, his historical texts, and his hymns survive; some were printed, one even in Danish translation, but his ideas have yet to receive scholarly attention.58 In a letter to David Schneider he indicated which parts of the New Testament he cared for most: “Read the Second Epistle to the Corinthians chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, there you will find my entire point, and in the Revelation to John and in the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus Christ you will find my entire foundation and confession of faith.”59 Nowhere does David show much knowledge of the theology of the Unity of Brethren. His faith was formed

140      herrnhut

during the years of his travels through Central Europe and particularly while living in Görlitz. David’s teachings bear radical Pietist characteristics with obvious Philadelphian influences. For example, in a letter to Heitz from 1725 he describes the Herrnhuters as “lovers of impartiality and of the pure Word of God, how it is found in the Bible without human additions.”60 In his Description of Herrnhut he summarizes the theology of Herrnhut: “In our congregation we proclaim the message of reconciliation very strongly, that Jesus Christ has suffered the sin of the world with his body on the cross.” The Herrnhuters were to accept Jesus in stages: “first as wisdom, then as right­ eousness, then as sanctification, and finally as salvation.” The Herrnhuters believed Jesus revealed himself in the soul in a phased manner that paralleled his life on earth: “how in a soul Jesus is conceived, how he is born, becomes subject, revealed, and fruitful, how he suffers, dies, resurrects, and ascends into heaven, how Christ’s entire life has to happen in a soul and be accomplished.”61 Another leading lay preacher in Herrnhut was Martin Dober. Dober arrived in Herrnhut from Dresden, where he worked as a potter, in September of 1725. He came with a letter of recommendation from Zinzendorf ’s neighbor, organ builder Klemm.62 Dober was born in 1703 in Mönchsroth in Franconia and had moved to Dresden, where his uncle was an artist potter. He was an apprentice in the potter’s workshop of Gottfried Lehmann, who moved to Herrnhut himself in 1726. Later Dober married Lehmann’s sister Christiane Dorothea.63 Soon Martin’s younger brothers Leonhard and Andreas also moved to Herrnhut. Martin Dober’s uncle was acquainted with Zinzendorf. We may assume Martin attended Zinzendorf ’s conventicles in Dresden. According to Klemm’s letter, Dober had a profound desire to live among “children of God.” Martin Dober soon became one of the leading men in Herrnhut. He gave prayers, preached, and became one of the leaders of the small pastoral groups, the bands.64 Not long before his death in 1748 he reflected on the historical development of Moravian teachings from the time of his arrival in Herrnhut until the late 1740s.65 He summarized Pastor Rothe’s teachings in the early years. Rothe preached about Jesus’s death on the cross as the source for atonement. Important in Rothe’s preaching was the Pietist emphasis on faith being needed to bring about a change of a person’s behavior. Sanctification of one’s life was a response to the love of Christ who died and loved us first. A particular image that Rothe used regarding grace stuck in Dober’s memory: “Mr. Rothe said, free grace is like when someone falls into the privy and a king says: ‘come nonetheless! I will pull you out myself, I will clean you myself, etc.’ ”66

beliefs and ideals      141

As Dober stated, a central element of faith in early Herrnhut was a “theology of the cross”: salvation comes from Jesus’s death on the cross, his sufferings, his blood and wounds. The prayer given during the Communion service on August 13, 1727, mentions the “theology of the blood and the cross, on which depends our entire salvation.”67 A few days later Scheffer told the congregation that this concept was something he had come to fully understand through his experiences in Herrnhut.68 A popular hymn in these years was “So ruht mein Mut in Jesu Blut und Wunden” (My mind rests in Jesus’s blood and wounds), written by Erdmuth’s older sister Benigna Marie Countess Reuss. The hymn describes finding refuge in the wounds, remaining in Jesus as the true vine, and knowing nothing but Jesus.69 This was the beginning of the blood-­and-­wounds devotion that became so predominant for Moravians during the 1740s. The corresponding graphic language was used infrequently during the 1720s. One example is found in a letter by Friedrich Mordelt, who had moved to Berthelsdorf from Silesia together with his wife in May of 1723: “In the most beautiful purple worms and in Jesus Christ the Crucified dearly beloved brother and most valued friend” and “give strength and courage to me, poor, shy, silly, and scared little dove.”70 Herrnhuters considered brotherly love the main characteristic of a true Christian, and the members of the Herrnhut congregation were to practice this brotherly love. “Without love the entire religion is a chimera,” Scheffer wrote.71 Not long after August 13, 1727, Zinzendorf characterized Herrnhut as follows: “Herrnhut is founded through love and on love and shall be saved only through pure love.”72 The result of brotherly love was tolerance of other ideas. Watteville wrote how he learned this Philadelphian principle from Scheffer: “to tolerate with love all kinds of children of God, whoever they may be, and to love them ever more cordially and in a childlike manner, than to judge them.”73 For Herrnhuters, love was the opposite of the denominational division that existed within Christianity. Herrnhuters sometimes referred to God or Jesus as die Liebe (the Love): “Praise be to the faithful Love whom we love more and more for his outpourings of love that he has given you.”74 The use of the word “Love” not only as an attribute but also as a name of the divine is based on 1 John 4 (“God is love”), which was interpreted to identify God with love.75 The realization that God is love led to Watteville’s conversion in 1723.76 Pietists emphasized that faith needed to bring about a change in a person’s behavior. True faith needed to be rooted in the heart and was to be visible in someone’s daily life. This theme of sanctification is reflected in a letter of one of the Moravian settlers. A letter from David Tanneberger in Herrnhut to his father in Zauchtenthal was intercepted and landed with the authorities.

142      herrnhut

The letter is a testimony of his faith and his pursuit to put away his old self: “We pursue sanctification, without which nobody will be able to see the Lord. God is a holy being. He speaks: be holy because I am holy. And who on earth cannot get on with him will forever be excluded from God’s house of joy, even though he would shed a sea of tears. Oh, therefore I beg you: make sure you become holy with fear and trembling.”77 During the 1720s the Herrnhuters were expected to experience an Erweckung (awakening) or a Durchbruch (breakthrough) in their spiritual development.78 The Durchbruch is the final stage of the Pietist conversion process, which begins with Regung or Rührung (stirring), followed by an internal struggle (Busskampf), resulting in a breakthrough. Both Zinzendorf and his wife were once called “real broken-­through Christians” (“rechte durchgebrochne Christen”).79 For some the breakthrough was a datable event that was often remembered in subsequent years. For example, Watteville wrote, “Today is my spiritual birthday. I remember with most heartfelt joy that two years ago the light has been lit in my soul. May the Lord Jesus be gracious to me that I may grow even more during this third year than during my second year. My only desire is to please him and be a sanctified and pure vessel for his service.”80 For many the breakthrough was not a one-­time, life-­changing event but a changed state of mind resulting from a long process of gaining insight. The idea of a Durchbruch as a conversion became more prevalent in 1728. Beginning that year, the diary recounted many instances of Herrnhuters who experienced breakthroughs after having gone through struggles of repentance: “The number of those finding faith grew more and more, and not a week went by that people who underwent a penitential struggle got in and broke through.”81 Those who were “broken through” enjoyed a somewhat different status than those who had not yet experienced such a conversion, and their spiritual insights were valued more highly. For example, during a discussion about the words “daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, the two groups stood in opposition to each other: those who had attained a breakthrough argued that the phrase referred to spiritual bread, while others who had not yet broken through claimed it was important to also pray for physical bread. Martin Dober, trying to keep the peace, ended the dispute with a hymn.82 Zinzendorf soon abandoned the expectation of this schematic Pietist conversion process. A conversation with Pastor Mischke in Sorau in 1729, who questioned whether Zinzendorf was truly converted, is thought to have caused Zinzendorf ’s change of mind in this respect.83 Since then the breakthrough as central event in the development of an individual believer lost its meaning for the Herrnhuters.

beliefs and ideals      143

Related to the ideas on conversion is a mystic reading of the Beatitudes (Matt. 5) that was popular in Herrnhut during the 1720s. From November 1725 on we find Zinzendorf speaking regularly on this passage.84 An address on the Beatitudes he gave in Lichtenstein the following year was printed in the Freiwillige Nachlese.85 Other Herrnhuters, such as Augustin Neisser, David Nitschmann (cobbler), Martin Dober, and especially Christian David, also made the Beatitudes the topic of their meditations.86 When John Wesley visited Herrnhut in 1738, he was pleased to hear David preach on the Beatitudes.87 From the surviving texts of David’s addresses on this topic we learn that for him the Beatitudes were a description of the progressive journey of the plagued soul from misery to freedom and salvation.88 Zinzendorf read this passage in a similar way. For him the Beatitudes were a description of the different phases through which a believer passes on the path toward salvation.89 The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount were central to the theology of the Unity of Brethren, and it may be tempting to see continuity here between the ancient Unity and the Herrnhut community. It seems highly unlikely, however, that the Herrnhuters were influenced by traditions from the Unity of Brethren in this respect, as both groups read this text very differently. For the Unity of Brethren the Sermon on the Mount was the basis for their social ethics,90 while Zinzendorf and Christian David interpreted it in a mystical way and applied it to a process of transformation of the individual believer.91 A crucial concept in early Herrnhut’s piety was Einfalt (singleness or simplicity). This concept is connected to the notion that there was an authentic, apostolic doctrine that was covered by later human additions and interpretations. The Brotherly Agreement, which contains the word four times, summarizes the doctrine of the congregation as “the simple teachings, examples, and rules of Jesus and his apostles.”92 Zinzendorf ’s statement regarding his objections to Rothe’s seven points from February of 1727 also uses the term “simple” or “simplicity” multiple times.93 Christian David wrote during the time of his greatest resentment against Rothe and Zinzendorf, “Oh, I desire to change my voice [Gal. 4:20] and recant, especially the false doctrine of so-­called Christian simplicity [2 Cor. 11:3] and the wisdom of the just [Luke 1:17] that I sucked up from men, whereby a true devil’s grip and pestilent poison are scattered under a show of Christian simplicity and wisdom94 [Col. 2:23], and the beast and his marks are received [e.g., Rev. 14:11].” David may have objected to what he perceived as insincerity, but the notion of simplicity was a central concept of official teaching in Herrnhut during the 1720s.

144      herrnhut

Simplicity, in fact, was a central concept of Pietism.95 In his Pia Desideria Spener called on the believer to hear the simplicity of the words of Jesus, without any human “shrewdness” (Spitzfindigkeit) or philosophy. Only the simple word of the Bible leads to “true godliness” (wahre Gottseligkeit). Spener called for the study of theology to be freed from doctrinal controversies and “to be brought back to apostolic simplicity.”96 For Pietists simplicity was the pure, authentic message of the Bible, without human theologizing. At the same time, simplicity was the attitude of sincerity that each believer should strive for. Furthermore, simplicity meant hearing and accepting God’s word with an open heart and without “brooding” (Grübelei).97 August Hermann Francke preached similar ideas. When in the summer of 1727 Zinzendorf came across a copy of Francke’s Gedancken von der Einfalt (Thoughts on simplicity), he was so pleased with Francke’s ideas that he decided to reprint the tract for the Herrnhut congregation.98 Simplicity is also a central concept in Petersen’s Geistlicher Kampff, a book Zinzendorf recommended to several of his close relations.99 Divine simplicity is the opposite of cleverness. Simplicity is when believers are guided by God’s true light, which opens their hearts so they can understand Scripture. Thus, God reveals himself to the simpleminded and not to the wise.100

The World One important aspect of life in the Herrnhut community was withdrawal from the world. It was a prominent element of Pietism, but not all Pietists withdrew from the world in the same manner and to the same degree.101 Herrnhut constituted its own world, where all aspects of life, both secular and religious, were controlled by the community. Various Herrnhuters mention separation from the world in their letters. Johanna von Zezschwitz and her two sisters were some of the earliest members of the pious community in Berthelsdorf. They abandoned their noble lifestyle when they chose a humble abode above the stable of the half-­finished manor house complex. Johanna wrote, “We pray to our dear Father that he will make us into pious children of God. The world may not like us and we do not like the world.”102 The Ranftler family left Moravia in an attempt to withdraw from the world. Many years earlier, Christian David apprenticed with Michael Ranftler and his nephew in Holleschau. Regina Bonacker, who examined the motives of newcomers upon their arrival, reported that the Ranftlers were not yet children of God but that they needed to escape the world in order to save their souls: “they were trapped in bad sins like drinking, gaming, dancing, and

beliefs and ideals      145

Fig. 11  Bird’s-eye view of Herrnhut from the northeast, 1753 (detail). Ink drawing by an unidentified artist. The view shows the Gemeinhaus on the central square a few years before the church was built. Unity Archives, Herrnhut, Germany, TS Mp.26.7.

whatnot, but they have begun to abstain from these but they do not have the strength to be steadfast and to endure mockings and persecution. They seized this opportunity [Thür, i.e., door] and are behaving well.”103 Withdrawal from the world went along with the creation of a counterworld where things were sometimes done counter to how they were done in the regular world.104 For example, the Manorial Commandments specifically prohibited opulent, worldly celebrations: “Dancing, banquets, guest meals (except for strangers passing through town), rounds of beer and sumptuous meals at weddings, christenings, or funerals, or common games shall be out of the question.”105 When Friedrich Kühnel defied this regulation and celebrated his wedding for three consecutive days, as we will see below, the elders decided to avoid the festivities.106 On occasion secular celebrations were adapted. For example, the observance of Fastnacht (Shrove Tuesday) was traditionally an occasion for festive indulgence in food and drink in advance of Lent. It was also a festival of reversal, when social roles were reversed and people mocked authority. In 1729 the Herrnhuters celebrated Shrove Tuesday, but they decided to turn things around and observe it opposite to the way the “world” was celebrating—thus making Shrove Tuesday a day of double reversal. Rather than becoming filled with food and drink, they wished to “become filled with the Spirit.”107

146      herrnhut

They inspired one another with “psalms, songs of praise, and lovely spiritual songs.” Social roles were reversed when Zinzendorf ’s steward, Tobias Friedrich, gave a love feast for the men who had gotten married during the previous seven years, while his wife invited the women to a similar celebration. Not the lord of the house hosted the love feast but rather his servants; instead of the typical luscious food of Shrove Tuesday, the Herrnhuters chose to celebrate with a liturgical meal of simple food and drink. A place where the world necessarily intersected with the inner dealings of the community was the inn. Housing guests seems to have been part of the original plan of Herrnhut, but finding an innkeeper who was able to meet the requirements of the community turned out to be challenging. In September of 1722 a judge from the neighboring village of Strahwalde asked Heitz if he could build an inn in Herrnhut, but his proposition appears to have been rejected because of objections from Zinzendorf ’s grandmother von Gersdorf.108 A few months later Jacob Neisser opened a beer room in his home, and in January of 1724 the first house officially became an inn.109 In 1725 Gottfried Lehmann from Dresden asked Zinzendorf for permission to build a new inn in Herrnhut. Lehmann was the Dresden potter in whose workshop Martin Dober worked before moving to Herrnhut. Zinzendorf had his doubts about Lehmann’s character, but Lehmann seemed willing to change.110 In 1726 Lehmann built the inn on the northwest corner of the town square, but Zinzendorf ’s concerns about him soon came true. Already in May of 1727 the Herrnhuters were trying to find a new innkeeper. The new candidate, a certain Mr. Leberecht from Dresden, however, made various demands and required permission to allow music and card games. When it turned out that Leberecht regularly beat his wife and did not at all lead a Christian life, the Herrnhut community quickly lost interest in his candidacy.111 The section in the Brotherly Agreement regarding the reputation of the innkeeper as “a man of good and irreproachable conduct” seems to have been prompted by the experiences with Lehmann and Leberecht.112 For his remaining time in Herrnhut Lehmann stayed distant from the congregation; after Zinzendorf wrote him an official reprimand, he decided to leave and emigrate with his family to Germantown, Pennsylvania.113 During the following years the inn continued to cause concern as a place of heavy drinking and unruly behavior.114 Pastor Rothe even published a treatise on how a Christian innkeeper should make his inn a place of virtue by not allowing greed and a desire for profits to guide his actions, and by keeping the guests from cursing, heavy drinking, and other forms of bad behavior.115 Evil forces were a reality in the Herrnhuters’ worldview. The devil ruled the world and did his best to hinder the extension of the kingdom of God.116

beliefs and ideals      147

The “enemy” or “fiend” was always ready to strike and actively sought to obstruct God’s work in Herrnhut. Especially when things were going well, he was ready to make his power known. The Herrnhut diary recounts how the repeated tricks of the devil were successfully countered by the congregation. The devil could come in the guise of two drunken men from Zittau, the tax collector, or an unnamed count “N.”117 But whatever unrest the fiend attempted to stir, it did not last. Sometimes the fiend caused local rulers to act against the work of Herrnhut, such as when the authorities of neighboring villages prohibited their subjects from attending worship in Berthelsdorf. This “devil’s trick” did not succeed either, because the king overruled their order.118 It is not surprising, therefore, that on August 13, 1727, the day of the spiritual unification of the Herrnhut community, which forms the peak of the narrative in the diary, the devil attempted to obstruct the course of events. This time he presented himself as a wasp stinging Zinzendorf on the hand just as he was successfully winning the trust of someone who had distanced himself from the congregation.119 Encountering difficulties was interpreted as proof that one was doing the work of God: the forces of evil only stirred when the devil felt threatened. For example, when Scheffer came under attack by his colleagues and the city authorities, Zinzendorf congratulated him: “It is dear to my heart that your every step is being made difficult. This is a better sign than when everything would go easily. After all, our fiend has not become so pious that he would leave us unhindered.”120 Hartmut Lehmann points out that Pietists, in addition to the biblical revelation, attached great significance to signs of God, small or big events they observed in the world around them and that they interpreted as a form of God’s guidance.121 The Herrnhuters often observed unusual coincidences and unexpected events as signs of a divine reality breaking through into their lives. The Herrnhut diary contains many such examples. On September 7, 1728, five men who had been sent out as messengers to different places in Europe, such as England, Vienna, and Brandenburg, all returned to Herrnhut on the same day.122 Another time, during a worship service in the hall of the Great House, just when Zinzendorf prayed for God to “shake up our slow minds that do not want to hear about labor,” a heavy weight within the clock fell with such force “that the entire hall trembled.”123 The Herrnhuters considered their world a place ruled by God where they need not have any fear. Dangerous situations that ended well were recorded as proof of God’s protective hand over his servants: on a journey once, distracted during a conversation about his travel companion’s innermost self,

148      herrnhut

Zinzendorf fell out of the carriage. The wagon wheel rolled over his body, but the count remained unharmed, beyond “a little confusion.”124

Marriage and Sexuality Zinzendorf ’s so-­called marital religion, his ideas on marriage and sex—or what he himself called his Ehereligion—has been studied in great detail in recent years.125 He believed that with lust removed from sex, sexual intercourse between true Christians was a sacred act, during which a couple was able to experience a foretaste of the union between Christ as the Bridegroom and the individual believer as the bride.126 Until now it has been unclear when these ideas originated. In this section we will find that Zinzendorf developed his ideas on marital matters during the early years of Herrnhut. For many Christian believers at the beginning of the eighteenth century, sexuality was a pressing issue. Sex was considered to be related to the Fall of Man (Gen. 3), and sexual thoughts caused great concern and distress for many trying to live a pious life. Like most orthodox Protestants, many Pietists believed that sex was not sinful as long as it took place between two properly married individuals. Marriage was accepted as being instituted by God, and sexuality within marriage was considered free of sin. However, radical Pietists saw things differently. They considered sex sinful, regardless of whether it took place inside or outside of marriage. Some radical Pietists were in favor of so-­called virginal marriages, where both parties agreed to abstain from sex to avoid defiling their souls. Others taught strict celibacy and were opposed to marriage altogether.127 In early Herrnhut varying positions regarding marriage and sexuality were represented. We know little about the ideas of the Moravian settlers regarding marriage. Some were among the first to get married in accordance with Zinzendorf ’s marital theology, while others remained reluctant to practice his ideas of marital purity, as a text from 1744 seems to suggest.128 There was also Gichtelian influence in early Herrnhut. Johann Georg Gichtel (1638–1710), a radical Pietist who lived in exile in Amsterdam for most of his life, strongly rejected marriage. His followers lived in small, strictly celibate communal households and refused to attend church services or partake in Communion.129 A relatively large group of Gichtelians existed in Dresden, and Zinzendorf appears to have been in close contact with them.130 Zinzendorf ’s Dresden housekeeper, Christiane Oertel, was a follower of Gichtel, and so was Regina Bonacker, who lived in Herrnhut.131 Some Herrnhuters,

beliefs and ideals      149

such as the Dobers, had close relatives who were Gichtelians or had a Gichtelian background themselves.132 There are other indications that ideas on sexual abstinence existed in early Herrnhut, such as a note written by Siegmund Krüger. Krüger, the self-­ proclaimed prophet whose presence in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut in the second half of 1726 caused division within the community, appealed to the elders, hoping to avert his forthcoming exclusion from the congregation. He expressed the hope that “we who disentangle ourselves more and more from all defilement with women in order to follow the Lamb as pure beings” might join together in one belief.133 Krüger had already expressed the notion of celibate purity in a letter written at the beginning of 1726, when he was still in Ebersdorf.134 Krüger’s notion of celibate purity differed from Zinzendorf ’s concept of marital purity. Krüger, who had abandoned his wife, appears to have been more concerned about abstaining from sex altogether, something Zinzendorf did not agree with. Zinzendorf had struggled with questions of marriage, purity, and sexuality himself. In a lengthy letter to his mother from May of 1722, written during the months of preparation for his engagement and marriage to Erdmuth Dorothea Countess Reuss, he outlined his ideas on marriage.135 Zinzendorf did not disagree with Luther’s position that marriage was ordained by God, but he believed that lust was evil and sinful, both outside and within marriage: “to be carnally inclined means death.” According to Zinzendorf, lust continued to exist within marriage and remained sinful: “Within marriage I encounter much opportunity to tickle my flesh under a sacred and good pretense.” Marriage did not sanction lust, but “the battle for the victory of chastity” needed to continue within marriage. Lust was permitted only for heathens and remained an abomination for (true) Christians, who were supposed to conduct an “undefiled marriage.” Whoever was unable to abandon lust, Zinzendorf wrote, should not get married but rather remain single. This was Zinzendorf ’s mindset when he entered into marriage with Erdmuth. He had decided to get married, not to satisfy his carnal desires (“no carnal affect drives me in the least”) but to have her as a “helper in the Lord.”136 Soon Zinzendorf introduced his ideas on sexuality and marriage to the Herrnhut community. In a speech from 1748 he traces the introduction of his ideas on marital purity back to the wedding of David Nitschmann (weaver) and Anna Helena Anders in 1726; theirs was the first marriage that practiced these ideas.137 A letter from David Nitschmann to an unidentified woman, possibly Erdmuth von Zinzendorf, written after the birth of one of their children, confirms this. In the letter he uses the terminology of Zinzendorf ’s

150      herrnhut

marital theology (“an undefiled marital bed”) and claims the child was born “as a child of God,” implying it was conceived without sin.138 In a letter to the married couples from 1727, Zinzendorf explicitly refers to ideas of marital purity, suggesting that this concept was not unfamiliar to them: “Beware of all fleshly love, so that you do not make your member a whore’s member; may your union, at all times, be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”139 On November 1, 1728, Zinzendorf instituted a new meeting for married couples, intended for discussing marital matters and how to keep a marriage “undefiled.” The meeting was called a “quarter hour” (Viertelstunde) and was to be held weekly; later, such quarter hours were also conducted in other Moravian communities as an opportunity to discuss marriage issues and concerns in light of Zinzendorf ’s marital theology.140 Wedding ceremonies of the early Herrnhuters were conducted in the Berthelsdorf church, as the law of the land required. Two weeks before the wedding, banns were announced in the same church, in compliance with and “out of respect” for parish regulations. The service observed the Lutheran liturgy, but the couple wore ordinary clothes and the bride did not wear a traditional bridal wreath.141 Pietists disapproved of lavish wedding parties; the Herrnhut Manorial Commandments specifically restricted festivities at weddings.142 Sumptuous wedding feasts and drinking gatherings at the local tavern were strictly forbidden for the Herrnhuters.143 In Upper Lusatia giving out rounds of beer and other drinking gatherings at an inn was required for serfs (Erbuntertanen), but since the inhabitants of Herrnhut were considered freemen, this regulation did not apply to them.144 Instead they held a love feast.145 In Herrnhut marriage and sexuality were matters very much under the control and direction of Zinzendorf and the elders.146 The statutes entrusted them with all authority over any planned marriage in Herrnhut. The elders sometimes made suggestions for the right marriage candidate, as they did in the case of David Fritzsch, who they suggested should marry Pastor Rothe’s maid.147 Zinzendorf, sometimes together with his wife, conducted pastoral care for the marriage candidates, before and after the wedding, instructing them in the expectations of an undefiled Christian marriage.148 Instruction in Zinzendorf ’s teachings on sexuality began long before marriage. Every Sunday throughout the day individual meetings were held for each group in the community, organized according to gender, age, and marital status. According to Christian David’s “Description of Herrnhut,” Zinzendorf discussed topics relating to the respective stage of life of the participants of these meetings. For example, the prayer meeting for single men often dealt with

beliefs and ideals      151

the concern over “lust and the defilement of body and spirit [2 Cor. 7:1].” The men received advice on how to avoid lustful thoughts and images in their head and how to avert “this sin.”149 The great extent of congregational oversight of marital and physical matters sometimes led to resistance among the Herrnhuters. One example is Friedrich Kühnel, a wealthy linen weaver from Oderwitz, who built a house in Herrnhut in 1725. He was usually a committed member of the community who accompanied Zinzendorf on visits throughout the region. However, he sometimes had difficulty subjecting himself to the rules of the community and intentionally provoked the leadership—for example, when, against the rules of gender-­segregated education, he tried to enroll his daughter in the boys’ school. After his wife’s death on May 2, 1727, he wished to remarry but became so annoyed with the control the Herrnhut leadership claimed over his marriage arrangements that he provocatively celebrated his wedding for three consecutive days.150 Others who rebelled against the amount of control the leadership exercised over marital matters included the single men. In May of 1730 the Herrnhut helpers turned to August Gottlieb Spangenberg, a former member of the group of regenerate students in Jena who had just visited Herrnhut for the first time in April of 1730.151 The helpers asked Spangenberg to mediate a conflict between a large group of single men and Zinzendorf. The Herrnhut men expressed great frustration with Zinzendorf. They blamed him for encouraging the single women to form a special union (Jungfernbund) and for persuading them to refuse to consider any marriage proposals without consulting their eldresses. When the union of the single women was announced in a song service in May 1730, a man who was already engaged to Anna Fiedler got so upset that he walked out of the service and left Herrnhut for good. The men called Zinzendorf “insidious” (hinterlistig) and accused him of limiting the free will of the women. Zinzendorf did not want to give in: “As long as he lived, he did not want to let the fiend into the congregation through the back door of marriage.”152 With his ideas on purity Zinzendorf broke the confines of Lutheranism. His unorthodox teachings on marriage and sexuality complicated his relationship with Pastor Scheffer. Scheffer had been sympathetic to many of Zinzendorf ’s non-­Lutheran and Philadelphian ideas, but he could not go along with Zinzendorf ’s ideas on marital purity. Wiegner’s diary provides us with a few details. In a meeting with the Schwenkfelders in Hauswalde, located twenty-­five kilometers west of Bautzen, Scheffer expressed his discontent with the Herrnhuters: “Regarding the Herrnhuters, however, he was

152      herrnhut

much enraged. He said their teaching on marriage was of the Devil and that on perfection a deception.”153

Influences Radical Pietists were often influenced by older traditions. Schneider points out that many Pietists possessed spiritualist literature; the libraries of important radical Pietists such as Johann Jacob Schütz, Johann Wilhelm, and Johanna Eleonora Petersen, as well as Gottfried Arnold, contained many “heterodox” titles.154 Albrecht-­Birkner calls the reception of non-­Lutheran literature a characteristic of the Pietist reform movement.155 The detailed surviving records enable us to examine some of the literature read in early Herrnhut. Unfortunately, we know very little about the books that individual Herrn­ huters read for themselves. Friedrich Mordelt once asked Zinzendorf ’s secretary, Tobias Friedrich, to buy for him a copy of the New Testament in the translation by Johann Heinrich Reitz in Dresden. This translation was apparently in use among people in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut; Rothe referred to it in his introduction to the Ebersdorf Bible.156 We also know that the works of the radical Pietists Johann Tennhard and Johannes Maximilian Daut were read in Herrnhut; Zinzendorf worried they made the single men critical of his governance.157 We are much better informed about the books Zinzendorf read. He was an avid reader of a great variety of books; often he borrowed books he saw someone else read. From Scheffer, for example, he borrowed Lutherus Redivivus, a selection of texts by Martin Luther with a preface by Philip Jacob Spener. The Luther texts were compiled in the form of dialogues, in which the words of the reformer were used to defend Pietism against recent attacks by orthodox Lutherans in Wittenberg.158 On several occasions we hear that Zinzendorf read treatises written by August Hermann Francke “with much pleasure.”159 In April of 1722, while staying in Hennersdorf in preparation for purchasing Berthelsdorf, Zinzendorf asked his landlord in Dresden, Augustin Beyer, to send him a number of books from his apartment. Because Beyer was unable to find one book “in the great mess,” we know its title: John Selden’s De Diis Syriis, about the mythologies of the world of the Hebrew Bible.160 A book particularly important to Zinzendorf during these years was Geistlicher Kampff der Erstgebohrnen (Spiritual battle of the firstborn) by

beliefs and ideals      153

Johanna Eleonora Petersen. In April of 1723 he sent a copy of this book to his mother in Berlin, telling her that he had also recommended this book to “my brothers and sisters in Berthelsdorf.”161 Petersen’s book compares the stages of the spiritual battle of a believer with the characteristics of the seven congregations from the book of Revelation. It was a “warrior’s” goal to become similar to Jesus, the firstborn, and thus also become a “firstborn.” During the spiritual journey, the Christian believer will be incited by love (Ephesus), suffer persecution (Smyrna), receive approval from the world (Pergamos), be tempted to abandon the true light (Thyatira), remain as the only righteous ones among those who are Christians in name only (Sardes), be set apart from the quarrelsome and corrupted “old Jerusalem” to form a “brother-­ loving, incorruptible, and indestructible new Jerusalem” (Philadelphia), and finally separate the “false new” from the “truly new” (Laodicea).162 Petersen’s reading of the seven congregations of Revelation differed from the historical periodization by the Philadelphian movement, but similar ideas underlie her interpretation. We can assume these ideas made this book appealing to Zinzendorf. According to Petersen, “the present outward Christianity” was corrupted: Roman Catholic and Protestant churches alike had abandoned the true light; they were characterized by “quarrelsomeness” and had become “a mere outward ritual affair.”163 True believers, on the other hand, allowed themselves to be guided not by reason to understand the Bible, but rather by the true inner light, which is Jesus Christ.164 According to Petersen, the community of true Christians is characterized by brotherly love and fellowship with children of God “from all sects and religions.”165 They should not, however, physically separate from their churches but rather separate in spirit.166 A physical separation would only lead to new “sects,” something that according to Petersen should be avoided unless God calls one to do so.167 Petersen encouraged practicing brotherly love toward all Christians, whether one was in full agreement or not.168 That, according to her, was the “spirit of the Philadelphian new Jerusalem: to love and embrace all children of truth from all outward religions.”169 While staying with his in-­laws in Ebersdorf in 1729, Zinzendorf came across a copy of Jean-­Fréderic Osterwald’s treatise on chastity in their library. Zinzendorf took it to bed with him and read it “with much joy.”170 He also enjoyed reading a copy of French archbishop François Fénelon’s biography, given to him by friends in Jena in 1727 to read on his travels, stating, “That is a man for me.”171 During his stay in Jena the following year he spent much time reading texts by the church fathers Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius in an edition by Thomas Ittig.172 In Jena he also read the meditations of Johann

154      herrnhut

Wilhelm, Duke of Sachsen-­Eisenach, and Hiob Ludolf ’s “church history” of Ethiopia.173 The biography of French Roman Catholic mystic Madame Guyon was so important to Zinzendorf that the congregational diary for February of 1728 mentions it several times.174 Sometimes devotional literature was discussed during the worship services. Once Zinzendorf discussed the life of “La bonne Armelle,” or Armelle Nicolas, a seventeenth-­century French maidservant who lived a pious life of charity and devotion.175 A book discussed among the preachers in Herrnhut was the Reise der Heuchler nach dem Himmel (Journey of the hypocrites to heaven), an allegorical journey of three brothers from Arabia to a place where they hoped to find eternal well-­being.176 Tracts by August Hermann Francke were read and sometimes also distributed among the worship attendants.177 The eulogy for Francke by Halle professor Paul Anton, who spoke about walking in the footsteps of Francke and practicing love by doing good works, “gave the congregation particular edification.”178 The author who was discussed most frequently during the prayer meetings was the medieval mystic Johannes Tauler. Tauler’s works remained influential in early modern Europe.179 Luther and other early Protestants read them, and he continued to be popular among both ecclesial and radical Pietists. Arndt included texts by Tauler in his Of True Christianity, and Gottfried Arnold published translated texts by Tauler in his works. In early Herrnhut Tauler’s works were also well received. In 1727 and 1728 Zinzendorf periodically discussed chapters from Medulla Animae, attributed to Tauler, during the “kleine Versammlung.” This “small gathering,” which was probably a meeting of a select group of Herrnhuters, is depicted in a manuscript description of Herrnhut from 1728: “Besides [the regular meetings] the count with eight or nine other brethren and the countess with several sisters gather twice a day, early at nine and in the evening. For a quarter hour they study inner matters of Christianity and observe closely the different ways of God’s guidance. The texts are the Bible and Tauler’s Medulla Animae.”180 From early on Zinzendorf and the Herrnhuters were interested in the Unity of Brethren, but not much actual information about the theology and practice of the Unity was known. Initially, only Bohemian hymnals were available. We know that both Scheffer and Gutbier owned hymnals from the Unity of Brethren; some settlers brought hymnals with them from Moravia.181 Zinzendorf ’s reading of Comenius’s Historia Fratrum Bohemorum in the summer of 1727 led, as we saw above, to the concept of the renewal of the Unity of Brethren in Herrnhut. After that Zinzendorf continued to read Comenius and other works about the ancient Unity. Comenius’s Labyrinth of the World and Paradise of the Heart was the topic of a worship service in May

beliefs and ideals      155

of 1728.182 On a preaching trip to Silesia in February of 1728, Christian David handed out copies of Comenius’s Unum Necessarium.183 The place where Zinzendorf hoped to realize his Philadelphian ideals was Herrnhut, “dans un petit coin de l’Allemagne,” as he had described it to Cardinal de Noailles.184 In the following chapter we will examine how religious life in this little corner of Germany was organized.

6 Life in Herrnhut It appears that God wants to live among us. —Christian David to Heitz, Herrnhut [1724]

On a Saturday evening in June of 1728, Zinzendorf had harsh words for the Herrnhut congregation about their “incredible negligence” in attending the prayer meetings. Zinzendorf ’s reprimand had an immediate effect because the next day, despite the fact that many had attended a nightly vigil, a large number of Herrnhuters came to church. But when Zinzendorf left on a trip to Jena the next month, “not even a fifth of the women” showed up for the song service. Attendance was sometimes a struggle, as worship services were frequent and expectations were high.1 Life in early Herrnhut was characterized by a variety of religious services. Every day, and often multiple times a day, the Herrnhuters gathered for devotions. Worship in Herrnhut developed from the Pietist conventicle and from crypto-­Protestant house worship. In many respects the Herrnhuters wanted to follow the example of the early church. To the outside world they gave the impression that worship in Herrnhut was intended to supplement the main church services in Berthelsdorf. A closer examination will reveal that Herrnhuters, except for perhaps the Sunday morning service, worshipped among themselves, separate from the Lutheran congregation. And even when they did worship in the Berthelsdorf church, some of these services could hardly be described as Lutheran services. In this chapter we will examine the locations where worship took place. Worship was not limited to indoor spaces; through music, the entire town was turned into a sacred space. We will discuss the variety of worship services and how these services were tailored to various groups within the community. The Herrnhuters believed themselves to be part of a larger network, but the 1727 statutes seemed to

life in herrnhut      157

define them as a separate group, evoking sharp criticism among other Pietists and forcing them to redefine these rules in 1728.

Locations With the construction of the Great House or Gemeinhaus completed in the fall of 1725, a space for religious gatherings became available.2 On the upper floor in the center of the Gemeinhaus, a meeting space measuring 26 by 10 Saxon ells (approx. 13 × 5 meters) was built. It has been claimed that this space was not originally intended as a worship space but rather as an assembly hall for the school; only because it easily lent itself to prayer meetings was it soon also used for that purpose.3 This claim is part of an apologetic narrative that worship in Herrnhut started out merely for practical reasons, only unintentionally developing into its own independent system of religious practice. The inclusion of a “prayer hall,” however, was part of the original plan for the Great House from the beginning. In the summer of 1724 Scheffer wrote that he hoped they would soon be able to finish the ground floor and begin work on the “prayer hall” (“Beth-­Sahl”).4 This indicates that a dedicated worship space was part of the project that the Brotherhood of Four had in mind when they initially conceived the Great House. The first mention of a religious meeting in the hall dates from November 19, 1725, when a pastor from Lichtenstein near Zwickau, Johann Karl Oertel, held a prayer meeting in Herrnhut.5 The Saal in Herrnhut was not a sanctuary with an altar or a pulpit. It was intentionally kept simple: there were backless wooden benches for the congregants and a table with a chair positioned in the front for the leader of the meeting. The earliest interior images of the Saal’s interior date from the 1750s; by that time the meeting hall had been expanded several times and measured three times its original size.6 The simplicity of the room was in agreement with radical Pietist ideas on worship spaces. Arnold claimed the early Christians gathered not in temples or basilicas like the heathen—intentionally drawing parallels with the institutional churches of his day—but in modest buildings that were unrecognizable as places of worship from the outside.7 However modest and inconspicuous, the presence of a worship space in Herrnhut exposed Zinzendorf to accusations of allowing conventicles. Zinzendorf argued that as long as Herrnhut could be considered a Filiale or affiliate of the Berthelsdorf church, he could claim that he simply wanted to provide the residents with a space where they could “read the word of God” due to lack of a real church.8

HERRNHUT, 1729

Map 3  Herrnhut in 1729, based on a reconstruction by Georg Wilhelm Häuser 1836 (TS Mp.3.15, UA). Häuser used Christian David’s letter to Johann Georg Heitz (Sept. 11, 1729, R.6.A.a.26.6.60) for his reconstruction. The missing numbers refer to open lots. 1.  Zacharias Preißkorn (with 2: first house) 2.  Michael Kloß 3.  Hans Münster 4.  Jacob Neisser 5.  Wenzel Neisser 6.  Hans Neisser 7.  Augustin Neisser 8.  Christian David 9.  David Nitschmann (cobbler) 10.  David Nitschmann (carpenter) 11.  Martin Dober 12.  Matthäus Teucher 13.  David Zeisberger 14.  David Nitschmann (“Father”) 15.  Hans Quitt 16.  David Fritsch 17.  Melchior Zeisberger 18.  Johann Nitschmann Sr. 19.  Paul Nitschmann 20.  Georg Haberland 21.  David Fritsch 22.  Hans Gold 23.  Thomas Beyer 24.  David Tanneberger 25.  David Nitschmann (weaver) 26.  Michael Haberland 27.  Michael Linner 28.  Christian Jäschke 30.  Andreas Grasmann 31. Gotthardt. Demuth 32.  Thomas Fischer

35.  Friedrich Paul 36.  Tobias Paul 37. empty 38.  Christoph Demuth 39.  David Quitt 40.  Matthäus Haberland 41.  Christian David 42.  Christian Paul 43.  stables and barn for the inn 44. inn 45.  “wing” for the girls’ school 46.  Friedrich Kühnel 47. outbuilding 48.  Caspar Oelsner 49.  Gottlieb Weber 50.  Gottfried Grünewald 51.  Augustin Leupold 52.  Adam Raschke 53.  Georg König 54.  manor house: Zinzendorf family 55.  Great House (Gemeinhaus) 56. cistern 57.  two wells 58.  Johann Raschke 59. garden 60.  workshops of the five Neisser brothers 61.  David Weber 62.  garden house 63. walking bridges from Great House to adjoining “wings”

160      herrnhut

Another location for religious meetings in Herrnhut was Zinzendorf ’s own residence on the southeast side of the square. Many meetings were held in the Tafelstube or dining hall on the ground floor of this building. Zinzendorf also conducted meetings in his own office (“des Vorstehers Stube”). Religious worship also took place outdoors, sometimes in small groups but mostly by individuals who sought solitude for prayer. Zinzendorf found solitude in a small wooded area near the Berthelsdorf church as well as in various locations in the fields and the woods surrounding Herrnhut.9 During the summer months vigils including prayer and hymns were kept on the Hutberg, the hill between Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut.10 Groups gathered on the Hutberg or in the woods for discussion and devotions.11 Often, after the services for the day had ended, the single men went around the village singing hymns.12 A group of departing visitors was given a warm farewell as Zinzendorf and many other Herrnhut residents accompanied them singing hymns until they reached the fields at the edge of the village, where they all knelt down for a final prayer.13 Thus, the outdoors became part of the sacred space of the Herrnhut community. Religious activity was not limited to the church, the meeting hall, or other designated spaces inside the buildings; rather, sacred space extended throughout the landscape of the Berthelsdorf estate. Religious activity outdoors was not without risk, however. In the summer of 1728 news reached Herrnhut that Moritz Christian von Schweinitz in Friedersdorf, who was other­wise sympathetic to Pietist ideals, had threatened to expel people from his lands because of the disturbance their outdoor revival meetings had caused.14 Each night a watchman kept watch over the town and its sleeping inhabitants. Watchmen were common in European towns during early modern times. The night watch in Herrnhut began on May 21, 1727, and was organized as a liturgical activity.15 The watchman was to sing a verse from a particular hymn at the top of each hour during the night.16 All men between the ages of sixteen and sixty, “no matter if they are barons or of nobility,” as David added in his description, were to take turns. The wake was considered to benefit both the soul of the watchman, who had ample opportunity to reflect on his spiritual condition during the quiet hours of the night, and the souls of the listeners, who were edified by hearing the hymn texts while lying in their beds. During the first few years visiting guests were also included in the night watch, as it was considered to be a meditative and edifying experience. By 1735 we find a distinction between a “brotherly watch” by trusted members of the congregation, performing their duty in a liturgical way, and a “civil watch” during which the watchman only had to announce the hours by blowing a

life in herrnhut      161

special horn.17 In 1728 a distinctive cape, boots, and cap were made for the watchmen.18 Sometimes others joined the watchman for musical vigils on the Hutberg.19 Burials originally took place in the graveyard outside of the Berthelsdorf church, but in 1730 the Herrnhuters began to bury their dead on the Hutberg. Securing the consent of Zinzendorf as the local lord and the authorities in Bautzen was essential, as burials outside the common cemetery were only possible in Upper Lusatia with permission from the authorities. Even though the Herrnhuters were now able to conduct burials according to their own rite, they were still subjected to various regulations, as we will see below.20 The Manorial Commandments from 1727, issued at a time when all burials were still conducted in Berthelsdorf, included a stipulation that seems to suggest a desire to limit the role of the Lutheran pastor in burials of ­Herrnhuters: “If so desired the Berthelsdorf pastor shall, together with the school[children], come to meet the corpses at the brew-­or shepherd’s house

Fig. 12  Formation of a funeral procession in Herrnhut. Pen and wash by Christian Meder, 1754. The image shows the congregation as they prepare to walk from the Gemeinhaus to the cemetery on the Hutberg: the musicians (C), the children (B) in front of the coffin (A) and the pallbearers (D), the minister (E), the men (F), and the women (G). Clearly visible are the connecting walking bridges from the Gemeinhaus to the wings on both sides. Unity Archives, Herrnhut, Germany, TS Mp.372.19.

162      herrnhut

but not any farther. However, the children from Herrnhut with their preceptor shall accompany them [the corpses] up to there, but without a cross or any similar rites.”21 This paragraph regulated the so-­called Leichenabholung, the ceremonial retrieval of the corpse. It was the duty of the pastor to go to the house of the deceased, together with the schoolchildren, to collect the body. The surviving relatives had to pay the pastor a fee.22 While the schoolmaster was in charge of the first part of the procession, Rothe took over for the very last part, which covered only the short distance from the brewer’s house, located on the creek between the manor house and the church, to the churchyard.23 No crucifix or other Lutheran ceremonial was allowed during the procession. Christian David’s Description of Herrnhut suggests that the reason for separate burials was to avoid the “Ceremonien” (rites) that are “necessary” when using the church.24 As we have seen above, the Herrnhuters were willing to voluntarily participate in the rites of the Lutheran Church, reserving for themselves the right to decide differently and make themselves independent. In November of 1730 the time had come for the Herrnhuters to bury their dead according to their own ideas, not the liturgy of the Lutheran Church.25 They obtained permission from the authorities and began to lay out the cemetery on the Hutberg.26 The first burial on the Hutberg was six-­ month-­old Hans Beyer on November 24, 1730. Zinzendorf described the cemetery (“God’s Acre”) as follows: “Our God’s Acre resembles more a lovely garden than a cemetery. There is an amphitheater where all brothers and sisters can watch the interment and join with laud and praise. The gate at the front will have the inscription ‘God’s Acre,’ the one toward the walk will get this one: ‘Laboratory for Herrnhut,’ because burial is nothing but the transformation of coarse metal into something finer.”27 Christian David writes, “Their garden of death is located on a hill, called Hutberg, and is laid out in straight lines as a square and divided into six rows of flowerbeds. It has a pleasant appearance and a lovely view.”28 Although the Herrnhuters gained the freedom to regulate their own funerals, they could not avoid having Pastor Rothe conduct the funerals, as this was the prerogative of the local minister, according to the regulations in Saxony.29 Usually the entire congregation attended the funeral, singing hymns while processing to God’s Acre. Rothe was not expected to give an address, and his role seems to have been limited to reading a (formal) prayer (Kollekte). After a closing prayer by one of the Herrnhut men, the service concluded.30

life in herrnhut      163

Music The origins of the rich musical culture that developed in Moravian communities during the 1740s can be found in early Herrnhut.31 Musical culture in Herrnhut was the result of various factors: Zinzendorf ’s own interest in music, the musical talents of some of the settlers in Herrnhut, and the musical requirements of the worship meetings in the community, where frequent singing formed an important component. Zinzendorf actively cultivated music in his household. As we saw in chapter 1, one of his servants and later Hofmeister Tobias Friedrich was a talented musician who was trained on various instruments, especially the violin and the organ. In the summer of 1721 Friedrich sent for his harp, which he had left behind in Castell.32 Another musical instrument in Zinzendorf ’s household was a harpsichord, which was replaced by a new instrument built by Klemm in 1725.33 An example of a musical performance at Zinzendorf ’s house in Dresden was the birthday celebration for his uncle Gottlob Friedrich von Gersdorf, who as privy counselor was influential in many matters affecting Zinzendorf ’s activities. For the occasion Zinzendorf had written the text to an aria that was performed by Friedrich.34 The purpose of the gathering was to gain Gersdorf ’s support for the activities of the Brotherhood of Four. The settlers from Bohemia (and probably also from Moravia) were known to be skilled musicians, as a source from 1755 states: “The Bohemians are musicians by birth and therefore there is no lack of a fairly complete music.”35 In a list of Herrnhut residents from 1728, at least two men are identified as “musicians for the congregation”: Augustin Leupold from Wichstadtl (Mladkov) in Bohemia and Johannes Raschke from Lichtenau (Lichkov) in Bohemia.36 Raschke trained for two years with an organist at Saint Elizabeth’s Church in Breslau. Matthias Ranftler was schooled as an alto singer in a Jesuit boys’ choir in Tyrnau (Trnava).37 It is likely that other residents of Herrnhut were able to play instruments as well. Reports of musical performances, both inside and outdoors, are regularly recorded beginning in 1727. During a summer night in July of 1727 there was “very inspiring devotional music” on the Hutberg. The diary for May of the following year reports, “We had a serenade throughout Herrnhut.”38 That same year we find the first references to a Capelle or small musical band under the leadership of Friedrich. This group of musicians played to welcome (and impress) prominent visitors as well as to accompany and embellish the hymns during song services. The Capelle is probably the precursor to the collegium musicum, first mentioned in 1731.39

164      herrnhut

We know a little about what musical instruments were played during these years: violins and French horns are mentioned, and the first set of trombones was purchased in 1731. The trombones were immediately put to good use to serenade Pastor Rothe at the parsonage in Berthelsdorf on the evening of his birthday on May 12, 1731. Soon the trombones were also used to welcome new refugees and to play at funerals.40 Music was used to expand the sacred space of the community beyond the interior of the Berthelsdorf church or the Herrnhut meeting hall. The entire landscape around Herrnhut was sanctified by filling it with the sound of religious music.41 The church services and meetings in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut were accompanied by organs. The organ in Berthelsdorf was built by Zinzendorf ’s Dresden neighbor Johann Gottlob Klemm and installed in June of 1725 after completion of the church expansion.42 During this project, which began with his first site visit to Berthelsdorf on February 11, 1724, Klemm became acquainted with the religious community there. In 1726 he and his wife decided to move to Herrnhut, but after experiencing some difficulties, he later left the Herrnhut community together with the Schwenkfelders and immigrated to Philadelphia. In the American colonies he built several organs, including the first organ for the Swedish Lutheran Church in Philadelphia in 1738, for Trinity Church in New York City in 1740, and for the Moravian congregation at Bethlehem in 1746. In 1757 he reconciled with the Moravians and rejoined their church. In the meeting hall in Herrnhut was a positive organ that had originally belonged to Gottfried Lehmann, the Dresden potter who moved to Herrnhut in 1726 in order to build the inn. Lehmann initially leased his organ, but Zinzendorf decided to buy it from him for 100 thalers, probably at the time when Lehmann left Herrnhut to emigrate to Pennsylvania.43

Worship With the availability of space and with Zinzendorf ’s continuous presence in Herrnhut, a worship schedule developed, separate from the Berthelsdorf church and the oversight of the parish pastor.44 In a Philadelphian manner, the 1727 statutes emphasized that Herrnhut had its own worship services; participation of the Herrnhuters in the services at Berthelsdorf was voluntary and did not imply approval of the “man-­made” Lutheran rites,45 though Herrnhuters were not to criticize church matters in Berthelsdorf.46 No one was forced to take confession in Berthelsdorf.47 Daily worship meetings were held in Herrnhut, led by lay preachers who “had received the gift” to speak.48

life in herrnhut      165

The voluntary and nonbinding nature of the Herrnhuters’ participation in worship at the parish church was elaborated further in a text from the same time: “Matters of the outward constitution such as baptisms, Communion, prayer meetings, sermons, as well as weddings and funerals, all belong to the parish in Berthelsdorf as long as this occurs in a free and impartial manner. However, as soon as a confession of religion, opinion, or sect is required, the congregation reserves for itself the freedom to retain its own distinct constitution as previously and to continue its entire religious organization by itself in the ways of the ancient Bohemian Brethren, expecting every persecution.”49 The text implies not that the Herrnhuters were continuing forms and organization of the Bohemian Brethren but rather that they continued the separate character of the Bohemian Brethren, independent from the Lutheran and Reformed Churches of their time. The separate character of worship in Herrnhut is connected with the customs and practice of the Unity of Brethren: Zinzendorf (whom we may assume to be the author of this text) justifies the claim for separate worship in Herrnhut with the fact that their ancestors also maintained their own rites, conveniently assuming that this right applied to all Herrnhuters, Moravian settlers and non-­Moravian residents alike. The Philadelphian desire to have their own worship is justified with the history of the refugees. At the same time, the text suggests that the Herrnhut congregation worshipped according to the Lutheran liturgy. The real reason the Herrnhuters were worshipping in Berthelsdorf was the legal requirements they could not avoid, combined with their Philadelphian conviction, which encouraged them not to break the tie with the denominational church. This argumentation, which we call the Herrnhut model, will be further explored in the next chapter. Here we would like to examine several liturgical forms. As we saw earlier, when the first Moravian settlers arrived in Berthelsdorf in 1722, the parsonage was still occupied by the former pastor’s widow, and it was not until December that Rothe was able to assume office. The Moravian settlers had a strong desire for religious meetings in addition to the official worship service in the parish church. The Neissers were used to attending religious meetings in private homes in Söhle, and Christian David was a regular participant of Scheffer’s collegium pietatis in Görlitz. So Heitz began conducting prayer meetings in his rooms in the Berthelsdorf manor house. These meetings were attended by the Moravian settlers, the Zezschwitz sisters, several servants of the estate such as Anna Helene Anders, and villagers such as Gottlob Hahn. Prayer meetings were also held at the settlers’ home in Herrnhut. Johanna von Zezschwitz provides a description of a meeting in Herrnhut that she,

166      herrnhut

her two sisters, and Pastor Rothe attended in early 1723. It is the earliest known description of a worship service conducted in Herrnhut. An hour before I started this letter, myself, my sisters, and dear Rothe were in Herrnhut. Oh, how much does God labor, outwardly and inwardly. We were very joyful there. We were uplifted through singing and praying. First we sang “Rejoice, Rejoice, Believers,” after that “Praise God! Another Step Towards Eternity,” and then “All Men Living Are but Mortal.” After that Pastor Rothe prayed and then we sang eight verses of “Lord, Wilt Thou Prepare Me.” And I almost forgot to mention the best one: “We Greet You, Cross, O Dearest Envoy.” How well did God care for this dear little forest that he has brought this preacher [Rothe] here. Oh God, may it bring many fruits for our souls.50 When Zezschwitz’s house in Berthelsdorf was finished in December of 1723, she began leading prayer meetings at her home: “Now I would like to write about several souls who are very sincere. God is pulling the sack weaver with force. He attends my simple prayer meetings on Sunday after church and I cannot seem to pray and sing enough to his liking. He has great zeal. God be praised! There is also someone called Martin Jähne, whom God has wondrously touched. .  .  . My herdsmaid [Anna Helena Anders] is very sincere.”51 Zezschwitz’s Sunday meetings were held weekly and appear to have been open to anyone interested.52 In 1725 there was also a “Friday meeting” at Zezschwitz’s home (who by now had married and become Baroness von Watteville). Admission to this gathering was not open to everyone but was limited to a select group of participants whose spiritual status had to be “examined” beforehand. Zinzendorf, who lists the Friday meetings as one of “the most delightful” events of 1725, called them a precursor to the “congregational liturgies.” Not much more detail is known about the character of these Friday meetings.53 Whenever Zinzendorf resided in Berthelsdorf, he conducted daily devotions (Ermahnungen) in his own house.54 Prayer meetings or collegia pietatis were a defining component of Pietism. Listening to the spoken word during a church service was considered insufficient; a true believer had to internalize the gospel by discussing experiences and sharing opinions with other God-­fearing people.55 Zinzendorf was a great proponent of such gatherings: they allowed the participants to become well acquainted with one another and to discuss matters in a manner not possible during a public church service; through their discussions of the Bible,

life in herrnhut      167

participants were able to admonish and encourage one another; the goal was to commonly find pure truth (“lautere Wahrheit”) and a living knowledge of Christ in the soul (“lebendiges Erkenntnis Christi in der Seele”) and to speak of true faith and love for Christ and one’s neighbor and act accordingly.56 Interestingly, Zinzendorf also saw the private meetings as an opportunity to dispel any belief in a particular denominational doctrine, as they were irrelevant for salvation (“Meinungen, so zur Seeligkeit nichts beytragen”). For Zinzendorf, prayer meetings were an instrument for building a Philadelphian community. For most of the Moravian settlers, house meetings were a familiar form of worship. Many crypto-­Protestants families conducted prayer meetings in their homes, where they read from Protestant books, sang hymns, and sometimes welcomed itinerant preachers.57 Macek explains how house meetings, which were typical for the Bohemian and Moravian crypto-­Protestants, often caused difficulties both before and after migration. Many Protestant authorities in Germany prohibited such meetings as they considered them conventicles.58 In Herrnhut the ideas of the local lord and the desires of the settlers were compatible. Zinzendorf not only permitted small meetings, he actually encouraged them, even if the local pastor at times objected to them. Even when daily services were held in Herrnhut, the Herrnhuters still attended the traditional Lutheran church service every Sunday morning in the parish church in Berthelsdorf. John Wesley, who visited Herrnhut and Berthelsdorf in the summer of 1738, gives a detailed description of one such service. Although by that time Rothe had been succeeded by Caspar Leonhardt Mucke (1702–1739), the experience probably differed little from a service during the 1720s. Wesley’s description illustrates the stark contrast between the Sunday morning church service and the collegium pietatis style meetings at the manor house or in Herrnhut. Sun. 6. [Aug. 1738] We went to church at Berthelsdorf, a Lutheran village about an English mile from Herrnhut. Two large candles stood lighted upon the altar. The Last Supper was painted behind it; the pulpit was placed over it, and over that, a brass image of Christ on the cross. The minister had on a sort of pudding-­sleeve gown, which covered him all round. At nine began a long voluntary on the organ, closed with a hymn, which was sung by all the people sitting (in which posture, as is the German custom, they sung all that followed). Then the minister walked up to the altar, bowed, sung these Latin words, Gloria in excelsis Deo, bowed again, and went away. This was followed by another hymn, sung as before, to the organ by all the people. Then the minister

168      herrnhut

went to the altar again, bowed, sung a prayer, read the Epistle, and went away. After a third hymn was sung he went a third time to the altar, sung a versicle (to which all the people sung a response), read the third chapter to the Romans, and went away. The people having then sung the Creed in rhyme, he came and read the Gospel, all standing. Another hymn followed, which being ended, the minister in the pulpit used a long extemporary prayer, and afterwards preached an hour and a quarter on a verse of the Gospel. Then he read a long intercession, and general thanksgiving, which before twelve concluded the service.59 In addition to traditional worship, Rothe added a number of services at the church: catechesis,60 prayer service, and a song service. In a text from 1742 Zinzendorf describes Rothe’s prayer meetings in more detail. Rothe’s prayer meetings, he wrote, were modeled on Scheffer’s meetings at Trinity Church in Görlitz, “where one talks back and forth in a straightforward manner and prayed.”61 Zinzendorf also uses the term “conversation” for these meetings, suggesting that they indeed had the character of a conversation conducted among the participants. In one of his retrospective accounts of these years, Zinzendorf describes a conversational service conducted by several people: “I sat down in front of the altar with Pastor Rothe, Augustin Neisser, and Martin Dober and conducted a colloquium. Whoever had something to say spoke from the chairs or from the choir loft.”62 This conversational element became an important characteristic of the religious meetings in early Herrnhut. Song services (Singstunden) appear to have been held in Berthelsdorf since the completion of the Berthelsdorf hymnbook in May of 1725.63 Since their inception at Francke’s institutions in Halle in the 1690s, song services had become a typical attribute of Pietism. From 1711 onward the song services were held twice a week in the large Singesaal or singing hall of the Halle complex.64 Scheffer conducted song services in Görlitz, and Zinzendorf held song services with his conventicle in Dresden.65 During a Berthelsdorf song service “several select hymns are sung, suitable for the subject matter of the day.”66 Later, song services were also held in Herrnhut, soon becoming a regular element of Moravian worship. After the song service, the Sunday in Berthelsdorf was concluded with another typical Pietist gathering: the Predigtwiederholung, or repeat of the sermon. Spener had introduced the sermon repeat as a means for small groups to deepen their understanding of the message of the sermon by additional discussion and contemplation.67 Many Pietist pastors initiated the sermon repeat in their churches. Because of the risk that these meetings could

life in herrnhut      169

develop into conventicles, the sermon repeat was often met with suspicion or even prohibited.68 In Berthelsdorf the initiative for the introduction of sermon repeats appears to have come from Zinzendorf. Whenever he was in Berthelsdorf, he conducted the repeat of the sermon in the meeting hall of his house. While Rothe was preaching, Zinzendorf made extensive notes so he would be able to repeat the sermon’s subject matter. He would go through Rothe’s sermon point by point, explaining the important matters and allowing the attendees to dissect (auskernen) and discuss its content. When Zinzendorf was in Dresden, Rothe gave the sermon repeat himself in the manor house. According to Dober’s description. the repeat could last well into the night.69 In a text from 1742 Zinzendorf describes the sermon repeat: After conclusion of the song service, we would go into the manor house. There the early sermon, in the presence of the minister, was repeated. This was done by the count with such accuracy that he did not easily leave out a single sentence. Once in a while Rothe would interject, and sometimes others did so. Although Rothe and the count did not always agree, the count knew how to ignore that and to present the essence of Rothe’s argument with the same emphasis as he had done during the sermon, so that it was impossible to detect that they dissented from one another.70 For Zinzendorf this was a way of becoming involved with some manner of preaching. Although he gave revival speeches in Dresden and other places, he seems to have initially avoided doing this in Berthelsdorf. Generally, preaching by noblemen was not a widely accepted phenomenon. One time, after he had given such a speech at the home of a conventicle leader in Dirsdorf (Przerzeczyn-­Zdrój), Silesia, a puzzled participant asked Zinzendorf ’s secretary “if in our country counts preach.”71 When worship life in Herrnhut began to develop independently from Berthelsdorf, Zinzendorf also began to give “speeches” in Herrnhut.72 Beginning in June of 1727, the sermon repeat was held in Herrnhut.73

Services A typical Sunday in Herrnhut consisted of a variety of meetings from early in the morning until late in the evening. Throughout the day, Zinzendorf conducted meetings in his cabinet with each group in the congregation, during which he addressed issues specific to their stage of life. The meetings for

170      herrnhut

Fig. 13  Interior of the meeting hall (Saal) in the Gemeinhaus in Herrnhut. Photograph ca. 1930. The original Saal of 1725 was enlarged several times but was otherwise not much changed over time. The painted benches on the right date from the nineteenth century. During the 1740s, paintings by John Valentine Haidt were hung on the walls surrounding the Saal; the one visible was First Fruits. The building and its contents were destroyed during a fire on May 8, 1945. Unity Archives, Herrnhut, Germany, FS BA.7360.

specific groups, organized according to age, marital status, and gender, prefigure what was later called the choir system.74 These meetings began with the singing of a hymn, followed by a suitable address by Zinzendorf. In 1729 the schedule was as follows:75 6–7 o’clock 7–8 o’clock 8–9 o’clock 9 o’clock–noon 1–2 o’clock 2–3 o’clock 3–3:30 o’clock 3:30–4 o’clock 4–5 o’clock

young men (adolescents and single men) married men widows church service in Berthelsdorf married women young women (adolescents and single women) boys girls sermon repeat in the Berthelsdorf manor house “with the brethren from Berthelsdorf ”

life in herrnhut      171

6–7 o’clock afterward: 9–10 o’clock

congregational meeting with music, singing, and an address by Zinzendorf prayer meeting for the single women; conversations for the men meeting of Zinzendorf with group of close brethren and sisters

The schedule was very much in flux and subject to change depending on the situation. Worship, in fact, was not limited to Sundays; every day a variety of religious meetings took place. A weekday began with morning devotions (Frühstunde) at 8 or 8:30. In his “Description of Herrnhut” Christian David explains the typical order of the meeting.76 It started with a hymn. When everyone had arrived, someone “who [felt] inspired” gave a prayer. One of the preachers then read a chapter from the Gospels or from the Epistles of Paul, gave an explanation of the text, and discussed how the matter could be applied to the lives of the men and women. Like Scheffer’s and Rothe’s prayer meetings, the morning devotions in Herrnhut were conversational: “Other brethren also speak, one after the other, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses the truth may be established” (Matt. 18:16).77 Those who had suggestions or questions and did not want to pose them in front of others could write them down and leave a note on the table in the meeting hall. The morning devotions lasted an hour. During the day there were noontime prayers or afternoon meetings, but it appears these did not take place every day. According to the diary, the Herrnhut song services began on Cantate Sunday, May 11, 1727.78 David writes, “We gather every evening and seek to make ourselves full of the Holy Ghost by singing songs.”79 Sometimes the text of the hymn was first announced line by line, and sometimes the hymn was sung without interruption.80 Some song services were called “musikalische Singstunden,” perhaps because they included additional instrumental music.81 A song service during these years included more than just singing. David mentions that some explanation was given about the authors of the hymns and the circumstances under which they were written. Sometimes letters or reports were read or there was a meditation about a biblical text. At the end of the song service a few words about the next day’s watchword were offered, the congregation knelt down for prayer, and, after the singing of a few stanzas, the meeting was concluded. Communal hymn singing was of great importance to the Herrnhuters, as it was to most Pietists.82 Hymns were sung with great attention to the words and content. They were sometimes even the topic of a meditation. Hymns

172      herrnhut

sung during church services, prayer meetings, and house gatherings were meticulously recorded in letters and diaries. Singing was, as mentioned above, a way for Herrnhuters to become “filled with the Holy Ghost.”83

Love Feast and Communion The love feast was one of the liturgical rituals the Herrnhuters practiced.84 According to the traditional narrative, the first love feast was held as a spontaneous meal for the participants in the Communion celebration on August 13, 1727, who were unwilling to return to their homes after the powerful experience in the Berthelsdorf church. Zinzendorf sent for food from his kitchen in the nearby manor house, which they ate together in small groups. Neither the diary nor any of the other contemporary records mention this story; the earliest reference to it is found in Spangenberg’s biography of Zinzendorf from 1772.85 Herrnhuters were familiar with the concept of love feasts before August of 1727, as Zinzendorf ’s insertion of the term love feast in his translation of Comenius’s “Ratio Disciplinae” suggests.86 Actually, love feasts had been held prior to August 13. The idea can be attributed to Gottfried Arnold’s description of the early Christians, who, according to Arnold, celebrated these meals to encourage friendly relationships and to strengthen the bonds of love among one another.87 Love feasts, together with other rituals such as the kiss of peace and foot washings, came to be considered characteristic of an apostolic community. Many reform groups of the time introduced love feasts, each group having different definitions of such a rite.88 For Moravians a love feast soon came to mean a simple meal, celebrated in a liturgical setting but distinct from the celebration of Holy Communion. These early love feasts, however, were something different from the love feasts of the late 1720s and thereafter. In his diary in October of 1721, Zinzendorf notes that he attended a “love feast” in the Hennersdorf church.89 Similarly, Johanna von Zezschwitz called a Communion service she experienced with her relatives a “love feast.”90 In this sense, love feast was used as an alternative term for Communion (Abendmahl). Often, however, love feast was used more exclusively and referred to special Communion celebrations, not for the ordinary churchgoers but for a select group of true Christians. Many Pietists were uncomfortable taking Communion in church together with a crowd of people whom they considered not truly converted. Because of that, some Pietists abstained from public Communion (Kirchenabendmahl) altogether. We see a similar tendency among the Herrnhuters, who also desired

life in herrnhut      173

to celebrate Communion only with those who were worthy. In that sense a love feast was a Communion service for a select group that excluded the unconverted. Christian David distinguished between an “unholy” public Communion service in the church and a love feast among the faithful: “Consider whether the Lord’s Communion in church, with all the rascals, thieves, whoremongers, adulterers, drunks, gluttons, dancers, hypocrites, false brethren, etc., is holy or unholy, and whether that is a love feast of the communion of saints or if it is an unholy meal of quarrel.”91 Zinzendorf, who had studied Arnold’s Erste Liebe with his prayer group in Dresden, conducted love feasts in Dresden. These could be nonsacramental, liturgical meals, such as the meal he and his wife hosted for ten women in the fall of 1725, but sometimes, as we will see below, they were actual celebrations of Holy Communion.92 The earliest documented celebration of a love feast in Herrnhut took place on September 26, 1727.93 Little is known about the early love feasts. Often they were open only to those whom the elders found worthy to participate. This seems to suggest that they continued to have a sacramental character. However, by 1729 the term love feast came to be used exclusively for nonsacramental, liturgical meals.94 The regular celebration of Holy Communion took place every other week in the parish church. These services were open to all parishioners, but the Herrnhuters, as Posselt and Schneider point out, celebrated their own Communion services, separate from the Berthelsdorf church members.95 These special services took place not on a Sunday like the regular Communion services, but rather on a weekday. Although Communion services for the regenerate congregants took place in the Berthelsdorf church and were usually administered by Rothe, they were a clear indication that the group that communicated here considered itself separate from the regular Ber­ thelsdorf parish. It is unclear when these separate Communion services began. Martin Dober states that Communion had been celebrated separately since August 13, 1727, but we know that private Communion had happened even earlier.96 Zinzendorf celebrated Communion—in secret—with members of his Dresden conventicle: “in my prayer meetings I served Communion,” he reported to Rothe and Watteville in January 1727.97 And in 1747 he recounted that “we lived quite simply [in Dresden], organized ourselves in accordance with the first Christians, held Communion in secret, etc.”98 When Zinzendorf wrote to his former estate manager Heitz in June 1727 that he held “frequent love feasts in Dresden,” Heitz understood that these were Communion services for a select group.99 Zinzendorf writes that such exclusive Communion services took place in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut “every four or six weeks.”100

174      herrnhut

These were celebrations for “all brethren and sisters, regardless of any difference in opinion, even including Mr. Rothe at times.” The added comment about Rothe seems to imply that Communion was not necessarily administered by an ordained person. In a text from 1746 recalling the early years, he terms them “Communion-­like love feasts”: “When we celebrated Communion-­ like love feasts, there were about three to four people, and in the first decade ten to twelve to seventeen people at the most; everything was done with so much caution that a husband could not mention it to his wife and vice versa.”101 With these private celebrations of Holy Communion, officiated by a layperson without an official commission, Zinzendorf knowingly went against the regulations of the Lutheran Church.102 According to article 14 of the Augsburg Confession, sacraments such as baptism and Holy Communion could only be administered by a rightfully ordained minister.103 Most of the time, however, the Communion services of the Herrnhuters were administrated by Rothe and conducted in the Berthelsdorf church. Falling under the category of private Communion, these services did not seem to violate ecclesiastical rules as much as when a layperson held Communion in his residence. Private Communion was allowed as long as the sacrament, administered by a regular minister, took place in the church (and not in another space, such as the sacristy) in front of other church members.104 On November 7, 1723, Zinzendorf and his wife, Erdmuth, celebrated the Lord’s Supper on the occasion of her twenty-­third birthday, together with a group of twenty-­t wo men and women. Rothe held the service in the Ber­ thelsdorf church. From the list of participants, however, it becomes clear this was not a public service. Besides Zinzendorf and his wife, members of his pious household, the Moravian settlers, and a handful of regenerate villagers attended. In his description Zinzendorf used both Abendmahl (Communion) and Liebesmahl (love feast) for this gathering, confirming this was one of the “Communion-­like love feasts” mentioned above. Zinzendorf ’s list includes reference to the denominational affiliation of the participants, suggesting he considered this Communion service to be a Philadelphian celebration.105 The Philadelphian nature of the Communion services was important to Zinzendorf. Christian David gives a description of how the Herrnhut congregation after 1727 usually celebrated Communion.106 First the communicants gathered in the meeting hall of the Great House in Herrnhut, where Zinzendorf, after the singing of a hymn and a prayer, gave an address. Next the communicants walked over to the Berthelsdorf church, where Pastor Rothe gave a word of exhortation. After Rothe asked a series of questions (replacing the previous practice of private confession), the Herrnhuters celebrated Communion while

life in herrnhut      175

singing hymns. Upon their return to Herrnhut, the communicants gathered again in the meeting hall, where they sang a hymn about brotherly love and shared the kiss of peace.107 In the evening the communicants gathered again to celebrate a love feast in the Herrnhut meeting hall. From David’s description it becomes clear that the Communion service in the Berthelsdorf church was only one element within a larger setting, framed by opening and closing elements taking place in Herrnhut. One cannot avoid the impression that the only reason the eucharistic part of the day took place in the Berthelsdorf church was to comply with local regulations.108 Even though Herrnhuters celebrated Communion in the parish church, they did not attend the regular Lutheran Communion service. They had their own service during the week, which, because of local requirements, had to be held in the parish church with the participation of the local pastor. However, it was not the pastor who determined who was allowed to partake, but the Herrnhut elders, who examined the communicants. Those found unworthy were still allowed, of course, to go to the regular Lutheran Communion service.109 The Herrnhut way of communicating enabled the Herrnhuters to conduct Communion, the most sacred Christian rite, according to their own ideas, without the presence of the “unconverted” Berthelsdorf parishioners and without raising any suspicion in the outside world. In short, it was the Herrnhuters’ intention to worship independently, while at the same time they tried to avoid the impression that they were violating any rule.

Organization Among the Herrnhuters various groupings began to evolve: people of the same gender and similar marital status gathered together for worship and spiritual formation. After 1735 these groups were called “choirs,” and the choir system became a common characteristic of life in an eighteenth-­century Moravian community.110 The origins of this system, which seems to have been exclusive to the Moravians among Pietists, lie in the 1720s. Within a short period of time during the last few months of 1727, groups of married men, married women, single men, single women, and children began to gather for their own, separate worship services. These meetings were held in addition to services for the entire community. On August 21, 1727, services for the adult women were introduced; on October 20, services for the “old men.”111 There were devotions for children as early as August of 1727, leading to “a wonderful revival” among the children, headed by Susanna Kühnel on August 23.112 In August of 1727 the diary notes that Melchior

176      herrnhut

Nitschmann and Martin Dober began to take special care of the single men.113 In November special meetings only for single women are mentioned, and in February of 1728 the single women organized six “bands,” each with its own leader.114 The first overall leader of the single women was Catharina Elisabeth Heintschel.115 As these groups become more formally organized, transitions from one group to another were ritually acknowledged. Before Heintschel married Tobias Friedrich on November 8, 1728, she bade a tearful farewell to the single women.116 In February of 1728, twenty-­six single men moved in together into four rooms of the northwest “wing” on the square. They appointed their own “laborers” (Arbeiter) and their own cook.117 The single women formed a special union on May 4, 1730, when they gathered for a love feast in the house where Anna Nitschmann lived with her father on the town square. There they made Anna their leader and vowed not to marry unless it was “the will of the Lamb and the congregation.”118 The formation of this union of single sisters, and especially their reluctance to get married, was so controversial that some men left the community.119 The single women appear to have moved in together; an exact date is unknown.120 More than perhaps previously realized, the origins of the single sisters’ choir were very much connected to the desire of the women to remain single and not be pressed into marriage. To encourage fellowship, small groups, called Banden (bands), were formed in which the members discussed religious topics in an intimate setting. The first bands were formed on July 9, 1727, shortly after the adoption of the Brotherly Agreement.121 Bands were formed on the basis of various criteria, which were regularly modified: mutual affection, geographical origin, stage of spiritual development.122 Everybody in early Herrnhut belonged to a band. The bands typically met weekly in the homes of one of the members and consisted of people of the same gender and marital status. The intimate and confidential discussion in the bands created a strong Liebesband or “bond of love” among the members. Thus, the bands were a way to learn and practice brotherly love, the foundation of an apostolic congregation, and to create unity and fellowship. The leaders of the individual bands met together in order to discuss the progress of their work. The goal of the bands, according to Christian David, was not to bring someone to become awakened but rather to explore if anything stood in the way of living a truthful life. Herrnhuters called this a verborgen Bann or “hidden spell” that needed to be identified and lifted. As long as someone was unwilling to admit to these innermost sins, they were unable to be a true brother or sister.123 There was not much that escaped the scrutiny of the oversight of the congregation. Leaders of the congregation were not exempt from disciplinary scrutiny and reprimands. There

life in herrnhut      177

are many examples of Pastor Rothe, Zinzendorf, and others being reprimanded by the elders.124 The great variety and ever-­changing nature of offices in the Herrnhut congregation have been studied in great detail.125 An overview from 1728 with the notable title “Secular Administration of God’s Republic in Herrnhut” lists the names of the leaders of the community.126 Zinzendorf, with his adjunctus Watteville, is listed as Vorsteher or head of the congregation. At this time—the number changed frequently—there were four (male) chief elders (Oberälteste) and nine regular elders who had the spiritual oversight of the congregation. There was a series of more practical (male) offices such as tax master, trade master, overseers of the roads, wells, houses, and fields, and a doctor. The following offices were held by both men and women: preachers, helpers, Waisenvater and Waisenmutter, who had charge over the children in the orphanage, almoners, servants (Diener), and sick nurses. Decisions were often made by casting lots, through which Herrnhuters believed God could make himself known.127 References to decision by lots begin in 1727 with the selection of four chief elders from among the twelve elders.128 From then on, lots were routinely used. Until 1889 the Moravian Church used the lot as a recognized decision-­making tool. Related to the use of lots was the common Pietist practice of Sprüchel aufschlagen or the random selection of a Bible verse or a hymn verse, which was considered to be a guiding word for a particular situation. Already as young students in Halle, Zinzendorf and Watteville would select Bible verses for each other as a guiding motto for the coming day.129 Many examples of bibliomancy can be found among Zinzendorf ’s friends during the 1720s. They drew texts as encouragement and guidance for themselves or sent them in a letter as a greeting to each other.130 Often a “text treasury” (Spruchkasten) or collection of various preselected texts was used for this purpose. The most popular example in this genre was Carl von Bogatzky’s Güldenes Schatzkästlein der Kinder Gottes (Golden Treasury for the Children of God), but many other, comparable devotional publications existed.131 They all had a similar, practical format: small, oblong pages containing one text, with additional material, per page. The use of these devotionals was so popular among Zinzendorf and his friends that he soon began to consider publishing his own text treasury.132 During the evening worship on May 3, 1728, Zinzendorf selected a hymn verse that he announced to be the motto or Losung for the next day. From then on he chose a text for each day that would accompany and guide the Herrnhut congregation.133 While traveling, he sent lists to the congregation or asked his wife to select watchwords.134 A Losungsträger “carried” the text

178      herrnhut

from house to house, informing the residents of the watchword for the day and checking on everyone’s welfare.135 In May of 1731 the texts for the entire year of 1731 were printed.136 This publication became known as the Losungen, or watchwords. Unlike the other Pietist devotional treasuries, the Herrnhut book of texts was not intended to be used year after year; rather, every year a new selection of daily texts was printed.

Population In a long letter to Heitz from 1729, Christian David provides a description of the development of Herrnhut.137 David lists the residents of each house in the fast-­growing community, giving special attention to their spiritual growth. Most houses were occupied by a husband and wife, one or two children, and in many cases a widowed parent or a single sibling. Some families also had an apprentice, a maid, or a houseboy living with them. Often other tenants lived in the same house as the main occupants, “in the upper room” or “in the other room.” Tenants could be individual lodgers, but sometimes they were entire families with children. The ground floor of the houses was typically made of stone, with half-­timber construction above. The houses stretched along both sides of the main road and around the town square. In the center of the square stood the Great House, with a vegetable garden on the northeast side toward Berthelsdorf, along with a cistern and two wells on the southwest side toward the main road. It would be inaccurate to regard Herrnhut solely as a colony of Moravian settlers. From the outset Herrnhut’s makeup was diverse in both the regional origins of its residents and their confessional backgrounds. By April of 1727 Herrnhut had a total of 224 residents, of whom 88 were children. A little more than half of these individuals came from Moravia (120); the remainder came from elsewhere.138 The significant presence of people from other parts of Europe (46 percent) confirms our argument that Herrnhut’s appeal went well beyond being a refuge for persecuted Protestants. A list of inhabitants from 1728 includes non-­Germans such as Pavel Hallunken from Poland, Carl Heinrich Grundelstierna from Sweden, Johann Tham from Denmark, and Mohammed, a wandering brassfounder (Rotgießer) identified as a Tatar, who stayed in Herrnhut for a few months before moving on.139 Over the next few years the percentage of residents from European regions other than Moravia increased further. By 1739 the population of Herrnhut had grown to 804: 165 (20 percent) were Moravians, 19 came from Bohemia, and 31 came from various European countries, including

life in herrnhut      179 Table 2  Population and number of houses in Herrnhut, 1722–1739 Date

People

Houses

Source

Oct. 1722

13

1

Heitz to Zinzendorf, Oct. 28, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.12

Sept. 1723

22

1 (and 5 under construction)

Watteville to Heitz, Nov. 15, 1723, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 93; Watteville, “Kurtze und Warhafftige Relation”

May 1724

“30 or more”

6

Scheffer to Schael, May 24, 1724, H A 138b, Bl. 53–58, AFSt.

May 1725

“ca. 90 Moravian refugees”

April 1727

224 (120 from Moravia; 104 from elsewhere)

Watteville to Heitz, May 16, 1725, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 98–100 22

Specification of residents in Herrnhut, [Apr. 1727], R.6.A.a.2.50.

Sept. 1727

34

Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” part 2, par. 66.

Apr. 1728

32

“Weltliche Direction,” R.6.A.a.18.1.c

Sept. 1729

52

Chr. David to Heitz, Herrnhut, Sept. 11, 1729, R.6.A.a.26.6.60 (“Häuserbrief ”).

Aug. 1733

495

1739

804 (incl. 165 from Moravia, 29 from Bohemia)

“Specification,” R.6.A.a.16.12 70

List of houses and occupants, [1739], R.6.A.a.16.56.

Livonia (7), France (6), England (5), Poland (4), Russia (3), Switzerland (2), Norway (2), Sweden (1), and Denmark (1). Two young men, Andreas and Immanuel, were formerly enslaved Africans from the Caribbean and the Carolinas who lived in the brethren’s house.140 Soon after construction of the first house had started, people from the surrounding region expressed a desire to build homes in Herrnhut. One was Gottfried Marche, who intended to build on the town square as soon as the location was selected. He never carried out his plan, but a mason he recommended, Johann Georg Dörrer, was one of the first non-­Moravians to move to Herrnhut. He was one of the residents of the five houses built in 1723 to accommodate the many new arrivals in Herrnhut.141 As we saw above, another person showing interest in living in Herrnhut was the judge from Strahwalde who wanted to build the inn in Herrnhut.142 Another was a pious cobbler from Oderwitz who was experiencing difficulties in his hometown.143 These difficulties in Oderwitz were related to religious awakenings taking place in villages immediately to the southwest of Herrnhut. Many people

180      herrnhut

from this area often came to Berthelsdorf on Sundays to hear Rothe preach. Local authorities tried to prevent them through threats of imprisonment or “cart pushing.”144 If the villagers were unable to come to Berthelsdorf, Berthelsdorfers and Herrnhuters went out to conduct prayer meetings in Oderwitz, Seifhennersdorf, and Grossschönau.145 In the following years a substantial number of regenerate people from the region moved to Herrnhut. Friedrich Kühnel, a wealthy linen weaver originally from Oderwitz, built a house on the Herrnhut square in 1725.146 In 1728 several other families from Oderwitz and Seifhennersdorf decided to move to Herrnhut.147 In 1739 147 of the 804 residents of Herrnhut originated from the twenty-­kilometer radius around Herrnhut.148 Of the rest, 432 came from various German lands, with a relatively large number (180) from Silesia, where the practice of Protestantism was severely restricted until 1742.149 Herrnhut was similarly heterogeneous when it came to religious affiliation. The original pious group on the Berthelsdorf estate included Lutherans, Reformed, Moravians, one follower of Gichtel, and a former “enthusiast” woman.150 Looking back in 1746, Zinzendorf stressed the religious diversity of the original group: “From the outset every religion [denomination] was represented: Count Zinzendorf was a Lutheran, the countess was able to go along with everything, except that she tended to be more on the separatist side than on the side of the church. Watteville and Heitz, the former a Reformed in the Remonstrant way, the latter more Dutch Reformed, the Neissers were Catholics but Lutheran minded, and Christian David was a Lutheran convert who was Calvinistically minded.”151 In the summer of 1727 Zinzendorf seemed pleased to have accomplished a union of the various religious traditions living on his estate: it was “the true unification on the basis of justification and sanctification of several Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, Schwenkfelders, and separatists of all kinds who all adhere to a variety of opinions, but who now place themselves under the commandment of love of this town, accepting our outward constitution with love, and serving God in spirit and in truth without any sectarianism.”152 Herrnhut was never intended to be an isolated community. Not only did the Herrnhuters include representatives of different religious traditions in their community, but they believed they were part of a larger network, keeping close connections with like-­minded individuals and groups in other parts of Europe. With the introduction of the 1727 statutes this network became more defined. The statutes, and statutes proposed among groups outside of Herrnhut, drew criticism, eventually leading to the revision of the Herrnhut statutes.

life in herrnhut      181

Building a Network The 1727 statutes of Herrnhut were an essential component of Zinzendorf ’s plans. This became even more evident when in 1728 he encouraged other groups outside of Herrnhut to agree to the statutes, thus attempting to extend a Philadelphian network throughout Germany. Zinzendorf designed statutes for pious groups in Oderwitz, Berthelsdorf, and Görlitz in April and May of 1728; Jena and Halle in August and September of 1728; and Berleburg in 1730. For Berthelsdorf and Berleburg we have the full text of the statutes; for Jena we have been unable to find an actual text, but descriptions of its contents exist; and for Oderwitz, Görlitz, and Halle only references to statutes being considered exist.153 The Berthelsdorf statutes were signed on May 12, 1728, by fifty brothers and sixty-­six sisters, including Pastor Rothe. The statutes did not apply to all parishioners but only to a select group of regenerates.154 The date was carefully chosen: it was exactly one year after the first part of the Herrnhut statutes, the Manorial Commandments, had been issued. The text of the Berthelsdorf statutes, which for the most part follow the Herrnhut statutes verbatim, reveals some important differences. Many of these differences deal with the official worship services held in the Berthelsdorf church and the additional religious meetings of the regenerate group. Whereas daily gatherings took place in Herrnhut, the Berthelsdorf group held only one weekly meeting, and attendance was voluntary. This was in addition to the (recommended) attendance of the official church service. As we will see in chapter 7, Zinzendorf believed that the awakened should continue to attend the services of the institutional church, even if they found fault with them. Missing from the Berthelsdorf statutes was the paragraph about lay preachers, which defined Herrnhut as a community of laymen without ordained ministers. However, this was as far as Zinzendorf wanted to go in acknowledging the local parish church. The paragraph about the provisional character of the rites and rituals of the local church was even more extensive compared to the Herrnhut statutes: participation in church rites was a voluntary matter for the awakened brethren and sisters, based upon the understanding that the liturgy was a human institution, subject to change at any time.155 With the Berthelsdorf statutes, Zinzendorf established the first sister congregation of Herrnhut. Zinzendorf intended to do something similar with Scheffer’s conventicle in Görlitz. In early April of 1728 he spoke with Scheffer about introducing statutes among his group of awakened people in Görlitz.156 Scheffer, however, not

182      herrnhut

only declined but asked Zinzendorf to take his name off the list of original signers of the Herrnhut statutes.157 Scheffer stated that he did not believe the “kingdom of God comes with outward acts, statutes, or regulations, but it is within us [Luke 17:21].”158 Scheffer’s change of heart was undoubtedly connected with the pressure the government of Saxony had placed on him during the fall of 1727. Despite his Philadelphian conviction, he had learned to be more cautious and not do anything that would jeopardize his position as a Lutheran minister. More so than in Görlitz, Zinzendorf was successful in introducing statutes among the theological students in Jena. He wanted each fraternity, which was organized according to the geographic origins of the students, to adopt a version of the statutes, thus making the fraternities into small Philadelphian congregations and turning them into breeding grounds for Philadelphian ministers, ready to transform the religious landscape of Germany. In August and September of 1728 Zinzendorf visited Jena, where, despite some initial resistance, he succeeded in having many students sign the statutes. His diaries indicate that the central paragraph, the definition of who was to be considered a true brother, caused the most discussion among the students.159 Another contested element was the appointment of elders, but yet again the count had his way. At the end of his visit he referred to the students in Jena as “the new congregation.”160 Although there are indications in Zinzendorf ’s diary that he intended to introduce statutes among the students in Halle as well, he failed in that attempt.161 Two years later, in September of 1730, he was able to institute statutes among the “pious souls” at Berleburg.162 This document, which survives, is organized differently than the earlier statutes.163 The language is much clearer when it talks about such Philadelphian ideas as the visible and invisible church, children of God, and brotherly love. Changed only in minor detail was the paragraph defining a true brother, which was obviously a central element of Zinzendorf ’s ecclesiology at the time.

Criticism Meanwhile, the Herrnhut statutes provoked criticism, not only from Lutheran orthodoxy but from fellow Pietists as well. The statutes seemed to suggest to the outside world that Herrnhut was its own religious body, something that was risky to be in early modern Germany and that forced many to determine their position toward Herrnhut. In May of 1728, at the same time he was attempting to persuade groups in Oderwitz, Berthelsdorf, and Görlitz to adopt

life in herrnhut      183

versions of the Herrnhut statutes, Zinzendorf wrote a long defense in which he summarized and responded to some of the criticism of his statutes.164 Henceforth we see Zinzendorf ’s line of defense developing: Herrnhut was to stay closely affiliated with the Lutheran Church while at the same time claiming its own religious identity based upon the centuries-­old history of the Unity of Brethren. This line of defense became so dominant during the following years that to many it obscured the fact that Herrnhut was in fact a new religious body. The criticism of the statutes, as summarized by Zinzendorf in his defense, focused on the independent character of the Herrnhut community.165 A new religious body with its own statutory organization could easily be considered a new sect, causing immediate trouble with the dominant Lutheran Church, as no church authority would allow such a thing. Furthermore, allowing laypeople to preach caused confusion and disorder. Lutheran pastors expressed concerns about the rejection of the Book of Concord and the introduction of new forms of worship. On the whole, many believed infighting among the Herrnhuters was inevitable and feared that the existence of this community would ultimately cause unnecessary controversy among all the pious. Zinzendorf claimed his intention was not to found a new “sect” but only to let “many regenerate souls live together in one place.” He felt nobody needed to leave their own church—not because the Lutheran Church was perfect, as much of its constitution was indeed “highly corrupt,” but out of a tolerant mindset and a principled rejection of theological dispute. The acceptance of the Lutheran Church is crucial in Zinzendorf ’s argument. It placated the critics, both religious and secular, while at the same time it conformed to Philadelphian ideas. A (voluntary) affiliation with the Lutheran Church did not force anyone to give up their Philadelphian ideals. Criticism of the Herrnhut statutes among pious friends was perhaps greater than Zinzendorf realized. Since the discovery of the similarities between the statutes and the organization of the Unity of Brethren, the Herrnhut congregation had begun to call itself “Gemeine der Mährischen und Böhmischen Brüder” (Congregation of Moravian and Bohemian Brethren).166 Along with that name came a sense of identity. This identity came under attack in the summer of 1728.167 While Zinzendorf was away in Jena, Pastor Jerichovius from Teschen, together with Rothe, Scheffer, and David, convinced the elders in Herrnhut to give up their distinctive identity and declare their unequivocal loyalty to the Lutheran Church. On August 3, 1728, Jerichovius arrived in Herrnhut accompanied by Scheffer. Jerichovius explained to the Herrnhuters how difficult things had become for Protestants in Silesia: the emperor had ordered an investigation,

184      herrnhut

Pastor Steinmetz had been suspended, and in Schweidnitz thirty-­one Protestants from Moravia had been arrested. Jerichovius blamed the Herrnhuters for this oppression. Because they had formed their own congregation and called themselves Moravian Brethren, many thought of them as unruly Hussites. Through the Herrnhuters and their independent actions the situation for Protestants in Silesia was affected, and the persecution might soon very well extend to Herrnhut itself. Jerichovius, Rothe, and Scheffer, together with Christian David, advised the Herrnhuters to abandon their name “Moravian Brethren” and to declare themselves unequivocally Lutherans. On August 5 the twelve elders approved the proposal and sent Christian David and Andreas Beyer to Jena to inform Zinzendorf of their resolution.168 When Beyer and David arrived in Jena on August 13 with the news of the developments in Herrnhut, Zinzendorf did not take it well: “In the evening Andreas Beyer arrived with open letters . . . in part a poor description of the approaching persecution with its causes, in part a declaration in name of the entire congregation to exchange the name of Moravian Brethren with the name of Lutherans, because Moravian was sectarian and Lutheran was not because Lutheran faith was quite good. Christian David reported that all brethren approved, except for the doctor [Gutbier], Hans Münster, and Schindler. I only needed to give my blessing.”169 Zinzendorf did not give his blessing. This unexpected move behind his back upset him beyond measure. He encouraged the Jena students as well as his three Moravian travel companions to write to the Herrnhut congregation, strongly advising them against changing their “constitution” (i.e., abandoning the statutes) and joining the Lutheran Church.170 Zinzendorf himself “commanded” the Herrnhuters to abstain from making any decisions during his absence and not to conduct any meetings where they discussed anything that went against his authority. If the Herrnhuters did not obey, he threatened to have them moved to Berthelsdorf. This threat implied he was placing disobedient subjects into servitude, something that had been abolished in Herrnhut but not on other parts of his estate. Zinzendorf could not have made it any clearer: he opposed any attempt to make the Herrnhut congregation join the Lutheran Church.171 From the letters Zinzendorf wrote during these weeks we can see how his ecclesiology was evolving. He was trying to find ways to design a model in which the newly discovered identity of the Unity of Brethren combined with his Philadelphian ideas. When the statutes were first compiled, they were intended to organize the apostolic congregation Zinzendorf had envisioned according to his Philadelphian ecclesiology. Shortly thereafter, he came to believe this apostolic congregation was somehow a renewal of the Unity of

life in herrnhut      185

Brethren. In his mind Herrnhut was a community of people from different religious backgrounds; he believed everyone in Herrnhut belonged to a denomination, in most cases the denomination they were born into: Zinzendorf himself was a Lutheran, like other Herrnhuters such as Martin Dober and Tobias Friedrich. The settlers from Moravia belonged in his eyes to the Bohemian or Moravian Brethren. Unlike other denominations, the Moravian “Unity,” which was older than the Reformation, was able to affiliate with other denominations. In the past they had adhered to Reformed theology, and now they were closer to Lutheran theology. This did not mean, however, that they should call themselves Lutheran. If they became Lutheran they would soon lose every right to practice their own customs and rites. The newly discovered identity of Moravian Brethren became a protective device for the settlers.172 As representatives of an older church, they were able to claim certain privileges, as the outcome of the investigation of the Royal Commission of 1732 would show, for example. At the same time, that identity became a cover for the apostolic congregation. The attempt by some of his closest friends to have the Herrnhuters renounce their distinct identity pressed Zinzendorf to explain his ideas and to formulate a model that was sensible to everyone involved. Zinzendorf ’s way of thinking did not find much immediate acceptance in Herrnhut. On the afternoon of August 23, messenger Andreas Beyer returned to Herrnhut with the first set of letters from Zinzendorf, David Nitschmann, and the Jena students. Other communications followed in the days thereafter. Dober and Friedrich could not understand why Zinzendorf suddenly labeled them Lutherans. Caspar Oelsner, who had moved to Herrnhut from nearby Seifhennersdorf, did not understand either: he might not have been a “Moravian and Bohemian Brother according to his sect,” but he wanted to remain with the settlers and would follow them even if Zinzendorf threatened to send him off his land; “neither did he desire to be a sectarian Lutheran again.” The Herrnhuters gathered on August 28 to discuss the situation. They were bewildered by Zinzendorf ’s “unbrotherly” reaction and his autocratic tone, and his threat to force them into “slavery” aroused ill feelings. Some, however, seem to have taken it with a sense of humor. Dober said this was the first time in his nonconformist life that anyone had called him Lutheran. He faithfully promised never to make anyone a Lutheran, saying that he had refused to send his own apprentice to Rothe’s confirmation classes in order to prevent him from becoming a Lutheran.173 Zinzendorf returned to Herrnhut on October 12 and immediately reassumed leadership. On October 16 Christian David was removed from his office as elder, and two days later the other elders were replaced. Several

186      herrnhut

Herrnhuters were reprimanded, interactions between the sexes were restricted, and Herrnhuters were told they could not go without work. Rothe, meanwhile, preached against the count’s “irreconcilable attitude.”174 Zinzendorf announced to revise both parts of the statutes, resulting in a new version of the Manorial Commandments and a new Brotherly Agreement. It appears that the Brotherly Agreement was revised first. A shorter version of twenty-­five paragraphs instead of the original forty-­three was adopted on November 2.175 This time no signatures were required, but “all brothers and sisters living in Herrnhut were considered to fall under the statutes [statutenmäßig].”176 On November 6 the congregation gathered again, this time to discuss the Manorial Commandments paragraph by paragraph. Whatever was considered “inapplicable to the current situation” was revised or removed. A few paragraphs from the 1727 Brotherly Agreement were moved to the Manorial Commandments, such as the paragraph about the voluntariness of participating in the rites of the Lutheran Church and the paragraph about the daily worship services. No longer were lay preachers specifically mentioned.177 It appears that both parts of the revised statutes applied to all Herrnhut residents and that the distinction of an optional union of those residents who voluntarily agreed to the Brotherly Agreement was eliminated.

The Notarial Instrument A year after the revision of the statutes, Zinzendorf designed another document, the Notariatsinstrument or notarial instrument, a public statement about the self-­understanding of the Herrnhut congregation, its theology, and its history. A legally valid document regarding the constitution of the Herrnhut congregation,178 it was signed by the heads of each household in Herrnhut on August 12, 1729, and affirmed by Zinzendorf and Rothe on August 28.179 The details regarding the creation of the notarial instrument are somewhat obscure. According to Cranz, the Herrnhut men gathered in the meeting hall, where they made statements in the presence of several local ministers and notary Christian Gotthelf Marche from Bautzen; from these statements Marche allegedly created the notarial instrument.180 Although there is no reason to doubt that Marche was involved, the text unmistakably shows Zinzendorf ’s hand. At the end of the notarial instrument, Zinzendorf and Rothe, as local secular and religious authorities, confirmed that they would continue to tolerate the Herrnhuters as long as they abided by their “unsectarian, simple, and peaceable ways.” The purpose of the notarial instrument was to defend the undertakings in Herrnhut and to be used whenever the

life in herrnhut      187

existence of the community was questioned. It was not intended to replace the statutes but rather as an additional public declaration to dispel any concern that the Herrnhut statutes had instituted a new “religion.”181 By means of the 1729 notarial instrument the Herrnhuters officially declared they considered themselves descendants of the Unity of Brethren (p.  10).182 According to an assessment by Martin Luther of the Unity that Zinzendorf inserted into the text, they “came closer to the teaching and practice of the Apostles” than any other group (p. 12).183 In other words, both the Unity and its descendant in Herrnhut were true apostolic congregations. In Herrnhut God had brought back to life a church that had been believed dead for one hundred years (p. 5). The doctrine of the Unity of Brethren was equivalent to the doctrine of any other Protestant denomination, but their discipline was better, as affirmed through another inserted quote by Luther (pp. 10–12). The Herrnhuters declared they were not Hussites, Waldensians, nor Fraticelli but instead descended from a group that was simply called “Brethren and Sisters” (pp. 13–14). It was not ancestry, however, that made them righteous Christians, but rather their own personal “renewal” (p. 14). They believed a true Christian was cleansed and changed by the blood of Christ to a life of sanctification (pp. 14–15). The notarial instrument defined the church of Christ with the words of article 5 of the Augsburg Confession as where “the Word of God is rightly and sincerely taught and where they sacredly live accordingly as children of God” (p.  15). Interestingly, Zinzendorf expanded upon the original article by including the (italic) words about practiced Christianity. Schneider points out that the expansion is in accordance with the Pietist idea that the faith of a Christian believer needs to be reflected in a sanctified life.184 Similarly, the notarial instrument declared that one needs “to do and teach” God’s truth (p. 15). In line with Philadelphian ideas, the notarial instrument stated that the Herrnhut congregation did not desire to be separated from anyone who believed in Jesus (p. 15). The Herrnhuters saw their congregation as an instrument used by God to end separation among his children in harmony with the other Christian denominations (pp. 5–6). The notarial instrument stresses the importance of discipline in the life of regenerate believers (p.  15). Also included is the central regulation from the 1727 statutes that the Herrnhuters willingly attend church services in Berthelsdorf, “as long as we are not restricted in our freedom in the Lord.” According to the notarial instrument, Herrnhuters consider the Augsburg Confession “a great Christian work” (p. 17), even when they recognize differences in doctrine, to which they declare themselves indifferent (p. 16). Finally, they explain their name: they call themselves, like their ancestors, “Brethren and Sisters” with the added

188      herrnhut

words “Bohemian and Moravian.” This addition, they assure their readers, is not intended to separate them from the fellowship with other Christians (p. 17) but is included only as an explanation. In comparison, the document states that names such as Lutherans and Calvinists go against apostolic rules, as these denominations are named after men (p. 18). The notarial instrument may give the impression that Herrnhut was closely associated with the Lutheran Church, but nowhere does it actually state that; on the contrary, it stresses Herrnhut’s distinctiveness and unity with all children of God. With the revised statutes of 1728 and the notarial instrument of 1729, the identity of the Herrnhut congregation had become defined. The focus of Moravian theology might shift and change during the following years and decades, but its identity as a Renewed Moravian Church would remain. The identity found during these years served as a successful defense against outside attacks, as will be shown in the final chapter, in which we will explore how the secular and religious authorities reacted to the emergence of a new religious community in Upper Lusatia.

7 The Herrnhut Model The best way to make it through is by wearing a mask. —Zinzendorf at the Marienborn synod, June 15, 1744

In the fall of 1732 the end of Herrnhut seemed imminent: August the Strong of Saxony wanted Zinzendorf to sell his possessions and leave the country. There were even rumors that the king planned to imprison Zinzendorf.1 Without the count, the religious community on his estate would undoubtedly disintegrate. It did not come to this. Members of the Privy Council intervened, the king died, and the worst was averted. What caused the king’s desire to consider such far-­reaching measures? Was it mere “ignorance” of Zinzendorf ’s true intentions on the part of the king, as has been suggested?2 In this final chapter we will investigate why the existence of Herrnhut came under serious threat and how the Herrnhut community was able to avert such a disaster. It will be argued that Zinzendorf created a public identity for Herrnhut that concealed its controversial characteristics. By adopting the identity of a reestablished religious community that previously had been accepted in parts of the empire, he shifted the discussion away from whether a group of radical regenerates was allowed an existence outside the institutional church to whether a respected persecuted group deserved tolerance. Furthermore, by creating the perception that Herrnhut was affiliated with the Lutheran Church, Zinzendorf was able to satisfy many of his critics. On the other hand, severe measures against Herrnhut were not in the best interest of the Saxon state; the increase in population was considered beneficial, while the possible emigration of large groups only caused unnecessary unrest.3 Authorities were therefore generally willing to agree to an acceptable model of existence. Zinzendorf defended Herrnhut’s separate identity from

190      herrnhut

the old history of the Unity of Brethren. This is what we might call the Herrnhut model: while outwardly pretending affiliation with the Lutheran Church and claiming the religious identity of the older and much respected Unity of Brethren, the Herrnhuters actually separated from the official church. Thus, Herrnhut was able to successfully conceal its separatism and survive. Finally, we will examine how Herrnhut’s network changed. Originating from the cooperative of the Brotherhood of Four in connection with like-­ minded Christians elsewhere, Herrnhut became the center of a religious movement under the sole leadership of Zinzendorf. Unlike the associated groups from earlier years, the sister communities that began to form after 1735 were not independent groups but rather Moravian communities, organized on the same principles as Herrnhut. The days of the Brotherhood of Four were over.

The Royal Commission At the beginning of August 1731, Zinzendorf had just returned to Herrnhut from a journey to Copenhagen to attend the coronation of Danish king Christian V when Habsburg emperor Charles VI submitted an official complaint to the Saxon elector. The emperor objected to Zinzendorf ’s attempts to draw Habsburg subjects from Moravia to his estate in Upper Lusatia and “seduce them to his made-­up religion.”4 The emperor demanded an immediate stop to Zinzendorf ’s activities and the repatriation of his subjects. In response, August the Strong ordered Zinzendorf to immediately cease “luring” any Habsburg subjects to his estate.5 The emperor’s second demand, the repatriation of his subjects, required an official investigation. For this purpose, August of Saxony commissioned his Amtshauptmann in Görlitz, Georg Ernst von Gersdorf, to go to Herrnhut to investigate the circumstances on Zinzendorf ’s estate and to submit an official report of his findings.6 From January 19 until January 22, 1732, Gersdorf, together with his secretary, Heinrich Gottlob Modrach, visited Herrnhut to conduct investigations.7 His instructions were to examine circumstances in Herrnhut and especially whether the Herrnhuters adhered to any of the three denominations that were tolerated in the Holy Roman Empire. It was agreed that Gersdorf should proceed carefully so as not to cause concern among the settlers about their future. Two reports of the Royal Commission’s activities exist, one by Zinzendorf and one by Gersdorf, and they show notable differences.8

the herrnhut model      191

Zinzendorf believed he would be able to sway Gersdorf ’s opinion if Gersdorf could have his heart touched by what he saw and experienced in Herrnhut. Zinzendorf took Gersdorf and Modrach to the various religious meetings where Zinzendorf and other laypeople spoke and prayed, including the morning devotions in the orphanage, conducted by a woman and followed by a prayer by one of the girls. Even little Christian Renatus, Zinzendorf ’s four-­ year-­old son, was part of the charm offensive. When Christian Renatus encountered Gersdorf he asked his mother, “Mama, do ask the man if he also loves the dear Savior,” to which Gersdorf, according to Zinzendorf ’s report, responded “quite kindly.” The official part of the investigation took place on January 21 and 22 in the meeting hall of the Great House. From behind the table where the worship leader usually sat, Gersdorf interviewed a number of migrants about the reasons for their emigration, along with lay preacher Martin Dober, Schwenkfelder Balthasar Hoffmann, Pastor Rothe, and Zinzendorf himself. Zinzendorf took Gersdorf into his study and seated him beneath a painting of Melchior Nitschmann in prison. The Herrnhuters wanted to make clear that the refugees were not “lured” out of Moravia but rather had left of their own accord because they were being persecuted. Although Zinzendorf was somewhat disappointed that neither Gersdorf nor Modrach attended any of the early morning 5 o’clock worship services, he was glad to note when the commission left Herrnhut on January 22 “their hearts were moved.” Gersdorf, however, was not so easily swayed, as his own report reveals. On the one hand, he found the Herrnhuters “quiet, pious, and industrious people.” He also disproved the emperor’s claim that Zinzendorf had enticed the Moravians to his lands; they had come of their own accord to avoid the threat of persecution. On the other hand, Gersdorf recommended placing the Herrnhut community under the strict control of the Lutheran Church. He concluded that even though the Herrnhuters adhered to their own rules and wanted to be called not Lutherans but “Brethren,” they could still be considered and tolerated as Lutherans because they professed the Augsburg Confession. Gersdorf did not see a problem allowing the Herrnhuters to keep their distinct organization and disciplinary rules. Forcing them to abandon these could cause unnecessary disturbances; he expected their peculiar customs to disappear over time anyway. Gersdorf strongly recommended the appointment of an adjunct pastor to keep close oversight of the community. Examined and ordained by the Lutheran consistory, the adjunct would conduct the services, while laypeople had to be prohibited from

192      herrnhut

explaining Scripture. Interestingly, Gersdorf did not object to Zinzendorf, who was neither a trained theologian nor an ordained minister, conducting private devotions. The adjunct would also watch over the school and make sure the teachers did not go beyond their instructions. Finally, the adjunct would send regular reports to Gersdorf ’s office. Everything that Zinzendorf thought would touch Gersdorf ’s heart—the leadership of laypeople, the devotions and prayers from the heart by ordinary men and women and even children—all this Gersdorf wanted to discontinue.9 While Gersdorf ’s report was being examined in Dresden by both the Privy Council and the consistory, the situation in Herrnhut became increasingly critical. In spite of the authorities’ objections to the acceptance of Habsburg subjects, the town was filling up with Bohemians. In March of 1732 about one hundred Bohemians came to Herrnhut from nearby Hennersdorf, where they had come into conflict with local ruler Sophie von Gersdorf.10 Pastor Liberda from Hennersdorf housed several Bohemians in a house on the square in Herrnhut that he had purchased the previous year. The arrival of such a large number of additional refugees, at the same time that authorities in Dresden were deliberating over their course of action regarding Herrnhut, caused a great deal of anxiety.11 By the time the Czechs finally left that October, the political situation had deteriorated. On October 16, 1732, a royal rescript prohibited the further acceptance of people from Bohemia, Silesia, and Moravia throughout Upper Lusatia.12 That same day, a warrant for the arrest of Liberda was issued. Liberda was subsequently put in jail for stirring up the Czechs in his congregation and for not abiding by the Book of Concord.13 Furthermore, on October 28 the king ordered the Privy Council to instruct Zinzendorf, “because of his improper and disturbing behavior,” to sell his properties and leave Saxony within three months.14 Without Zinzendorf as local lord, Herrnhut would certainly not last long as an independent religious community. Members of the Privy Council protested against this harsh treatment and pressed for restraint,15 and Zinzendorf, in response to the king’s demands, sold his estate to his wife.16 While negotiations about Zinzendorf ’s residency in Saxony continued, August the Strong died in Warsaw on February 1, 1733. The new elector, his son Friedrich August II, accepted the sale of Zinzendorf ’s properties to Erdmuth Dorothea and allowed the count to remain in Saxony. He also allowed the Moravians to be tolerated in Saxony, “as long as they remained quiet.”17 The Schwenkfelders on the Berthelsdorf estate were not as fortunate, as we saw in chapter 3. The moderate tolerance by the new elector did not apply to them. They were ordered to leave Saxony and soon departed for Pennsylvania.

the herrnhut model      193

To avoid causing a sensation, they were instructed not to travel all together but rather in small groups. Why were the Moravian settlers in Herrnhut spared the fate of the Schwenkfelders? Why was Zinzendorf not put in jail as Liberda was? The answers to these questions lie in Zinzendorf ’s successful defense of his endeavors in Herrnhut.

Separatism For the time being Zinzendorf had succeeded in saving Herrnhut. He had done so by arguing that Herrnhut consisted of a community of descendants of the Unity of Brethren adhering to the Lutheran Church, who only desired the privilege of retaining a few of their own customs. Let us now examine these claims. In order to understand the character of early Herrnhut, we need to ask what Zinzendorf means when he speaks about separatism, about Lutheranism, and about the Renewed Moravian Church. What does it mean when Zinzendorf claims that Herrnhuters were not separatists? What does he mean when he claims to be a Lutheran? And to what extent was Herrnhut the reconstitution of the Unity of Brethren? The establishment of a religious body independent of the official state church was, by definition, an act of separatism in early modern Germany. Zinzendorf himself, however, was very critical of “separatism.” For him the term usually had negative connotations, and he would not have used it to describe his undertaking in Herrnhut. He accused Krüger of leading his followers “auf den Separatismum.”18 Zinzendorf, unforgivingly, continued to call Bonacker—the woman who chose Krüger’s side, gave up her work as head teacher of the girls’ school, and moved in with Christian David—the “separatist maiden,” even long after she had agreed with the statutes.19 His frequent statements against separatism may lead us to assume that Zinzendorf, opposing the idea of separatism, really wanted to remain within the Lutheran Church and that the development of Herrnhut and the Moravian Church outside the church was an undesired consequence of factors beyond his control.20 In a text dating from 1730 Zinzendorf contrasts separatists and separatist groups with true believers and their congregations.21 He defines a separatist as someone who rejects the institutional church, including all those associated with the church, and thus judges someone not on the basis of their faith but solely on their separation from the church. By doing that, a separatist also rejects true believers who continue to participate in the church. A separatist, according to Zinzendorf, does not have the true faith, because

194      herrnhut

true faith is based on the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, while separatists are guilty of breaking an important rule of the apostle: not to pass judgment on someone else (Rom. 14:4). For a Philadelphian, it was a lofty ideal to be tolerant of other ideas and not to judge someone else’s conviction.22 Zinzendorf goes on to describe true believers and their congregations (Gemeinen) as opposed to separatists.23 Their faith is in accordance with the rules as laid out by the apostles in the Bible, and they can be found inside or outside the churches. Subscribing to the doctrine of a particular church does not make a person a true Christian; the only criterion for a true Christian is whether the faith in one’s heart is based on the biblical rules. Sometimes true Christians get thrown out of the (institutional) church, and it is God who gathers and brings them together to form congregations. Their main characteristics are a “consistency in faith and godliness,” a tolerance of others, strict discipline and a critical attitude among themselves, as well as a great zeal to “bring souls to Christ.”24 It is interesting to see what Zinzendorf says about the relationship of these true believers to the institutional church. If they remain within the church, they will “preserve the best of their religion and whatever is harmless.” If they are outside the church—and this is important in the context of Herrnhut—they have the freedom “to organize themselves” on an evangelical and apostolical basis “according to the gospel and the letters of the apostles.”25 The relationship of the true believer to the churches is characterized by voluntariness and freedom. The 1727 Brotherly Agreement formulates this relationship in a similar manner: “5. Those who voluntarily submit to the church organization have good reason to do so; human regulations are to be accepted in humble love and obedience and in Christian freedom, rather than approved, until the Lord himself will make a change. If at some point anything might be organized among us it shall be done with simplicity and edification.”26 In the same text, Zinzendorf talks about the institutional churches,27 which in a typical radical Pietist way he refers to as “sects.”28 A “sectarian” is anyone who is a staunch member of such an institutional church. Zinzendorf is highly critical of the churches for depending on rules and regulations and on dogmatic teachings. One is expected to declare one’s support for rules and doctrine without having to be convinced in one’s heart nor lead an exemplary life. The “sectarians” reject anyone who does not express consent with these “external formalities,” including the most reasonable separatists and members of the apostolic congregations. “Sectarians” can be blind followers of one particular denomination, but can also be those “pious and reasonable souls” who avoid any argument and do not dare to speak up.

the herrnhut model      195

According to Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian ecclesiology, the community of true believers was of a higher order than the institutional churches.29 The churches were all mistaken in assuming they were the true church; their dogmas were but opinions, and their rites mere human institutions. A true Christian was free to participate in the institutional church, but his real calling was of a higher order. Herrnhut was such an apostolic congregation of true believers. The Herrnhuters were free to “submit to the church organization” of Berthelsdorf, while the church in Berthelsdorf, conversely, had no say over them. For example, Herrnhuters were allowed to go to confession in Berthelsdorf but could not be forced to do so. Except for an inconsequential stipulation that the Berthelsdorf pastor had to “know” the communicants, no role in the Herrnhut community was assigned to him.30 Communion was celebrated by the pious community in the Berthelsdorf church, but separate from the other parishioners. And when Rothe was listed as one of the Lehrer (preachers) of the Herrnhut congregation, the word privatim was added to his name to indicate he was a preacher not in his capacity as parish pastor but as a member of the congregation.31 Zinzendorf ’s position regarding the church and separatism becomes clear from an incident in Dresden in early 1722, when a woman “who was one of the so-­called separatists” visited him to ask for his advice.32 In a letter to his grandmother Gersdorf, Zinzendorf extensively recounts his conversations with the woman, who remains unnamed.33 She told him she was part of a group of five separatists in Chemnitz, who lived communally according to the example of the early Christians but “do not take Communion nor go to church.” Zinzendorf was sympathetic, calling her “a fine soul” and their common (separatist) acquaintance “my dear friend,” but he could not approve of her and her friends’ absence from church services. When the woman returned the next day, Zinzendorf handed her his written arguments against their separation from the church. To his joy, a few days later he received a reply from the Chemnitz group, stating that they had decided, after careful consideration of Zinzendorf ’s arguments, to attend church again and that they had even taken Communion, “while continuing their previous friendship and love among each other.” This incident has often been read as proof of his rejection of separatism and his allegiance to the Lutheran Church.34 Zinzendorf ’s response to the separatists in Chemnitz seems to confirm this interpretation: “What would remain if even the gold withdraws?”35 Furthermore, Zinzendorf refers to the parable in Matthew 13 where Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven with a field where both good seed and weeds grow. When the servants in the parable

196      herrnhut

suggest pulling out the weeds, the landowner tells them not to: “Let both grow together until the harvest” (Matt. 13:30). “Let us therefore,” Zinzendorf wrote to Chemnitz, “not abandon the meeting, even if we may have good reason, so that we do not give offense and that we preserve the good among the bad and the former may improve and sanctify the latter.” The reason the woman sought Zinzendorf ’s advice was that the Chemnitz separatists were under threat of expulsion from Saxony.36 Zinzendorf wondered if the Chemnitzers had “sufficient steadfastness” or if expulsion might be “unnecessary hardship,” mistakenly regarded as given to them by God. In this situation, with their having no other protection, Zinzendorf advised them to attend church again to avoid giving unnecessary offense. He gave them reasons why it was acceptable for true Christians to also attend church and to be in communion with the unconverted: as long as true Christians gathered together in their own meetings to praise God, pray, and admonish one another, it was better not to give offense by staying away from church. Zinzendorf ’s advice to the group in Chemnitz becomes clearer when we read it as the actions of a Philadelphian. According to a definition the Philadelphian Society in London gave of themselves in 1697, Philadelphians lamented the corrupted state of the established church, causing them to gather independently from the church, “yet [they] do not therefore formally Dissent or separate from such a particular Body, Community, or Church,” to which they formerly belonged, nor persuade anyone else to separate: “much less do they perswade others to Dissent from that Communion, which they are Previously oblig’d to Adhere to, or advise them to Separate themselves.”37 In this matter Zinzendorf gave the exact kind of guidance a true Philadelphian was supposed to give. Beyreuther claims “bringing home these religious overheated and restless minds” was one of Zinzendorf ’s achievements. Zinzendorf may have brought many separatists “home” into his Moravian Church, but that does not mean he directed them back to the established church. Herrnhut itself (or the Moravian Church) was not the institutional church, but Zinzendorf gave it the appearance of an established church, be it under the pretense of a renewed Unity of Brethren or of an ecclesiola in a Lutheran ecclesia.

Lutheranism Similarly, Zinzendorf ’s rejection of “sectarianism” can easily be misunderstood to imply supporting the Lutheran Church. The common meaning of the term sect as having separated from an established church is almost the opposite of

the herrnhut model      197

how Zinzendorf and other radical Pietists used the term. In fact, Zinzendorf uses sectarian for staunch defenders of the Lutheran Church or of another institutional church. Rothe was repeatedly called a sectarian by Zinzendorf and other Herrnhuters when he proclaimed and defended doctrine and rituals of the Lutheran Church. For Zinzendorf, a devoted Lutheran was a sectarian, and he called the institutional churches sects. A true Philadelphian member of the apostolic congregation, on the other hand, was not a sectarian. Adding to the confusion is Zinzendorf ’s positive assessment of the Augsburg Confession and of Martin Luther, as discussed above. Zinzendorf found it an excellent summary of Christian teachings and believed it could be the creed of the Philadelphian congregation.38 In fact, he found it so “pure and healthy” that if people would act accordingly, “the apostolic congregation would soon appear.”39 Zinzendorf repeatedly used statements by Luther to defend his under­ takings. In apologetic texts, such as the “Historischer Begriff von der Beschaffenheit der Brüder aus Mähren und Böhmen” (Historical Idea of the Constitution of the Brethren from Moravia and Bohemia), written in Jena in July 1728,40 he admits that although public worship may be “inevitable,” Luther did not exclude the possibility of private meetings, and even claims that Luther found “these are the right way of Protestant worship.” Zinzendorf founded this claim on his reading of Luther’s introduction to The German Mass and Order of Divine Service of 1526.41 During the same sojourn in Jena, Zinzendorf asked Spangenberg, who was a student at the time, to collect Luther’s statements on private meetings to dispel objections against conventicles.42 In one of the prayer meetings Zinzendorf conducted that summer in Jena, he read from Luther’s sermons on the priesthood of all believers.43 Aalen has pointed out that Zinzendorf ’s study and familiarity with Luther’s works did not make him a “denominational Lutheran,” nor did Herrnhut have much in common with Lutheran ecclesiology.44 Schneider sincerely doubts Zinzendorf ’s allegiance to Luther and Lutheranism.45 Rather, Zinzendorf used Luther to give his activities a semblance of legitimacy. The notarial instrument of 1729 contains a number of positive statements by Luther about the Unity of Brethren, suggesting these apply to Herrnhut as well since Herrnhut is a community of descendants of the Unity of Brethren.46 The seemingly Lutheran identity continued to play a role and was repeated during later investigations by the Saxon government. “Our affiliation with the Augsburg Confession is our most precious gem,” an official document submitted to the Royal Saxon Commission of 1748 stated.47 Some historians have failed to see that Zinzendorf ’s argumentation in favor of the Lutheran Church served apologetic purposes. They believe it

198      herrnhut

actually meant that Herrnhut was supposed to remain a special congregation within the Lutheran Church; only because the authorities failed to recognize this intention did they push Herrnhut out of the Lutheran Church and force it to become an independent church.48 In reality, however, Herrnhut was intended to be a separate body of Philadelphian believers outside the Lutheran Church. Zinzendorf used Luther to defend his un-­Lutheran actions.

Ecclesiola in Ecclesia Zinzendorf believed the congregation in Herrnhut was the realization of Spener’s concept of the ecclesiola in ecclesia, a little church within the church.49 In a 1724 letter to an unnamed recipient, Zinzendorf wrote about his desire to create ecclesiolae. At this time he seems to apply Spener’s concept to a loose network of ecclesiolae rather than a community in a particular place. Nor does he suggest that such groups needed to be bound by formal regulations: “This I think much of: to collect ecclesiolas within the ecclesia, of which Christ says that it is like a net that gathers every kind [Matt. 13:47]; i.e., to consolidate a congregation that is holy and worships in spirit and truth, from the crowd that screams their heads off in church . . . ; a congregation that is neither found together in one place nor tied together per leges externas, if only the members are established under one head and united by the bond of perfectness [Col. 1:18, 3:14].”50 Zinzendorf saw a direct connection between the concept of a Philadelphian congregation and Spener’s ecclesiolae concept: “The ecclesiolae in ecclesia are the basis for Philadelphia.”51 In his eyes Herrnhut and the Moravian Church were the realization of this idea, yet with one crucial addition: the devotion of the passion of Christ. Other Philadelphian ecclesiolae have existed, but they disappeared since they were not rooted in the blood of Jesus, Zinzendorf argued at a time when Moravian blood-­and-­wounds devotion was nearing its peak. Devotion of the passion of Christ was the cement that held his ecclesiola together.52 Both Aalen and Schneider have argued that although Zinzendorf may have believed Herrnhut was the realization of Spener’s idea, he was, in fact, mistaken.53 Spener intended his ecclesiolae to exist inside the institutional church, under the oversight of a local pastor. Herrnhut was not a congregation within the church, it was a community outside the church. Herrnhut was a congregation where instead of an ordained minister laypeople preached; Communion was conducted separately from the parish congregation; lay elders were in charge, not the Lutheran minister; and the congregation acted

the herrnhut model      199

independently in all matters, never consulting with authorities of the Lutheran Church about any matter. When defending his undertakings to the authorities in 1732, Zinzendorf did not, of course, associate the activity in Herrnhut with Spener’s collegia pietatis or ecclesiolae, which were considered disreputable conventicles. He referred instead to a source that for Saxon authorities was above all suspicion: the Lutheran Book of Concord. According to Zinzendorf, worship in Herrnhut was the same as something the Book of Concord called “per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum,” mutual conversations for the consolation of the brethren.54 As we have seen above, the Book of Concord was not a text Zinzendorf usually held in high esteem; in this case a reference to the Book of Concord served apologetic purposes.

Renewal of the Unity of Brethren The idea of a renewal of the Unity of Brethren did not originate until the summer of 1727, when Zinzendorf read Comenius’s Historia Fratrum Bohemorum while traveling in Silesia after the introduction of the statutes. Upon his return to Herrnhut, Zinzendorf informed the Herrnhuters with great enthusiasm about these “amazing wonders of God.” From then on the idea began to take hold that God had guided the Herrnhuters to unknowingly adopt a constitution their ancestors had already enjoyed three centuries earlier. The Moravian settlers did not come to Herrnhut with the desire to reestablish the church of their ancestors. They wanted to escape persecution and to live in a Christian community. It was Zinzendorf who invented the concept of the renewal of the Unity of Brethren. He was apparently inspired by the wish Comenius included in his “Brevis Historiola” that God might “renew our days as of old” (Lam. 5:21), which he believed God had now answered. The idea of the renewal must have come to him while translating Comenius’s text, perhaps while reading this very paragraph.55 When Zinzendorf informed the settlers of his discovery, they gladly accepted the idea. It is often assumed the renewal was the wish of the settlers. Sterik goes so far as to argue that Zinzendorf did not understand this desire and tried to obstruct the settlers in their endeavor to reestablish the Unity.56 Until then the plan had been just to form a Philadelphian community. As Philadelphians they would attend worship in the Lutheran Church, without committing to the Lutheran Church as a denomination. Under pressure from Christian David and others, the loose community was formalized into

200      herrnhut

a (Philadelphian) congregation with statutes. The formal organization of the congregation may have gone against strict Philadelphian principles, but the realization that the Herrnhut statutes were so similar to the statutes of the Unity gave everything a deeper meaning. If this was all God’s doing, there was no reason to question the wisdom of giving the Philadelphian congregation a formal footing.57 Zinzendorf felt emboldened to present these statutes for adoption by other groups as well. It also turned out that the identity of a reconstituted older church was useful when defending Herrnhut to the outside world. In a memorial to royal commissioner Gersdorf, the Herrnhut congregation identified with the faith of Hus while assuring him that they descended from the quiet Unity of Brethren rather than the violent Hussites.58 Herrnhut claimed a right to distinct worship based on that history, in addition to the services in the nearby parish church. Texts such as the notarial instrument, the 1732 memorial, and the “Deduction” to the Privy Council played down the distinctiveness of worship in Herrnhut as merely Privat-­Einrichtungen (private practices) or Privat-­ Erbauung (private devotions), thus concealing the fact that in reality worship in Herrnhut was of first importance and worship in Berthelsdorf of secondary importance.59 Furthermore, the term private practices suggests that Zinzendorf appealed to the law of the Holy Roman Empire. According to the terms of the Peace of Osnabrück, nonconforming Christians were granted the right to devotions held privately in their homes.60 Ever since, the Moravian Church has considered itself to be the renewed Unitas Fratrum.61 The adoption of this identity did not include the introduction of the creeds or the catechisms of the Unity of Brethren.62 The Moravian Church did adopt some offices of the Unity of Brethren: in 1735 David Nitschmann (carpenter) was ordained a bishop of the Unity of Brethren, and in 1745 the Moravian Church adopted the threefold degrees of ministry from the Unitas Fratrum: deacons, presbyters, and bishops. They also introduced the lay office of acolytes. The Moravians stressed their connection with the ancient Unity, without ever accepting the teachings of the Unity.

End of the Brotherhood of Four Whereas the realization of the undertakings in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut during the early years was the responsibility of Zinzendorf in close cooperation with his pious friends, from 1727 on the Brotherhood of Four lost significance to Zinzendorf. After limiting Rothe’s role in Herrnhut in April of 1727, Zinzendorf unilaterally decided to pull out of the boys’ school for nobility

the herrnhut model      201

that July. Leaving open the option for Rothe and Scheffer to continue the school without him is an indication that the role of the Brotherhood was coming to an end. Zinzendorf ’s relationship with both Rothe and Scheffer began to change. Royal commissioner Gersdorf was pleased to conclude that the Herrnhuters “submit themselves to the inspection of Pastor Rothe, who has been examined by Your Royal Majesty’s consistory and who observes and treats them in the same way as he does his regular old flock at Berthelsdorf.”63 In reality, however, this was not entirely true. With the 1727 statutes Herrnhut had declared its independence from Berthelsdorf, something Rothe was given to understand in unmistakable terms. The relationship between Rothe on the one side and Zinzendorf and the Herrnhut community on the other was characterized by many ups and downs. Overall, fundamental differences of opinion became increasingly difficult to reconcile as the Herrnhut congregation became more independent. Understanding the debate between Rothe and Zinzendorf is complicated by the fact that most of Rothe’s letters from the Unity Archives were destroyed in 1802.64 The letters Rothe received from Zinzendorf do not survive either; Moravian leaders decided to destroy them when they were offered to the church in 1796. The Unity Elders’ Conference paid 50 thalers to Rothe’s son Immanuel Gottfried for “a collection of several hundred letters from the late Count Zinzendorf to his father.” Rothe Jr., pastor in Sohr Neundorf (Żarska Wieś) near Görlitz, had offered the letters to the Moravian Church for 25 thalers; the Unity Elders were so eager to receive them that they paid him twice the asking price. After studying the letters and finding them to be of “no historical value,” the elders still feared the letters could be “abused” and decided to burn them.65 From what we know about Zinzendorf ’s ongoing debate with Rothe, these letters would probably have confirmed Zinzendorf ’s anti-­ecclesiastical Philadelphian stance. Based on the surviving records, we find that Rothe took issue with the desire of many Herrnhuters to organize themselves independently from the Berthelsdorf parish. In the end Rothe remained a churchman, defending and adhering to the regulations of the Lutheran Church. Rothe had not always been that way. “I am shocked,” Zinzendorf wrote in February of 1727, “when Mr. Rothe propagates orthodoxy from the pulpit because my first acquaintance with him was based on impartiality.”66 In Zinzendorf ’s eyes a jointly held Philadelphian belief and a common interest in “impartiality” formed the basis of their friendship when the two men met in 1721. We already found that from the moment he became a parish pastor, much to everyone’s surprise, Rothe adhered to Lutheran polity. Over the

202      herrnhut

years their relationship was strained at times until things became particularly tense in 1727. Rothe’s outspoken propagation of Lutheran doctrine in February of 1727 made Zinzendorf realize he needed to detach Herrnhut from Berthelsdorf in order to establish his apostolic congregation. At the beginning of 1728 the situation became particularly tense once again. After Rothe had reprimanded Zinzendorf in his sermons on several occasions during the year, the Herrnhuters decided to send Augustin Neisser, David Nitschmann, and Martin Dober to Rothe to confront him about “all his recent abuse of the brethren.”67 A few days later, on January 7, 1728, Rothe was summoned to attend a meeting with the Herrnhut elders. This meeting reveals how the Herrnhut congregation perceived its relationship to the Berthelsdorf pastor following the introduction of the statutes. The Herrnhut elders denied Rothe any authority over the Herrnhut congregation, which, they claimed, was a separate congregation: “It was given him to understand that he could not rule or control them as this is a congregation by itself and that he has to regard it an honor and a blessing to be among us.”68 The elders proceeded to explain to a visibly shaken Rothe how they planned to continue attending the services in the Berthelsdorf church, not because they were obliged to do so in any way, but only voluntarily: “Furthermore, we spoke about how we intended to submit to everything in the Berthelsdorf church and to stand by him, but not as a right he was entitled to.”69 Surprisingly, this treatment did not result in a complete estrangement between Rothe and his former parishioners. On February 10 the diary reported that, thanks to Watteville’s mediation, Rothe had handed in a written reply to a list of things they had criticized him for.70 The Herrnhuters received Rothe’s declaration with great joy and responded with a reconciliatory letter, signed by 136 men and women, inviting Rothe to come to Herrnhut and celebrate their reconciliation. Rothe came, gave a sermon on the text “You are a chosen nation” (1 Pet. 2:9), and celebrated a love feast with the Herrnhuters.71 Contrary to what the narrative of the diary may suggest, Rothe did not fully submit to the stipulations of the Herrnhuters. His position follows from an undated statement he wrote, which is held by the Moravian Archives in Bethlehem. Based on its content, this appears to be a copy of the written reply Rothe handed the Herrnhut elders on February 10, 1728.72 Because of this unexpected find we are able to hear Rothe’s position. Rothe declared that the basis of his faith and actions was the writings of the prophets and the apostles, but for anything that remained uncertain (ungewiß) he held to the principles of the Lutheran Church. Because of the oath taken at his ordination, Rothe considered himself not a private person but a persona publica, bound to the Book of Concord.73 As such he was to

the herrnhut model      203

uphold the law of the land and the rules of the church and was unable to allow his parishioners to do “whatever they want.” Rothe agreed the (institutional) church was not perfect, but he did not think it right to judge the church on the acts and teaching of current ministers and leaders. An assessment of the church should be based on the Book of Concord and the writings of the “old leaders” of the Lutheran Church—that is, Luther and the other great thinkers of the Lutheran tradition. Regarding the discussion about reform and renewal, Rothe wanted to remain with what had been conventionally accepted (“bey dem Recipirten”)—that is, existing doctrine and practices of the church. Many of the ideas of the Herrnhuters were subject to change anyway, Rothe claimed, “and it does not happen infrequently that over time, with one and the same person, ideas disappear or completely change.” He regarded the discipline of the Unity of Brethren historically as “the most precious and inestimable matter,” but its recent practice in Herrnhut was very different and had made him skeptical (“stützig”). Finally, he assured the Herrnhuters that for him “brotherly community transcended everything” as long as he was not required to do or act against his oath or against the government. Rothe’s declaration was an unequivocal affirmation of his adherence to the institutional Lutheran Church. The declaration also reveals how Rothe diverged from many Pietist positions, such as the criticism of an alleged degenerate ministry, the rejection of taking oaths, their de-­emphasis of theological dogma, and disrespect for church rituals.74 In 1721, when he and Zinzendorf first met and made plans, he may have had more critical ideas regarding church and establishment. Confronted with the realities of the ministry, combined with the political risks of realizing radical Pietist ideals, Rothe chose to remain on the side of the institutional church. He did so perhaps not wholeheartedly, as the occasional examples of his unreserved enthusiasm for the Herrnhut congregation show. Rothe accepted a call to Hermsdorf in 1737 and in 1739 to Thommendorf (Tomisław). In 1744 Zinzendorf tried to win him back, inviting him to become director of the Moravian Theological Seminary in Marienborn, but Rothe declined. He died in Thommendorf on July 6, 1758.75 The dissociation between Herrnhut and Berthelsdorf increased when the Herrnhuters applied for their own minister in September of 1732.76 Royal commissioner Gersdorf had made the suggestion to call an adjunct minister to Herrnhut. Although the Herrnhut congregation had something different in mind, it seems likely that Zinzendorf used Gersdorf ’s suggestion in order to pursue his own plan to free Herrnhut from Rothe’s reluctant oversight and make it more independent. It was not the first time the idea of an assistant

204      herrnhut

minister for Herrnhut arose. Already in January of 1729 Rothe was told that the elders had decided to call a copastor (Diaconus) for Herrnhut.77 Nothing came of this, but with the commissioner’s recommendation the time seemed right to pursue the plan. Whereas Gersdorf expected an adjunct to exercise stricter control over the community, the Herrnhuters intended a more independent role for their own minister. The Herrnhut pastor was to administer baptism and Communion, conduct weddings and funerals, and give sermons in the Herrnhut meeting hall “during the usual time of worship.” In a skillful way, the petition was seemingly phrased in agreement with Gersdorf ’s recommendation but did not match Gersdorf ’s intention. The minister was to “keep a vigilant, yet evangelical and accurate eye” if preaching was in accordance with the analogia fidei (rule of faith)78 and to preserve the “constitution of the Moravian Brethren in wise connection with the entire Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession,” but nowhere does it say that Herrnhut was to comply with Lutheran rites or rules. The new minister was not to supervise and eliminate the need for lay preachers, as recommended by the royal commissioner, but rather to look after his congregation “in conformity with those workers we already have among us.” In spite of Rothe’s objections to the appointment of an additional minister, Zinzendorf called Friedrich Christoph Steinhofer from Württemberg to Herrnhut. Steinhofer had visited Herrnhut in 1731. Teufel points out that the call letter did not refer to Herrnhut as a filial church within the larger parish, nor did it place Steinhofer under the authority of Rothe.79 However, the authorities in Dresden put a stop to his call to Herrnhut. Steinhofer went to Ebersdorf instead; ultimately, in 1747, he became minister in Herrnhut.80 By that time Rothe had long left Berthelsdorf. A definitive estrangement between him and Zinzendorf occurred in 1737 when Rothe left for Hermsdorf (Jerzmanki) near Görlitz. The relationship with Melchior Scheffer, the other Lutheran pastor among the members of the Brotherhood of Four, began to deteriorate in 1727 as well, likely due to pressure on him from local and state authorities. In close cooperation with Herrnhut, Scheffer had instituted parallel activities in Görlitz: prayer meetings, a school, and the distribution of books printed by the brotherhood. Often Zinzendorf, Rothe, and other Herrnhuters came to Görlitz to speak, and Görlitzers visited Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut regularly. Moreover, Scheffer did not hide his criticism of the other ministers in the city, which made his position increasingly difficult. After Scheffer, together with twenty-­one men and women from Görlitz, returned from a two-­day visit to Berthelsdorf in July of 1725, a riot broke out in front of the house where his

the herrnhut model      205

conventicle met.81 That same summer a royal decree ordered Scheffer to cease his conventicles.82 After he ignored the order and several other cases of turmoil arose, an official investigation followed in 1727. In July a large crowd carrying sticks harassed Scheffer in front of the altar of his church.83 He was ordered to Dresden by royal rescript to account for his statements and actions. After preparing together with Zinzendorf and Rothe, Scheffer and his wife left for Dresden on August 30, 1727. Zinzendorf accompanied the Scheffers and even stayed with them for a while, thus missing the birth of his own son, Christian Renatus, on September 19. When Scheffer did not make his return journey through Herrnhut in early October, Zinzendorf suspected something was amiss. Indeed, Scheffer was made to sign statements renouncing his former actions and to pledge “not to have communion with us.” Upon his return to Görlitz in early October Scheffer had to read a statement from the pulpit declaring his support for Lutheran doctrine and the Book of Concord and retracting the harsh criticism he had preached over the years.84 Scheffer’s submission to the authorities affected his relationship with Herrnhut and Zinzendorf; during the following months friendly and indignant letters alternated, and things would never be as cordial again. Another contentious issue was related to the statutes. In the spring of 1728, when Zinzendorf introduced statutes in Berthelsdorf, he wanted Scheffer to introduce the statutes in Görlitz as well, and Scheffer, as we saw above, refused. Following that, and because of his role in encouraging the Herrnhuters to denounce their identity of Moravian Brethren, the friendship between Zinzendorf and Scheffer cooled off considerably. They remained in contact, and their correspondence was mostly friendly, but Scheffer no longer engaged in the work in Herrnhut as actively as he had in previous years. In the summer of 1731 he sent one of his daughters to Herrnhut to join Anna Nitschmann’s “company of maidens,” the newly formed living community of single women.85 In 1732 he wrote that it was time for the Görlitz group to reunite with the Herrnhuters “in cordial love.”86 By 1733, however, Scheffer had become very critical of the Herrnhuters. Christoph Wiegner, one of the Schwenkfelders who lived in Görlitz, witnessed some of Scheffer’s outbursts. On January 5, 1733, Scheffer called both Zinzendorf and Christian David “a false spirit,” and on June 9 Wiegner noted, “Regarding the Herrnhuters, however, he [Scheffer] was much enraged. He said their teaching on marriage was of the devil and that on perfection a deception.”87 Scheffer gave his last sermon on January 29, 1738, and died on July 9 in Görlitz.88 His widow, Martha, moved to Herrnhut in 1746, where she was warden of the widows’ choir until her death on December 11, 1752.89

206      herrnhut

Fig. 14  Portrait of Melchior Scheffer (1682–1738). Engraving by Gottfried Böhmer. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg, Inv.-Nr. MP 20964. Leihgabe P. W. Merkel’sche Familienstiftung.

Without the active involvement of Rothe and Scheffer, Watteville and his wife were the only members of the original Brotherhood of Four left. Over the years, Watteville was often the arbitrator who resolved conflicts between Zinzendorf and his closest coworkers, Heitz, Rothe, and Scheffer. But Watteville himself was also the object of Zinzendorf ’s ire sometimes. In

the herrnhut model      207

Fig. 15  Portrait of Friedrich von Watteville (1700–1777). Oil on board by Johann Georg Ziesenis [1767]. This painting was handed down among the descendants of Count Zinzendorf. Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, PC 60.

1723, after a summer full of tension over Heitz’s departure as estate manager, Watteville had enough and was determined to part ways with Zinzendorf during the visit to Prague to attend the coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI as King of Bohemia.90 The fact that he did not follow through speaks to Watteville’s ability to acquiesce. He sometimes resorted to irony to express his frustration, such as when he referred to Zinzendorf as Illusimus in a letter to Heitz: “Illusimus went to Dresden with his entire court and left me as director of the entire Berthelsdorf manor. As you can imagine, I am less than overjoyed.”91 Despite Watteville’s occasional frustrations, he remained loyal to Zinzendorf and the Moravian Church for the rest of his life. While the original network of copartners was falling apart, new promising individuals appeared. In April of 1730 August Gottlieb Spangenberg,

208      herrnhut

together with his roommate Gottfried Clemens, visited from Jena.92 Both soon joined the Herrnhuters and served the Moravian Church in different capacities. Spangenberg organized Moravian work in America. After Zinzendorf ’s death in 1760 he was considered head of the Moravian Church until his own passing in 1792.

Changing Network The relationship between Halle and Herrnhut had been cool and reserved from the beginning, but with August Hermann Francke’s death in 1727, things were to become even more difficult. Francke’s son and successor Gott­ hilf August Francke and Zinzendorf had known each other from the time they both attended the paedagogium, and a mutual aversion dated from these years.93 Schneider points out that Herrnhut’s itinerant messengers informing pious circles throughout Central Europe of God’s wonders in Upper Lusatia heightened the sense of rivalry among the Hallensians. Zinzendorf ’s 1728 sojourn to Jena attempting to introduce statutes based on the Herrnhut model was seen as a “penetration into Halle territory.”94 Even more provocative was Zinzendorf ’s ensuing visit to Halle, where he gave a revival speech to the students and where he hoped to introduce similar statutes.95 Zinzendorf ’s unconventional behavior—ignoring and overstepping class boundaries, giving up his position at the court in Dresden, and preaching everywhere he went—caused embarrassment among nobles and nonnobles alike. Zinzendorf ’s visit to Johann Conrad Dippel and other radical Pietists in Berleburg and Schwarzenau in 1730 confirmed Halle’s fear of Herrnhut damaging the reputation of Halle Pietism as an accepted ecclesiastical movement.96 Things came to a head with Spangenberg’s dismissal and departure from Halle and his move to Herrnhut in 1733.97 From then on, the divide between Halle and Herrnhut was a fact. In a letter to Steinmetz, Zinzendorf wrote, “Halle and Herrnhut are to be and to remain separate from now on.”98 This split in the Pietist movement would last for many decades. Similar to Hallensian Pietism, the Herrnhut community began to direct its attention to distant lands and to spread the gospel outside of Europe. In the eschatological worldview of Philadelphians, the time had come to reach out to the “heathen” in other parts of the world. According to these Philadelphians, the divided churches were unable to convince non-­Christians; only an apostolic congregation that, like the early church, was of one heart and of one soul (Acts 4:32) would find an open door (Rev. 3:8) to gather the first fruits (Rev. 14:4) from among the heathen.99 The Herrnhuters believed they

the herrnhut model      209

were such a Philadelphian congregation, able to gain access to the nations of the world. In October of 1727 the Herrnhuters studied the mission of Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg and Heinrich Plütschau in Tharangambadi (Tranquebar), India, during the evening worship meetings; the reading matter, however, did not find approval.100 On Repentance Day, February 10, 1728, Zinzendorf gathered the congregation in the dining hall of his house. One of the topics discussed that day was sending missionaries to countries such as Turkey, Africa (“land of the Moors”), Greenland, and Lapland. Although traveling to such faraway places seemed nearly impossible, Zinzendorf was confident they would be able to some day. This discussion coincided with the creation of a communal residence for the single men, where they also received education in medicine, writing, geography, history, and languages so that they could be employed as missionaries.101 The following year Zinzendorf announced to the regenerate students in Jena that Herrnhut was preparing to send out missionaries that same summer: Christian David was going “to Mount Ararat in Persia” to find descendants of a group of Brethren who went there in 1488, while Martin Dober and another man were going “into the wide world” to preach Christ where he was not yet known.102 This letter from 1729 may have been a little boastful, but in 1732 two Herrnhuters indeed left for the Caribbean: Dober’s younger brother Leonhard and David Nitschmann (carpenter) departed on August 21 to preach the gospel to enslaved Africans on Saint Thomas. The following year Christian David and cousins Matthäus and Christian Stach left for Greenland. Other destinations soon followed, and mission activity became an important field of work for the Herrnhut movement. The motivation for their mission work was Philadelphian: the missionaries from Herrnhut were to make their converts into Christians rather than into members of one of the existing denominations.103 From its beginning, Herrnhut was part of a loose network of like-­minded people and groups. The interconnectedness with pious people in other locations was the topic of the monthly Bettage or Gemeintage (prayer days), where letters, reports, and other information from other locations were shared.104 During the 1730s the nature of this network began to change as Zinzendorf increasingly asserted his position as a leader who expected submission to his dominance. Attempts to establish a Philadelphian network of communities organized on the model of the Herrnhut statutes failed. Schrader points out that “Zinzendorf could not imagine Philadelphia in any other way than in Moravian ways.” His attempts to reduce existing separatist groups into affiliates of Herrnhut were rejected.105 The Herrnhut network that began to grow during the 1730s and particularly during the 1740s was different: congregations, sometimes the size of a small town, began to form, modeled after the

210      herrnhut

example of Herrnhut and under the leadership of Zinzendorf and other elders. This was the Moravian Church, quickly spreading over the globe. In their overseas activities the Moravians remained faithful to their Philadelphian ideals. In the 1740s Moravians came to Pennsylvania in the hope of realizing these ideals outside the confines of the confessionalized European religious landscape. Other developments within the Moravian Church can be seen in the light of Philadelphianism. The appointment of Christ as chief elder of the church in 1741 follows Philadelphian expectations.106 Even the proclamation of men to be “virginal” in 1748, which was the central element of the infamous Moravian Sifting Time, had its parallels in Philadelphian ideas.107 However, simultaneously with the rise of the Moravian Church the Philadelphian movement in Germany declined and disappeared from view by the mid-­eighteenth century.108 The Herrnhut model continued to be applied during these years: Moravians claimed to be a distinct church dating back to the fifteenth century and adhering to the Augsburg Confession, while in reality they were radical Pietists living by Philadelphian ideals.109 Zinzendorf ’s argumentation seemed to be successful, albeit perhaps not to the full extent he had wished. The royal commissioner accepted that although the Herrnhuters called themselves Brethren and not Lutherans, they professed Lutheran doctrine and therefore were “to be counted among this tolerated religion.”110 In a way, however, that argumentation backfired as well: if Herrnhut was to be considered part of the Lutheran Church, the commissioner suggested placing Herrnhut under even stricter oversight of the Lutheran Church by appointing an adjunct minister. It did not come to that and for the time being, the acceptance and recognition of Herrnhut’s association with the Lutheran Church by the authorities secured its survival. The Herrnhut model shifted focus away from the radical nature of the Philadelphian congregation. Instead, Herrnhut seemed to declare its allegiance to the Lutheran confession while only asking for some liberties based on their history. The two claims of the Herrnhut model stuck: the association with the Lutheran Church and the identity of the Renewed Moravian Church. This study of the initial decade of the Herrnhut community has revealed the Philadelphian nature of the Moravian movement. For outsiders, the true nature of the Moravian movement was often concealed, because only under the cover of a “mask,” as Zinzendorf explained in 1744,111 was the church able to withstand the storms of opposition and antagonism.

notes

Prologue 1.  Synod at Marienborn, results, June 15, 1744, R.2.A.10.6, p. 137.

Introduction The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from R.2.A.33.b.1, p. 579. 1.  An account of the festivities in 1822 can be found in NadB (1822): 629–739. According to the statistics reported to the General Synod of 1825 (R.2.B.51.e.3.A), the Moravian Church had 8,484 members in its congregational settlements, 8,259 in its town and country congregations, and 33,181 members in its mission stations. An additional 76,463 people were members of “diaspora” groups, who met regularly for Moravian meetings but were also members of an official state church. On the memory of August 13, 1727, among evangelicals in the United States, see Burkholder, “ ‘As on the Day of Pentecost.’ ” 2.  See table in chapter 6. 3.  Lehmann, “Pietismusforschung nach dem Cultural Turn”; Strom and Lehmann, “Early Modern Pietism”; Jung, “Impact of Pietism”; Spaans and Touber, “Introduction” (with many references). 4.  It would take until 1758 before Herrnhut was officially separated from the Berthelsdorf parish and became its own parish. Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 61. 5.  This is the argument of Editá Sterik in most of her work (see bibliography). See also Becker, Zinzendorf und sein Christentum, 450; Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 96; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und die böhmisch-­mährischen Brüder.” 6. Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs; Cranz, Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie. 7. Becker, Zinzendorf und sein Christentum, 154. 8. Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 43, 95; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 27; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und die böhmisch-­mährischen Brüder.” 9.  See the historiographical discussions in Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 358–64, and Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 17–19. 10. Bengel, Abriß der so genannten Brüdergemeine, 205. See also Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 20; Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 12. See also Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 134, 146–47. 11. Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, 3:210–11, 252–55. See also Goebel, Geschichte des christlichen Lebens. 12. Lütjeharms, Philadelphisch-­oecumenisch streven; Uttendörfer, Zinzendorf und die Mystik; Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine; Nielsen, Toleranzgedanke bei Zinzendorf; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf; Schneider, “Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf ”; Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder.” 13.  Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder.” The importance of the Philadelphian movement for Zinzendorf has now been generally recognized among historians. See the helpful overviews

212      notes to pages 7–11 of the historiography on this topic: Teigeler, Herrnhuter in Russland, 67–71; Bouman-­Komen, Bruderliebe und Feindeshaß. 14.  An example of an overly apologetic text is Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff.” See also Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 15, 59n353. On Spangenberg’s apologetic works, see the articles by Rüdiger Kroger, Peter, Vogt, and Dieter Gembicki in UnFr, no. 61/62 (2009). 15.  On Pietism, see the four-­volume series Geschichte des Pietismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993–2004); Shantz, Introduction to German Pietism; Strom and Lehmann, “Early Modern Pietism”; Shantz, Introduction to German Pietism; Wallmann, Pietismus; Gleix­ ner, “Pietism”; Breul, Pietismus Handbuch. 16.  Strom, “Problems and Promises”; Lehmann, “Einführung”; Shantz, “Issues in Defining and Describing the Pietist Movement,” introduction to Shantz, Introduction to German Pietism; Schrader, “Terminologische und historische Eingrenzungen.” 17. “Frühneuzeitlicher Reformprotestantismus.” Albrecht-­ Birkner, “  ‘Reformation des Lebens.’ ” 18.  Martin, “Noch eine ‘res publica literaria’?,” 138–42. 19. Wallmann, Spener; Brecht, “Philipp Jakob Spener”; Shantz, Introduction to German Pietism, 91–97. 20.  Matthias, “Bekehrung und Wiedergeburt,” 51. 21.  Jakubowski-­Tiessen, “Eigenkultur und Traditionsbildung,” 200. 22.  Schneider, “Understanding the Church,” 23–24; Matthias, “Collegium pietatis und ecclesiola.” 23.  Zinzendorf later also justified his activities by referring to Luther’s call for small group gatherings. See chapter 7. 24.  Strom and Lehmann, “Early Modern Pietism,” 409. 25. Mori, Begeisterung und Ernüchterung in christlicher Vollkommenheit. 26.  Strom and Lehmann, “Early Modern Pietism,” 411. 27.  On “radical” Pietism, see Schrader, Literaturproduktion und Büchermarkt; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert”; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert”; Breul, Meier, and Vogel, Radikaler Pietismus; Schrader, “Terminologische und historische Eingrenzungen”; Türk, “Spiritualität des radikalen Pietismus.” 28.  Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert,” 108; Schneider, German Radical Pietism, 60. See also Lehmann, “ ‘Absonderung’ und ‘Gemeinschaft’ ”; Lehmann, “Grenzüberschreitungen.” 29.  According to art. 5, par. 34 of the Peace of Osnabrück, those who “profess and embrace a religion different from that of the lord of their territory, shall be patiently tolerated and have liberty of conscience, and shall not be hindered in attending their devotions held privately in their homes” (ed. Thomas A. Brady and Ellen Yutzy Glebe in “German History in Documents and Images,” http://‌ghdi‌.ghi‌-­dc‌.org). Although the peace treaty limited this right to adherents of one of the three tolerated denominations insofar they had practiced this religion in the year 1624, a broader interpretation of this paragraph seemed to be accepted by the imperial court (Reichskammergericht). See Schneider, “Konfessionalität und Toleranz”; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert,” 109–10; Schneider, German Radical Pietism, 61–62; Voigt, Kirchliche Minderheiten. 30. Zinzendorf, Denk-­und Dank-­ Lied des Hauses Ebersdorf (1746), 23–24, quoted by Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 391. 31.  Modrow, “Radikaler Pietismus,” 30; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 392; Shantz, Between Sardis and Philadelphia, xviii–xix (with references); Shantz, Introduction to German Pietism, 148; Schrader, “Terminologische und historische Eingrenzungen,” 43–44. 32.  Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 394. 33.  Lead’s name is also (usually in German publications) spelled “Leade.” On Lead, see Hessayon, Jane Lead. On the Philadelphian movement, see Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im

notes to pages 11–15      213 17. Jahrhundert”; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert”; Goebel, Geschichte des christlichen Lebens; Hochhuth, “Geschichte der philadelphischen Gemeinden”; Thune, Behmenists and Philadelphians; Vogt, “Philadelphia”; Schrader, “Terminologische und historische Eingrenzungen,” 44–62; Schrader, “Zores in Zion”; Martin, “Noch eine ‘res publica literaria’?” 34.  The articles are printed in Hochhuth, “Geschichte der philadelphischen Gemeinden,” 228–46; see also Thune, Behmenists and Philadelphians, 114–35, esp. 131–33; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert,” 108, 112–13; Schneider, German Radical Pietism, 61, 68–69. 35. Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society, 7. 36.  Ibid., 5. 37.  Johanna Eleonora Petersen applied the images of the seven congregations to the different stages a Christian warrior had to pass through to reach the final, Philadelphian stage, “when the glorious Philadelphian congregation will soon appear in its last and greatest strength” (Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff, 98). 38.  The German translation adds the paraphrase from Acts 1:14 and 2:1: “in einmüthiger Versammlung mit einander” (gathered together in one accord). 39.  Propositions Extracted from the Reasons, 1–10; in German in Lead, Ursachen und Gründe, 7–16. 40.  See, for example, the review of Lead’s Ursachen und Gründe in Valentin Löscher’s journal Unschuldige Nachrichten von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen, Büchern, Uhrkunden, Controversien, Veränderungen, Anmerckungen, Vorschläge u.d.g. (1705): 29–35. 41.  For an overview of the current discussion on confessionalization, see Encyclopedia of Early Modern History Online, s.v. “Confessionalization,” by Thomas Kaufmann, accessed Nov. 8, 2019. 42. Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society, 14; in German in Lead, Ursachen und Gründe, 40–41. 43.  Propositions Extracted from the Reasons, 8; in German in Lead, Ursachen und Gründe, 14. 44. Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society, 9; in German in Lead, Ursachen und Gründe, 33. 45.  “Our Design is Apostolical; abating only from what was of a Temporary Constitution, or fitted to such a Particular Church.” Propositions Extracted from the Reasons, art. 39, p. 9. 46. Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society, 1; in German in Lead, Ursachen und Gründe, 21. 47. Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society, 10; in German in Lead, Ursachen und Gründe, 14. 48. Crews, Faith, Love, Hope, 138–39; Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren, 135, 182. 49.  Schmidt, “Frühchristentum in der evangelisch-­lutherischen Überlieferung”; see also Peucker, “Ideal of Primitive Christianity,” 13n21. 50.  There exists extensive literature on Arnold; see Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert,” 116–19; Shantz, Introduction to German Pietism, passim; Modrow, “Überlegungen zum Verständnis von Glauben und Kirche.” 51.  Martin, “Noch eine ‘res publica literaria’?,” 161 points out that rather than a one-­way communication of Philadelphian ideas to the Continent there was a “polycentric conversation.” 52.  On the Collegiants, see Fix, Prophecy and Reason. 53. Matthias, Johann Wilhelm und Johanna Eleonora Petersen; Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen. 54. Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, p.  7; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 63; see also Petersen’s poem dedicated to Zinzendorf: “Flammae amoris mysticae, ad excitandos in aliis desideriorum igniculos, in corde Sponsae Christi accensae,” 1724, R.23.12.2. On J. E. Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff der Erstgebohrnen, see chapter 5. Zinzendorf was exposed to the works of both Petersens through the library of his grandmother Gersdorf, in whose household he grew up (Schulz, “ ‘Viel Anschein zu mehrerem Licht,’ ” 81–82). 55.  Philadelphian communities were organized throughout Germany: Berleburg, Schwar­ zenau, Buttlar, Strassburg, and Clausthal in the upper Harz region. Schneider, “Radikaler

214      notes to pages 15–19 Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 405–6; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert,” 112–14; Schrader, “Terminologische und historische Eingrenzungen,” 56–61. 56.  Zinzendorf at a synod in Bethel, June 10, 1756, quoted by Nielsen, Toleranzgedanke bei Zinzendorf, 10; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 81n71; Wallmann, Pietismus, 183–84. About other possible early Philadelphian influences on Zinzendorf, see Bouman-­Komen, Bruderliebe und Feindeshaß, 185–89. 57.  Schulz, “ ‘Viel Anschein zu mehrerem Licht,’ ” 77, 82, 85–86. 58.  Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 19n52. 59. Lead, Geistliche Schrifften. Loth Fischer was born in Meerane, Saxony, in 1640, became a teacher and corrector in Nuremberg, had to leave Nuremberg in 1684 because of the dissemination of books by Jacob Böhme, and went to Utrecht (Siebenkees, Materialien zur Nürnbergischen Geschichte, 104–9). According to the records in Utrecht his wife was Margaretha Catharina Dumbler (married 1671 in Nuremberg), who died in 1705 in Utrecht. Fischer died on February 23, 1723, in Utrecht and was buried in Rijnsburg, the center of the Collegiants. Fischer’s death is registered in the register of deaths, records of the “Momboirkamer,” no. 130, p. 298, Utrechts Archief. On Loth Fischer’s role in the German translation of Lead’s works, see Martin, “ ‘God’s Strange Providence.’ ” On Fischer, see also Thune, Behmenists and Philadelphians, 81–84, 99–100, 111, 130, 146; Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 405; Martin, “Noch eine ‘res publica literaria’?,” 155–57, 162–64. 60.  On the grand tour, see Beyreuther, Der junge Zinzendorf, 161–201; Schneider, “Begegnung zweier Kavaliere.” 61. Renkewitz, Hochmann von Hochenau, 388; Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 156–57. 62.  “Einem Werckzeuge und Mitarbeiter in seiner philadelphischen Gemeine.” Zinzendorf to H. K. von Gersdorf (draft), [Dresden, 1721], R.20.B.22.a.100. 63. Beyreuther, Die sich allhier. Modrow’s dissertation on the beginnings of the Moravian Church has been mostly overlooked: Modrow, Dienstgemeine des Herrn. 64. Reichel, Story of the Thirteenth of August, 1727. 65. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts; Reichel, Gottes Wunderführung. The latter was translated into English: Story of the Thirteenth of August, 1727. Another useful publication published on the two hundredth anniversary of Herrnhut is Bechler’s Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut. 66. Beyreuther, Die sich allhier. 67. Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen. 68.  See the bibliography. Edita Sterik’s publications on the Protestant refugees from Moravia who became part of the Moravian Church deal with the early history of Herrnhut without strictly being studies of the Herrnhut community itself. For the economic development of Herrnhut, which is not dealt with in this study, see Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut; Petterson, Moravian Brethren. 69.  Schneider, “Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf ”; Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder”; Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder.” 70.  See the annual bibliography of publications on Pietism in the yearbook Pietismus und Neuzeit. 71.  Letters from Johann Christian Wach, postmaster in Löbau, 1722–27, R.20.C.37.d.268–73. 72.  On Moravian record keeping, see Peucker, “Pietism and the Archives”; Peucker, Time of Sifting, chap. 10; Peucker, “Schreiben als Liturgie”; Kröger, Mai, and Nippe, Unitätsarchiv. 73.  Finding aid of the (now lost) Herrnhut congregational archives from 1904 in UA. 74.  Mainly in R.20.C.29.a–b. 75.  Peucker, “Selection and Destruction,” 200, 202. Suter also destroyed “Letters from Mr. Heitz to Count Zinzendorf, containing nothing but personnel, financial, and feudal matters in Berthelsdorf, 1720–28.” 76. Peucker, “Pietism and the Archives,” 398–400; Peucker, “Schreiben als Liturgie”; Peucker, “Textual History of the 1742 Bethlehem Diary,” 102–3.

notes to pages 19–22      215 77.  In the “Neueste Historie” (pt. 2, p. 57, par. 77) Zinzendorf states that a communal diary for Herrnhut was started on August 20, 1727. That copy does not survive. The current copy includes many references to later events. The diaries for 1728 and later were probably written much closer to the date. 78. Martin Linner’s diary, Jan.–March 1731, R.6.A.a.26.3.33; diary of an unidentified woman, 1730, R.6.A.b.9.b. 79.  The fragments are filed in various locations at the UA. 80.  Exemplary of the extensive literature on this genre: Ahlberger and Wachenfeldt, Moravian Memoirs (containing articles by Christer Ahlberger, Katherine Faull, Rüdiger Kröger, Peter Vogt, and Per von Wachenfeldt). Thomas McCullough has argued that biographical texts were frequently used for pastoral conversations. These texts formed the basis for many funeral memoirs. McCullough, “ ‘Most Memorable Circumstances.’ ” 81.  The memoirs, usually intended to be read at the writer’s funeral service, are preserved in the archival repository of the congregation where the author died; many of the memoirs were also published in one of the Moravian periodicals.

Chapter 1 The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from R.6.A.a.29.1.b. 1.  According to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf was not known to most locals, and even Scheffer had difficulty locating it at first (Zinzendorf, “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung,” 96). Berthelsdorf did not have regular mail delivery until Heitz arranged with Johann Christian Wach, postmaster in Löbau, for regular delivery starting June 17, 1722. After the house in Herrnhut was completed, the previous mail route resumed and mail for Heitz was delivered there. Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 13 and Nov. 14, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.2 and 14. 2.  “I am able to report that during the year I have governed at Berthelsdorf the children of love have increased to twenty and more.” Zinzendorf to unidentified, Hennersdorf, Apr. 14, 1723, R.6.A.a.12.1. 3.  On Christian David, see Sterik, Christian David; Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David. 4. Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal-­Lexicon, s.v. “Busch-­Prediger.” Ward calls the Buschprediger the Silesian equivalent of the later Methodist field preachers (Ward, “Power and Piety,” 79). 5.  Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1. “Ohngefehr 1692 bin ich zur Welt gebohren in Mehrn von Senfleben, ein Meil von Neytitschein.” The following is based on this account and on an earlier account (1719), also titled “Lebenslauf,” R.21.A.24.a.1.a.2. John Wesley wrote down David’s conversion story and included it in his journal (Wesley, Works, 18:273–76). 6.  Copy from the church register of Reimlich (Rybí) received from the State Archives in Opava in 1970, R.21.A.24.a.1.d. The date of his birth may have been the previous day. The wrong date was used by Zinzendorf in the memoir he wrote at David’s death, published in English in Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 9. 7. “Es war aber bemisch, verstunde ihnen nichts.” Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1. On the role of the Czech and German languages in Bohemia, see Valeš, “Sprachverhalten in den Ländern der böhmischen Krone.” 8.  As extramarital sexuality and sexual desire were generally considered sinful by pious people, many conversion accounts and autobiographies mention the struggle over this issue. 9.  Memoir Christian David [1719], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.2. About his apprenticeship with the Ranftler family, see Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 24–25. The Ranftlers immigrated to Herrnhut in 1724. 10.  Memoir Christian David [1719], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.2.

216      notes to pages 23–26 11.  At the time there were three ministers with the last name Schmidt serving at Saint Nicholas Church in Berlin. The youngest of the three was Heinrich Schmidt (1686–1739) from Wolgast, who had just started at Saint Nicholas in 1715. Fischer, Evangelisches Pfarrerbuch, 2:760. 12.  Anna Elisabeth Ludwig was born in 1684 and died May 7, 1744, in Herrnhut. 13.  The spelling of his name varies greatly (Vorwerg, Forberg, Forbrig). Forwerg was a Tuchmacher, a weaver of woolen cloth, and a member of Scheffer’s conventicle. 14.  Zinzendorf, “Memoires pour servir,” pt. 3, 200. Similar in Zinzendorf, “Extract aus der 1743 entworfenen Special-­Historie,” 27. 15.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 23, 1723, R.20.C.29.a.3. 16.  The spelling of the last name Scheffer/Schäffer/Schäfer varies. Scheffer himself usually spelled it Scheffer, but starting in September of 1732 he began to use the spelling Schäffer more frequently. On Scheffer, see Rothe, Unaufhörlicher Gegen-­Stand; Dietmann, Priesterschaft, 270–83; Neumann, Geschichte von Görlitz, 440–47; H. A. Lier, “Schäfer, Melchior,” in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (1890), 30:527–28; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 88–92; Büchner, “Rothes Görlitzer Parentation,” 100–107; Neß, Schlesisches Pfarrerbuch, 9:57. Meyer included Scheffer’s autobiographical memoir (1727) in Meyer, “Pietismus in der Oberlausitz,” 29–36. Scheffer was also the topic of several pamphlets; see BHZ B.3, B.4, B.5, B.6, and B.12. See also Frisius, Widerlegung der Schein-­Gründe; Der ietzige Betrübte Zustand Der Stadt Görlit; Petermann, Als der unerschrockene Zeuge. 17.  “Nun glaube ich es, wenn etwas ist mit Herrnhut so ist es das” (Now I believe it, if something is the case with Herrnhut then that’s it). Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1. 18.  The title of his disputation is Dissertatio Academica de Phantasia Ejusque Effectibus cum Applicatione ad Fanaticos. 19. Rothe, Unaufhörlicher Gegen-­Stand, 18–19. The sermon was on Rom. 5:8–9: “Von der frucht des leidens Christi,” in Spener, Evangelische Glaubens-­Lehre, 441–58. 20.  Martha Gehler was born in Ludwigsdorf, north of Görlitz. After Melchior’s death Martha moved to Herrnhut, where she was “Vorsteherin” in the Widows’ House. See her memoir, R.22.09.15. 21.  On the city fire, see Pius, Ausführliche Beschreibung. 22.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 10, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.39; Rothe, Unaufhörlicher Gegen-­Stand, 46. 23.  Scheffer describes his activities during these years in the memoir he wrote at Zinzendorf ’s request in September 1727 while waiting in Dresden on the decision of the Main Consistory (see below). Meyer, “Pietismus in der Oberlausitz,” 33–35. See also Rothe, Unaufhörlicher Gegen-­Stand, 35, and Scheffer’s correspondence in UA. 24. Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 14, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.40; Nov. 15 1725, R.20.C.29.a.41; Sept. 19, 1726, R.20.C.29.a.52; Feb. 19, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.68. 25.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Aug. 21, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.21. 26.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 15, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.41. On Zinzendorf ’s periodical Socrates, see chapter 4. 27. Neumann, Geschichte von Görlitz, 440–47. 28.  On the rift between Zinzendorf and Scheffer, see chapter 7. 29.  Memoir Christian David [1719], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.2. 30.  Baumgart’s statement regarding his participation in conventicles, in “Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten,” pp.  35–37. Baumgart’s house was located on Untermarkt next to Brauner Hirsch inn. See also Neumann, Geschichte von Görlitz, 448. 31.  Wiegner immigrated to Pennsylvania. See his diary, Wiegner, Spiritual Diary; the original manuscript is at Winterthur Museum. The memoir by Paus (1710–1797) is included in the church register of the Moravian congregation at Graceham, MD, ChReg 43, MAB. At the

notes to pages 26–30      217 beginning of 1726 a “locksmith from Görlitz” wanted to move to Herrnhut (Watteville to Zinzendorf, [early Feb. 1726], R.20.C.27.c.145. 32.  See, e.g., the description of one of Zinzendorf ’s visits in Herrnhut diary, Jan. 29, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 33.  See chapter 5. 34. Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 27, 1723, R.20.C.29.a.8. See also Dietmann, Priesterschaft, 273. A collection of copies of records regarding Scheffer’s conventicle is “Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten.” 35.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Jan. 12, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.11. Elsewhere Scheffer mentioned he used a “clavae cymabi [=Clavicembalo]” or clavichord (Scheffer to Görlitz magistrate, [Aug. 1724], in “Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten,” p. 21. 36.  Scheffer to Görlitz magistrate, [Aug. 1724], in “Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten,” p. 20. 37.  Memoir Christian David [1719], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.2. The publication of one of the titles popular in Moravia, Pfaff’s Kurtzer Abriss vom wahren Christenthum, was financed by Scheffer. See Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 17; Meyer, “Pietismus in der Oberlausitz,” 35. 38.  Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1. Sterik counts six visits to Moravia by David between 1717 and 1722 (incl. May 1722) (Sterik, Christian David, 335). 39.  His father, Aegidius Rothe (1646–1711), had been Lutheran pastor at Lissa since 1678. On Rothe, see Lier, “Rothe, Johann Andreas”; Teufel, “Rothe”; Steinberg, Rothe; Dienst, “Rothe”; Dietrich Meyer, “Rothe, Johann Andreas,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th ed. (2000). Some of Rothe’s sermons are printed in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese. 40.  Teufel, “Rothe,” pt. 1, 11–12. See also Brecht, “Pfarrer und Theologen,” 215. 41.  David wrote in 1722 that he had known Rothe “for a long time” and considered him a “faithful witness of Jesus Christ.” Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1. 42.  Hennersdorf had been the property of the Gersdorf family since 1408. The current name Grosshennersdorf was introduced in 1768. 43.  For details, see Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 113–15. On Leuba and the Schweinitz family, see Doehler, Geschichte des Dorfes Leuba. 44.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 29, par. 10. The King James translation of 1 Sam. 18:1 uses “soul” where the German translation by Luther has “heart.” 45.  In a letter to his friend Friedrich von Watteville, Zinzendorf described Rothe as a “neutral” man, meaning not a staunch advocate of a particular denominational— in this case, Lutheran—view. “I consider . . . Pastor Rothe a neutral man. I am convinced that the Spirit of Truth is in him and my intention is to only be disciples of Jesus with one another who do not swear but on any other masters’ words but on His word.” Zinzendorf to [Watteville], [Dresden], July 18, 1723, R.20.D.2.85.b, printed in Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725,” 240. See also Zinzendorf, “Kurze und Authentique Erzehlung,” 94: “They loved each other greatly, because they shared the same plans.” 46.  On Gersdorf, see, most recently, Langer, Pallas und ihre Waffen; Schulz, “ ‘Viel Anschein zu mehrerem Licht’ ”; Teigeler, “Eine Göttliche Erquickung?.” 47. Teigeler, Zinzendorf als Schüler in Halle; Reichel, “Zinzendorfs Studienzeit.” 48.  Zinzendorf had passed off one of his own poems as written by one of the Wittenberg professors and falsified his signature. See Reichel, “Zinzendorfs Studienzeit,” 67–70; Schneider, “Die ‘zürnenden Mutterkinder,’ ” 43n38. 49.  On Jane Lead and Loth Fischer, see introduction. 50. Weigelt, Pietismus in Bayern, chap. 7, “Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” Juliane von Polheim soon thereafter became engaged to his half-­brother Friedrich Christian von Zinzendorf. On Heitz, see Daniel, “Verbundene Brüder,” 214–16. 51.  [Heitz] and Zinzendorf, Letzten Stunden. See also Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 84; Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 143.

218      notes to pages 30–33 52.  Zinzendorf met Heimburger, a student from Halle, in Paris. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 77. Friedrich’s memoir in NadB (1839): 911. Friedrich was born on November 25, 1706, in Kleinlangheim in Franconia, seven kilometers northwest of Castell. He was the son of Johann Georg Friedrich, farmer, and his wife, Maria (baptismal register of Kleinlangheim, M–Z, p. 207; on archion.de). Later Friedrich became Zinzendorf ’s secretary, and in 1728 Zinzendorf made him his steward. 53. Jannasch, “Erdmuthe Dorothea Gräfin von Zinzendorf,” 342–84; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 93–99. Together with Heinrich he continued on to Castell, where the engagement of Theodora and Heinrich was officially announced on March 20. 54.  The marriage date of September 7 continued to be symbolically important for Zinzendorf. In 1724 his intimate friend Friedrich von Watteville became engaged to Johanna von Zezschwitz on that same date. Later September 7 became the date for the annual festival of the married couples in the Moravian Church. On Erdmuth Dorothea Reuss, see Jannasch, “Erdmuthe Dorothea Gräfin von Zinzendorf ”; Teufel, Gräfin auf Pilgerschaft; Becker-­Cantarino, “Zur Bedeutung der Oeconomia.” The wedding sermon was published in 1730: Schubert, Die Vereinigung. See also Schian, “Trausermon.” On Schubert, see chapter 4. 55.  Zinzendorf at Herrnhaag, Jan. 4, 1747, GN, 1747, suppl. 10. Also quoted by Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 19–20. 56.  On the Ebersdorf court and its influence on Zinzendorf, see Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 9–12; Renkewitz, Hochmann von Hochenau, 388; Uttendörfer, Zinzendorf und die Mystik, 60–61; Vollprecht, “Von der Schloßekklesiola”; Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 143–48; Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 19–23. See also Prell, “Selbstentwurf und Herrschaftspraxis.” 57. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, chap. 3. 58.  Schneider, “Die ‘zürnenden Mutterkinder,’ ” 43–44; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 105–7. 59.  Zinzendorf to E.  D. von Zinzendorf, Dresden, Oct. 26, 1721, R.20.B.22.199; Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 13–14; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 131–33; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 102. On the oath requirement for offices in early modern Germany: Schreiner, “Iuramentum religionis.” 60.  Christian Gottfried Marche to Heitz, Dresden, Nov. 22, 1722, R.20.A.15.a.81. Zinzendorf rented from Mayor Johann Christian Schwarzbach. In 1752 Zinzendorf noted that he and his wife moved into their Dresden apartment “two weeks” before they went to Upper Lusatia for Christmas (Dec. 22), GN, Nov. 18, 1752. In actuality, they moved at the end of November. 61. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 207; Daniel, “Zum Dreßdnischen Socrates,” 61n32; Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 175–76, 181; Daniel, “Sokrates und Nikodemus,” 462n18. Daniel includes a map of Dresden, showing the locations of Zinzendorf ’s apartments. Kohlmarkt was later named Körnerstrasse. Altendresden is now part of the Neustadt district. Most of the locations where Zinzendorf lived were destroyed during World War II and have disappeared from the map. 62.  On Christiane Oertel, who was a supporter of Johann Georg Gichtel, see Daniel, “Schwestern unter Brüdern,” 161–63; on Zinzendorf ’s household (also in later years), see Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 147–48, 164–67. 63.  Zinzendorf to Walbaum, Dresden, Jan. 26, 1722, R.20.G.2.d.61. The UA contains papers resulting from Zinzendorf ’s official activity in Dresden: R.20.C.13.a–e. 64. Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 6; Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 156. About Zinzendorf in Dresden, see also Blanckmeister, “Zinzendorf in Dresden”; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 130–42; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 9–61; Daniel, “ ‘Weil derer allhier.’ ” Blanckmeister had access to records that have since been lost. 65.  Zinzendorf to E.  D. Reuss, Dresden, Jan. 1, 1722, R.20.B.22.b.200 (printed in Der Brüder-­Bote [1867]: 109–11). See also Zinzendorf to [Frl. von Hermsdorf], Dresden, Jan. 9, 1722, R.20.A.15.a.86; Zinzendorf to J. S. von Zezschwitz and Frl. von Hermsdorf, Dresden, Jan. 22, 1722, R.20.A.1.5.a.87; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 133–35.

notes to pages 33–36      219 66. Zinzendorf to Anton Heinrich Walbaum, Dresden, Jan. 26, 1722, R.20.G.2.d.61; Zinzendorf, “Auffmunterung an die Kinder Gottes in einer grossen Stadt [Dresden], sich unter einander zu bauen und zu ermahnen, M. Dec. 1721,” in Zinzendorf, Theologische Bedencken, 16–18; Daniel, “ ‘Weil derer allhier,’ ” 48. 67.  Johann G. Klemm to T. Friedrich, Dresden, Sept. 26, 1725, R.6.A.a.9.17. Klemm lived on one of the upper floors of the building where Zinzendorf had an apartment on the ground floor. About Klemm, see chapter 6. 68. Arnold, Erste Liebe (see introduction). Zinzendorf to Walbaum, Dresden, Jan. 26, 1722, R.20.G.2.d.61. 69.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 56. About the harpsichord, see chapter 6. 70.  On Löscher and his relationship with Zinzendorf, see Daniel, “ ‘Weil derer allhier.’ ” 71.  Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 45–46. On the Bible edition, see chapter 2. 72.  Blanckmeister, “Zinzendorf in Dresden,” 212–13. 73. Edict by Friedrich August of Saxony, Dresden, Dec. 30, 1726, R.5.A.4.1, R.5.A.7.1, R.20.A.15.b.174. See also [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 94–95. 74.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Jan. 1, 1727, R.20.A.15.b.164. The conventicle did indeed continue at least throughout January (Zinzendorf ’s diary, Jan. 1727, R.20.A.15.c.178.b). Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 65. 75.  In his diary Zinzendorf noted, “In meinen Betstunden theilte ich das Abendmal aus” (In my prayer meetings I administrated Communion), Zinzendorf ’s diary, Jan. 1727, R.20.A.15.c.178.b. In 1747 Zinzendorf wrote in retrospect, “denn wir lebten daselbst [in Dresden] ganz simpel, richteten uns auf den Fuß der ersten Christen ein, hielten heimlich Abendmahl, etc.” (in Dresden we lived in a simple way, organized ourselves in the manner of the first Christians, had Communion in secret, etc.) (Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1). Daniel noted that it was “remarkable” that Zinzendorf held private celebrations of Holy Communion in Dresden, but he misread the example he gives. The celebration he mentions took place in Berthelsdorf and not Dresden (Daniel, “Schwestern unter Brüdern,” 165n25); see chapter 6. 76. Blanckmeister, “Zinzendorf in Dresden,” 211; Daniel, “Sokrates und Nikodemus,” 462–63. 77. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 111–12. 78. Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 11. See also Moeschler, “Gutsherrlich-­bäuerliche Verhältnisse,” 42–53. 79. Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 20–39. 80.  The sale agreement, UVC XI.39.a. 81.  Zinzendorf to E. D. Reuss, Hennersdorf (copy), Aug. 26, 1721, R.20.A.14.61.b. Until the recent restoration of the manor house it was thought (Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 40) that Zinzendorf completely demolished the old house and replaced it with a new structure. 82.  Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1. 83.  For a description of the day, see Zinzendorf to E.  D. Reuss, Dresden, May 23, 1722, R.20.B.22.b.202. On homage ceremonies, see Holenstein, Huldigung der Untertanen. 84.  Zinzendorf to J. S. von Zeschwitz, Dresden, Feb. 30 [sic], 1722, R.20.A.15.a.92; Zinzendorf to E. D. Reuss, Dresden, May 23, 1722, R.20.B.22.b.202; Zinzendorf, “Species facti,” 1723, R.6.A.a.1.b; Zinzendorf, “Kurze und authentique Erzehlung,” 96; Zinzendorf, “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung,” 108. 85.  Johann Horn, born October 25, 1669, in Fraustadt (Wschowa), became interim pastor (1710) and later pastor (1712) at Berthelsdorf. Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 56; memoir Anna Helene Anders, in Hahn and Reichel, Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüder, 57. 86.  Call letter by Zinzendorf for Rothe, May 19, 1722, R.5.A.1.3–5; printed in BS, 1:648–53. Zinzendorf had arranged for Rothe to preach at the Sophienkirche in Dresden on March 15 and in Berthelsdorf on March 29 and May 17, 1722 (Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 146–48). See

220      notes to pages 36–42 Zinzendorf ’s letter to his subjects requesting them to choose Rothe as their new pastor, May 17, 1722, R.20.C.21.d.252. 87.  Zinzendorf to his Berthelsdorf subjects (“Praesentations Schedul”), Ebersdorf, Aug. 12, 1722, R.5.A.1.2, printed in BS, 3:553–54. On the “Gnadenzeit” (grace period), see [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 273–77. Because Horn’s widow did not vacate the parsonage, Rothe was unable to effectively assume his position until December. 88.  Teufel, “Rothe,” 13–14; Katzer, Evangelisch-­lutherische Kirchenwesen, 105–6; Bauer, Zin­ zendorf und das lutherische Bekenntnis, 93–94, 219–38. See also Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 22; Aalen, “Kirche und Mission bei Zinzendorf,” 276. 89.  Zinzendorf to H. K. von Gersdorf (draft), [Dresden, Aug. 1721], R.20.B.22.a.100. 90.  Zinzendorf to E. D. Reuss, Hennersdorf, Aug. 26, 1721 (copy), R.20.A.14.61.b. 91.  J. S. von Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Göbeln, Feb. 16, 1722, R.20.C.27.d.217.b. 92.  On the history of Upper Lusatia, see Bahlcke, Geschichte der Oberlausitz; Schunka, “Oberlausitz zwischen Prager Frieden”; Blaschke, afterword. See also Meyer, “Herrnhuts Stellung,” 32; Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 47. 93.  Zinzendorf, “Species facti,” 1723, R.6.A.a.1.b. Meyer argues that Zinzendorf did not hear until May of 1722 about the refugees from Moravia and that initially he was not interested in a settlement for them (Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 21, 23). 94.  “During the conversation the count decided immediately to help them and to see this as a sign from God to settle down in this land; he promised the brethren a [place to] stay before he purchased the state” (emphasis added). Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 29, par. 10. 95.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Oct. 19, 1721, R.20.A.14.68. 96.  Zinzendorf, “Kurzer und gewissenhafter Aufsatz,” 1728, R.20.A.16.a.10; also Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 109. 97.  In his eulogy for Christian David, Zinzendorf claims to have approached Heinrich XXIV Reuss at Köstritz, his relatives in Hennersdorf, “and other places” to receive Protestant settlers, “but those people thought too long about it” (Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 14). Similarly in GN, Nov. 11, 1752. 98.  GN Feb. 2, 1751, quoted by Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 180n15. In 1747 Zinzendorf is more precise about the date: “May 20 or 21, Christian David came to me” (Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1). 99.  Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1. 100. Ibid. 101.  The children were Jacob and Anna’s children. On the Neissers, see chapter 3. 102.  For details, see Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 29–31. 103.  Rothe to Heitz (copy), Leuba, June 8, 1722, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 121–22. See also the letter by the settlers to Zinzendorf, [June] 1722, printed in Zinzendorf, Creutz-­Reich Jesu, 110–11, and in BS, 3:772–74. 104. The Lehngut was a farmstead belonging to the middle estate in the eastern part of Berthelsdorf, on the border with Rennersdorf. It stood close to the “Niedermühle” and was torn down in 1762. See Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 42–43. 105.  In a crossed-­out section of his memoir he writes, “And because the abominations of the guild became clear to me, I longed to get away from that and it happened. After my brethren came out [of Moravia] I found opportunity to leave the guild and Görlitz as well.” Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1.

Chapter 2 The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from R.20.C.29.a.68. 1.  See the letters from Heitz in Berthelsdorf to Zinzendorf: June 17, July 8, August 12, Sept. 2, Oct. 7 and 28, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.3–12.

notes to pages 42–46      221 2.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 13 and 17, 1722; R.6.A.a.8.a.2 and 3. 3.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 10, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.1. Heitz calls the road “Strahwalder Straße” in his letters. A map of the Berthelsdorf estate from 1717 calls it “die Straße auf Zittau” (TS K.01). This map shows the future location of Herrnhut as an uncultivated area. See also Marche’s memoir in NadB 48 (1866): 973. 4.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 17, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.3; Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 30, par. 14; memoir Christian Gottlieb Marche, NadB 48 (1866): 969. 5.  Heitz’s comments to Zinzendorf ’s “Neueste Historie,” 1728, R.6.A.a.1.c, p. 1. 6. Ibid., pp.  1–2; Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 10, Sept. 23, Nov. 4, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.1, 9, and 13. Interestingly, Marche (see below) made similar claims to have observed the rising fog (memoir, NadB 48 [1866]: 970). 7.  Heitz calls the road “Strahwalder Straße” in his letters. A map of the Berthelsdorf estate from 1717 calls it “die Straße auf Zittau” (TS K.01). This map shows the future location of Herrnhut as an uncultivated area. Finding water is a constant theme in Heitz’s letters during these months (R.6.A.a.8.). 8.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Feb. 1724, R.20.C.b.74; Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Aug. 21, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.21; J. R. Bonacker to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 2, 1724, R.6.A.a.8.b.20; Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, [Sept.1724], R.20.C.37.a.74; Christian David to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, March 30, 1725, R.6.A.a.26.5.26; Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Apr. 11, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.96; Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Feb. 19, 1727, R.20.C.37.a.72. The diary noted on May 13, 1727, that water was flowing on the town square (R.6.A.b.7.1). See also Korschelt, Geschichte von Herrnhut, 54. 9.  Christian Gottfried Marche (1694–1768) was born as the son of a pastor in Jänkendorf. Later his father was minister in Bautzen. He studied theology in Leipzig from 1714–17, was tutor in Hennersdorf, and in 1722–30 was tutor to the sons of Gottlob Friedrich von Gersdorf in Dresden. In 1730 he began a bookshop in Herrnhut, which he later moved to Görlitz. He married Scheffer’s daughter Anna Dorothea in 1733. In 1763 the Marches moved to Herrnhut, where he died in 1768. See his memoir in NadB 48 (1866): 968–74. 10.  Cited from the contemporary English translation of the memoir in MemBeth 0187, MAB. 11.  In 1749 Zinzendorf lamented that Herrnhut was built immediately on the road and not closer to the Hutberg (minutes synod in London, Sept. 13, 1749, session 6, R.2.A.26.2, p. 69). The constant stream of people passing through the community must have been experienced as a disruption. Many Moravian communities after Herrnhut were built in close proximity to a main road, without the road actually going through the middle of town. 12.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 17, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.3. 13.  Marche to Heitz, Dresden, Feb. 2, 1723, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 131–32. Zinzendorf suggested Marche built his orphanage in Kemnitz, a small village north of Berthelsdorf. About the Herrnhut orphanage, see below. 14.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 19. 15.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, July 8, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.4. 16.  “Sehet da! Er ist zum Wächter über euch gesetzt: er soll euch von Gottes wegen warnen: er stehet hier auf seiner Huth.” Zinzendorf to the Berthelsdorf congregation, Aug. 12, 1722, R.5.A.1.2; printed in BS, 1:667–69. The English KJV has “in my [God’s] ward,” where the German Luther translation of the time had “auf meine Hut.” 17.  On the concept of the church as “Babylon,” see Schneider, “Understanding the Church,” 25–26. 18. Annoni, Dem rechten Glauben auf der Spur, 232. 19.  Bakker, “Twee ontdekkingen der Hernhutters,” 12. Kampf probably in the meaning of field rather than battle. 20.  In August Heitz wrote to Zinzendorf, “Gestern ist das neue Hauß auff des Herren Hut so glücklich auffgerichtet worden” (Aug. 12, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.5); “ich muß denen Bauren die

222      notes to pages 46–50 besten Worte geben, daß sie nur wegen der Baufuhren (die sonderlich an der Herrenshut nöthig sind) nicht ungedultig werden” (Aug. 18, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.6). 21.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze und authentique Erzehlung,” 97. 22.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 31, par. 17. The dedication took place at the end of October 1722 (Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Oct. 28, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.12). 23. Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff, 108–9, 112. On Zinzendorf ’s interest in this title, see chapter 5. 24.  See also Bernet, “Expectations of Philadelphia.” There is no evidence, however, that the Moravians tried to realize the symbolism of the New Jerusalem in their architecture; see Petterson, “New Jerusalem in Greenland.” 25. “Barely three rooms to sleep in.” Zinzendorf to Watteville, Dresden, July 2, 1723, R.20.C.27.a.11; see also GN, Nov. 18, 1752. On the renovations, see Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 146–47. 26.  “Die Thüren können so gemachet werden. Sie dürften uns die Sprüche schicken und fein balde. Der Meier kan es imer machen.” J. von Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 4, 1724, R.20.C.27.d.225. During the recent restoration one of these doors was discovered and restored. 27.  Originally the text was apparently in the area between the upper windows and the cornice. See Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Oct. 1, 1724, R.20.C.37.a.52. 28.  According to a description, it was larger than the hall in Lindsey House in Chelsea and could hold two hundred people (GN, Dec. 24, 1755). 29.  “Weil es schloßmäßiger außsiehet.” Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Oct. 1, 1724, R.20.C.37.a.52. 30.  Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 25, 1724, R.20.C.37.a.51. 31.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 23, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.9. 32.  The marriage entry lists her as Anna, daughter of Martin Hanitsch from Neundorf (Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 198, 236n48). Zinzendorf gives her name as Apollonia Catharina (R.6.A.a.17, p.  1). Heitz refers to the wedding preparations in his letters to Zinzendorf (R.6.A.a.8.a). It is unclear why the wedding took place in Loschwitz. 33.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Aug. 18, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.6. 34.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 30, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.10. 35.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 23–Dec. 2, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.9–15; “Every evening there is a large meeting over at their place. We also attend” (J. von Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, [early 1723], R.20.C.27.d.242). 36.  On December 1, 1722, Rothe married Juliane Concordia Rothe, daughter of his relative Rev. Rothe, in Rothenburg. The marriage was not recorded in the marriage register of the Rothenburg church (www‌.archion‌.de). Steinberg, Rothe, 5; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 208–9. 37.  About the the substitution of the pastor and the rights of a widow after the death of a minister, see [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 273–77. 38.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Sept. 30, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.10. 39.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Dec. 2, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.15. About these early tensions, see also Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 204–7. 40.  About Zezschwitz (1696–1762), see her memoir in NadB (1862): 996–1002; Zinzendorf ’s letter to father von Watteville, Berthelsdorf, June 21, 1724, R.20.C.27.a.19; Bakker, “Twee ontdekkingen der Hernhutters,” 4. About her house in Berthelsdorf, see Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 73. “Vous avés malentendu quand vous avés creu que la maison des Fr. Zechw. sera proche de la vôtre. Elle est vis à vis la cure, on y commencera bientôt à bâtir” (Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 26, 1723, R.20.C.27.b.61). Agnes Elisabeth von Zezschwitz married David Gottlob Buchs from Hirschberg on Apr. 21, 1727, in Berthelsdorf (Herrnhut diary, R.6.A.b.7.1).

notes to pages 50–53      223 41.  An early modern version of badminton. On Watteville, see Grosse, Studien über Watte­ ville; Daniel, “Verbundene Brüder,” 201–13. 42.  On the Malacrida Bank and the involvement of the Watteville (Wattenwyl) family, see Linder, Berner Bankenkrise von 1720. 43.  Zinzendorf to Watteville, Dresden, June 25, 1722, R.20.C.27.a.7 (printed in Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 248–49n883). 44. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 188–89; Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 42. 45.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Montmirail, Sept. 7, 1722, R.20.C.27.b.55. 46.  Zinzendorf to Watteville, Ebersdorf, Sept. 21, 1722, R.20.C.27.a.9. 47.  Augustin Beyer to Zinzendorf, Dresden, March 13, 1723, R.20.A.15.a.79. 48.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, 14–15, par. 19. 49.  He repeated his claim in 1747 in an address at the twenty-­fifth anniversary of the founding of Herrnhut. Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, p. 3; printed in Hahn and Reichel, Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüder, 65; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 208; Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 42. 50.  This passivity trope has not been studied for Zinzendorf. For a study on this topic among Moravians, see Gordon, “Glad Passivity.” Bruno Bauer noted that Moravian historiography often echoed Zinzendorf ’s claim of passivity: Bauer, Einfluss des englischen Quäkerthums, 75. 51.  Zinzendorf ’s recollections of this service in GN, Dec. 24, 1755. 52.  For the year 1722 Zinzendorf lists the members of the “Bertholsdorffische Gemeine” (congregation at Berthelsdorf) as follows: (1) Zinzendorf, (2) Johanna Sophia von Zezschwitz, (3) Johann Georg Heitz, (4) Johann Andreas Rothe, (5) Agnes Elisabeth von Zezschwitz, (6) Agnes Louise von Zezschwitz, (7) Tobias Friedrich, (8) Apollonia Catharina Heitz, (9) Erdmuth Dorothea von Zinzendorf, (10) Justina Regina Bonacker, (11) Christian David, (12) Augustin Neisser, (13) Jacob Neisser. In 1723 Gottlob Hahn and Anna Helena Anders, and in 1724 Gottfried Hahn and his wife, joined this group (Zinzendorf, list of members of the congregation [1728], R.6.A.a.17, p. 1). Heitz’s prayer meetings were attended by villagers as well. In April of 1723 Zinzendorf writes that there were “more than twenty . . . children of love” in Berthelsdorf (Zinzendorf to unidentified, Hennersdorf, Apr. 14, 1723, R.6.A.a.12.1). 53.  Zinzendorf later commented, “We were together not even for four weeks and the religious disputes began.” Synod at Zeist, session 30, June 13, 1746, R.2.A.19.1, p. 380. 54. Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Dec. 9, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.16; Zinzendorf to an unidentified minister in Dresden, Hennersdorf, Jan. 28, 1723, R.20.C.21.d; Zinzendorf to Rothe, Dresden, Dec. 11, 1722, R.20.A.15.a.112. 55. Heitz’s marginal comment to a letter by Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Feb. 1723, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 126; Zinzendorf, “Species facti,” 1723, R.6.A.a.1.b; Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 109; Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, p. 6. David referred to his disagreements with Rothe in a letter to Heitz, Herrnhut, Sept. 11, 1729, R.6.A.a.26.6.60.a and b. 56. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 212. See also Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 102–5. 57.  Heitz denied he ever discussed the “controversica” between the Lutherans and the Reformed in his prayer meetings. See Heitz’s description of the conflict in his comments on Zinzendorf ’s “Neueste Nachricht,” R.6.A.a.1.c, p. 3. 58.  Heitz’s comments on Zinzendorf ’s “Neueste Nachricht,” R.6.A.a.1.c.4, p. 85. 59.  See the three letters from Scheffer to Heitz from Feb. 1723, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 126–29. 60.  Heitz’s description of the conflict in his comments on Zinzendorf ’s “Neueste Nachricht,” R.6.A.a.1.c, pp.  3–4, 6. According to Watteville, Christian David “me dit alors que Monsr. Roth prêchoit tousjour contre Monsr. H.” Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, [June 23, 1723], R.20.C.27.b.60. 61.  About the destruction of Rothe’s letters, see chapter 7.

224      notes to pages 53–55 62.  A possible factor in Rothe’s rejection of Heitz’s prayer meetings is the vigilance of the Saxon government against religious activities by the Reformed. 63.  See also Grosse, Studien über Watteville, 36–38; Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 105–8. 64.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, [June 23, 1723], R.20.C.27.b.60. In fact, Heitz had asked for dismissal several times before (Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 143; Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, May 15, 1723, R.6.A.8.a.18). 65.  “Je conte que la harmonie entre ces deux sera pour le présent un peu ratablie.” Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, [July] 1723, R.20.C.b.70. 66.  See Reichel’s extensive discussion on the relationship between Heitz and Zinzendorf: Anfänge Herrnhuts, 116–24, 142–46. 67. Zinzendorf to Watteville, Dresden, July 5, 1723, R.20.C.27.a.12 and 18. Zinzendorf quotes Ephesians 6:5. See also Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, July 3,1723, R.20.C.27.b.62. 68.  Heitz’s comments on Zinzendorf ’s “Neueste Nachricht,” R.6.A.a.1.c, p. 1. 69.  Johann Georg Dörrer (the mason) and Augustin Neisser to Heitz (copy), Herrnhut, June 28, 1724, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 116–17. 70.  Christian David to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, March 30, 1725, R.6.A.a.26.5.26; Zinzendorf to Watteville, Apr. 20, 1725, R.20.C.27.a.27; Watteville to Heitz, Berthelsdorf, Apr. 29, 1725, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 97–98; Watteville to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, May 14, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.105; Christian David to Heitz, Herrnhut, [May 1725], R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 110; Zinzendorf ’s “Kurtze Relation von Herrnhut” with cover letter in R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 101–2; Herrnhut diary, July 18, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 71.  No funeral for him is listed in the register of the Reformed Church at Wilhelmsdorf (www‌.archion‌.de). 72.  “Eine dreyfache Schnur reist nicht leicht.” Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Dec. 4, 1723, R.20.C.29.a.9. 73.  Formal contract of the association, Jan. 31, 1724, R.6.A.a.32.1. Room was left for Rothe to sign and date, but he never signed the agreement. Zezschwitz’s signature (or the signature of her curator) is also missing. 74.  Zinzendorf ’s “History of the Four United Brethren” (1727) was edited and published in ZBG in 1912; see also Zinzendorf, “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung,” 111–12; Zinzendorf ’s poem on the Brotherhood, in Freiwillige Nachlese, 1453–61; Uttendörfer, Alt-­ Herrnhut, 148–49; Hamilton and Hamilton, History of the Moravian Church, 24; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 129–30; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 23–24; Geiger, “Publikationsvorhaben des Vierbrüderbundes.” 75.  Zinzendorf ’s “History of the Four United Brethren” mistakenly dates the union to the summer of 1723 (Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 98; correct date in Zinzendorf, “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung,” 111–12); this date is also found in most secondary literature. 76.  Zinzendorf realized in 1727 that his financial position had improved because of the establishment of Herrnhut and other improvements on his estate. Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 155. 77.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Dec. 4, 1723, R.20.C.29.a.9. See also his subsequent letters. 78.  On Nichte, see chapter 5. 79. J. von Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 15 and March 11, 1724, R.20.C.27.d.226, resp. 229. 80.  Formal contract of the association, Jan. 31, 1724, R.6.A.a.32.1. 81.  Minutes of a meeting of the associated brethren, [Dresden], Jan. 26, 1724 (2 copies), R.20.D.1.b.31.a. and b; Zinzendorf ’s diary, Jan. 25–26, 1724, R.20.A.15.b.155, pp. 10–12; Watteville describes this visit in his “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” He also mentions the financial contributions of the women.

notes to pages 55–58      225 82.  In his diary Zinzendorf recounts that at the organizing meeting in January of 1724 there were heated arguments between “two of our members” (most likely between himself and Scheffer) about the printshop. Scheffer, out of concern about the censorship that was required, “presented endless reasons why our printshop would not work.” For Zinzendorf the printshop was an essential component of the project, as the detailed minutes from this meeting indicate. Zinzendorf ’s diary, Jan. 25–26, 1724, R.20.A.15.b.155, pp. 10–12; Minutes of a meeting of the associated brethren, [Dresden], Jan. 26, 1724 (2 copies), R.20.D.1.b.31.a. and b. 83.  Formal contract of the association, Jan. 31, 1724, R.6.A.a.32.1. 84.  A drawing with cost estimate written in the hand of Christian David (TS Mp.4.1) shows a building of three stories and with three entrances. The realized building had two stories (plus attic) and two entrances. 85.  Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” 86.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 48–49. See also Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 112. 87. Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 34; Carstensen, Stadtplanung im Pietismus, 41–48. On the progress of the construction and the financial problems, see Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Aug. 21, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.21; see also Scheffer’s letters from Sept. 25, 1724, and Oct. 6 and Nov. 14, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.22 and 40–41. 88.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 72. The contract dealt with the assets of the assocation and did not list the projects. 89. Meyer’s Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Zinzendorf-­Forschung (BHZ) offers a detailed overview of eighteenth-­century Moravian publications and is indispensable for any study on Zinzendorf and Moravianism. We are well informed about the early publication program through recent studies by Dietrich Meyer, Gottfried Geiger, and Jürgen Quack. Geiger’s and Quack’s studies of the catechisms and the Ebersdorf Bible are included in the ongoing critical edition of selected Zinzendorf texts. 90.  In a letter to H. K. von Gersdorf, explaining the reasons for publishing a controversial catechism for children that got him into difficulties with the authorities in Löbau, Zinzendorf attempted to reassure her by stressing that the catechism was intended only for the Berthelsdorf parish (Berthelsdorf, Sept. 9, 1723, R.20.B.22.a.94). See Geiger, “Publikationsvorhaben des Vierbrüderbundes,” 846; Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725,” 43. 91.  The print run for the hymnal was decided in the meeting of Jan. 26, 1724; for the print run of the Bible, see Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 13n71. 92.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 73. 93.  Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 8–9, 15–16. 94.  See, e.g., Scheffer’s letter to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 21, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.16, where he proposes to use income from the sale of a hymnal to finance the construction of the Great House in Herrnhut. 95. See BHZ A.101 and 102. A copy of the second edition of the Schöne Gedancken from 1731 (not in BHZ) is available at the University and State Library of Sachsen Anhalt in Halle (also online). See also Geiger, “Publikationsvorhaben des Vierbrüderbundes,” 841–42. Uttendörfer (Zinzendorf und die Mystik, 44–45) mentions another lost treatise from 1721 or 1722. 96. Arndt, Quatre Livres du Vrai Christianisme. See Kaiser, “Zinzendorfs Projekt.” 97.  Lautere Milch der Lehre von Jesu Christo (BHZ A.103). See also Uttendörfer, Erziehungs­ wesen Zinzendorfs, 14–17; Geiger, “Lautere Milch 1723.” 98.  On Ludewig, see Geiger, “Zinzendorfs Katechismus,” 52–53; contract between Zinzendorf and Ludewig, Dresden, Nov. 30, 1723, R.20.D.1.b.29; Paisey, Deutsche Buchdrucker, 202–3; on Regelein, who moved his printshop from Thurnau in Franconia to Büdingen in 1716, see Weigelt, Pietismus in Bayern, 159–60. 99.  Minutes of a meeting of the associated brethren, [Dresden] Jan. 26, 1724 (two copies), R.20.D.1.b.31.a. and b. See also Geiger, “Publikationsvorhaben des Vierbrüderbundes.”

226      notes to pages 58–60 100.  Statistica was the study of the natural and political constitution of a state (Adelung, Grammatisch-­kritisches Wörterbuch, s.v. “die Statistik”). 101.  Ludewig’s contract and the Dresden minutes talk about a location in Berthelsdorf. For the Herrnhut location, see Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 21, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.16. 102.  Contract between A. G. Ludewig and the associated brethren, Hirschberg, July 26, 1724, R.20.D.1.b.30. A draft agreement between Zinzendorf and his brother-­in-­law Heinrich XXIX in Ebersdorf about a “trafique” (business) probably refers to the printshop (R.20.A.15.b.156). 103.  Geiger lists the planned publications from the January 1724 minutes and identifies the individual works. Geiger, “Publikationsvorhaben des Vierbrüderbundes,” 845–54. In late 1726 or early 1727 Ludewig’s press moved once again, from Ebersdorf to Unter-­Greiz in the territory of Heinrich XIII Reuss, where censorship was not very strict (Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 14). 104.  See also Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 25–26. 105.  Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 5. 106.  Scheffer was able to send out copies of the Bible in late November of 1726 (Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 28, 1726, R.20.C.29.a.57); Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 40–41. 107.  Zinzendorf was often too late getting his summaries to the printer on time; in those cases Ludewig printed the summaries from the Halle Bible, written by Benedikt Groß. On the summaries in the Ebersdorf Bible and on the genre of Bible summaries in general, see Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 26–35. 108.  Many summaries have an overt Philadelphian message—e.g., the summaries to Mark 9, John 4, Romans 12, Galatians 4, Revelation 3. 109.  J. A. Rothe, “Verzeichniß und neue Ubersetzung der meisten Oerter H. Schrifft Altes und Neuen Testaments, welche in denen Grund-­Sprachen einen mehrern Nachdruck haben,” in Zinzendorf, Biblia. 110.  Quack assumes these changes were made out of respect to Watteville, one of the associated brethren, who was Reformed (Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 33). It is more likely this happened because of the Philadelphian intentions of the project. 111.  Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 26. 112.  “300 Stück habe nach Teschen und 300 Stück nach Diesdorff an Herrn Sommern versandt. Der Herr Stallmeister von Schweinitz will zu gefallen 12 biß 15 Stück nehmen. Nach Sorau habe vor 14 Tagen ein Exemplar zur Probe gesandt, aber noch keine Antwort erhallten. Es sind also noch 1400 Stück Biebeln hier.” Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 28, 1726, R.20.C.29.a.57. 113.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 28, 1726, R.20.C.29.a.57. A notice in the Leipziger Post Zeitung (Febr. 17, 1727, quoted by Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 49) confirms Scheffer’s claim. 114.  The reply was dated Feb. 21, 1727, R.5.A.7.4; quoted by Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 50. 115.  For a detailed account of the difficulties regarding the Ebersdorf Bible based on the records in Görlitz and Dresden, see Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 44–59. See also Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Dec. 4. 1726, R.6.A.a.8.c.25. The warning: Kürtzliche Jedoch Nöthige Warnung für demjenigen, So In dem Ebersdorfischen Bibel-­Druck an einem und dem andern Orte, als anstößig angemercket worden (Dresden, 1727). 116.  Kaufmann, “Bekenntnis im Luthertum.” 117. Zinzendorf, Gewisser Grund Christlicher Lehre. See Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 18–20; Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725.” 118.  Translated from the German Luther text. 119.  Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725,” 56–57. Because Zinzendorf included some of Luther’s answers from the Small Catechism, the Gewisser Grund was not a pure biblical catechism.

notes to pages 61–64      227 120.  Zinzendorf to [Watteville], [Dresden] July 18, 1723, R.20.D.2.85.b, printed in Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725,” 237–40, here 238–39. 121.  Zinzendorf leaves out the sections about confession, house prayer, and table of duties. 122.  E.g., questions 13 and 15: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), which is one of the texts favored by Philadelphians. See also Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 25–26. Geiger explains the nondenominational character of Gewisser Grund with existing controversies among the settlers at the time it was written (Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725,” 43–44). 123.  Heitz reported that Rothe was working on the “Einrichtung” (organization?) of the hymnbook (June 17, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.3); Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Aug. 21, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.21. 124.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 52. 125.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 10, and Dec. 25, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.39 and 44. See Dietmann, Priesterschaft, 276; Neumann, Geschichte von Görlitz, 444; Zöllner, “Deutsches Kirchenlied in der Oberlausitz,” 66. 126. Müller, Hymnologisches Handbuch, 21–24. Müller has a higher number of hymns, as he found inconsistencies in the numbering. See also Uttendörfer, Zinzendorf und die Mystik, 55–57; Meyer, “Einführung in die Gesangbücher,” 14–22. On the Freylinghausen hymnbook, see Busch and Miersemann, Geist-­reicher Gesang. 127.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 23, 1723, R.20.C.29.a.3; Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf Apr. 11 and 18, 1725, R.20.C.37.a.66 and 67. Gutbier sent a copy of Kirchen-­ Haus-­ und Hertzens-­Musica. It is unclear if Gutbier’s hymnbook arrived in time for any of the hymns to be included in the Berthelsdorf hymnbook. 128.  Zinzendorf to Jerichovius, Hennersdorf, [March 1723], R.20.A.15.a.131. 129. Gruber, J.J.J. Jesus-­Lieder für seine Glieder. 130. Müller, Himmlischer Liebes-­Kuß. See Bernet, “Expectations of Philadelphia,” 146–49. 131.  Rothe to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 26, 1723, in BS, 1:689–91; Müller, Hymnologisches Handbuch, 23. See also Schneider, German Radical Pietism, 74n26. 132.  Zinzendorf to Jerichovius, Hennersdorf, [March 1723], R.20.A.15.a.131. 133.  Schneider, “Understanding the Church,” 25–26. In a poem of twelve stanzas Zinzendorf explained both the frontispiece and the objective of the hymnbook: by singing these hymns the truly faithful will become part of God’s love, and by practicing love themselves and doing good, they will become Zion. 134.  According to Korschelt (Geschichte von Herrnhut, 80–81), the bookshop was located in the first house; according to Uttendörfer (Alt-­Herrnhut, 131), in the inn. 135.  Marche’s memoir in NadB 48 (1866): 968–74; contemporary English translation of the memoir in MemBeth 0187, MAB. In 1725 Marche had asked Zinzendorf to become a librarian of the school in Herrnhut (Zinzendorf ’s diary, Oct. 27, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164). Marche published Zeugniß der Wahrheit, der Gemeinde zu Herrnhut. This was a response to Regent, Unpartheyische Nachricht. 136.  See the book catalog bound at the end of Zeugniß der Wahrheit. 137.  Petition from booksellers David Richter (Bautzen), Johann Jacob Schöps (Zittau), Johann Gottlob Laurentius (Görlitz), and Nicolaus Schill (Lauban), to the Oberamt in Bautzen to close Marche’s bookshop in Herrnhut, July 29, 1730, R.5.A.2.20. Zinzendorf was notified of this petition by the Oberamt in a letter dated Aug. 16, 1730, R.5.A.2.20. 138.  The publications are listed in BHZ. 139.  See above. About the earliest educational institutions in Berthelsdorf-­Herrnhut, see Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 20–32. See also Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 107–8. 140.  Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” The original plan does not seem to have survived (Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 26).

228      notes to pages 64–65 141.  They raised money from Moritz Christian von Schweinitz in Friedersdorf (Biedrzychowice), Daniel von Buchs and his brother David von Buchs in Hirschberg (Jelenia Góra), and his brother-­in-­law Christian Gottlieb Glafey. See also Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation”; Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 98–99; Zinzendorf, “Kurze und authentique Erzehlung,” 99. 142. Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 317–18; Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 24. About the Berthelsdorf school, see Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 63–68. 143. Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 317–18; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 50. 144. Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 52; Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 108. About the expansion of the Berthelsdorf church, see chapter 6. 145.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Dec. 28, 1723, R.20.A.15.b.155; Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 108: “ein Stifft vor adeliche und andere Mädchen, Wittwen und Jungfrauen.” The school was probably intended for girls and single women who were in need of education. The girls went to school for the first time on January 17, 1724; J. von Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 15, 1724, R.20.C.27.d.226. See also Watteville to Heitz, Berthelsdorf, June 1, 1727, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 102–6; Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 24–25. 146.  Zinzendorf, Watteville, and Scheffer to J. R. Bonacker, Ebersdorf, Görlitz and Ber­ thelsdorf, Sept. 8, 1726, R.6.A.a.32.B (printed in Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 25). Bonacker resigned not long thereafter during the difficulties caused by Krüger (see chapter 4). 147.  Scheffer to [Pastor Schael], Görlitz, May 24, 1724, H A 138b, Bl. 53–58, AFSt. 148.  The two sons who came to Berthelsdorf were Hans Siegmund (1712–1760) and David Christian (1713–1753) von Schweinitz. Soon thereafter Christian Ludwig von Schweinitz (1718–1764) also came to Herrnhut. Their older siblings, who were taught by Rothe in Leuba, were Hans Christian (1707–1750), Christian Alexander (1708–1750) and Eva Maria von Schwei­ nitz (1709–1769). The youngest, Christian Abraham von Schweinitz (1722–1776), was probably also educated in a Moravian school. 149.  At the radical Pietist court of Casimir zu Sayn-­Wittgenstein at Berleburg there was a steward with that name who had visited Herrnhut in the 1720s. Perhaps Johann Gottlieb was related to him. Goebel, Geschichte des christlichen Lebens, 109. 150. Zinzendorf to Reichmeister, Berthelsdorf, Oct. 16, 1723, R.20.C.20.a.73. Christian Andreas Reichmeister (1691–1753) from Merseburg studied in Halle, and was later pastor in Salzwedel (Dannell, Kirchengeschichte der Stadt Salzwede, 328–29, 332). 151.  Johann Georg Knobloch studied law, and his younger brother Johann Christian Knobloch studied theology. After the paedagogium in Herrnhut closed, Georg Knobloch went on to practice law in Görlitz and Christian went to Leuba to continue teaching the children of the Schweinitz family (Herrnhut diary, at the end of the year 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a). See also M. Scheffer to A. H. Francke, Görlitz, Jan. 30, 1721, H C 267:3, AFSt. 152. Zinzendorf ’s diary, Nov. 19, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164. Bernhard Walther Marperger (1682–1746) was chaplain at the royal court in Dresden and chair of the Dresden consistory. A year later he was involved with the consistory’s investigation into Zinzendorf ’s conventicle and his Bible edition. On Marperger, see Sommer, Lutherische Hofprediger in Dresden, 263–82. 153.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 53. 154.  T. Friedrich to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, May 16, 1731, R.6.A.a.27.5.x; Kröger, Mai, and Nippe, Unitätsarchiv, 82. After 1730 the congregation wanted to sell the library. 155.  Scheffer to [Pastor Schael], Görlitz, May 24, 1724, H A 138b, Bl. 53–58, AFSt; Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 10, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.39. Gottfried Benjamin Schael (1697–1761) was born in Landeshut, Silesia (Kamienna Góra). He enrolled in the gymnasium in Görlitz in 1709 and went on to Leipzig in 1716 to study theology. He became a Lutheran pastor in Hanau

notes to pages 65–68      229 in 1721. After the death of his wife and also because his congregation was critical of his rapid manner of speaking, he was open, he had indicated to Scheffer, to a new position. 156. Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 28. 157.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 59–60. 158.  Ibid.; Zinzendorf, “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung,” 114; list of teachers and students, Feb. 1728, R.6.A.a.32.c.2. 159.  Herrnhut diary, July 22, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. Zinzendorf ’s proposal for the continuation of the paedagogium in Berthelsdorf by Rothe and Scheffer, Aug. 8, 1727, R.6.A.a.32.C.1. 160. Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs, 28–32. We will see in chapter 4 that some of the teachers with their dissenting theological ideas had contributed to the dissension among the Herrnhuters during the first months of 1727. 161. Uttendörfer, Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs; various proposals and lists regarding the orphanage, R.6.A.a.32.C. 162.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 27, Apr. 4, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.87, 96; Christian David to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, March 30, 1725, R.6.A.a.26.5.26. 163.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 52; Zinzendorf, “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung,” 112; Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation”; Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 10, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.39. 164.  See chapter 4. 165.  Herrnhut diary, Oct. 24, Nov. 1 and 10, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.4. 166.  Johann Christian Gutbier (1679–1759) was born as the son of a Protestant minister in Liegnitz (Legnica). After studying medicine in Leipzig and practicing in different places, he moved to Schmiedeberg. His wife, Catharina Sophia née Jungius from Breslau (Wrocław), died in 1721, leaving him with five children. Gutbier married Dorothea Tugendreich Pfeiffer, widowed Nichte, in Berthelsdorf in 1724. In 1729 he moved away from Herrnhut and lived in Sorau until he returned in 1731. He died in Herrnhut. See his memoir in NadB (1872): 963–70. See also Teufel, “Brüdergemeine in Sorau.” 167.  Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Oct. 31, 1725, R.6.A.a.8.c.23. 168.  Agreement between Watteville and Marche (for the Herrnhut institutions) and Gutbier, Sept. 4, 1729, UVC I.85.46; inventory of the apothecary, UVC I.85.48. Zinzendorf did not pay Gutbier for the apothecary until 1731 (see Zinzendorf to Gutbier, Herrnhut, Feb. 3, 1731, R.20.C.37.c.218). On the early history of the apothecary, see Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 127–29. 169.  Zinzendorf to the Herrnhut congregation, Berleburg, Sept. 12, 1730, R.20.B.22.b.234. 170. Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 67–69; Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 127–28. 171.  For exact dates of his travels, see Müller, “Zinzendorf: Übersicht der wichtigsten Lebensdaten.” 172.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 106. 173.  See Erbe, Zinzendorf und der fromme hohe Adel; Vogt, “Als Christ ist man nicht Graf.” 174. Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 46; Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, pp. 6–7. 175.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Nov. 25–27, 1727, R.20.A.15.c.180, pp. 14–19. 176.  Bøytler, “Zinzendorf und Dänemark,” 73–76; Jakubowski-­Tiessen, “Hallischer Pietismus und Herrnhutertum in Dänemark.” 177.  On Watteville’s visit, see Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 101–2. On Zinzendorf ’s diary, Oct. 1726, R.20.A.15.b.164, p. 49; Kaiser, “Zinzendorfs Projekt.” 178. For the “Neueste Historie derer aus Brüder aus Mähren,” see the bibliography. Herrnhut diary, Sept. 18, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Bøytler, “Zinzendorf und Dänemark,” 73. 179.  The messengers were David Nitschmann (carpenter), Johann Töltschig, and Wenzel Neisser. Peucker, ’s Heerendijk, 29; Podmore, Moravian Church in England, 8–10. See copies of

230      notes to pages 68–71 the letters to be delivered in Nitschmann’s personal papers and in the Zinzendorf papers (no. 1) at MAB. 180.  Christ-­Catholisches Singe-­ und Bet-­Büchlein. The hymnal contained songs by Johann Scheffler and a selection from the Berthelsdorf hymbook. Herrnhut diary, June 4, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; Feb. 23, 1729, R.6.A.b.9.a. The letter is published in Hahn and Reichel, Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüder, 390–94. See also MacDonald, Walchs Darstellung, 153–61. 181.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 77. 182.  According to Zinzendorf, ibid., Scheffer was responsible for the correspondence of the schools, Rothe corresponded with people who addressed him in pastoral matters, and Watteville was Zinzendorf ’s assistant. On the correspondence network, see Mettele, Weltbürgertum oder Gottesreich, 113–78; Peucker, “Pietism and the Archives.” 183. List of proposed projects, late 1727, R.6.A.a.25.1.2; Herrnhut diary, Feb. 21, 1728, R.6.A.b.8. 184.  E.g., Herrnhut diary, Feb. 6, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 185.  Herrnhut diary, Jan. 19, 1729, R.6.A.b.9.a. Even though an official chancery was not established, Zinzendorf employed a secretary and other scribes. In later years a “Schreiberkollegium” existed. Mettele, Weltbürgertum oder Gottesreich, 148–64. 186.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 79. Perhaps Scheffer wanted to introduce a form of conversational preaching in his worship services that he already practiced in his conventicle meetings (see above). 187.  Ibid., 107. 188.  On the Berthelsdorf church, see Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 47–51; Gurlitt, Ältere Bau-­und Kunstdenkmäler, 34:47–55. 189. Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 27, Apr. 25, and Apr. 28, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.87, 98, 99; Zinzendorf to Watteville, [Dresden?], Apr. 27, 1725, R.20.C.27.a.28. 190.  The highest beam on the extension was installed in September of 1724. The loge was added in the spring of 1725. Johann Andreas Rothe to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 2, 1724, R.20.C.37.d.256; Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 3, Sept. 9, and Sept. 20, 1724, R.20.C.37.a.48–50. 191.  On Klemm, see chapter 6. 192.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 10, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.31. 193. Ibid. 194. Ibid. 195.  For example, Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 10, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.31; Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, [April/May 1725], R.20.C.29.b.179; Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, March 3, 1728, R.20.C.29.b.106. See also Watteville to Heitz, Berthelsdorf, May 16, 1725, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 98–100. 196. Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Oct. 7, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.96; Scheffer’s memoir, Meyer, “Pietismus in der Oberlausitz,” 35. 197. Melchior Scheffer, “Die von Hrn. M. Melchior Schäffern angelegte Fabrique,” in Betrübte Zustand, unpag. The plan is dated Dec. 1729. 198.  Scheffer’s letters to Zinzendorf from this period are friendly but do not mention the plan. 199.  About Francke’s institutions, see Brecht, “August Hermann Francke und der Hallische Pietismus,” 473–90; Sträter, “Soziales.” 200.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 73. See also Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 129–30; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 104; Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 148–49. Moravians still followed Halle’s example when organizing a settlement in the Netherlands in the late 1730s. Peucker, ’s-­Heerendijk, 60. 201.  “Der seelige Prof. Francke aber sahe [Herrnhut] vor eine Contra-­Anstalt gegen Halle an und ominirte, daß es ein solch Schwärmer-­Nest werde, dergleichen damals in der Grafschafft Ysenburg und Berleburg waren.” Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1.

notes to pages 71–78      231 202. Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder.” See also Teigeler, Zinzendorf als Schüler in Halle; Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne. 203.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, July 1724, R.20.A.15.b.158. 204.  Scheffer to [G.  B. Schael], Görlitz, May 24, 1724, H A 138b, Bl. 53–58, AFSt. It is unclear how this copy ended up with Francke. Schneider mistakenly assumed Scheffer was present during the visit to Halle (“Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 45). Scheffer was not on this trip. 205.  Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 52–53. 206.  Ibid., 45–46. 207.  Ibid., 46. 208.  [E. H. Henckel von Donnersmarck] to A. H. Francke, Oderberg, Feb. 6, 1725, H B 8:35d (other copy: H A 138b, Bl. 51–52), AFSt. On Henckel, see Erbe, Zinzendorf und der fromme hohe Adel, 26–30. 209. Zinzendorf ’s diary, 1726, R.20.A.15.b.164; Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 46–47; Francke’s subsequent letter to Zinzendorf, Feb. 24, 1725, in BS, 3:782–85. Chapter 3 The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from R.6.A.a.26.6.60.b. 1.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, May 5, 1723, R.6.A.a.8.a.17. 2.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, May 15 and June 2, 1723; R.6.A.a.8.a.18 and 19; Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, June 26 and July 3, 1723, R.20.C.27.b.61 and 62; Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” 3.  Christian David and Anna Elisabeth David to Heitz, Herrnhut, March 11, 1724, R.6. A.a.1.c.5, p. 107. 4.  On Augustin Neisser, see Sterik, “Augustin Neisser (1683–1751).” 5.  In many Moravian sources and publications Söhle is often spelled Sehlen. 6. Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, passim. On memoirs, see the introduction. 7. Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, pp.  26–27, par. 4–6. A memorial from the Herrnhut congregation to Amtshauptmann von Gersdorf, Jan. 24, 1732, also mentions the pious soldier who came begging to the Neissers’ home (R.5.A.2.a.27). The grandfather, Georg Jäschke, was born in 1624 and died in 1707. 8.  Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1. 9.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 28, par. 8. In 1745 Bishop David Nitschmann mentioned that Steinmetz had warned them of the state of the Lutheran Church (minutes of Synod at Marienborn, session 15, July 26, 1745, R.2.A.15.1, p.  420). About Steinmetz, see below; on Samuel Ludwig Sassadius (1695–1756), see Patzelt, Pietismus im Teschener Schlesien, 62–63. 10.  Memoir Christian David [1722/23], R.21.A.24.a.1.a.1. 11. Müller, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder; Ričan, History of the Unity of Brethren; Eberhard, “Bohemia, Moravia and Austria”; Crews, Faith, Love, Hope; Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren; Louthan, “Bohemian Reformations”; Halama, “Unity of Brethren.” 12.  On Hus, for example, see the recent Šmahel and Pavliček, Companion to Hus. 13.  On Chelčický, see Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren, chap. 5. 14.  Analogous to the concept of imitatio Christi; Halama, “Unity of Brethren,” 380. 15.  Halama explains that this name refers to the monastic lifestyle of the community: similar to earlier monastic orders such as the Benedictines or the Franciscans who followed the rule of their founders, they identified as a (lay) community following the rule of Christ. Halama, “Unity of Brethren,” 374–75. 16. Crews, Faith, Love, Hope, 136–41. 17. Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren, chap. 8; Atwood, “Separatism, Ecumenism, and Pacifism”; Atwood, “Early Modern Moravianism,” 453–56.

232      notes to pages 78–81 18.  “This was as close to the ordination of women as any church in Europe came before the eighteenth century.” Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren, 323–24. 19.  See also Modrow, “Daniel Ernst Jablonski,” 334. 20.  Atwood, “Separatism, Ecumenism, and Pacifism.” See also Meyer, “Herrnhuts Stellung,” 30. 21.  Atwood, “Separatism, Ecumenism, and Pacifism,” 71–72. See also Meier, “ ‘Little Church’ of Comenius.” 22.  On the Protestant emigration from Bohemia and Moravia and on crypto-­Protestantism, see Müller, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, 3:317–89; Winter, Tschechische und slowakische Emigration; Herzig, Zwang zum wahren Glauben, 68–80, 153–212; Sterik, “Böhmische Emigranten”; Leeb, Scheutz, and Weikl, “Mühsam erkämpfte Legalität”; Macek, “Geheimprotestanten”; Noller, “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit,” 107–10; Schunka, “Emigration aus den Habsburgerländern”; Schunka, “Bohemian Exiles”; Noller, introduction to Cranz, Historie der Böhmischen Emigration. 23.  About the re-­Catholization efforts of the authorities in Bohemia and Moravia, see Mikulec, “Staatliche Behörden”; Mikulec, “Ende der Reformation in Böhmen.” 24. Referenced by Küppers-­ Braun, “Geheimprotestantismus,” 362; Knoz, “Mährische Emigration nach 1620”; Herzig, Zwang zum wahren Glauben, 155. For literature on the legal aspects of emigration, see Noller, “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit,” 107n53. 25.  The term crypto-­Protestantism (German Geheimprotestantismus) has traditionally been used for Protestants in the Habsburg Empire during the time they could not openly practice their religion. See Küppers-­Braun, “Geheimprotestantismus,” 372–73. 26.  Noller, “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit,” 109–10. 27.  Friedersdorf was acquired by the Schweinitz family in 1682. Hans Christoph von Schweinitz founded Neu-­Schweinitz as a colony for Protestant refugees. 28.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 10. Melchior Nitschmann, Anna Nitschmann’s older brother, was born in Kunewalde in 1702 and died in prison in 1729. These events apparently took place in the early 1720s. 29. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 4. 30. Sterik, Christian David, 335–38. 31.  Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 15. 32.  The following are known to have gone on visits to Moravia from 1722 to 1729: Johann Töltschig, Jacob Neisser, David Nitschmann, Georg Böhnisch, Christoph Demuth, David Tanneberger, Johann Münster, Friedrich Böhnisch, Adam Raschke, Johann Raschke, Andreas Hickel, Matthäus Fritsch (Augustin Neisser to Zinzendorf, [Feb./March 1725], R.6.A.a.8.b.22; Jacob Neisser to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Dec. 5, 1725, R.6.A.a.10.f; Herrnhut diary, Sept. 27, Oct. 22, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Herrnhut diary, Apr. 6, May 5, Oct. 14, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; T. Friedrich to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Sept. 1728, R.6.A.a.27.2.i; Herrnhut diary, Dec. 1, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b). 33. Sterik, Christian David, 80–82. His later travels took him to the Baltics, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greenland, England, Pennsylvania, and all over Germany. Some of these destinations he visited more than once. 34.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 9. Pfaff, Kurtzer Abriss vom wahren Christenthum. The reference to Pfaff’s tract dates Nitschmann’s account to the 1720s. See also Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 17. 35.  Macek, “Geheimprotestanten,” 247; Skalský, “Exulantenprediger Liberda,” 200–202, 218, 288, 324–25. 36. Macek, “Geheimprotestanten,” 258. Sterik, Böhmische Exulanten in Berlin, 851–52. Štěpánová was born in 1702 and died December. 13, 1757, in Rixdorf near Berlin. 37.  Memoir David Nitschmann (1695–1772, later bishop) in NadB (1832): 397. 38.  Molnár, “Francke und die Bedeutung”; Brecht, “August Hermann Francke und der Hallische Pietismus,” 520–21.

notes to pages 82–86      233 39.  See chapter 4. 40. Patzelt, Pietismus im Teschener Schlesien, 87. On the publications, see also Čyževśkyj, “Kreis Franckes in Halle,” 37–58. 41.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 49. In 1728 Milde was passing through and did not stay (Herrnhut diary, July 11, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a). 42. Winter, Tschechische und slowakische Emigration, 79–81; Patzelt, Pietismus im Teschener Schlesien. 43. Patzelt, Pietismus im Teschener Schlesien. On the suspension and expulsion, see ibid., 149–56. On Steinmetz, see Winter, Tschechische und slowakische Emigration, 87–91; Veronika Albrecht-­Birkner, “Steinmetz, Johann Adam,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th ed. (2000); Claus Bernet, “Steinmetz, Johann Adam,” in Biographisch-­Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon. 44.  Numbers found in Metasch, “Erinnerungskultur,” 478. See also Schunka, Gäste, die bleiben, 57–69. 45.  Printed in Peschek, Böhmischen Exulanten in Sachsen, 146–47. 46.  Ibid., 21–22. 47.  Schunka, “Bohemian Exiles,” 256–57. 48.  Metasch, “Erinnerungskultur”; Metasch, “Religiöse Integration”; Schunka, Gäste, die bleiben, 171–80. 49. Moráwek, Böhmisch-­evangelische Exulantengemeinde in Zittau, 1–40. 50. Peschek, Böhmischen Exulanten in Sachsen, 85–86; Winter, Tschechische und slowakische Emigration; Beyreuther, “Bedeutung der tschechischen Exulantengemeinde”; Sterik, “Böhmische Emigranten”; Noller, “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit”; Noller, “Wege böhmischer Glaubensflüchtlinge.” 51.  H. S. von Gersdorf to A. H. Francke, Hennersdorf, Oct. 12, 1723, H C 18, AFSt. 52.  Several of the original houses are still standing. 53.  H. S. von Gersdorf to A. H. Francke, Hennersdorf, May 15, 1726, H C 18, 356v, AFSt. Johann Liberda (1700–1742) was born in Schmelzdorf (Śmiłowice, Upper Silesia), studied in Halle, and became teacher at the Protestant school in Teschen. He had to flee in 1725 after he was accused of withdrawing a Jewish girl from the oversight of the Roman Catholic Church. On Liberda, see Skalský, “Exulantenprediger Liberda.” 54.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 19, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.68. 55.  See Cranz, Historie der Böhmischen Emigration, 45–54; Sterik, “Böhmische Emigranten”; Noller, “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit”; Ducreux, “Exil et conversion.” 56. Moráwek, Böhmisch-­evangelische Exulantengemeinde in Zittau, 28–31; Noller, “Wege böhmischer Glaubensflüchtlinge,” 111–12. 57.  According to Martin Dober, “When the Moravian people came, he [Rothe] demonstrated to them that they descended from the ancient Brethren” (quoted in Hahn and Reichel, Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüder, 56). David Nitschmann (linen weaver) describes how Pastor Schwedler in Niederwiese welcomed them by explaining how they were the descendants of Hus, Wyclif, Jerome of Prague, and Comenius (Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 17); Noller, “Wege böhmischer Glaubensflüchtlinge,” 109. On the transfer of knowledge about their past, reading (and keeping) of illegal books, see Macek, “Geheimprotestanten,” 258–64; Ducreux, “Reading unto Death.” 58. Liebisch and Schneider, “Erzählung der mährischen Exulanten,” 188; Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht”; Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 9. 59.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” p. 1. According to Nitschmann, the contents of the archives and library were partly destroyed and partly “buried in their inaccessible vaults.” 60.  Memoir Johann Georg Kunz (1694–1775), quoted by Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 13. 61.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” pp. 2–3. The Roman Catholic Church had allowed Communion under both kinds in Bohemia and Moravia already during the sixteenth century

234      notes to pages 86–90 to facilitate Protestants to convert to Catholicism (Mikulec, “Ende der Reformation in Böhmen,” 616–17). 62.  Memoir Zacharias Hirschel (1714–1763), in NadB (1850): 290. 63.  Memoir Johann Raschke (1702–1762), quoted by Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 6. 64.  About reading and book culture in Bohemia, see Ducreux, “Reading unto Death.” See the list of forbidden Protestant titles and authors in Patzelt, Pietismus im Teschener Schlesien, 87–88. 65.  For example: Kirchen-­ Haus-­ und Hertzens-­Musica (MAB, Bd 1), which was brought by Georg Nitschmann from Schönau to Herrnhut in 1728; Kirchengesänge (1606) (MAB, Cea 75). Paul Münster (1716–1792) carried this copy on his back from his home in Zauchtenthal to Herrnhut in January of 1729. 66.  Liebisch and Schneider, “Erzählung der mährischen Exulanten,” 194; Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 7. Kirchengesänge (1639). 67.  Liebisch and Schneider, “Erzählung der mährischen Exulanten,” 191; Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 10. Kirchen-­ Haus-­ und Hertzens-­Musica. This is the same hymnbook that Gutbier shared with Zinzendorf when he was compiling the Berthelsdorf hymnbook (see above). 68.  Liebisch and Schneider, “Erzählung der mährischen Exulanten,” 191; Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 10. 69.  Abraham Scultetus (1566–1625) was a professor of theology at Heidelberg and court chaplain of the Winter King, Frederick V. Scultetus played a prominent role at the Synod of Dort. For an overview of Protestant literature, read by the crypto-­Protestants, see Macek, “Geheimprotestanten,” 260–61. 70.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 9; see also above. 71.  “Unsere Mährische Brüder haben unter denen reformierten eigentlich folgende drei Punkte darzuthun von nöthen” (Our Moravian Brethren need to expound the following three points among the Reformed). Liebisch and Schneider, “Erzählung der mährischen Exulanten,” 187. 72.  On the negotiations, see Lütjeharms, Philadelphisch-­oecumentisch streven, 161–63. Müller, when he printed the text in ZBG, did not mention its context. 73.  See also Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 21; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 95; Ducreux, “Reading unto Death,” 207–8; Ducreux, “Exil et conversion,” 923; Sterik, “Böhmische Emigranten,” 99–100; Noller, “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit,” 106–7; Noller, introduction to Cranz, Historie der Böhmischen Emigration, xx–xxi. 74.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 11. 75.  Encyclopedia of Early Modern History Online, s.v. “Confessionalization,” by Thomas Kaufmann, accessed Nov. 8, 2019. 76.  Macek, “Geheimprotestanten,” 263–64. 77.  Quoted in ibid., 263. 78.  Ibid., 266, referring to the work of Eva Melmuková. 79.  Ibid., 266–68. 80.  Noller, “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit,” 102. 81.  Ibid., 106. 82.  Zinzendorf on May 14, 1756, in GN, quoted by Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 22. “Sectarian” here means “according to a specific denomination” (see above). 83.  Küppers-­Braun, “Geheimprotestantismus,” 382–84. 84.  Memoir Johann Töltschig (1696–1764), in NadB (1823): 628. 85.  Memoir Zacharias Hirschel (1714–1763), in NadB (1850): 290–92. 86.  Ducreux, “Reading unto Death,” 197–200. 87.  D. Schneider, “Gründliche Nachricht,” 4–5. Schneider names the administrator as Leopold Bernhard Dietrich, born in Bohemia, who was employed by Count Harrach. See also

notes to pages 92–95      235 Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 20–22. Nitschmann (“Originale Nachricht,” 11) dates the severe persecution to 1723 and 1724. 88.  Memoir Anna Leopold, née Schneider (1705–1781), quoted by Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 20. 89.  Memoir Anna Schenk, née Schindler (1704–1777), quoted by Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 23. 90.  Memoir David Nitschmann (1696–1772), in NadB (1832): 401. His “four closest brethren” were David Nitschmann (confessor), Melchior Zeisberger, Johann Töltschig, and David Nitschmann (weaver). 91.  Memoir Andreas Beyer (1677–1729), NadB (1841): 301–2. 92. Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 12. The stanza is from Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress.” 93.  Memoir Anna Nitschmann (1715–1760), NadB (1844): 575–76. 94.  Nitschmann, “Originale Nachricht,” 15. See also Sterik, “Mährische Brüder, Böhmische Brüder und die Brüderunität,” 107–8. 95. Wäntig, Grenzerfahrungen, 398; Küppers-­ Braun, “Geheimprotestantismus,” 382; Schunka, “No Return?” 96. Zinzendorf to Watteville, [Dresden?], Apr. 27, 1725, R.20.C.27.a.28; Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Apr. 28, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.99. 97.  Herrnhut diary, Oct. 8, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 98.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 12, 1728, R.6.A.b.8. 99. Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, chap. 13; Sterik, “Augustin Neisser (1683–1751).” 100.  Sterik, “Verzeichnis,” 4. Sterik is unclear about the end date of her count. 101.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 30, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 102.  GN, May 11, 1748, quoted in Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 25. 103.  Zinzendorf at Synod in Gotha, session 5, June 14, 1740, R.2.A.3.A.1, p. 121. On Zinzendorf ’s view of history, see Peucker, “Zinzendorf ’s Plan.” 104.  Herrnhut diary, May 12, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 105.  Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” 106.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 3, 1731, resp. Feb. 16, 1728, R.20.C.29.b.160, 105. Caesaropapism: the idea that secular powers have supreme authority in religious matters. 107.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Sept. 25, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.22. 108. Regent, Unpartheyische Nachricht, 26. Although Schwedler is quoted here in a pamphlet by a Jesuit priest who opposed the work in Berthelsdorf/Herrnhut, the reference seems credible. Regent gives a source that I have been unable to identify: “in dem Anno 1728 edirten Tractätlein: Bud-­und Hoffmannisches Ehe-­Paar.” It is probably a published sermon on the marriage of the couple Budmann and Hoffmann. Regent, a Jesuit priest assigned the task of converting the Schwenkfelders in Harpersdorf, turned his attention on Zinzendorf, Schwedler, and Scheffer because of their support for the Schwenkfelders. 109. On the Schwenkfelders and their relationship with Scheffer and Zinzendorf, see Weigelt, “Zinzendorf und die Schwenkfelder”; Weigelt, “Das ‘Kurtze Bekäntnus’ der schlesischen Schwenckfelder”; Weigelt, Migration and Faith, chap. 2. 110.  Already in 1723 Zinzendorf petitioned the emperor to allow the Schwenkfelders to emigrate. It seems likely that the associated friends were aware of their plight. Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 100; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 46. 111.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Dec. 15, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.42. 112. Wiegner, Spiritual Diary, 4: “During the Christmas season of 1725 Torwerg [= Vor­ werg] and Baumgarth came to us in Silesia. They preached only a few words but with great force, and I found myself deeply moved and awakened.”

236      notes to pages 95–99 113. Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 12–13. 114.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 19, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.68; Weigelt, “Das ‘Kurtze Bekäntnus’ der schlesischen Schwenckfelder,” 600. 115.  “And for no other reason than to have them with me for a while, because I have, as long as the sovereign tolerates them, no command over their conscience. Secondly, I hope to win them over now. Having given the example of the communicating Schwenkfelder who converted publicly to the Augsburg Confession with Magister Schwedler underlines my previous sentence.” Zinzendorf to H.  K. von Gersdorf, [1726], R.20.B.22.a.96. About Zinzendorf ’s intention to convert the Schwenkfelders, see Weigelt, “Zinzendorf und die Schwenkfelder,” 70–71. 116.  Weigelt, “Zinzendorf und die Schwenkfelder,” 67–68; Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 266–67. 117.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 89. 118.  Weigelt, “Zinzendorf und die Schwenkfelder,” 70; Weigelt, Migration and Faith, 64. 119.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 65; Weigelt, “Zinzendorf und die Schwenkfelder,” 74; list of Herrnhuters, 1728, R.6.A.a.16.1; Christoph Hoffmann from Harpersdorf was seventy-­six years old when he became elder. He died in 1735 in Berthelsdorf. Weigelt, Migration and Faith, 43, 64. 120.  His diary, originally written in German, has been translated and published: Wiegner, Spiritual Diary; the original is at Winterthur Museum (Downs Coll., doc. 1013). 121. Weigelt, “Zinzendorf und die Schwenkfelder,” 71–76. On the investigation, see chapter 7. 122.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, July 26, 1732, R.20.C.29.b.175. The Reuss family in Ebersdorf was also taking in Salzburgers. Zinzendorf to Heinrich XXIX Reuss, Herrnhut, June 26, 1732, R.20.B.22.b.305 (1877 copy by Glitsch, original in Ebersdorf [lost?]). 123. Cranz, Historie der Böhmischen Emigration, 53. 124.  Zinzendorf allowed them to stay on his land but did not want them to live among the congregation at Herrnhut; see his order to the Bohemians, June 28, 1732, in BS, 3:664–65; Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 5, 20, and 30, 1731, R.20.C.29.b.161–63; Zinzendorf to Heinrich XXIX Reuss, Herrnhut, June 26, 1732, R.20.B.22.b.305. 125.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Nov. 3, 1731, R.20.C.29.b.160. See also Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Oct. 9, 1732, R.20.B.22.b.262.b: “The Bohemians are enjoying many good things in Görlitz and will have a good send-­off. It is truly a miracle for which we have to praise God. It is his house, and he has many children.”

Chapter 4 The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from Zinzendorf, Theologische Bedenken, 158. 1. Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 15–16, 21–22; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 140–46; Hamilton and Hamilton, History of the Moravian Church, 30. Reichel, on the other hand, offers a comprehensive discussion of the events of 1724–25 but unfortunately leaves out the references (Gottes Wunderführung, 7–17). 2.  Note by Heitz in Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 50n8; see also minutes of Synod at Zeist, June 13, 1746, R.2.A.19.1, p. 50: “We had been together for hardly four weeks before religious arguments began, e.g., about the cross on the Communion hosts. Rothe, who did not have any qualms about knowingly giving Communion to an undeserving person, had serious scruples about a wafer that was too small or that was not embossed with an image.” 3.  On the practice of private confession in Saxony, see Franke, “Geschichte der Privatbeichte in Sachsen.” On the Berlin Beichtstuhlstreit, see Mori, “Berliner Beichtstuhlstreit”; Drese,

notes to pages 99–102      237 “Berliner Beichtstuhlstreit.” See also Berthold, “Kritik an der lutherischen Beichtpraxis”; Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th ed. (1998), s.v. “Beichte”; Yoder, Pietism and the Sacraments, 105–17. 4. [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 132. The number of pages Schuster dedicates to confession is an indication that it was a controversial issue. 5.  Marginal comment by Heitz in Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 50n8. 6.  According to the “old folks in the congregation” whom Zinzendorf asked when trying to resolve the discussion, private confession had been introduced by Rothe’s predecessor Horn (Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 111n157; also Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation”). A slightly different account comes from former estate manager Heitz, who claimed Rothe had reintroduced this rite; Horn had not required communicants to take private confession but delivered a general confessional prayer on behalf of all penitents before giving absolution (marginal comment by Heitz in Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 50n8). According to Dr. Thilo Daniel, Dresden, Zinzendorf ’s grandmother had reinstalled the confessional. 7.  Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” 8.  Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 111n157. See also Daniel, “Sokrates und Nikodemus”; Daniel, “Verbundene Brüder,” 216–23. 9.  [Erdmann Heinrich Henckel von Donnersmarck] to [A. H. Francke], Oderberg, Feb. 6, 1725, H A 138b, Bl. 51–52, other copy: H B 8:35d, AFSt. On this letter, see below. 10.  The exact dates of the conference are unclear. In his letter to Francke (R.18.A.7.15, see below), Zinzendorf dates the meeting to November/December 1724, a time when he was not even present in Herrnhut. Spangenberg (Leben Zinzendorfs, 317) places the conference in May 1725. Sterik (Mährische Exulanten, 113) gives January 17 as the date. Zinzendorf gives Epiphany Sunday (January 7, 1725) as the date for the announcement by Scheffer regarding the abolition of confession (“Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 50). Based on this latter date, I date the conference in the week prior to that Sunday. 11. Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 27; also Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 23. Reichel, on the other hand, was able to locate much more information regarding the Lehrkonferenz (Gottes Wunderführung, 7–17). 12.  Christian David to Heitz, Herrnhut, Sept. 11, 1729 (draft, resp. copy), R.6.A.a.26.6.60.a and b; printed in English translation in [Kölbing], Memorial-­Days, 115–24. See also Uttendörfer, “Entstehung der ‘Beschreibung,’ ” 228–29. 13.  [Erdmann Heinrich Henckel von Donnersmarck] to [A. H. Francke], Oderberg, Feb. 6, 1725, H A 138b, Bl. 51–52, other copy: H B 8:35d, AFSt. See also Francke’s subsequent letter to Zinzendorf (Feb. 24, 1725, in BS, 3:782–85), in which he expressed great concern about the abolition of confession. 14.  A. H. Francke to Zinzendorf, Halle, Feb. 24, 1725, printed in BS, 3:782–85; Zinzendorf to Francke, March 2, 1725, R.18.A.7.15 and R.20.C.21.c.197, cited in Reichel, Gottes Wunderführung, 8–9. See also Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 46. Zinzendorf refers to the conference in “Historischer Begriff,” 110–11. On Francke’s position on confession, see Yoder, Pietism and the Sacraments, 109–17. 15.  Christian David to Heitz, Sept. 11, 1729, R.6.A.a.26.6.60.b (see above). 16.  Henckel to Francke, Feb. 6, 1725 (see above). 17.  Cited by Reichel, Gottes Wunderführung, 8. 18.  It was recommended that these people notify Pastor Rothe during the week prior to the celebration of Communion. See Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” About the standpoint of the 1732 Royal Commission on the modified practice, see Teufel, “Rothe,” 2:3–4. 19.  Johann Andreas Rothe, “Erklärung über gewisse Puncte an einen guten Freund in Schlesien,” in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 1497–98.

238      notes to pages 102–106 20.  On Zinzendorf ’s understanding of the Augsburg Confession as a Philadelphian creed, see above. When David spoke to John Wesley in 1738, he mentioned that the outcome of the doctrinal conference was that he and the other Moravians had given up belief in predestination (Wesley, Works, 18:275–76). 21. Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 130–33. For Zinzendorf ’s claim that he was not involved with the introduction of these offices, see ibid., 133n31; Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 16; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 145. 22.  Description in Johanna von Watteville, “Friedensburg” [= Hennersdorf?], Feb. 3, 1725, R.6.A.a.10.2.c, printed in Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 128–29. 23.  Based on a note by Zinzendorf [Jan. 1725], R.6.A.a.16.27; and Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 51; both printed in Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 128, 130–31. 24.  Rothe’s office is mentioned in Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Berthols­ dorff,” 51. Wollstadt misses the Philadelphian implications of this arrangement. 25.  Zinzendorf, ibid. Wollstadt notes that these offices were not based upon Arnold’s Erste Liebe but directly on Romans 12. 26.  Christian David cites from the sermon in his “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1731), R.6.A.a.22.1, pp. 32–33; printed in Altes und Neues aus dem Reich Gottes, no. 3 (1733): 29–34. See Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 137–41. Wollstadt claims that Rom. 12:7–8 was the assigned sermon text on January 20, 1725, not long before the offices were instituted (ibid., 131n30). 27.  David to Heitz, Herrnhut, Sept. 11, 1729 (draft, resp. copy), R.6.A.a.26.6.60.a and b. 28.  Ibid. Even the words “and we learned to understand, bear, and spare one another” are reminiscent of the entry in the Herrnhut diary of August 13, 1727, stating, “we learned to love.” 29.  Krüger did not represent the first case of altered spiritual awareness on the Berthelsdorf estate. Christina Hahn, whose husband, Christoph, was a weaver in Berthelsdorf, experienced an “ecstatic-­prophetic spirit” during the last few weeks of 1723. After a long spiritual struggle with the devil, whom she even claimed to see standing right in front of her, she was said to be able to read people’s minds. She believed the reason Zinzendorf, Rothe, Watteville, and Heitz had been unable to get along in the summer of 1723 was that they were all under a magic spell (“zauberischer Geist”). After her recovery she “feared God with all of her heart” and was an example to her husband “and for many others.” Watteville to Heitz, Dresden, Jan. 14, 1724, quoted in Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 55n17. 30.  See the fifty-­eight letters by Krüger to Zinzendorf, 1724–27, 1731 in R.6.A.a.11, and one draft of a response by Zinzendorf (no. 64). Krüger’s wife, Johanna Sophia, wrote to Erdmuth Dorothea von Zinzendorf, describing a conversion, Ebersdorf, March 13, 1725, R.6.A.a.11.13. About Krüger, see Peucker, “Wahnsinn in Herrnhut.” 31.  The treatise was entitled “Der Christliche Mensch.” Krüger to Zinzendorf, Bautzen, Feb. 28, 1724, R.6.A.a.11.1 and R.20.D.1.d.233.b. 32.  Krüger to Zinzendorf, Bautzen, June 27, July 8, Sept. 1, 1724; Ebersdorf, Feb. 24, 1725, R.6.A.a.11.5–7, 11. Krüger was Wittumsrat, counselor for the estate left by Heinrich X, Count Reuss (1662–1711). 33.  Watteville to Heitz, Berthelsdorf, June 1, 1727, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 102–6. 34.  Krüger to Zinzendorf, Ebersdorf, Sept. 30, 1725, R.6.A.a.25. On Schubert, see Erbe, Zinzendorf und der fromme hohe Adel, 161–66; Marschke, “ ‘Wir Halenser,’ ” 81–93; Strom, Problem of Conversion, 125–30. 35.  Krüger to Zinzendorf, Ebersdorf, Nov. 18, 1725, R.6.A.a.11.30. 36.  Krüger to Zinzendorf, Ebersdorf, Feb. 5 and May 15, 1726, R.6.A.a.11.44 and 52; Krüger to Countess Reuss, Ebersdorf, Oct. 21, 1725 (copy), R.6.A.a.11.27. 37.  The assessment itself has not been located. Zinzendorf to Erdmuthe Benigne Reuss, Dresden, Dec. 8, 1725, and Berthelsdorf, Jan. 19, 1726, R.20.B.22.a.112 and 113; and [Feb. 1726], R.6.A.a.11.63. See also Zinzendorf to Heinrich Schubert, [late 1725] (copy), R.6.A.a.11.61.

notes to pages 106–109      239 38.  Krüger to Zinzendorf, Ebersdorf, March 16, and Schleiz, Apr. 19, 1726, R.6.A.a.11.50 and 51; Zinzendorf to Krüger, [July 1726] (copy), R.6.A.a.11.64. In the letters to his mother-­in-­ law he had already alluded to the possibility of taking Krüger in. 39.  Krüger to Zinzendorf, Ebersdorf, May 15, 1726, R.6.A.a.11.52. 40.  From Dresden Zinzendorf traveled to Leipzig at the end of September, where he met with Johann Wilhelm Petersen. He continued on to Ebersdorf and Halle. 41.  Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Nov. 10, 1726, R.20.B.22.b.213. 42. Watteville to Heitz, Berthelsdorf, June 1, 1727, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p.  104; Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 83. 43.  Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, pp. 17–18. Similarly in minutes of Synod at Ebersdorf, June 9, 1739, R.2.A.2, p. 3; minutes of Synod at Marienborn, session 6, July 13, 1745, R.2.A.15.1, p. 112; minutes of Synod at Zeist, session 30, June 13, 1746, R.2.A.19.1, p.  387: “Christian David hieß den Ordinarius das Thier ins Gesicht; und Herr Rothe und Schaefer waren die Hure und der falsche Prophet, die auf ihm ritten.” 44.  Reichel, based on David Nitschmann’s diary, gives December 19 as the date of the visit (Reichel, Gottes Wunderführung, 21–22). This date contradicts the date of Gutbier’s letter to Zinzendorf about Krüger’s mental situation (see below). 45.  Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, [Berthelsdorf, Dec. 1726], R.20.B.22.b.216. 46.  Minutes of Synod at Zeist, session 30, June 13, 1746, R.2.A.19.1, p. 386. 47.  Zinzendorf ’s memoir for Christian David, GN 1751, suppl. 17; in English in Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 18. 48.  For example, at the Synods at Ebersdorf (1739), Zeist (1746), and London (1746) and in the memoir he wrote for Christian David (1751, in Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 18–19). 49.  Rothe to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Nov. 2, 1726, R.20.D.4.c.66. 50.  Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Dec. 21, 1726, R.6.A.a.8.c.26. 51.  Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Jan. 3, 1727, R.6.A.a.8.c.27. 52. Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal-­Lexicon, s.v. “Ecstasis.” Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Jan. 7, 1727, R.6.A.a.8.c.28; “rasend,” Zinzendorf at Synod in Gotha, session 1, June 12, 1740, R.2.A.3.A.1; “verrückt im Kopf,” Watteville to Heitz, Berthelsdorf, June 1, 1727, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 102–6; “in delirium gerathen,” Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 84. 53.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Jan. 4, 1727, UA, R.20.C.29.a.65. For a case of similar behavior by radical Pietist Johann Henrich Horch, see Lückel, “Wittgensteiner Pietisten,” 127. On possession and Pietism, see Martin, “Werkzeuge Gottes.” 54. Zinzendorf to the Herrnhut congregation, Dresden, Jan. 7, 1727, R.6.A.a.29.2.3. Zinzendorf refers both to Greek mythology (Icarus) and to Rom. 12:16. 55.  Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Jan. 15, 1727, R.6.A.a.8.c.29. 56.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, June 26, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.81; Heinrich Schubert to Francke, Potsdam, June 6, 1727, H C 632:31, AFSt; Martin Dober’s diary, Nov. 1, 1731, R.6.A.b.10.4, p. 19. In a list of members of the Herrnhut congregation from June 1728 Zinzendorf still listed Krüger: “Sigmund Krüger im Waysenhause [orphanage] zu Berlin” (“Einteilung der Gemeine nach ihren Dörfern,” R.6.A.a.17.2). On Tuchtfeld, see Jakubowski-­Tiessen, “Pietismus in Niedersachsen,” 429–30. 57.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Jan. 4, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.65. Scheffer was in Herrnhut during Steinmetz’s visit. 58.  Minutes of Synod at Zeist, session 30, June 13, 1746, R.2.A.19.1, p.  386; Zinzendorf ’s memoir for Christian David, GN 1751, suppl. 17; in English in Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 18–19; Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, pp. 17–18. 59. Christian David, “Recollection of the Events of 1727,” Herrnhut, March 16, 1729, R.21.A.24.a.1.b. This account was written after David had reconciled with Zinzendorf. See also Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Jan. 3, 1727, R.6.A.a.8.c.27.

240      notes to pages 109–112 60.  See Bonacker’s letter to E.  D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 2, 1724, R.6.A. a.8.b.20. Gutbier complained to Zinzendorf that Bonacker secretly read his letters (Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 3, 1724, R.20.C.37.a.48). See also Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 27, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.87. On Bonacker, see Daniel, “Schwestern unter Brüdern,” 163–68. 61.  Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Nov. 10, 1726, R.20.B.22.b.213. 62.  Christian David to David Schneider, Apr. 21, 1727, R.6.A.a.26.5.27.a. David’s new house was located behind the current buildings on the southwest corner of Löbauer Strasse and Fleischergasse (no. 36 on map 3). 63.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 10, 20, 22, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 64.  Zinzendorf to Bonacker, n.d., R.6.A.a.29.10, printed in Daniel, “Schwestern unter Brüdern,” 166. 65.  On Eva von Buttlar and her society, see Temme, Krise der Leiblichkeit. 66.  Georg Hinner (also “Hünner” and “Hübner”) arrived together with Hans Böhme. The diary notes he went to Altona, where he died. Neisser, “List of Bohemian and Moravian Emigrants,” 75; Sterik, “Verzeichnis”; Herrnhut diary, Aug. 23, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; July 12, Nov. 22, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a and b; David, “Recollection,” R.21.A.24.a.1.b; Zinzendorf, “Ursachen, warum H[inner] nicht zugelassen werden mag mit der Jungfer B. allein umzugehen,” in Freiwillige Nachlese, 424–26. 67.  Organ builder Gottlob Klemm was perhaps his relative. Johann Friedrich Klemm is mentioned in the following lists: R.6.A.a.15.8.a, p.  7, and R.6.A.a.16.4. In a letter to Tobias Friedrich, organ builder Klemm mentions a brother (J. G. Klemm to T. Friedrich, [Dresden] Feb. 4, 1726, R.6.A.a.9.25). There is also mention of a Carl August Klemm (R.6.A.a.17). 68.  Zinzendorf to Watteville, Dresden, Feb. 16, 1727, R.20.C.27.a.33. For Currende, see Adelung, Grammatisch-­kritisches Wörterbuch, s.v. “die Currende” and “der Umlauf.” 69.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 23, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Feb. 27, 1729, R.6.A.b.9.a; Zinzendorf to [Bonacker], Herrnhut Apr. 13, 1729, R.6.A.a.29.36. I am grateful to Rev. Alexander Wieckowski in Wurzen, formerly Großhennersdorf, for providing me information from the Großhennersdorf baptismal register. 70.  Christian David to David Schneider, Apr. 21, 1727, R.6.A.a.26.5.27.a. Schneider was in Sablat (Záblatí) near Sorau at the time, where he was a teacher in the orphanage. 71.  For many of these persons there are letters in the Unity Archives that I have not yet been able to study. 72.  Tham visited Herrnhut in July of 1725 and returned in December of 1726. He began to teach on January 2, 1727. Despite his “fantastical ideas” he was recognized as a good teacher. See NN to Tobias Friedrich, Ebersdorf, July 17, 1725, R.6.A.a.9.3; Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Dec. 21, 1726, Herrnhut, Jan. 3, March 26, 1727, R.6.A.a.8.c.26, 27, 30; Zinzendorf to Herrnhut congregation, Dresden, Jan. 7 1727, R.6.A.a.29.2.3; Herrnhut diary, Aug. 23, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 65; list of people at the orphanage and school, Feb. 1728, R.6.A.a.32.c.2 (also in the back of Herrnhut diary, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a). 73.  Minutes Synod Gotha, session 1, June 12, 1740, R.2.A.3.A.1; Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 60; Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, March 26, 1727, R.6.A.a.8.c.30; “Einteilung der Gemeine nach ihren Dörfern,” R.6.A.a.17.2. The sources only list their initials. 74.  The untitled statement, dated March 1727, is mainly based on John 2:22–23, printed in BS, 2:643–44. See also Cranz, Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie, 139. 75.  J. S. von Watteville to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Feb. 12, 1727, R.20.C.27.d.263. 76. Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf [Feb. 1727], R.20.C.27.b.110. The letter was probably written after Zinzendorf in Dresden had heard a critical report about Rothe’s actions from Dr. Baumgart from Görlitz. Watteville himself, however, was away from Berthelsdorf

notes to pages 113–116      241 that weekend. Rothe’s church service is perhaps an early example of what later would be known among American revivalists as an altar call. 77.  Zinzendorf to Watteville, Dresden, Feb. 16, 1727, R.20.C.27.a.33. 78.  Zinzendorf ’s statement containing twelve points for Rothe, attachment to his letter to Watteville, Feb. 16, 1727, R.20.C.27.a.33. 79. Ibid. 80.  Infant baptism was a controversial topic among radical Pietists. Matthias, “Bekehrung und Wiedergeburt,” 52; Meier, “Grubers ‘Grundforschende Fragen,’ ” 134–37; Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th ed. (2005), s.v. “Taufe.” 81.  Müller, “Parther.” 82.  First issue: Le Socrate de Dresde, d.i. Bescheidene Gedancken eines Christlichen Philosoph uber allerley Gutes und Böses in der Welt, seinen lieben Mit-­Bürgern wöchentlich mitgetheilt, Nov. 2, 1715 (see BHZ A.109.1). After completion of issue 32, the combined issues were published by Johann Samuel Heinsius in Leipzig under the title Socrates, d.i. Aufrichtige Anzeige verschiedener nicht so wohl unbekanter als vielmehr in Abfall gerathener Haupt-­Wahrheiten  .  .  . [1726]. On Zinzendorf ’s Socrates, see Daniel, “Zum Dreßdnischen Socrates”; Weber, “Eighteenth-­ Century Socrates?”; Daniel, “Sokrates und Nikodemus.” 83.  From the investigational records in the Dresden Stadtarchiv, quoted by Daniel, “Zum Dreßdnischen Socrates,” 58. 84.  Ibid., 55. Zinzendorf demanded the freedom to write what he wanted; see Zinzendorf, Socrates, 4. 85.  Johann Heinrich Schwencke had previously printed two birthday poems for Zinzendorf. Schwencke died in February of 1726, before he could begin his prison sentence (Daniel, “Zum Dreßdnischen Socrates,” 58–63). 86.  “Do not give in to evil [= catastrophe], but proceed ever more boldly against it,” from the Aeneid. Zinzendorf ’s diary, Jan. 1727, R.20.A.15.c.178.b. Two years earlier Bernhard Walther Marperger, chaplain at the royal court, had already expressed his disapproval of Zinzendorf ’s collegium pietatis, the unrest he created in Berthelsdorf, and the fact that he spoke up for Scheffer (ibid., Nov. 12, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164). 87.  See Scheffer’s response to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 12, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.67. 88. Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 386–87; Cranz, Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie, 139–40; Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 23; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 178; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 25. Also by Zinzendorf himself: Zinzendorf, “Extract aus der 1743 entworfenen Special-­Historie,” 13. 89.  As early as June of 1722 Zinzendorf was flirting with the idea leaving Dresden (Zinzendorf to Watteville, Dresden, June 25, 1722, R.20.C.27.a.7). In 1724 two men, presumably members of his collegium pietatis, petitioned Zinzendorf not to go (Johann Nicolaus Möschler and Johann Georg Kessler to Tobias Friedrich, Neustadt, Oct. 2, 1724, R.6.A.a.9.14). See also Zinzendorf ’s diary, Nov. 25, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164. In “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung,” 109, Zinzendorf mentions that he got into political difficulties in 1723 over the “grosse Cassen Commission.” 90.  In January 1732, most likely under pressure from the approaching royal investigation (see chapter 7), Zinzendorf requested his dismissal from the king (R.5.A.4.4). See also Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 14–15. 91. The Herrschaftshaus was finished on June 7 (no. 54 on map 3). The original structure was replaced in 1781 with a grander stone building, which after burning down in May of 1945 was restored in 1977 and is still known as the Herrschaftshaus. 92.  On Gersdorf, whose stepmother was Zinzendorf ’s aunt, see Reichel, “Senfkornorden” Zinzendorfs. The rental income from the manor house enabled him to pay for the construction of his home in Herrnhut (see Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 19, 1727, R.20.C.29.a.68). See

242      notes to pages 117–120 also Herrnhut diary, June 16–24, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 62–63; Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 87 (“1725 [= 1727], 15. Juny”); Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 404; Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 28; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 179; Carstensen, Stadtplanung im Pietismus, 55–59. About the identification of Gersdorf, see Reichel, “Senfkornorden” Zinzendorfs, 22–23. 93.  Herrnhut diary, Apr. 20, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 94.  Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1. 95.  Herrnhut diary, May 12, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. There is no question that Zinzendorf was the author of this part of the diary. 96.  Christian David to Heitz, Herrnhut, Sept. 11, 1727 (draft?), R.6.A.a.26.6.60.a. Similarly, Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 180. 97.  Türk, “Spiritualität des radikalen Pietismus,” 350–51; Schrader, “Zores in Zion,” 613, 622–23. 98.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 83. 99.  “Es ist also das eine gute Secte, wenn einige Leute . . . über die Art und Weise göttlicher Wahrheiten vorzutragen, oder über die Form, die durch solche Wahrheiten erweckte Personen in eine richtige Verfassung zu bringen, nicht einerley Gedancken sind, und zu Verhütung grössern Weitläufftigkeiten nur [= wie] Loth und Abraham ihre Heerden theilen, und doch gute Freunde bleiben.” Zinzendorf, “Unmaßgebliche Gedancken von dem Nahmen und Bedeutung des Worts Secta,” in Freiwillige Nachlese, 480. 100.  For example, a letter to an unnamed “brother” was signed “Herrnhut, August 31, 1727, the brethren gathered in said place Herrnhut, in Görlitz, Berthelsdorf, and the regenerate villages round about.” R.6.A.a.29.2.7. 101.  For example, Rothe cosigned a call for Pastor Wanek as head of the boys’ school in Herrnhut: Zinzendorf, Watteville, and Rothe to Wanek, Herrnhut, June 21, 1727, R.6.A.a.29.2.6. Matthäus Wanek (1699–1736), was assistant pastor (diaconus) at the church and inspector of the orphanage in Hennersdorf, 1727–36. 102.  Herrnhut diary, July 22, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 103.  The visits are mentioned in the post-­Zinzendorfian histories: Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 403–4; Cranz, Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie, 139–40. 104.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Feb. 20, 1727, R.20.C.27.b.110. 105.  Herrnhut diary, R.6.A.b.7.1. 106. Zinzendorf mentions their cooperation in the Herrnhut diary, May 12, 1727, and Zinzendorf, “Kurze General Idée meiner Absichten und Handlungen,” 1734, R.20.A.1.1, p. 10. About Christian Gotthelf Marche (1700–1768), who became burgomaster in Bautzen in 1751, see Neues Lausitzisches Magazin 8 (1830): 593. 107.  The original is in R.6.A.a.15.1. The statutes consist of two parts: “Herrschaftliche Gebote und Verbote” (Manorial Commandments) and “Brüderlicher Verein und Willkür” (Brotherly Agreement). For a text-­c ritical edition of the original German with a new English translation of both parts of the statutes, see Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut.” See also David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 11–13; on the Herrnhut statutes, see Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 21–43; Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 14–24; Beyreuther, Die sich all­ hier, 182–86; Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 24–48; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 25–28; Bouman-­Komen, Bruderliebe und Feindeshaß, 400–415; Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 9–21. 108.  The ceremony was planned by Zinzendorf himself. See the order of events (in Zinzendorf ’s handwriting), “Solennien der Oberbertholsdorfisch Huldigung,” R.5.A.1.7. 109.  Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 114–15. 110.  The text of this address has not been found. 111.  See Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut.”

notes to pages 120–125      243 112.  The question of servitude became an issue a few years later when the Czech settlers in Hennersdorf were required to take an oath of servitued (see chapter 3). 113.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 30, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 114.  See Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut.” Zinzendorf compiled the Brotherly Agreement from the remaining paragraphs from the original draft (see above). Only the last leaf of the (dated) original Brotherly Agreement of July survives (R.6.A.a.15.1.5). The Herrnhut diary mistakenly gives July 8 as the date (R.6.A.b.7.1). An (earlier) version of the diary in Zinzendorf ’s hand has the correct date of July 4 (at the end of R.6.A.b.7.4). 115.  The surviving lists of signatures (R.6.A.a.15.1.5, 6, 10) are fragmentary and incomplete. Zinzendorf refers to a “Hauptbuch” in which the signatures were continued. 116. Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 372. 117.  Printed by Hochhuth, “Geschichte der philadelphischen Gemeinden,” 228–46. 118. Arnold, Erste Liebe, vol. 1, bk. 3, chap. 1. See also Peucker, “Ideal of Primitive Christianity”; Uttendörfer, Zinzendorf und die Mystik, 41–42; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 258; Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 43–45. 119. Luther, Dritte Teil, 468. 120.  E.g., Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 114. See also chapter 7. 121.  Herrnhut diary, May 17, 1727, R.6.A.b.17.1. Finding sufficient water for the growing community had been a challenge since the beginning. See also chapter 2. 122.  Ibid., May 20, 25, June 4, and 6, 1727. For the use of lots, see chapter 6. 123.  Ibid., June 7, 1727. 124.  Ibid., May 23. 125.  Ibid., May 13, 1727. 126.  Ibid., July 14, 1727. 127.  Ibid., July 9, 1727. Teufel does not mention these publications (“Rothe” [1917]: 16–17). Later that year Zinzendorf printed a sermon by Rothe in Saalfeld (Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Saalfeld, Nov. 30, 1727, R.20.A.15.c.188). On the quick printing process of Francke’s sermons, see Strom, “Pietism and Revival,” 189–90. 128. Herrnhut diary, July 2, 1727, R.6.A.b.17.1; Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” R.6.A.a.12.1 (here wrongly dated to 1725). 129.  Herrnhut diary, July 16–18, 1727, R.6.A.b.17.1. 130.  Ibid., insert by Martin Dober after July 22, 1727. 131. Ibid. 132. Comenius, Historia fratrum Bohemorum. See also Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 115; Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 416. The Zittau Ratsbibliothek is now part of the Christian-­ Weise-­Bibliothek. According to information provided by Uwe Kahl from the Christian-­Weise-­ Bibliothek, the book was removed from the collection around 1980. In 2014 it was recovered and returned to Zittau (Hist. 4º 190). In 1751 Zinzendorf mentioned that Christian David had first seen the book in Hartmannsdorf (Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 20). 133.  Zinzendorf to the Herrnhut congregation, Hartmannsdorf, July 26, 1727, R.20.A.15.179. 134.  “In allen Stücken gleichstimmig befunden worden.” Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 56, par. 71. 135.  Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 115. 136.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 4, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. David’s text contains many biblical references: 1 Cor. 12:13, Acts 2:17–18, 2:43, 4:33, 13:49. Even though David’s text is inserted into the diary under August 4, it is in fact an alternative account of the August 13 experience. 137.  “Weil nun dieses seit der neuen Gemeinschafft das erste war.” Herrnhut diary, Aug. 11, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 138.  Catharina Elisabeth Heintschel (later married to Tobias Friedrich, died 1736) and Anna Fiedler (1705–1779, later married to Georg Böhnisch). According to a list by Abraham

244      notes to pages 125–128 Reincke, there were sixty-­six communicants: BethCong no. 344; printed in TMHS (1873): 289–91. 139.  It is unclear if they were signed again or if the process of signing that began on July 4 was completed. 140.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 13, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 141. Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” R.6.A.a.12.1. Johann Lukas Siese (or Süsse) (1690–1743) became assistant pastor in Hennersdorf in 1723 and head pastor in 1727. 142.  About the actual Communion the diary states, “After the absolution the Lord’s Meal was held with humble and uplifted hearts.” 143.  Zinzendorf in preface to the 1725 catechism, quoted in Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725,” 91, lines 21–24. 144.  Sammlung geistlicher und lieblicher Lieder, unpag. pages before p. 1; also in Herrnhuter Gesangbuch, no. 972. See Uttendörfer, Zinzendorf und die Mystik, 61. 145.  Comenius, “Eccllesiae Slavonicae ab ipsis apostolis fundatae, ab Hieronymo, Cyrillo, Methodio, Propagatae, Bohema in gente potissimum radicatae, et in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum fastigiatae, brevis historiola,” in Comenius, Historia Fratrum Bohemorum. The various sections of the book have separate page numbers. 146.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie.” The first part of this history is the (adapted) version of Comenius’s text; the second part deals with the emigration of the Moravians and the history of Herrnhut until Zinzendorf ’s return from Silesia. About J. Th. Müller’s edition of this text, see below. 147. Cranz, Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie, 140–42, 151–52; Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 411–17. Later historians continued this narrative: Cröger, Geschichte der erneuerten Brüderkirche, 1:90–93; Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, 3:243. A different perspective is offered by Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 26; Müller, “Ältestenamt Christi,” 19–22; Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 14–24. See also Müller, “Neueste Historie,” pp. vii–x. 148.  Comenius, “Brevis Historiola,” pp. 9–10, par. 28; Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 1, p. 7. 149. “Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum,” in Comenius, Historia Fratrum Bohemorum. An English translation of the Ratio Disciplinae is Church Constitution of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, trans. and ed. Benjamin Seifferth (London: W. Mallalieu, 1866). 150.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 1, p. 14. Zinzendorf inserted the statutes at the point where Comenius refers to the “statuta” the early brethren adopted (Comenius, “Brevis Historiola,” p. 17, par. 58). According to Müller (“Neueste Historie,” p. iv) Comenius must have meant the rules from 1464, when in fact rules for the young community were adopted. See also Müller, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, 1:110–18. 151.  Müller, “Neueste Historie.” See also Comenius, “Geschichtserzehlung”; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 92n120; Schunka, “Missing Link,” 59–60. 152.  Müller, “Neueste Historie,” p. v. 153.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 1, p. 12. 154.  Soon a love feast in Herrnhut came to be a (nonsacramental) liturgical meal. See chapter 6. 155.  This procedure was similar to the later Moravian practice of “speakings.” 156.  Another example of Zinzendorf choosing his words according to his audience is found in the “Deduction” he submitted to the Privy Council in 1732. Instead of the term Liebesmahl (love feast), which has obvious radical connotations, he chose the neutral word Gastmahl (lit. guest meal). Zinzendorf ’s “Deduction” to the Privy Council, Jan. 21, 1732, R.5.A.2.a.28, printed in Spangenberg, Apologetische Schlußschrift, 416. 157.  “Ratio Disciplinae,” 32; Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 1, p. 11.

notes to pages 128–132      245 158.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 1, p. 13. 159.  “Quantum a coena temporis superest, vel musicae exercendae, vel psalmodiae datur. Tandem vespertinae preces, Psal. LV, 18, finem imponunt, et quilibet ad quietem se consert.” “Ratio Disciplinae,” 44–45. On the Singstunde in Berthelsdorf and Herrnhut, see chapter 6. 160.  Müller, “Neueste Historie,” p. v. 161.  The classical definition of Fälschung used by German historians was coined by Ernst Bernheim (1850–1942) in his Lehrbuch der historischen Methode. A Fälschung is a text that is not what it claims to be, but it does not have to be a deliberate forgery. For a concise discussion of the terminology, see Barnes, “ ‘Fälschung’ and ‘Forgery.’ ” See also, for example, Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery, 29–67. Chapter 5 The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from R.20.C.b.73. 1.  The letter by Noailles, Paris, Dec. 8, 1725, is printed in BS, 3:470–77. 2. Zinzendorf ’s correspondence with Noailles is published in Salomon, Catholicité du monde Chrétien; the letter, dated March 9, 1726, is on pp. 55–60 (abbr.). I am grateful to Dirk Panke for sharing his annotated transcript of Zinzendorf ’s full draft (R.20.C.28.b.1.21). Zinzendorf considered this an important letter, as he explained to Heitz (Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 57). About the relationship with Noailles, see Kaiser, “Zinzendorfs Projekt.” 3.  “Je respecte l’Antiquité; je le fais d’autant que je regagne ordinairement tant par rapport à la doctrine, qu’a l’égard des moeurs, et des institutions extérieures, les temps les plus proches de Jésus-­Christ et de ses disciples. C’est cette Antiquité même, qui me fournit tous les materiaux pour mon système.” 4.  “Quant à la pratique de cette Doctrine, il est vray qu’elle vaut peu de chose. . . . Mais il est constant aussi que celle des autres Sectes Chrétiennes.” 5.  “Qui n’a nul raport avec cette Epouse de Jésus-­Christ qui, comme dit l’Apôtre, est toute pure, toute sainte et sans tache.” 6.  “Je me crois membre d’un Vaste Corps, savoir de cette plenitude Majestueuse de l’homme Dieu, repandüe dans l’Univers où je me trouve melé avec un Pie Quint, un Innocent XI, un Petroucci, un Fenelon, un Felix Vaillant, un Quesnel, et très proche voisin de mon Cher Cardinal de Noailles.” 7.  Recently, Lucinda Martin has drawn attention to early modern lay theology, especially among Pietists. Martin, “More than Piety”; see also Rublack, “Introduction,” 10. 8.  On Zinzendorf ’s study of law in Wittenberg, see Reichel, “Zinzendorfs Studienzeit.” A good example of Zinzendorf ’s religious thinking in the 1720s is his “Oell-­blat des Friedens gesandt zu den Kindern Gottes” (1723), in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 433–39. 9.  See, for example, the collection of notes taken (by T. Friedrich?) during sermons given by Rothe, David, Rohleder, and Zinzendorf, 1731–32, R.6.A.a.27.6.e. 10.  E.g., Herrnhut diary, March 23 and 25, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. In his recommendations on how to conduct prayer meetings, Zinzendorf recommends inviting the local pastor once in a while and to ask him to give a “Aufmunterungs-­Rede” (revival sermon) (Zinzendorf, “Unmaßgeblicher und kurtzer Vorschlag, vor die Gemeinde der Brüder zu C[arlsdorf],” in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 584–85). 11.  “Die Weissager sollen reden, die andern aber sollen richten” (The prophets shall speak; the others shall judge) (1 Cor. 14:29); later changed to: “Die Gabe dazu haben, sollen reden, die andern aber richten” (Whosoever has received the gift shall speak; the others shall judge). Brotherly Agreement, no. 16, quoted in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 110. See also

246      notes to pages 132–135 Zinzendorf to the Herrnhut congregation, Herrnhut, Aug. 14, 1731, R.20.C.24.183: “Denn das gantze Volck des Herrn kan weißagen; der Herr hat seinen Geist über sie gegeben” (All the people of the Lord may prophesy; God gives his spirit to all). 12.  Christian David, “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2; David, Beschrei­ bung und zuverläßige Nachricht 15, 59–65. Edelmann was less than impressed by the unscholarly character of a sermon by Martin Dober he heard in Herrnhut in 1734 (Edelmann, Selbstbiographie, 151–52). 13. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 29–30. 14.  This was in accordance with Gottfried Arnold: “Nun ist die Frage, woher denn solche Lehrer genommen worden . . . nehmlich arme Handwercks-­oder Bauers-­Leute, die von dem Heiligen Geiste zu solchen hohen Wercke tüchtig gemachet waren 2. Cor. III, 6. Welche denn auch nicht auffhörten bey ihrem Lehr-­Amte zu wircken und zu arbeiten mit ihren eigenen Händen.” Arnold, Erste Liebe, 1:226. 15.  Strom, “Pietism and Revival,” 199–202. 16.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 6, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 17.  Lehmann, “ ‘Absonderung’ und ‘Gemeinschaft,’ ” 71; Vogt, “ ‘Headless and Un-­Erudite.’ ” On lay theology, see Martin, “More than Piety.” See also Arnold, Erste Liebe, 226–27. 18.  Zinzendorf at Single Brothers’ Synod in London, Dec. 1752–Jan. 1753, quoted in “Johann Martin Dober,” Der Brüder-­Bote 17 (1879): 2n1. 19. Painting collection, GS 703, UA. This gouache-­on-­vellum painting by Adam Paul Schöpfel used to hang in the Herrnhut Sisters’ House. The concept of “maidens carrying on divine conversations while spinning” can be found in Arnold, Erste Liebe, 212. Martin, “Anna Nitschmann”; Faull, “Anna Caritas Nitschmann.” 20.  Albrecht, “Frauen”; Gleixner, “Lutherischer Pietismus, Geschlechterordnung”; Gleixner, “Pietism,” 337–39, incl. many references; Kettering-­Lange, “Spener and the Role of Women”; Modrow, “Frauen im Pietismus.” 21. Arnold, Erste Liebe, 1:209–13. See also Peucker, “Ideal of Primitive Christianity,” 21. 22.  “Close acquaintance of single men with single women is absolutely not allowed.“ Brotherly Agreement 1727, no. 12, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 109. 23.  Albrecht, “Frauen,” 529–32; Martin, “More than Piety,” 108. 24.  Zinzendorf to Herrnhut congregation, Aug. 13, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.d. 25.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Dec. 13 and 15, 1729, R.20.C.29.b.130 and 131. It appears Scheffer is alluding to a specific case. 26.  Zinzendorf, “Unmaßgeblicher und kurtzer Vorschlag, vor die Gemeinde der Brüder zu C.,” in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 584. Zinzendorf amplifies the call for equality in Gal. 3:28 by adding what appears to be words from 1 Cor. 4:6–7. 27.  For example, “This afternoon Mrs. von Watteville went to speak with almost every sister” (Herrnhut diary, Sept. 7, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a); “Anna Lene and Rosina Nitschmann went and admonished Anna Barbara” (ibid., March 27, 1728); “The first meeting of the maidens was at Anna Barbara’s” (ibid., Feb. 17, 1728). On the bands, see chapter 6. 28.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 17, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 29.  Herrnhut diary, May 12, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. It is unclear why only three male elders but four female eldresses were listed. One of the general eldresses was Johanna von Watteville. The introduction of statutes in Berthelsdorf will be discussed in chapter 6. 30. Herrnhut diary, Nov. 1, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b. See also Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 209–22. 31. Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 212. There appear to have been objections among the men against the strong influence of the women, as suggested by an unsigned petition, March 17, 1730, R.6.A.a.29.47. 32.  Herrnhut diary, July 14, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1.

notes to pages 135–139      247 33.  “Der Herr Graf . . . fiengen an die Ännel in Lehren zu informiren” (The count began to instruct Ännel in preaching). Herrnhut diary, Nov. 4, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; ibid., Jan. 22, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 34.  See Anna Helena Nitschmann’s memoir in NadB (1847): 804–21. 35. “Weltliche Direction von der Republic Gottes zu Herrenhuth” (Feb. 1728), R.6.A. a.18.1.b, lists Anna Helena Nitschmann, Dorothea Gutbier, Rosina Nischmann, Anna Neisser, Martha Immig; the minutes of the elders’ conference in Herrnhut, Nov. 15, 1728, R.6.A.a.25.1.3 list, in addition to these five women, Erdmuth Dorothea von Zinzendorf, Susanna Quitt, Anna Quitt, Rosina Wagner, Rosina Münster, Charlotte von Seydewitz, Susanna Kühnel, Juliana Quitt, and Hanna von Seydewitz. 36. Christian David, “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2; unchanged in David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 29–30. See also Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 215–18. See also Vogt, “Voice for Themselves”; Vogt, “Herrnhuter Schwestern als Predigerinnen”; Mori, “Conventicle Piety.” 37.  Herrnhut diary, Nov. 10. 1727, R.6.A.b.7.4. 38.  “Unsettled” or “uneasy” about the state of their faith. Herrnhut diary, March 29, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. During this meeting the eldresses were also selected. It is possible that there was a general reorganization of the women’s offices. 39.  Herrnhut diary, Nov. 8, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b. 40.  On the investigation by the royal commissioner, see chapter 7. 41.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 22, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. Several members of the Paul family from Seifhennersdorf moved to Herrnhut during the following years. 42.  About (noble) female donors and the problem of anonymity, see Martin, “Öffentlichkeit und Anonymität.” 43.  Ibid., 392, 399–400. 44.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 50. 45.  See Scheffer’s letters, esp. Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Dec. 4, 1723, R.20.C.29.a.9. Dorothea Tugendreich Pfeiffer (1688–1767) was born in Zodel, north of Görlitz, where her father, Joachim Pfeiffer, was pastor. She became Gottfried Nicht(e)’s (1672–1717) second wife on November 6, 1708, and had four children with him before his death on Dec. 13, 1717 (Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal-­Lexicon, 24:491). She died in Herrnhut. 46.  Zinzendorf to Friedrich von Wattenwyl Sr., Berthelsdorf, June 21, 1724, R.20.C.27.a.19. 47. Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen; Peucker, “Ideal of Primitive Christianity”; Vogt, “Katholizität und Apostolizität der Kirche.” Aalen recognized the apostolic character of early Herrnhut (Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 87–88). 48.  See introduction. 49.  See chapter 1. 50.  Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1. 51.  “Wie hat Euch der heutige Lehrer gefallen?” Zinzendorf to his Berthelsdorf subjects, May 17, 1722, R.20.C.21.d.252. 52. [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 29–30. 53.  Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 110, 112 (my italics). 54. Arnold, Erste Liebe, 1:406–13. 55.  “They all live in separate goods [“in getheilten Güttern”] but still they care for each other’s needs.” Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 57, par. 76. 56.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 11, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnnhut, 54. See also chapter 6. 57.  Peucker, “Family of Love.” In 1747 Zinzendorf stated, “A community of goods, which existed during the time of the apostles, whereby one after the other exhausts his fortune, is not practiced among us” (GN, March 17, 1747). It is possible the concept of a communal household

248      notes to pages 139–143 did not particularly appeal to Zinzendorf, but it did to other Moravians such as Spangenberg. See also Petterson, “From Communal Economy”; Vogt, “Herrnhuter Liebeskommunismus.” 58.  See the bibliography. The Danish publication is David, Korte og Skri[f]tmessige Betragtninger. Manuscripts of devotional texts: “Das heilige und alleinseligmachende Evangelium,” R.21.A.24.a.2.a; “Actor. 16,31: Glaube an den Herrn Jes. Christ,” R.21.A.24.a.2.b; “Sechs Traktate Christian Davids, geschrieben in Neuherrnhut, Grönland, im Juni 1733. Nach dem in der Stuttgarter Landesbibliothek befindlichem eigenhändigen Original, kopiert durch Br. Hermann Glitsch” (Herrnhut, January 1906), R.21.A.24.a.5; “Eines Christi Dieners und begrädigten Mitgliedes der Creutz Gemeine Jesu Christi in Herrenhut erbaulige in der Schrifft und Erfahrung gegründete Betrachtung über die achte Seeligkeiten Matth. V, 3–11,” R.21.A.24.a.6. 59.  Christian David to David Schneider, Apr. 21, 1727, R.6.A.a.26.5.27.a. 60.  Christian David to Heitz, Herrnhut, [May 1725], R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 110. 61. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 16–17. 62.  J. G. Klemm to T. Friedrich, Dresden, Sept. 26, 1725, R.6.A.a.9.17. 63.  Christiane Dorothea Lehmann was born in Putzkau near Bischofswerda and died on September 23, 1748, in Herrnhaag, not long before her husband, who died there on Dec. 9, 1748. 64.  On Dober, see Zinzendorf, “Extract aus der 1743 entworfenen Special-­Historie,” 18–21. 65.  Dober, “Beschreibung.” 66.  Ibid., 1–2. 67.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 13, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 68.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 30, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 69.  Herrnhuter Gesangbuch, no. 260. 70.  Fr. Mordelt to T. Friedrich, Berthelsdorf, May 28, 1724, R.6.A.a.9.13. 71.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Sept. 19, 1726, R.20.C.29.a.52. Uttendörfer, Zinzendorfs christliches Lebensideal, 273–351; Bouman-­Komen, Bruderliebe und Feindeshaß. 72.  Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 2, p. 55, § 69. 73.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Jan. 5, 1724, R.20.C.b.73. 74.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Hartmannsdorf, Nov. 12, 1729, R.20.C.27.b.114. See also Peucker, Herrnhuter Wörterbuch, s.v. “Liebe.” 75.  See also hymns by poets such as Johannes Scheffler, Elisabeth von Senitz, and Christian Richter (Herrnhuter Gesangbuch, no. 19, 100, 171). 76.  “Schreiben aus H. an C. von einigen Umständen des v.W. den 30. Jan. 1723,” in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 426–32; Zinzendorf to Watteville’s father, Berthelsdorf, June 21, 1724, R.20.C.27.a.19; Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 27, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.87; Herrnhut diary, Jan. 27, 1729, R.6.A.b.9.a. 77.  Copy of a letter in the State Archives in Wrocław by David Tanneberger to his father David Tanneberger, Herrnhut, Apr. 30, 1731, R.6.A.a.2.k.12. David Tanneberger (1695–1760) died in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The American organ builder of the same name was his son. 78.  On the concept of conversion in Pietism, see Strom, Problem of Conversion. 79.  Agnes Louise von Zezschwitz to E.  D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Oct. 9, 1722, R.20.C.27.b.246. 80.  Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 27, 1725, R.20.C.27.b.87. The last sentence alludes to 2 Tim. 2:21. 81.  Herrnhut diary, Jan. 30, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. The earliest reference to a Durchbruch in the diary dates from Nov. 6, 1727 (R.6.A.b.7.4). See also Dober, “Beschreibung,” 6, who dates the concept of the Durchbruch to 1728. 82.  T. Friedrich to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Sept. 5, 1728, R.6.A.a.27.2.k. 83. Strom, Problem of Conversion, 63–64. See also Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 315–20, 330–58; Geiger, “Zinzendorfs Stellung zum Halleschen Bußkampf.” 84.  “Today’s prayer meeting [in Dresden] about the Eight Beatitudes was particularly uplifting for me. They work out better all the time.” Zinzendorf ’s diary, Nov. 11, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164.

notes to pages 143–145      249 85.  “Eine Rede des Herrn Graf von Zinzendorffs über die Worte Christi, Matthaei V,” in Freiwillige Nachlese, 385–416. According to Uttendörfer (Zinzendorf und die Mystik, 65), this address was given on October 25 or 26, 1726 (not “1725”), in Lichtenstein. See also Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 371; Plitt, Zinzendorfs Theologie, 623–41; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 63–64. Zinzendorf spoke on the Beatitudes in Diesdorf, Silesia, in August 1726 (Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Diesdorf, Aug. 2, 1726, R.20.B.22.b.212); Leipzig in Sept. 1726 (Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 64); Jena (Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 6, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.19); and Berleburg in Sept. 1730 (Reimann, Tagebücher des Grafen Casimir zu Sayn, 270). See also Zinzendorf ’s German translation of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) in Freiwillige Nachlese, 75–89. 86.  E.g., Herrnhut diary, Aug. 23, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. See also Dober, “Beschreibung,” 5. 87. Wesley, Works, 18:270. 88. David, Evangelische Betrachtungen; “Eines Christi Dieners und begnadigten Mitgliedes der Creutz Gemeine Jesu Christi in Herrenhut erbaulige in der Schrifft und Erfahrung gegründete Betrachtung über die achte Seeligkeiten Matth. V, 3–11,” R.21.A.24.a.6; Korte og Skri[f] tmessige Betragtninger. 89. Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 239–44, 317–18. 90. Atwood, Theology of the Czech Brethren, 16–17, 279–80. 91.  Zinzendorf connected his interpretation with the works of Madame Guyon (Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 64n41). A mystical reading of the Beatitudes was not unusual among radical Pietists; see, for example, Gottfried Arnold, “Betrachtungen über die Acht Seligkeiten aus Matth. V,” in Arnold, Göttliche Liebes-­Funcken, 1–7. 92.  Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 112 (no. 37). 93.  Zinzendorf ’s statement for Rothe, attachment to his letter to Watteville, Feb. 16, 1727, R.20.C.27.a.33. See also chapter 4. 94.  Christian David to David Schneider, Apr. 21, 1727, R.6.A.a.26.5.27.a. 95. Langen, Wortschatz des deutschen Pietismus, 362–63; Jacob, “Einfalt”; Tillmann, Hermeneutik und Bibelexegese, 21–23. 96. Spener, Pia Desideria, 32–35, 139–40. 97.  Gottfried Arnold (Unparteyische Kirchen-­und Ketzer-­Historie, 3:44–45) cites extensively from Spener’s comments on simplicity in Spener, Sprüche Heiliger Schrift, 32–38. Einfalt is also a key term in Arnold’s Erste Liebe. 98.  “Weil der Herr Graff seinen gantzen Sinn und Hertz darin ausgedruckt befand” (it completely conveyed his conviction and heart). Herrnhut diary, July 21, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Francke, Des seeligen August Hermann Franckens Gedancken. Zinzendorf ’s edition has an introduction by Zinzendorf and a hymn by Benigna Countess Reuss (NB II.51, UA). On Einfalt with Zinzendorf, see Uttendörfer, Zinzendorfs christliches Lebensideal, 120–66. 99.  On Johanna Eleonora Petersen’s Geistlicher Kampff der Erstgebohrnen, see below. 100. Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff, 71–78. 101. Lehmann, “ ‘Absonderung’ und ‘Gemeinschaft’ ”; Jakubowski-­Tiessen, “Eigenkultur und Traditionsbildung”; Gestrich, “Pietistisches Weltverständnis.” 102.  J. von Zezschwitz, Berthelsdorf [before 1724], R.20.C.27.d.242. 103.  J. R. Bonacker to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 2, 1724, R.6.A.a.8.b.20. For other examples of newcomers being vetted, see Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation”; Herrnhut diary, Oct. 8, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Apr. 19, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 104.  Jakubowski-­Tiessen calls this an “Alternativkultur” based on a different, religiously determined construction of reality. Jakubowski-­Tiessen, “Eigenkultur und Traditionsbildung,” 199. 105.  Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 95 (Manorial Commandments, no. 13). Here I mistranslated the word Bierzug as “beer procession.” A Bierzug was a custom at baptisms and weddings where the sponsors or the witnesses were expected to pay for rounds of beer at the local tavern (see also below).

250      notes to pages 145–148 106.  Herrnhut diary, Sept. 30, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 107.  Herrnhut diary, March 1, 1729, R.6.A.b.9.a. The diary refers to Acts 2:1. See also Zinzendorf, Theologische Bedencken, 18–20. 108.  The name of the judge is not given. Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 16, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.8; Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, July 3, 1723, R.20.C.27.b.62. Shortly before her death Gersdorf objected to the Herrnhut inn again; perhaps she considered it competition for existing inns on her property (Watteville to Zinzendorf, [early Feb. 1726], R.20.C.27.c.145). 109. Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 64–65; Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 129–31. 110.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Dresden, Nov. 22, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164. Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Nov. 19, 1725, R.6.A.a.8.c.24. Lehmann (1688–1757) was born in Putzkau near Bischofswerda. His wife Anna Sophia Kutzer (1684–1721) left him with two sons. He sold his house and workshop in Dresden in August 1725 and moved to Herrnhut on Apr. 20, 1726. G. Lehmann, “Stamm Register derer Vor-­Eltern von Christian Lehmann,” Albrecht H. Cassel Collection, no. 44, record no. 6936, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 111. Johann Burkhardt Heinsius to Zinzendorf, Dresden, May 11, 20, and 25, 1727, R.20.C.37.b.101, 103, and 104. 112.  “The inn shall as soon as possible and henceforth continuously either be operated by a man of good and irreproachable conduct who has a good reputation and who is well grounded under all circumstances, or indeed the elders will keep it under special oversight.” Brotherly Agreement 1727, art. 27, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 111. 113.  In May of 1728 the congregation tried to buy him out (Herrnhut diary, May 26, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a); Herrnhut diary, Aug. 22, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; ibid., Dec. 2, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b: “The disorderly innkeeper Lehmann, a separatist, who thought much of himself but who has little strength, was given a serious letter of reprimand by the warden [Zinzendorf].” According to his “Stam Register” he had to move out of the inn on October 10, 1730; he left Herrnhut with his two sons on Apr. 20, 1731, and arrived in Philadelphia on October 14, 1731. 114.  See Zinzendorf ’s manorial decree regarding the inn, in BS, 3:797–98. 115.  Der fromme Gastwirth und die christliche Schenke was printed in octavo in Löbau (Meusel, Lexikon der vom Jahr 1750, 6:442). Zinzendorf included the text in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 1249–81. Rothe’s treatise was an extract of Herrnschmidt, Der fromme Wirth und christliche Gasthof. 116.  Lehmann, “ ‘Absonderung’ und ‘Gemeinschaft,’ ” 69. 117.  Herrnhut diary, Apr. 20, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 118.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 85. 119.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 13, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 120.  Zinzendorf to Scheffer, Dresden, May 18, 1725, R.20.C.11.b.54. 121.  Lehmann, “ ‘Absonderung’ und ‘Gemeinschaft,’ ” 74. 122.  Herrnhut diary, Sept. 7, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 123.  Herrnhut diary, May 4, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 124.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Nov. 14, 1727, R.20.A.15.c.180. 125. Atwood, Community of the Cross, 87–95; Vogt, “Ehereligion”; Vogt, “Zinzendorf ’s ‘Seventeen Points of Matrimony’ ”; Faull, Speaking to Body and Soul; Peucker, “In the Blue Cabinet.” 126.  Peucker, “In the Blue Cabinet,” 12–14, 24–27. 127.  Gestrich, “Ehe, Familie, Kinder”; Hull, Sexuality, State, and Civil Society, chap. 1; Breul, “Ehe und Sexualität”; Breul, “Marriage and Marriage-­Criticism”; Matthias, “Verhältnis von Ehe.” 128.  Petterson and Faull, “Speaking About Marriage.” 129.  On Gichtel and his followers, see Seidel, “Zwischen Theosophie und Pietismus”; Võsa, “Ehe bei Böhme und Gichtel.”

notes to pages 148–150      251 130. Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 246–49. There remain many questions about Zin­ zendorf ’s relationship to the Gichtelians; perhaps he was attracted to their ideas for a while. While agreeing with their separatism from the institutional church, he rejected their ideal of celibacy (ibid., 249). 131.  Daniel, “Schwestern unter Brüdern.” 132.  In one of his letters to Watteville Zinzendorf calls him an Engelsbruder, a common name for Gichtelians, which seems to suggest that Watteville possibly flirted with Gichtel’s ideas for a while (Zinzendorf to Watteville [in Bern], Dresden, June 25, 1722, R.20.C.27.a.7; printed in Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 248–49n883). Spangenberg, who did not move to Herrnhut until 1733, was originally a follower of Gichtel (Reichel, Spangenberg, 29). The Dresden potter Dober, who was the cousin (?) of Martin Dober, was a Gichtelian and so was the Dresden merchant Buchs from Hirschberg, whose relatives were in close contact with Herrnhut (Edelmann, Selbstbiographie, 141–43, 178–85). 133.  J.  S. Krüger to elders in Berthelsdorf, [late 1726], R.6.A.a.11.38. On Krüger and his ideas, see chapter 4. 134.  Again, he paraphrased Rev. 14:4 and added the word pur: “Wohl allen, die sich nicht mit Weibern beflecken, sondern pur dem Lamme nachfolgen.” J.  S. Krüger to Zinzendorf, Ebersdorf, Feb. 20, 1726, R.6.A.a.11.45. 135. Zinzendorf to his mother, Ch. J. von Natzmer, Hennersdorf, May 9, 1722, R.20. B.22.a.109. 136. Zinzendorf to his grandmother H.  K. von Gersdorf, Dresden, June 19, 1722, R.20.B.22.a.91. The last quote is from the letter to his grandmother; all other quotes in this paragraph are from the letter to his mother. 137.  Address by Zinzendorf to the married couples in Herrnhut, May 14, 1748, in GN, 1748, suppl. 23. 138.  D. Nitschmann to [E. D. von Zinzendorf ?], Herrnhut, Dec. 22, 1729, R.6.A.a.29.44. 139.  Zinzendorf to the married couples (copy), Leipzig, Sept. 16, 1727, R.4.C.II.9.1.a. There is a problem with the date of this letter. On Sept. 16, 1727, Zinzendorf was not in Leipzig but in Herrnhut. He was in Leipzig later that year, on November 15/16, which is probably the correct date for the letter. 140.  “Es wurde eben diesen Tag eine 4telstund errichtet, damit Eheleute, denen es darum zu thun ist, in allen Stücken Christi Sinn zu treffen, daß bey ihnen das unbefleckte Eheband werth, ihr Faß in Heiligkeit und Ehren erhalten und sie dem Bild Christi und der Gemeine gemäß wandlend erfunden werden möchten, den richtigen Untericht aus Gotts Wort und Erfahrung rechtgläubiger und Zeugen bey gebracht wird” (Herrnhut diary, Nov. 1, 1728). Examples of topics of the quarter hour were pride among spouses (Dec. 1, 1728) and marital arguments (Dec. 2, 1728). See also Christian David, “Von denen Virtel Stunden unsrer vereh­ lichten Brüder und Schwestern,” in “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2; David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 50–52; Peucker, “In the Blue Cabinet,” 17. 141. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 84–87, 128–29. On the regulations regarding banns and weddings, see [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 161–87, 187–207. 142.  On Pietists’ rejection of lavish wedding parties, see Gleixner, Pietismus und Bürgertum, 229. On the “right” way to celebrate weddings in early Herrnhut, see David, “Von den Verlobungen und Hochzeiten derer Brüder und Schwestern,” in “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2, also in David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 84–87. 143.  “Manorial Commandments,” art. 13, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 95. 144. [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 188–89; Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 92–93; “Manorial Commandments,” arts. 2 and 13. On Bierzüge, see above, note 105. Skalský, “Exulantenprediger Liberda,” 137. Czech settlers in Gerlachsheim had objected against such drinking gatherings; see Noller, “Wege böhmischer Glaubensflüchtlinge,” 110.

252      notes to pages 150–153 145. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 57. On love feasts, see chapter 6. 146.  On congregational control of an individual’s sexuality, see Peucker, “In the Blue Cabinet,” 30–31. 147.  Herrnhut diary, May 10 and 15, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. Fritzsch married Rosina Haberland on Nov. 17, 1728. On the procedure, see David, “Von den Verlobungen und Hochzeiten derer Brüder und Schwestern,” in “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2. 148.  E.g., with Tobias Friedrich, Herrnhut diary, Feb. 19, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 149.  David, “Wie der Sonntag bey uns angewandt wird,” in “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2; similar in David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 90–91. 150.  Herrnhut diary, Sept. 19–30, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. Kühnel’s relationship with the congregation improved again after the wedding, but in 1731 he was banned from the congregation. About his remorse and death in 1733, see Zinzendorf, “Kurze General Idée meiner Absichten und Handlungen,” 1734, R.20.A.1.1, pp. 17–18. His daughter Susanne Kühnel was instrumental in the awakening of the children on August 23, 1727. See also [Glitsch], “Friedrich Kühnel.” 151.  Spangenberg later joined the Moravians and became an important leader of the church. On him, see Reichel, Spangenberg. 152.  Herrnhut helpers to A. G. Spangenberg (copy), Herrnhut, May 25, 1730, Spangenberg Papers (unproc.), MAB. The Jungfernbund was formed on May 4, 1730 (see chapter 6); history of the single sisters’ choir, BethSS, no. 13, p.  2, MAB; “Herrschaftliche Weisung an etliche fromme, aber unordentliche Unterthanen,” June 4, 1730, in BS, 3:340–42. Posselt is aware of the conflict but, because of the lack of records at the UA, was unable to fully understand what the conflict was about (Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 19–21). The letter that survived among Spangenberg’s personal papers in the Moravian Archives at Bethlehem, PA, was unknown to her. See also Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 54. 153. Wiegner, Spiritual Diary, 48 (June 9, 1733). 154.  Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 393. 155.  Albrecht-­Birkner, “ ‘Reformation des Lebens,’ ” 135. 156.  Mordelt to T. Friedrich, Berthelsdorf, Nov. 17, 1725, R.6.A.a.9.20; Reitz, Das Neue Testament Unsers Herren Jesu Christi; Quack, “Vorreden und Summarien,” 37. 157. “Herrschaftliche Weisung an etliche fromme, aber unordentliche Unterthanen,” June 4, 1730, in BS, 3:340–42. Tennhard (1661–1720) declined Lutheran theology and church practice. See Eberhard Zwink, “Tennhardt, Johann,” in Biographisch-­Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon. Daut (1656–1736) was highly critical of the Lutheran ministry who joined Tennhard in Ulm. See Friedrich Wilhelm Bautz, “Daut, Johannes Maximilian,” in Biographisch-­ Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon. Zinzendorf published Daut’s recantation of his works in Freiwillige Nachlese, 157–68. 158.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Apr. 1 and 7, 1732, R.20.C.29.b.170 and 171. [Seidel], Lutherus Redivivus. See also Brecht, “Philipp Jakob Spener,” 366. 159.  In Castell he read Francke’s Nicodemus oder Tractätlein von der Menschen-­Furcht (1702 and later editions), and together with Rothe he read Francke’s Die nöthige Prüfung. Zinzendorf ’s diary, Dresden (fragment), 18.10.1721, R.20.A.14.68. See below for other treatises by Francke he read with the Herrnhut congregation. 160.  Augustin Beyer to Zinzendorf, Dresden, Apr. 28, 1722, R.20.A.15.a.75. Selden, De Diis Syriis Syntagmata. 161.  Zinzendorf to Ch. J. von Natzmer, [Apr. 1723], R.20.A.15.a.135. Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff. See also Albrecht, Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 264–69. After Eleonora’s death, Zinzendorf wrote her widower how much the Geistlicher Kampff had strengthened him (ibid., 269). 162. Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff, 44–117. 163.  Ibid., 66, 84–85, 94. 164.  Ibid., 66, 68, 71. 165.  Ibid., 101.

notes to pages 153–157      253 166.  Ibid., 85–86. 167.  Ibid., 86, 108–9. 168.  Ibid., 93. 169.  Ibid., 97. 170.  Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Ebersdorf, [Oct. 1729] and Oct. 17, R.20.B.22.b.232 and 229. Osterwald, Treugemeinte Warnung vor der Unreinigkeit. 171.  Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Rudolstadt, Nov. 18, 1727, R.20.B.22.b.214. Ramsay, Histoire de la vie de messr. François de Salignac. See also Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 59–63. 172.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, [July 26–Aug. 1, 1728], R.20.A.16.a.17. Ittig, De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum. Zinzendorf was not particularly content with the quality of Ittig’s work. 173.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 6 and 7, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.19. [Sachsen-­Eisenach], Christfürstliche Andachten und Betrachtungen. Hiob Ludolf published several books on Ethiopia. 174.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 2 and 17, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. Guyon, Vie de Madame J.M.B. de La Mothe Guion. 175.  Herrnhut diary, May 2, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. Probably from Olivier Echallard, Die Schule der reinen Liebe Gottes, many editions. 176.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 12, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; Reise der Heuchler auf den Grentzen. 177.  On July 14, 1727, Francke’s Schriftmäßige Vortheile was distributed in Herrnhut. A week later Francke’s Gedancken von der Einfalt was read at a wedding (see below); Herrnhut diary, July 14 and 21, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 178.  Herrnhut diary, Oct. 20, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Anton, Ein recht-­exemplarischer Knecht des Herrn. 179.  Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 393–94. 180.  The Herrnhut diary notes “quarter hours” about Tauler from December 1727 until May 1728 (R.6.A.b.8.a). “Nachricht von Herrnhut” (1728), R.6.A.a.19.1.a. See also Uttendörfer, Zinzendorf und die Mystik, 105; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 96–97. 181.  Gutbier owned Kirchen-­ Haus-­ und Hertzens-­Musica. Scheffer and Gutbier lent their copies to Zinzendorf: Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Feb. 23, 1723, R.20.C.29.a.3; Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Apr. 11 and 18, 1725, R.20.C.37.a.66 and 67. 182.  Herrnhut diary, May 2 and 10, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 183.  Travel diary, Feb. 6, 1728, quoted in Wotschke, “Herrnhuts erste Arbeit in Schlesien,” 191. Comenius, Einige Nothwendige. 184.  Zinzendorf to Noailles, March 9, 1726, R.20.C.28.b.1.21.

Chapter 6 The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 108–9. 1.  Herrnhut diary, June 12–13, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; T. Friedrich to Zinzendorf, July 14, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.c. 2.  Previously some meetings were held in the home of Friedrich Kühnel ([Glitsch], “Friedrich Kühnel,” 179). 3. Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 34. Also Geller, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst, 6; Marx, Saalkirche, 51. 4.  “The rafters have not been completed yet, the most necessary interior walls have not been half finished, and I would very much like to see that this year we can at least put on the roof, complete the entire ground floor, and build the prayer hall.” Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Aug. 21, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.21. 5.  Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Nov. 19, 1725, R.6.A.a.8.c.24. On Oertel, see Daniel, “Schwestern unter Brüdern,” 164.

254      notes to pages 157–162 6.  See the image of the children’s love feast in Cranz, Kurze, zuverlässige Nachricht, no. 14. On the expansions, see Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 34. 7. Arnold, Erste Liebe, 1:169–77; Peucker, “Ideal of Primitive Christianity,” 19–20. 8.  Zinzendorf ’s memoir of Christian David, in GN, 1751, suppl. 17; translation in Fliegel and Nelson, Christian David, 21. 9.  “Der Herr Graf hielt seine Stund im Wältigen bey der Kirche um 1 Uhr,” Aug. 23, 1728; “Der Herr Graf hielten ihre Betstund in der Wiese bey dem Cämnitzer Holtz,” June 6, 1728. Both references in Herrnhut diary, R.6.A.b.8.a. On the role of solitude, see Enenkel and Göttler, Solitudo. 10.  Herrnhut diary, July 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 11.  “Abends giengen etliche mit gnädigem Herrn Grafen in Wald, hatten große Erweckung über herrliche Gegend,” June 1, 1728; “Es ließen der Herr Graf die Brüder zum Essen bitten. Sie waren aber im Walde im Gebeth,” July 11, 1728; both references in Herrnhut diary, R.6.A.b.8.a. See also Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 8. 12.  “Wir hatten Serenade durch gantz Herrnhut.” Herrnhut diary, May 5, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. Wesley describes this custom in 1738: “After the evening service at Hernhuth was ended, all the unmarried men (as is their custom) walked quite round the town, singing praise with instruments of music; and then on a small hill, at a little distance from it, casting themselves into a ring, joined in prayer. Thence they returned into the Great Square, and a little after eleven, commended each other to God.” Wesley, Works, 18:269. 13.  Diary of an unidentified woman, Apr. 27, 1730, R.6.A.b.9.1. The visitors were August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Gottfried Clemens, and Friedrich Christoph Oetinger. 14.  Herrnhut diary, July 18, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 15. Herrnhut diary, May 21, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Christian David, “Von der brüderlichen Nacht-­Wache,” in “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2; David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 15. 16.  Herrnhut diary, July 6, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; hymn printed in David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 74–76; English translation in Henry, Sketches of Moravian Life, 50–51. 17.  David, “Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht,” 73. 18.  Minutes of the elders’ conference, Nov. 11, 1728, R.6.A.a.25.1.3. 19.  See, e.g., Herrnhut diary, July 20, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 20. [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 211. The Oberamt in Bautzen required the cemetery to be fenced in (injunction by Oberamtshauptmann Friedrich Caspar von Gersdorf, Nov. 15, 1730, R.5.A.2.a.21). See also inquiry by Zinzendorf to Rothe regarding Rothe’s fees for the burial of the first child, Herrnhut, Nov. 17, 1730, R.5.A.2.a.21. 21.  Manorial Commandments no. 40, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 98. 22. [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 217–18. 23. Korschelt, Geschichte von Berthelsdorf, 41. 24. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 96. 25.  Perhaps the following entry from the diary is an indication that Rothe’s conduct at funerals displeased the Herrnhuters (June 24, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a): “Früh wurde der Anna Lene Kind begraben, wobey sich Herr Rothe voll vergangen haben” (Early in the morning Anna Lene’s child was buried, during which Mr. Rothe misbehaved completely). In a letter to David Schneider from April 21, 1727, Christian David strongly disapproved of ministers who took fees for, among other things, funerals and funeral sermons (R.6.A.a.26.5.27.a). 26.  From the (incomplete?) copy of the injunction from the Oberamtshauptmann Friedrich Caspar von Gersdorf (Nov. 15, 1730, R.5.A.2.a.21, see above) it is clear that the authorities in Bautzen were involved. 27.  Zinzendorf to Hans Heinrich Schulthess in Zurich (copy), Herrnhut, July 30, 1731, R.19.C.5.3.a. Moravians call their burial ground Gottesacker or “God’s Acre.” Gottesacker was

notes to pages 162–166      255 originally not a Moravian term but a commonly used synonym for Friedhof (cemetery) or Kirchhof (churchyard). 28. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 96. 29. [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 208–25. 30. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 96. The funeral John Wesley observed in 1738 was also conducted by the Berthelsdorf minister. See Wesley, Works, 18:269; Dose, “Note on John Wesley.” 31.  About Moravian music, see Wehrend, Musikanschauung; Knouse, Music of the Moravian Church. See also Kevorkian, “Pietists and Music.” 32.  Heitz brought the harp with him from Castell in July of 1721. See Zinzendorf to his mother-­in-­law, Erdmuth Benigna Reuss, in Ebersdorf, Aug. 13, 1721, quoted in Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 109. 33.  J.  G. Klemm to T. Friedrich, Dresden, Sept. 26, 1725, R.6.A.a.9.17: “Clav-­Cymbel.” Klemm’s memoir gives 1724 as the year Zinzendorf ordered the new “clavecin” (Libin, “Personalia of John Clemm,” 10). 34.  Zinzendorf to Watteville, [Dresden], Apr. 20, 1725, R.20.C.27.a.27. The text of the aria, which was set to the tune of “So führst du doch recht selig, Herr, die Deinen,” was printed; see BHZ A.238. 35.  Summarischer Unterricht in Anno 1753, 40. 36.  List of residents of Herrnhut, as sent to Jena in 1728, R.6.A.a.16.1. 37.  According to their memoirs, quoted in Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 4–5. 38.  Herrnhut diary, July 20, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1, and May 5, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 39.  On the collegium musicum, see Knouse, “Collegia Musica”; Wehrend, Musikanschauung, 47–48. 40.  Peucker, “Role and Development of Brass Music,” 169–71. 41.  Ibid., 183. 42.  About the organ, see Watteville to T. Friedrich, Berthelsdorf, Feb. 12, 1724, R.6.A.a.9.10; Klemm to T. Friedrich, Dresden, Apr. 25, 1724, R.6.A.a.9.16; Klemm to T. Friedrich, Dresden, June 15, 1725, R.6.A.a.9.24. Klemm was born in 1690 near Dresden and died in Bethlehem in 1762. See Libin, “Personalia of John Clemm.” 43.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Dresden, Nov. 22, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164; Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 65. According to Lehmann’s “Stam Register” (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, A. Cassel coll., no. 44, rec.no. 6936), he sold the organ when he moved out of the inn in October 1730. 44.  We do not have much detail about religious life in Herrnhut in the earliest years. Martin Dober writes that when he moved to Herrnhut in September 1725, not much went on except that once in a while Zinzendorf or another “good preacher” held a meeting. Dober, “Beschreibung,” 1. 45.  Brotherly Agreement, no. 5, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 108. 46.  Manorial Commandments, no. 35, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 97. 47.  Brotherly Agreement, no. 6, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 108. 48.  Brotherly Agreement, no. 16 and 23, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 110. 49.  Fragment from a text on the organization of the Herrnhut community (1727/28), found with various lists, R.6.A.a.16.5.30. This text is also found on a loose note in the Bethlehem archives (BethCong 694.7, MAB). The presence of this text in MAB confirms its importance, but its exact context (“aus einem Aufsatz vom Nov. 1727”) is unclear. 50.  J. von Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf [early 1723], R.20.C.27.d.242. Christian David said they made the first house into their “house church” (Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 7). The hymns sung were “Ermuntert Euch, Ihr Frommen” (HG, 140); “Gottlob! ein Schrit zur Ewigkeit ist abermahls vollendet” (HG, 551); “Alle Menschen müssen

256      notes to pages 166–169 sterben”; “Herr, du wollst mich selbst bereiten” (HG, 418?); “Glück zu Kreuz, du lieber Bote” (HG, 868). 51.  Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Jan. 22, 1724, R.20.C.27.d.227. Construction on Zezschwitz’s house had begun in June, and the house was apparently already habitable in December of 1723. It stood opposite the parsonage. 52.  About Zezschwitz’s Sunday meetings, see also Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 80; Watteville, “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation.” 53. Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, p.  9; see also Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 50. 54.  Dober, “Beschreibung,” 1. 55.  Jakubowski-­Tiessen, “Eigenkultur und Traditionsbildung,” 196–98; Mori, “Conventicle Piety.” 56. See Zinzendorf, “Unmaßgeblicher und kurtzer Vorschlag, vor die Gemeinde der Brüder zu C.,” in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 582–88. 57.  The culture of house meetings in Moravia is described in many memoirs of the settlers. For extensive passages quoted from the memoirs, see Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, chap. 1. 58.  Macek, “Geheimprotestanten,” 258–59. 59. Wesley, Works, 18:268–69. Another description of the church service in Berthelsdorf, dated August 1736, is found in Annoni, Dem rechten Glauben auf der Spur, 236–37. See also Daniel, “Verbundene Brüder,” 197–201. 60.  “Regarding other matters, I may report to Your Excellency that Mr. Rothe instead of the prayer service goes through the catechism with questions. We have to say a short prayer [“Seufzer”] after each text in front of the entire congregation. When he repeats the sermon in the manor house he also does that with questions.” Augustin Neisser an Zinzendorf, [Feb./ March 1725], R.6.A.a.8.b.22; see also Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 80–81. 61.  Zinzendorf, “Memoires pour servir,” pt. 3, 201–2. 62.  Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1, p. 12, UA. “From the chairs” means the area downstairs where the congregation is seated. About the conversational character, see also Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 38. 63.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 52; Sammlung geistlicher und lieblicher Lieder. 64.  Bunners, “Musik,” 438. 65.  Meyer, “Pietismus in der Oberlausitz,” 15; Zinzendorf ’s diary, Nov. 27, 1725 (and also later), R.20.A.15.b.164. 66.  Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 80. 67. Wallmann, Spener, 279n27; Matthias, Johann Wilhelm und Johanna Eleonora Petersen, 54–55; Hardeland, Geschichte der speciellen Seelsorge, 447–48. See also Spangenberg, Leben Zin­ zendorfs, 251–52. 68.  For example, Scheffer reported to Zinzendorf that the three Pietist pastors in Teschen, Steinmetz, Muthmann, and Sassadius, were fined for conducting catechesis and repeating the sermon. Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Apr. 20, 1728, R.20.C.29.b.109. See also Patzelt, Pietismus im Teschener Schlesien, 150. 69.  Dober, “Beschreibung,” 1–2. 70.  Zinzendorf, “Memoires pour servir,” pt. 3, 202. When Rothe gave the sermon repeat, he posed questions to his audience (A. Neisser to Zinzendorf, [Feb./March 1725], R.6.A.a.8.b.22). 71.  Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Diersdorf, Aug. 2, 1726, R.20.B.22.b.212. Zinzendorf sometimes mentioned Georg III, Prince of Anhalt-­Dessau (1507–1553), as an another example of a preaching nobleman; Zinzendorf, “Bedencken an einen Teutschen Landes-­ Herrn,” 1725, in Zinzendorf, Theologische Bedencken, 6. See also Vogt, “Als Christ ist man nicht Graf,” 102.

notes to pages 169–173      257 72.  See below. Throughout his life Zinzendorf avoided the term sermon (Predigt), perhaps because it implied the context of an institutional church. See also Strom, “Pietism and Revival,” 200. 73.  Herrnhut diary, June 1, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. The sermon repeat fell into disuse after 1729 (diary M. Dober, Oct. 14, 1731, R.6.A.b.10.4). 74.  See below. 75.  Christian David, “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1729), R.6.A.a.22.2, unpag.: “Wie der Sonntag bey uns angewandt wird.” By 1735 the schedule had changed a little (David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 87–92). Johann Christian Edelmann gives a mocking description of these services after experiencing them in 1734. Edelmann, Selbstbiographie, 148–52. 76.  Christian David, “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1731), R.6.A.a.22.1, pp. 66–68. 77.  Ibid., 67. See also Zinzendorf to the Herrnhut congregation, Herrnhut Aug. 14, 1731, R.20.C.24.183: “Before my departure for Denmark we agreed that not only one person is to teach and preach, but that in the meeting between 8–9 all brethren whom God has given grace are to participate. For that purpose we gathered in simplicity and everyone spoke.” About the conversational character, see also Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 38. 78.  Herrnhut diary, May 11, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 79.  Christian David, “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1731), R.6.A.a.22.1, pp. 68–70. 80.  “Wir hatten eine geseegnete Singstund, theils sungen wir so, theils sagten wir erst vor.” Herrnhut diary, Feb. 11, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 81.  E.g., Herrnhut diary, Feb. 14 and 17, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 82.  Bunners, “Musik”; Kevorkian, “Pietists and Music.” 83.  Christian David, “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1731), p. 69; see also chapter 5 for the celebration of Shrove Tuesday where the Herrnhuters tried to become filled with the Holy Spirit by singing hymns. 84.  On the Moravian love feast, see David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 56–58; Cranz, Kurze, zuverlässige Nachricht, 43–44. Bettermann rejects the idea that the love feast was adopted from the example of the early church: “Alte Sitten und Bräuche,” pt.2, 11–15; Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 73–78. 85.  “When on August 13 [1727] the congregation returned from Berthelsdorf from the Lord’s Supper, seven different small groups inadvertently gathered together. In order for them to stay together undisturbed, the count sent for food from his kitchen for each of them as a midday meal which they ate together in love.” Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 446–47. 86.  See chapter 4. 87. Arnold, Erste Liebe, 1:431. 88.  Eller, “Recovery of the Love Feast.” 89.  “Unter dem Liebesmale wurde gesungen ‘Jesus ist das schönste Licht’ und ‘O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden’ ” (During the love feast the following hymns were sung . . .). Zinzendorf ’s diary, Oct. 19, 1721, R.20.A.14.68. 90.  “Ich und mein liebes Geschwister und noch ein gut Kind haben uns gestern in dem heiligen Liebesmahl mit unsern Blutbreittigam so feste voreiniget” (During the holy love feast yesterday, I and my dear siblings and another good child have united with our bloody bridegroom). J. S. von Zezschwitz to Zinzendorf, Göbeln, Feb. 16, 1722, R.20.C.27.d.217.b. 91.  Christian David to an unidentified brother, Apr. 21, 1727, R.6.A.a.26.5.27.a. 92.  In his diary Zinzendorf noted “Abends Agapae” (in the evening: agapae), with the titles of the hymns that were sung. Zinzendorf ’s diary, Dec. 28, 1723, R.20.A.15.b.155; the love feast for the ten female guests, Zinzendorf ’s diary, Nov. 7, 1725, R.20.A.15.b.164; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 65. 93.  “Es wurde am 26. September ein allgemeines Liebes-­Mahl gehalten.” Herrnhut diary, Sept. 26, 1727. After that again on Oct. 2, Nov. 7, and Nov. 8.

258      notes to pages 173–175 94.  See, for example, the description of liturgical life in Herrnhut by Christian David in his letter to Heitz, Herrnhut, Sept. 11, 1729, R.6.A.a.26.6.60.a and b. 95. Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 14; Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 14. Wollstadt’s account confirms this circumstance, although he misses the significance of it (Geordnetes Dienen, 72–73). According to Martin Dober, the Herrnhut congregation had had its own, separate Communion service since August 13, 1727 (Dober, “Beschreibung,” 6). Johann Christian Edelmann noticed the Herrnhuters did not admit Berthelsdorfers to their Communion services (Selbstbiographie, 145–46). On the frequency of the regular services, see Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 94. 96.  “Unser Abendmahl hatten wir schon seit dem 13. August 27 alleine” (We have already had our Communion by ourselves since August 13, 1727). Dober, “Beschreibung,” 6. 97.  Zinzendorf, “Continuatio Diarii communicandi H. Rothen und Watteville, Jan. 1727,” R.20.A.15.c.178.b. 98.  Zinzendorf, “Summarischer Extract,” 1747, R.6.A.a.12.1. 99.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 65. 100.  “Until now [June 1727] we have had a very blessed celebration of Communion every four or six weeks, when all brethren and sisters, regardless of any difference in opinion, even including Mr. Rothe at times, communicated with each other.” Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 60; see also 57. 101.  “Wenn wir communionsmäßig Liebesmahl hielten, waren es etwa 3–4, und in den ersten 10 Jahren höchstens 10–12 bis 17 Personen, und das ging alles so vorsichtig zu daß der Mann der Frau et v.v. nichts davon sagen durfte.” Minutes of Synod at Zeist, session 30, June 13, 1746, R.2.A.19.1, p. 377. 102.  Perhaps the comment in Henckel’s letter to Francke (Feb. 6, 1725) about Zinzendorf ’s intention to “organize [Communion] differently” was based on Zinzendorf ’s conviction that it was not necessary that an officially ordained minister of the church administrate Communion. See Henckel’s quote in full in the section on the Disagreement of 1724/25 in chapter 4. 103.  Article 14 of the Augsburg Confession: “Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” 104. [Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 155–56; Oemler, Auszug aus Oemlers Repertorium, 2:341–47. 105.  R.20.A.15.b.154. The text is ambiguous about the day: November 7, 1723, was a Monday, but the text also says it was “the 24th Sunday after Trinity.” About this celebration, see also Daniel (who mistakenly locates the celebration in Dresden): Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 191n665; Daniel, “Schwestern unter Brüdern,” 165n25. The other participants: Friedrich von Watteville; Christian Andreas Reichmeister, who had just arrived as teacher; Christian David; Augustin and Martha Neisser; Jacob and Anna Neisser; an unnamed Roman Catholic family of seven people; Johann and Magdalena Mordelt, who had moved to Berthelsdorf from Silesia; Zinzendorf ’s secretary, Tobias Friedrich; Johann Adam Händel; Johanna Sophia von Zezschwitz; Justina Regina Bonacker, a follower of Gichtel; Rosina Richter; and Anna Helena Anders from Berthelsdorf. 106. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 79–84. 107.  Christian David, “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (1731), R.6.A.a.22.1, quoted by Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 73. The kiss of peace was another rite adopted from the early Christians, as described by Gottfried Arnold (Erste Liebe, 1:333). 108.  Sometimes baptisms took place in Herrnhut, such as the baptism of Johann Ernst von Zinzendorf on March 20, 1732 (diary M. Dober, R.6.A.b.10.4). This could be considered a private baptism at home, which was permitted for noble families or in case the child was too weak to be taken to the church ([Schuster], Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts, 115). 109. Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 14.

notes to pages 175–177      259 110.  The German term Chor for these groups is derived from the French corps. It was first used in the mid-­1730s for a group of people of similar age, gender, and marital status. In this meaning Chor is neuter (the German word Chor for a musical choir is masculine). David uses the term in Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 29 (Anm.). See also Petterson, Moravian Brethren. 111.  “Old men” probably meant “adult (married) men.” Herrnhut diary, Aug. 21 and Oct. 20, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. Meetings for the “old men” are also mentioned on November 3, 1727, and February 23, 1728, but they are not included as a regular group on David’s description from 1729 (see above). 112.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 23, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. On the “children’s revival,” see Schmid, “Kindererweckung in Herrnhut.” 113.  Herrnhut diary, end of Aug., R.6.A.b.7.1. 114.  Herrnhut diary, Nov. 4, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.4; Feb. 14, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 115.  Catharina Elisabeth Heintschel (Bischofswerda 1710–Herrnhut 1755) married Tobias Friedrich in Herrnhut on November 8, 1728. 116.  Herrnhut diary, Nov. 1, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b. 117.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 11–12, 17–19, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; “Nachricht von Herrnhut,” 1728, R.6.A.a.19.1.a; Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 47–48; Uttendörfer, “Entwicklung des theologischen Seminars,” pt. 1, 41; Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 83–92; Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 109–16. 118.  History of the single sisters’ choir, BethSS, no. 13, MAB. See also diary of an unidentified sister, May 4, 1730, R.6.A.b.9.b.1. Anna Nitschmann lived in house no. 25 (map 3). 119.  For the conflict, see chapter 5. Because of its controversial nature, the formation of the “Jungfernbund” was not mentioned in the congregational diary (history of the single sisters’ choir, BethSS, no. 13, MAB). 120. Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 54. On October 7, 1732, the single women got “new accommodations” in the Great House (Zinzendorf to E. D. von Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Oct. 9, 1732, R.20.B.22.b.262.b). On January 26, 1733, they moved into Kühnel’s house (no. 46 on map 3). Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 54; Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 92–93; Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 116–22. 121.  Herrnhut diary, July 9, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. The name Banden is possibly connected to Col. 3:14. 122. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 33–41; Schmidt, “Banden im alten Herrnhut”; Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen, 92–104. 123. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 41–46. 124.  For example, Zinzendorf was reprimanded for his treatment of Friedrich Kühnel (Minutes of the elders, Oct. 17, 1727, R.6.A.a.25.1.3). See also David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 40. 125. Wollstadt, Geordnetes Dienen. 126.  “Weltliche Direction von der Republic Gottes zu Herrnhut,” R.6.A.a.18.1.a. 127. David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 71–72; Bettermann, “Alte Sitten und Bräuche,” pt. 1, 4–9; Sommer, “Gambling with God”; Vogt, “Medialität göttlicher Willenskundgebung.” 128.  Herrnhut diary, May 20, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 65. 129. Grosse, Studien über Watteville, 23. 130.  For example, while traveling in Bohemia Zinzendorf sent the page numbers from the Spruchkasten to his wife with texts for her, Bonacker, Zezschwitz, and Rothe (Zinzendorf to E. D. Zinzendorf, Brandeis, Sept. 16, 1723, R.20.B.22.b.206). Zezschwitz opened a letter listing three texts she had chosen for the recipient (undated letter from J. von Zezschwitz, R.20.C.27.d.245).

260      notes to pages 177–180 131.  Brückner, “Providenz im Zettelkasten.” Carl von Bogatzky (1690–1774) first published his Güldenes Schatzkästlein (without title) in 1718; the first English edition was published in London in 1754. It appears that Bogatzky’s Treasury was in use among the Herrnhuters (for example, Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, March 20, 1724, R.20.C.29.a.15). 132.  From 1727 on, Zinzendorf was working on a textbook (“Spruchcatalogum,” “Sprüch-­ Büchlein,” “Spruch Kastigen”). Zinzendorf ’s diary, Jan. 5, 1727, R.20.A.15.c.177; Zinzendorf to Heitz, Herrnhut, Apr. 1728, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 101; Herrnhut diary, Dec. 27–29, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b. 133.  “Der Herr Graf fiengen den Vers an ‘Liebe hat ihn hergetrieben, etc.’ und fiengen heit [= heute] die Methode an, etwas mit zu geben” (The count started to sing “It Was Love That Drove Him Hither” and today he began the method of giving something along). Herrnhut diary, May 3, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. See also David, Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht, 68–71. This first watchword was “Liebe hat ihn hergetrieben, liebe riß ihn von dem thron: / und ich solte ihn nicht lieben in der hochzeitlichen kron?” (It was love that drove him hither, and love drew him from the throne; should I not forever love him, wearing a marital crown?). Herrnhuter Gesangbuch, no. 225:6. 134.  Zinzendorf to E. D. Zinzendorf, Leuba, Dec. 20, 1728, R.20.B.22.b.223.b; T. Friedrich to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Oct. 13, 1729, R.6.A.a.27.3.q. 135.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 23, 1729, R.6.A.b.9.a. 136.  Ein guter Muth. On May 16, 1731, Tobias Friedrich reported to Zinzendorf (who was on his way to Kopenhagen) that the Losungen were printed except for the title and the index. T. Friedrich to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, May 16, 1731, R.6.A.a.27.5.x. The Moravian Church continues to print an annual edition of the daily texts to the present day, currently in over sixty languages. Lange, “History of the Text Book.” 137.  Christian David to Heitz, Herrnhut Sept. 11, 1729, R.6.A.a.26.6.60. This letter is called the “Häuserbrief.” 138.  Specification of residents in Herrnhut, [Apr. 1727], R.6.A.a.16.2.50. The list includes neither the teachers nor the pupils in the schools. About the growth of the population of Herrnhut, see Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, chap. 1. 139.  “Einteilung der Gemeine nach ihren Dörfern,” 1728, R.6.A.a.17.2; List of persons connected to the schools in Herrnhut, Feb. 1728, R.6.A.a.32.c.2. Foreigners from faraway places were not completely out of the ordinary. In October of 1728 Zinzendorf encountered a “Mogul muslim from Surat” in India (mit einem Mogolischen Mahomethaner von Suratre) in Henners­ dorf (Herrnhut diary [2nd copy] Oct. 14, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b). 140.  List of houses and occupants [1739], R.6.A.a.16.56. Andreas (formerly Bartel) was born on Saint Thomas and was a helper in the Moravian mission there. He traveled to Bethlehem, PA, in 1742, where he married Maria, with whom he returned to Germany in 1743. Andreas died July 2, 1744, in Marienborn. Immanuel (formerly Jupiter) from Carolina was ca. eleven years old and was purchased by David Nitschmann in New York and brought to Herrnhut, where he was baptized. Immanuel died September 30, 1739, in Herrnhut. See Peucker, “Aus allen Nationen.” On their legal status as slaves, see Köstlbauer, “ ‘I Have No Shortage of Moors.’ ” 141.  Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, July 8, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.4; J. G. Dörrer (the mason) and Augustin Neisser to Heitz, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, Herrnhut, June 28, 1724, pp. 116–17. Not much is known about him; by 1727 Dörrer had left Herrnhut. 142.  The name of the judge was not given. Henriette Katharina von Gersdorf prevented him from pursuing his plan. Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, Sept. 16, 1722, R.6.A.a.8.a.8; Watteville to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, July 3, 1723, R.20.C.27.b.62. 143. Heitz to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, May 15, 1723, R.6.A.a.8.a.18. Another person expressing interest in building a home in Herrnhut was Marche’s French-­language teacher in Dresden; see Marche to Heitz, Dresden, Nov. 22, 1722, R.20.A.15.a.81. 144.  Cart pushing or wheelbarrowing was a form of forced labor that involved pushing or pulling carts with rocks or dirt. For example, “We hear from Oderwitz that a man who used to

notes to pages 180–182      261 come to our church was sentenced to six weeks of cart pushing. Finally he had to solemnly promise not to attend the church in Berthelsdorf ever again.” Gutbier to Zinzendorf, Berthelsdorf, July 12, 1724, R.20.C.37.a.43. 145.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 17, Aug. 26, Dec. 12, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. See also Zinzendorf, “Bedencken an die erweckten Seelen in den Dörffern O[derwitz], S[eifhennersdorf], S[chönau, Großschönau] und E[bersbach ?] 1724 wegen Besuchung erbaulicher Predigten in andern Kirchfahrten,” in Zinzendorf, Theologische Bedencken, 24–25; Zinzendorf, “Bedencken, welches An. 1727 denen erweckten Unterthanen des S. Districts auf Begehren mitgetheilet worden, in voriger Materie,” in ibid., 25–26. 146.  On Kühnel, see [Glitsch], “Friedrich Kühnel,” 179; Bechler, Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, 58–59. 147.  Herrnhut diary, Jan. 25, June 11, June 20, July 5, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 148.  List of houses and occupants [1739], R.6.A.a.16.56. 149. About Herrnhut activity in Silesia, see Wotschke, “Herrnhuts erste Arbeit in Schlesien.” 150. As listed by Zinzendorf in “Einteilung der Gemeine nach ihren Dörfern,” 1728, R.6.A.a.17.2. 151.  Minutes of Synod at Zeist, session 30, June 13, 1746, R.2.A.19.1, p.  380. The Remonstrants split from the Dutch Reformed Church in the early seventeenth century. They did not agree with the doctrine of predestination and were against binding creeds. 152.  “Die wahre Vereinigung auf dem Grunde der Rechtfertigung und Heiligung verschiedener Catholicken, Calvinisten, Lutheraner, Schwenckfelder, Separatisten von allerley Arten, welche alle den Schaum der Meynungen fahren und sich unter das Geboth der Liebe dieses Orts bringen, in Liebe auch unsere äussere Verfasungen gefallen lassen, da sie denn ohne alle Sectirerey Gott im Geist und in der Wahrheit dienen.” Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 89. Schneider points out that Zinzendorf uses Philadelphian terminology: “Schaum der Meinungen” (lit. scum of opinions) refers to the doctrines of the denominations; “serving God in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23–24) was a locus classicus of the Philadelphians; “sectarianism” refers to the various institutional churches. Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 16–17. 153.  In later years Zinzendorf designed regulations for other groups as well. See also Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 69n52. For Oderwitz, see Herrnhut diary, Apr. 1 and 4, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; for the other places, see below. 154.  See R.6.A.a.15.1; printed in BS, 1:676–85. Zinzendorf is unquestionably the author of the text; the changes are in his hand (R.6.A.a.15.1). See also Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 31; Teufel, “Rothe,” pt. 1, 55; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 374–75. 155.  Other paragraphs missing are the regulations about lawsuits, the elders’ conference, and the night watch. 156.  Herrnhut diary, April 8, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 157.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, May 11, 1728, R.20.C.29.b.110. 158.  Scheffer to Christian David, Görlitz, Dec. 31, 1728, R.20.C.29.b.197. See also Zinzendorf, Johann Nitschmann, and David Nitschmann to Scheffer, Herrnhut, Dec. 14, 1728, R.20.C.11.b.56. 159.  Zinzendorf ’s diary of his visit to Jena, Aug. 10, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.20. 160.  Ibid., Sept. 16, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.24. See also “Umständlicher und wahrhaffter Bericht von demjenigen Instituto, welches einige Studiosi in Jena unter einander anzufangen mit Gott entschlossen sind. Anno 1728,” in BS, 1:431–47; Reichel, Spangenberg, 37–41. 161.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 15, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.22, seems to suggest he wanted to introduce statutes in Halle (“und was in Halle noch geschehen solte”); ibid., Aug. 22–23, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.24 (“Die redeten mit mir wegen Vereinigung hiesiger Kinder Gottes”). 162.  See Lückel, Adel und Frömmigkeit, 134–49; Lückel, “Wittgensteiner Pietisten,” 149–50.

262      notes to pages 182–186 163.  Printed in BS, 1:40–43. 164.  Zinzendorf ’s defense of criticism against Herrnhut, May 31, 1728, R.6.A.a.19.1.c. The text is written in the hand of a scribe with corrections in Zinzendorf ’s own hand. 165.  The following points of criticism follow from Zinzendorf ’s defense. 166.  This name (with variations) first began to appear in April of 1728. In a letter to Heitz Zinzendorf wrote, “Hertzlich geliebter Bruder, die gantze Böhmische und Mährische Brüder-­ Gemeine grüsset Sie in Jesu Hertzlich” (Dearest brother, the entire Bohemian and Moravian congregation of brethren greets thee in Jesus’s name) (Herrnhut Apr. 1728, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 101). In an official letter from the congregation to Prof. Buddeus in Halle the names “Böhmisch und Mährische Gemeine” and “Gemeinde der Mährischen und Böhmischen Brüder” are used (Apr. 14, 1728, R.3.A.1.1.a). 167.  Zinzendorf and his wife, together with a few servants, left Herrnhut on July 12; they returned on October 12, 1728. 168. “The learned brethren together with Christian [David] called the twelve elders together to discuss the terrible matter of the danger of the congregation because of the name ‘Moravian Brethren’ and to try to persuade them if they would abandon it; which unfortunately found support.” Herrnhut diary, Aug. 3–5, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a; T. Friedrich’s diary, Aug. 4, 1728, R.6.A.a.27.1. See also Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 31–36; Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 16–18. Rothe’s involvement becomes clear from Zinzendorf ’s letter R.6.A.a.20.a.1.d (see below); Scheffer’s involvement, from the title of R.6.A.20.a.1.a (see below). 169.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 13, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.22. 170.  Letter of 102 men in Jena to the congregation in Herrnhut, Aug. 17, 1728, R.19.A.a.5.1 (also R.19.B.g.5.a.2; R.3.A.1.2.a), printed in BS, 2:51–57. David Nitschmann, Georg Böhnisch, and Mattheus Micksch to Herrnhut congregation, Jena, Aug. 13, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.a, printed in BS, 2:631–32; D. Nitschmann (cosigned by G. Böhnisch and M. Micksch) to Herrnhut congregation, Jena, Aug. 13, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.b. 171.  Zinzendorf ’s order to the Herrnhut community, Jena, Aug. 14, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.e; printed (abridged) in BS, 3:1–4. See also Zinzendorf ’s more extensive letter to Herrnhut, Aug. 13, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.d. It is questionable whether someone could be made a serf against their will. On questions regarding servitude and slavery among the Herrnhuters, see Köstlbauer, “ ‘I Have No Shortage of Moors.’ ” 172.  “So wir fleischliche Hülffe brauchten, so wäre der Brüder Nahme und Succession euere eintzige Bedeckung” (If we need physical help the Brethren’s name and succession is your only protection). Zinzendorf to the congregation at Herrnhut, Jena, Aug. 13, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.1.d. See also the letters mentioned above and his letters to: the congregation at Herrnhut, Ebersdorf, Aug. 24, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.f; to Watteville, Ebersdorf, Aug. 29, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.g; to Augustin Neisser, Ebersdorf, Sept. 1, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.a.1.h; to the congregation, [Sept. 1728], R.6.A.a.20.a.1.i; to an unidentified “brother,” n.d., R.6.A.a.20.a.1.k; to Gutbier, n.d., R.6.A.a.20.a.1.l. 173.  T. Friedrich to Zinzendorf, Herrnhut, Sept. 1, 1728, R.6.A.a.27.2.h. See also Herrnhut diary, Aug.–Sept. 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 174.  Herrnhut diary, Oct. 16–26, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a and b. 175.  Herrnhut diary, Nov. 2, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.b. 176.  R.6.A.a.15.1.12 (mistakenly labeled “am 12. May 1727”). Müller overlooked this 1728 version and mistakenly claims the Brotherly Agreement was abolished in November of 1728 (Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 36). Christian David includes the 1728 version in the 1731 (manuscript) version of his “Beschreibung von Herrnhut” (R.6.A.a.22.1, pp. 28–31). 177.  There are two copies with Zinzendorf ’s signature and seal: R.6.A.a.15.1.13 (fair copy) and R.6.A.a.15.1.14 (final draft). Printed in BS, 2:8–19. 178.  R.6.A.a.19.2; “Extract aus dem Notariats-­Instrument, so Anno 1729 in Herrnhuth errichtet worden,” in BS, 1:3–23.

notes to pages 186–192      263 179.  Parts of the affirmation text by Rothe at the end of the documents are lifted verbatim from Rothe’s statement from Feb. 1728 (VarMSColl 47, MAB; see chapter 7). This suggests that the text was compiled by Zinzendorf from various texts by Rothe that Zinzendorf had at his disposal. 180. Cranz, Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie, 166–69; Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 557–61. 181.  In an apologetic text from 1734, Zinzendorf claims the statutes were abolished with the introduction of the notarial instrument. This is incorrect. Zinzendorf, “Kurze General Idée meiner Absichten und Handlungen,” 1734, R.20.A.1.1, p. 11. 182.  “Extract aus dem Notariats-­Instrument, so Anno 1729 in Herrnhuth errichtet worden,” in BS, 1:3–23. 183.  See also Haberkern, “Bohemian Reformation and ‘The’ Reformation.” 184.  Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 32. See also Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, 3:248; Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 378. Chapter 7 The epigraph for this chapter is drawn from R.2.A.10.6, p. 137. 1. Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 20–21. About the impending arrest of Zinzendorf, see also Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 759. 2. Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 24. 3.  This was, for example, the argumentation of Amtshauptmann Gersdorf. Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 17. See also Dorfner, “Von ‘Bösen Sektierern’ zu ‘Fleissigen Fabrikanten.’ ” 4.  Quoted by Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 16. Three years earlier, Charles VI had ordered Cardinal Schrattenbach in Olmütz to increase vigilance against Zinzendorf ’s “emissarios” and “disseminatores” of heretical teachings; rescript July 20, 1728, quoted in Skalský, “Exulantenprediger Liberda,” 359–62. 5.  G. E. von Gersdorf to Zinzendorf, Aug. 25, 1731, with king’s order to Gersdorf, Aug. 21, 1731, R.5.A.5.1 and 2. 6.  The king instructed Gersdorf on Nov. 8, 1731. Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 17. 7.  On the royal commission, see Körner, Kursächsische Regierung; Hark, “Konflikt der kursächsischen Regierung,” 1–11; Teufel, “Rothe,” 2:1–11; Modrow, “ ‘Wir sind Philadelphische Brüder,’ ” 582–83; Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 44–57. 8.  Gersdorf ’s report (Görlitz, March 15, 1732) is printed in Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 85–91, here 85. Zinzendorf ’s report (partly in his own hand): R.5.A.2.25 (other copy: R.5.A.7.16). See also M. Dober’s diary, Jan. 19–22, 1732, R.6.A.b.10.4. 9.  Gersdorf ’s report, quoted by Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 85–91. 10.  Sterik, “Böhmische Emigranten,” 102–3; see also chapter 3. See the lists of the Czechs staying in Herrnhut, R.6.A.a.16.7.45–49; Zinzendorf to H. S. von Gersdorf, Herrnhut, Apr. 2, 1732, and her answer, Apr. 4, printed in BS, 3:656–63. The house in Herrnhut that Liberda owned was probably no. 8 (map 3). 11.  Sterik, “Böhmische Emigranten,” 104, fails to notice the precarious political situation for Zinzendorf and Herrnhut and claims Zinzendorf lacked sympathy for the Bohemians. 12. Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 19; Cranz, Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie, 191, 221. 13.  Skalský, “Exulantenprediger Liberda,” 241–53. 14. Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 20–21. 15. The objection, dated Nov. 1, 1732, was signed by privy councilors von Bünau, von Leipziger, von Zech, vom Loß, and von Bünau Jr. (Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 22). 16.  See the contract of sale, Sept. 30, 1732, R.20.B.5.a.4.a. The sale was executed on December. 17, 1732. See also Zinzendorf to Heinrich XXIX Reuss, Herrnhut, Oct. 18, 1732,

264      notes to pages 192–197 R.20.B.22.b.306 (copied by A. Glitsch 1877 from the original in Ebersdorf). About the financial implications of the sale, see Uttendörfer, Alt-­Herrnhut, 161–62. 17. Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 23–24; the decree, dated Apr. 4, 1733, is printed in BS, 3:12–13. 18.  “To separatism.” Zinzendorf, “Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder,” 83. 19.  Zinzendorf, “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff,” 65; Herrnhut diary, May 12, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 20.  See introduction. 21. Zinzendorf, “Bedencken von dem Unterscheide des Separatismi,” in Zinzendorf, Creutz-­Reich Jesu, 93–98. Zinzendorf wrote this originally as a long marginal note in Christian David’s “Beschreibung von Herrnhut,” R.6.A.a.22.2; see Uttendörfer, “Entstehung der ‘Beschreibung,’ ” 223. 22. Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society, 14. See introduction. 23.  Zinzendorf, “Bedencken von dem Unterscheide des Separatismi,” 98. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26.  Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 108. 27. Zinzendorf, “Bedencken von dem Unterscheide des Separatismi,” in Zinzendorf, Creutz-­Reich Jesu, 95–97. 28.  Schneider, “Understanding the Church,” 27; see also Geiger, “Gewisser Grund 1725,” 238n3. 29.  See introduction. 30.  Brotherly Agreement, nos. 5 and 6, in Peucker, “1727 Statutes of Herrnhut,” 108. 31.  “Weltliche Direction von der Republic Gottes zu Herrenhuth” (Feb. 1728), R.6.A.a.18.1.b. 32.  Zinzendorf to H. K. von Gersdorf, [Dresden, Feb. 1722], R.20.B.22.a.97. 33.  Zinzendorf probably wrote this to Gersdorf because she was worried about his separatist inclinations. In another letter to Gersdorf from before his move to Dresden, Zinzendorf reassured her that the members of his household missed attending several church services only because of their busy schedule. Zinzendorf to H. K. von Gersdorf, [1721], R.20.B.22.a.100. 34. Reichel, Anfänge Herrnhuts, 136–37; Beyreuther, Die sich allhier, 36–37. 35.  Zinzendorf to the separatists in Chemnitz, Dresden, Feb. 23, 1722, R.19.A.a.1.1. This is Zinzendorf ’s response to the letter from Chemnitz; it is unclear if a copy of his first letter to them survives. 36. Daniel, Zinzendorfs Unionspläne, 177. “Sie vermeinte, sie wollen um Christi Willen alles leiden und sich zum Land hinausweißen laßen” (She said they wanted to suffer anything because of Christ’s passion and be expelled from the land). 37. Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society, 7; German translation in Lead, Ursachen und Gründe, 30. See also, for example, Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff, 85–86. 38.  See chapter 1. 39.  “Redliche Erklärung der Gemeine zu Herrnhut an die Brüder von der Separation über die Conduite, der sie in Lehr und Wandel erwehlet haben,” in Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 231. 40.  See Müller’s introduction to his edition of this text, Zinzendorf, “Historischer Begriff,” 114. Already in 1727 Zinzendorf wrote a tract “about the necessity of meetings” that included statements by Luther. Herrnhut diary, Aug. 24, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. 41.  “Aber die dritte Weise, die rechte Art der Evangelischen Ordnunge haben solte, müste nicht so öffentlich auff dem Platz geschehen unter allerley Volck, sondern die jenigen, so mit Ernst Christen wollen seyn, und das Evangelium mit Hand und Mund bekennen, müsten mit Nahmen sich einzeichen und etwa in einm [sic] Hause alleine sich versamlen zum Gebet, zu lesen, zu tauffen, daß Sacrament zu empfahen, und andere Christliche Werck zu üben.” Luther, Dritte Teil (1661), 468. This was the edition Zinzendorf used.

notes to pages 197–200      265 42.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 12, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.20. A few days later Zinzendorf noted that the “references from Luther caused great amazement with the duke.” Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 17, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.21. 43.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 9, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.19. 44. Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 102; also 330–58; Aalen, “Kirche und Mission bei Zinzendorf,” 274. 45.  Schneider calls Zinzendorf ’s alleged turn to Luther “in reality a rejection of Luther and Lutheranism.” Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 51. See also Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 31–33. 46.  On Luther’s assessment of the Unity and about the appropriation of Hussite history and ideals by other representatives of the Reformation, see Haberkern, “Bohemian Reformation and ‘The’ Reformation.” 47.  “Weil die Augsburgische Confessionsverwandtschaft als unser edelstes Kleinod von uns nimmermehr verlassen.” By then the Herrnhuters felt confident enough to threaten the Commission that the Moravian Brethren would leave Herrnhut within three years if their affiliation with the Lutheran creed was not recognized. VarMSColl, no. 63, MAB. 48.  E.g., Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, 95–96. Meyer argues that Zinzendorf hoped to realize his Philadelphian ideals within the Lutheran Church (“Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine als Brücke,” 148). See also introduction. 49.  See introduction. 50.  Zinzendorf to an unnamed “Canzley Director,” Dresden, March 3, 1724, R.20.C.21.c.203. 51.  Zinzendorf at a prayer day in Herrnhaag, Jan. 4, 1747, GN, suppl. 10. See also Spangenberg, Leben Zinzendorfs, 408–9. 52.  Zinzendorf at a prayer day in Herrnhaag, Jan. 4, 1747, GN, suppl. 10, quoted by Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 19–21; see also Schrader, “Terminologische und historische Eingrenzungen,” 61. 53. Aalen, Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf, 74n61, 103, 382; Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 13–14; Lehmann, “Absonderung und neue Gemeinschaft,” 490–91. See also Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, 3:242, 253; Posselt, Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 8. Zinzendorf was aware of the difference between the Hallensian concept of ecclesiolae and his: the Hallensians required the pastor to be the head (“elder”) of the ecclesiola (minutes of the Synod at Herrnhaag, session 5, May 17, 1747, R.2.A.23.a.1, pp. 115–16). 54.  “Welche die Libri Symbolici unter dem Nahmen mutuorum Fratrum colloquiorum et consolationem höchlich anpreisen, sich in dem Andencken der Leyden, die in Christo Jesu sind, zu erhalten und auf alle Fälle zuzubereiten.” Memorial of the syndic of the congregation at Herrnhut to royal commissioner von Gersdorf, Herrnhut, Jan. 24, 1732, R.5.A.2.a.27 (text most likely written by Zinzendorf); also in his “Deduction” to the Privy Council, printed in Spangenberg, Apologetische Schlußschrift, 414; Zinzendorf, Theologische Bedencken, 19. The reference is found in part 3, art. 4 (De Evangelio) of the Smalcald Articles. It is, of course, a stretch to read these conversations among brothers and sisters to mean prayer meetings. 55.  “Innova dies nostros sicut a principio,” Comenius, “Brevis Historiola,” p. 46, par. 128; Zinzendorf, “Neueste Historie,” pt. 1, p. 24: “and like their last bishop end his treatise, . . . we also turn to God and pray to Him from our heart: Thou dost not forget us; turn thou unto thee, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.” Comenius did not “end” his treatise with this prayer, as Zinzendorf claims, but appears fairly close to the end. See also Zinzendorf ’s defense of criticism against Herrnhut, May 31, 1728, R.6.A.a.19.1.c (quoted below). 56. Sterik, Mährische Exulanten, 129–40. 57.  Zinzendorf describes the amazement about this wonder as follows: “Surely, one cannot accurately describe what God has done to us throughout the past summer and winter but many a hundred souls have witnessed it. How amazed were we when read Dr. Buddeus’s preface ad Historiam Fratrum Bohemorum and his closing wish that this ordinem [?] in ecclesiam may be

266      notes to pages 200–203 reinstated, and also when we saw among us the very image of the Bohemian and Moravian congregation and the stupendous similarity of the statutes.” Zinzendorf ’s defense of criticism against Herrnhut, May 31, 1728, R.6.A.a.19.1.c. 58.  Memorial of the syndic of the congregation at Herrnhut to royal commissioner von Gersdorf, Herrnhut, Jan. 24, 1732, R.5.A.2.a.27. See also Zinzendorf ’s “Deduction,” to the Privy Council, Jan. 21, 1732, R.5.A.2.a.28, printed in Spangenberg, Apologetische Schlußschrift, 411–23. 59.  Notarial instrument, 1729, R.6.A.a.19.2, also in BS, 1:5; Memorial, Jan. 24, 1732, R.5.A. 2.a.27; “Deduction,” printed in Spangenberg, Apologetische Schlußschrift, 413. 60.  Peace of Osnabrück, art.  5, par. 34; see also introduction; Zinzendorf, Theologische Bedencken, 14. 61.  The Moravian Church to this day lays claim to the historical continuity between the Unity of Brethren and the Moravian Church. For the “official” historical narrative of the Moravian Church, see Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum (Moravian Church) 2016. Even the claim that the statutes of Herrnhut “were found to follow the pattern of the old Unitas Fratrum” is repeated here (p. 12). 62.  With the adoption of the “Ground of the Unity” at the General Synod of 1957, the Moravian Church approved a list of various creeds as having “gained special importance,” including the Confession of the Unity of the Bohemian Brethren of 1535. 63.  Gersdorf ’s report (Görlitz, March 15, 1732), in Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 88. 64.  Peucker, “Selection and Destruction,” 193. 65.  Minutes of the Unity Elders’ Conference, Nov. 7, Dec. 15, 1796, Jan. 4, and Nov. 20, 1797, R.3.P.1796–4, R.3.P.1797–1, R.3.P.1797–4 (also on microfilm at MAB); receipt from I. G. Rothe, R.6.A.a.35.a.1.n. The Unity Elders were the administrators of the worldwide Moravian Church. 66.  Zinzendorf ’s statement containing twelve points for Rothe, attachment to his letter to Watteville, Dresden, Feb. 16, 1727, R.20.C.27.a.33. 67.  Herrnhut diary, Jan. 2, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 68.  “Es wurde ihn den auch mit wenigen bedeutet, wie er mit Recht nicht über sie herrschen und gebiten köne, indem selbige eine Gemeine vor sich selbst wäre, und wie er es vor eine Gnade und Ehre zu schätzen habe, daß er unter ihnen seyn köne.” Herrnhut diary, Jan. 7, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 69.  “Man redete aber im übrigen wie man doch gesonnen sey, alles was in der Kirche zu Bertholsdorff gefallen zu laßen und zu ihm sich zu halten, nur nicht als eine Gerechtigkeit, die ihm zukomme.” Ibid. 70.  These “points against Mr. Rothe” were compiled by Melchior Nitschmann, David Nitsch­ mann, Martin Dober, Dr. Gutbier, and Watteville. Herrnhut diary, Feb. 2, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. 71.  Herrnhut diary, Feb. 10, 1728, R.6.A.b.8.a. “Abbitte-­Brieff von der Herrnhuthischen Gemeine an Hrn. Past. Rothen in Bertholsdorff,” BS, 1:780–82. 72.  The document is not in Rothe’s handwriting. “J. A. Rothes Erklärung seines Sinnes von sich überhaupt und insonderheit wegen der Herrnhutschen Oeconomie und Religions-­Sache” (J. A. Rothe’s Statement on his position in general and especially regarding the organisationial and religious situation in Herrnhut), VarMSColl 47, MAB. A fragment of Zinzendorf ’s undated response to Rothe’s statement, R.20.C.11.53. 73.  The Book of Concord was the doctrinal norm for each Lutheran pastor, who had to take an oath at his ordination to abide by this document. The Book of Concord includes the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds), the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, both the Small and Large Catechism of Martin Luther, and a few other texts. 74.  One may wonder why the diary (i.e., Zinzendorf) valued Rothe’s statement so much. Earlier, Zinzendorf had pushed Rothe to declare he was a Lutheran: “As soon as Mr. Rothe says: ‘I cannot do otherwise,’ we will be the best of friends” (Zinzendorf ’s twelve points for Rothe, attachment to his letter to Watteville, Dresden, Feb. 16, 1727, R.20.C.27.a.33). From

notes to pages 203–208      267 Zinzendorf ’s Philadelphian position he accepted a denominational affiliation; what he did not accept was a pretense of Philadelphianism and lack of clarity. 75. Rothe’s letter to E.  D. von Zinzendorf, Thommendorf, June 1744, printed in BS, 3:887–88. 76.  “Der Gemeine zu Herrnhuth Ansuchen wegen eines eigenen Predigers [10. Sept.] 1732,” BS, 1:60–63. See also Teufel, “Rothe,” 2:4–28. 77.  Herrnhut elders minutes, Jan. 11, 1729, R.6.A.a.25.1.3. This decision was made after weeks of diary entries that were critical of Rothe’s preaching and attitude. The possibility of a Diaconus for Herrnhut was also suggested in a letter from Zinzendorf to the congregation at Herrnhut, Jena, Aug. 13, 1728, R.6.A.a.20.1.d. 78.  Analogia fidei or rule of faith was the ultimate standard of religious belief, meaning in the context of the 1727 statutes “the simple teachings, examples, and rules of Jesus and his apostles.” 79.  Call letter, Dec. 15, 1732, R.5.A.3.2; Teufel, “Rothe,” 13–15. 80.  Gersdorf reported Zinzendorf ’s plan to Dresden. See Körner, Kursächsische Regierung, 25. See also Hark, “Konflikt der kursächsischen Regierung,” 10–11. Steinhofer left the Moravians in 1748. On Steinhofer, see Dietrich Meyer, “Steinhofer, Friedrich Christoph,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th ed. (2000). 81.  Scheffer to A. H. Francke, Görlitz, July 21, 1725, H C 267:6, AFSt. See also Zinzendorf to Scheffer, Dresden, July 7, 1725, R.20.C.11.b.55. 82.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Aug. 17, 1725, R.20.C.29.a.37. 83.  Herrnhut diary, July 13, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1; description of the incident, “Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten,” pp. 56–72. A few days earlier, on July 4, another uproar had happened in front of the house of cloth shearer Schneider on Untermarkt, where Scheffer had conducted a conventicle (“Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten,” p. 28). 84.  Herrnhut diary, Aug. 30, Sept. 19, Oct. 10, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. The text of the statement is printed in Rothe, Unaufhörlicher Gegen-­Stand, 44–46. See also “Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten.” 85.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Aug. 11, 1731, R.20.C.29.b.151. 86.  Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, Apr. 7, 1732, R.20.C.29.b.171. Scheffer also wanted to travel with Zinzendorf to visit the pious court in Lichtenstein. Scheffer to Zinzendorf, Görlitz, July 26, 1732, R.20.C.29.b.175. 87. Wiegner, Spiritual Diary, 42, 48. 88.  See the eulogy and biography by Rothe, Unaufhörlicher Gegen-­Stand. Büchner, “Rothes Görlitzer Parentation.” 89.  See the memoir of her daughter Anna Dorothea Marche, GN 1782, Beil. 1. Martha’s memoir: Schwesternhausarchiv Herrnhut, no. 162.107, p. 61. 90.  “Ich hätte mir bey dieser Reyse fest vorgesetzt ein Etablissement zu suchen und mich von dem Grafen loßzumachen.” Watteville to Heitz, Berthelsdorf, Nov. 15, 1723, R.6.A.a.1.c.5, p. 93. See also Grosse, Studien über Watteville, 39. 91.  Watteville to Heitz, [Dec. 1723], R.6.A.a.1.c.5, pp. 94–95. On Watteville’s relationship with Zinzendorf, see also Grosse, Studien über Watteville, 53–61. Illusimus is probably a copying error for illustrissimus (the most illustrious). Interestingly, illusimus means “we have mocked,” which is exactly what Watteville was doing. With thanks to Olaf Nippe and Dr. Dennis Glew, Moravian University, for their help in understanding the Latin term. 92.  Diary of an unidentified woman, Apr. 21, 1730, R.6.A.b.9.b.1. The visit is also mentioned in Clemens’s memoir in NadB (1836): 243–44. Farewell letter by Spangenberg and Clemens to the Herrnhut congregation, Bautzen, Apr. 28, 1730, BS, 3:646–47. 93. Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 47–48; Teigeler, Zinzendorf als Schüler in Halle, 88. 94.  “Ein Einbruch in eine hallische Domäne.” Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 49.

268      notes to pages 208–210 95.  Zinzendorf ’s diary, Aug. 15, and Sept. 22, 1728, R.20.A.16.a.22, resp. 24. 96.  Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 49–53. 97. Reichel, “Entstehung einer Zinzendorf feindlichen Partei”; Reichel, Spangenberg, 62–81; Meyer, “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut,” 31. 98.  Zinzendorf to J. A. Steinmetz, Sept. 1, 1733, quoted by Schneider, “Zürnende Mutterkinder,” 37. 99.  See, for example, the work of Reformed minister and Philadelphian author Heinrich Horch, Filadelfia, 3–5. On Horch, see Schneider, “Radikaler Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” 407–9. On the Philadelphian origins of Moravian missionary activities, see Aalen, “Kirche und Mission bei Zinzendorf ”; Breul, “Theological Tenets”; Schneider, “Philadelphische Brüder,” 27–28. 100.  Herrnhut diary, Oct. 20, 1727, R.6.A.b.7.1. It is unclear which book was read (“die Ost-­ Indische Relation von der Heyden-­Bekehrung”), nor is it clear why “it could not find approval among the souls.” 101. “Item sollen die ledigen Purschen Stunden haben darin sie etwas in der Medicin Begriefen, in der Geographie, im Schreiben, in Sprachen, was lernen mögten, damit wen die seelige Zeiten wovon gestern geredet war, den sich nahen mögten, sie dergleichen brauchen könten.” Herrnhut diary, Feb. 10–12, 1718, R.6.A.b.8.a. 102.  Zinzendorf to the brethren in Jena, Apr. 1729, R.19.A.a.1.7. 103.  See, for example, Zinzendorf ’s letter to [Johann Geister in Madras], Herrnhut, Apr. 12, 1732, the earliest known exposition of Zinzendorf ’s ideas on mission (see BHZ A.703): “It distresses me to see that the poor heathen are made into sectarians again, that the churches are imposed on them and that they are asked to which Christian religion [denomination] they belong?” 104.  The first prayer days were held on February 10 and April 20, 1728 (Herrnhut diary, R.6.A.b.8.a). They soon became monthly events. With the spread of the Moravians to other places, detailed accounts of the prayer days were composed and shared with other Moravian communities (see, for example, the Reports of the Prayer Days, 1736–1748 in MAB). On the prayer days, see Mettele, Weltbürgertum oder Gottesreich, 145–47; Kröger, “Gemeintage.” 105.  Schrader, “Zores in Zion,” 621–22. For a different explanation of this failure, see Meyer, “Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine als Brücke,” 150. 106.  Propositions Extracted from the Reasons, 8; Petersen, Geistlicher Kampff, 94; Zinzendorf to the congregation, 1730, BS, 3:796–97; Hahn and Reichel, Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüder, 149–61; Peucker, Time of Sifting, 24–25. 107.  Propositions Extracted from the Reasons, 9; Peucker, Time of Sifting, chap. 6. 108. The Herrnhut movement overvleugelde (surpassed) the Philadelphian movement. Lütjeharms, Philadelphian-­oecumenisch streven, 5. See also Vogt, “Philadelphia,” 841–42. 109.  For a similar argument for the royal commission of 1748, see Modrow, “ ‘Wir sind Philadelphische Brüder,’ ” 588. 110.  The report of the royal commissioner, March 15, 1732, in Körner, Kursächsische Regie­ rung, 88. 111.  See prologue.

bibliography

Archives Germany Archives of the Francke Foundations, Halle Unity Archives, Herrnhut Netherlands Utrechts Archief, Utrecht Poland University Library, Wrocław United States Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Winterthur Museum, Delaware

Selected Archival Sources David, Christian. “Beschreibung und zuverlässige Nachricht von Herrnhut.” Three versions exist with slight but relevant variations: 1729 (with marginal comments in Zinzendorf ’s hand), R.6.A.a.22.2, Unity Archives; 1731, R.6.A.a.22.1, Unity Archives; and a printed version from 1735 (see below). Also see Uttendörfer, “Entstehung der ‘Beschreibung,’ ” 220–32. Dober, Martin. “Eine Beschreibung wie ich Endes unterschriebene die Lehre und unsre Praxin gefunden und erfahren habe von 1725 bis auf den heutigen Tag.” 1747. R.6.A.a.10.3.c.1, Unity Archives. Nitschmann, David. “Originale Nachricht von der Erweckung, Ausgang und Ankunfft der fünf Mährischen Kirchen-­Männer.” After 1730. R.6.A.a.6.a, Unity Archives. Schneider, David. “Gründliche Nachricht, wie es in Mähren von 1722 bis iezt 1725 laufendes Jahr, sonderlich in den zweyen Dörffern Zauchtel und Kunewalde ergangen.” 1725. R.6.A.a.6.e, Unity Archives. “Wahre und gewissenhaffte Begebenheiten, welche sich mit dem rechtschaffenen treuen Knechte Gottes M. Melcher Scheffern . . . in Görlitz von etlichen Jahren her zugetragen.” Collection of texts regarding Melchior Scheffer’s proceedings with the City of Görlitz, MS, [1730], Mil. II/143 (online access), University Library, Wrocław. Watteville, Friedrich von. “Kurtze und wahrhafte Relation von dem Werck des Herrn Jesu in B[erthelsdorf], wie solches seinen Anfang genommen und bis hieher unter dem Seegen Gottes geführet worden.” Sept. 5, 1725, H A 114.73-­91, (also H A 138.b.39-­44, incomplete), Archives of the Francke Foundations; transcript by F.  S. Hark, Sept. 1911, R.6.A.a.7.a, Unity Archives.

270      bibliography Zinzendorf, N.  L. von. “Neueste Historie derer Brüder aus Mähren.” 1727. Alternate title: “Chronicka des Volckes Gottes”; includes Zinzendorf ’s translation of Comenius, “Ecclesiae Slavonicae ab ipsis apostolis fundatae  .  .  .” (see below) as part 1, and a history of Herrnhut written by Zinzendorf as part 2, R.6.A.a.2.a, Unity Archives; typescript transcript with introduction by J. Th. Müller, “Die Neueste Historie der Brüder aus Mähren von Nicol. Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorf, 1727; mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen, Registern und 2 Beilagen versehen” (typescript, 1937), R.6.A.a.2.i. The manuscript (pts. 1 and 2) was printed in Basel in 1749: Geschichts-­Erzehlung, verschiedener um des Evangelii willen aus Böhmen und Mähren vertriebener Leuten, der alten und neueren Zeit. Part 2 was printed as “Neueste Nachricht zur Historie der Böhmischen Brüder und von Herrenhuth” in Altes und Neues aus dem Reich Gottes, nos. 2 and 3 (1733): 3–34. Printed Primary Sources Adelung, Johann Christoph. Grammatisch-­kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart. Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1793–1801. Annoni, Hieronymus. Dem rechten Glauben auf der Spur: Eine Bildungsreise durch das Elsaß, die Niederlande, Böhmen und Deutschland. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006. Anton, Paul. Ein recht-­exemplarischer Knecht des Herrn An dem Exempel Des Hoch-­Ehrwürdigen und Hochgelahrten Herrn Herrn August Hermann Francken. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1727. Arndt, Jean. Les Quatre Livres du Vrai Christianisme. Translated by Sam. de Beauval. Amsterdam, 1723. Arnold, Gottfried. Die erste Liebe der Gemeinen Jesu Christi, das ist Wahre Abbildung der ersten Christen. Frankfurt am Main: Zu finden in Gottlieb Friedeburgs Buchhandlung, 1696. ———. Göttliche Liebes-­Funcken aus dem grossen Feuer der Liebe Gottes in Christo Jesu entsprungen. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Samuel Benjamin Walther, 1724. ———. Unparteyische Kirchen-­und Ketzer-­Historie: Vom Anfang des Neuen Testaments biss auff das Jahr Christi 1688. Frankfurt am Main: Thomas Fritsch, 1700. Bakker, Peter. “Twee ontdekkingen der Hernhutters op ’t huis ’s Herendijk bij Ysselstein.” In De doornige roozenkrans gevlogten van Pieter Bakkers schriften, 1–41. Middelburg, 1746. Bengel, Johann Albrecht. Abriß der so genannten Brüdergemeine, in welchem die Lehre und die ganze Sache geprüfet. Stuttgart: Johann Benedict Metzler, 1751. Christ-­Catholisches Singe-­und Bet-­Büchlein, darinnen verschiedentliche von einem hochw. Vicariat zu Breßlau ehedessen approbirte schöne Gesänge und Seuffzer zu befinden. Nebst einem Anhange anderer erbaulichen Lieder. 1727. Comenius, Johann Amos. Church Constitution of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren. Translated and edited by Benjamin Seifferth. London: W. Mallalieu, 1866. ———. “Eccllesiae [sic] Slavonicae ab ipsis apostolis fundatae, ab Hieronymo, Cyrillo, Methodio propagatae, Bohema in gente potissimum radicatae, et in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum fastigiatae, brevis historiola.” In Comenius, Historia Fratrum Bohemorum. [= “Brevis Historiola.”] ———. Das einige Nothwendige, nemlich Wissen, was dem Menschen im Leben, im Tode, und nach dem Tode nothwendig sey. Leipzig: Samuel Benjamin Walther, 1725. ———. “Geschichtserzehlung verschiedener um des Evangelii willen aus Böhmen und Mähren vertriebener Leute der alten und neueren Zeit, ins Deutsche übertragen von Nikolaus Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorf.” In Zwanzig Jahre Comeniusforschung in Bochum, edited by Klaus Schaller, 377–96. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag Richarz, 1990. ———. Historia Fratrum Bohemorum, eorum ordo et disciplina ecclesiastica, ad ecclesiae recte constituendae exemplar, cum ecclesiae Bohem., ad Anglicanam paraenesi: Accedit eiusdem

bibliography      271 auctoris Panegersia, sive Excitatorium Universale. Edited by Johann Franz Buddeus. Halle: Orphanotrophius, 1702. ———. “Ratio disciplinae ordinisque ecclesiastici in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum.” In Comenius, Historia Fratrum Bohemorum. Cranz, David. Alte und neue Brüder-­Historie oder kurz gefaßte Geschichte der Evangelischen Brüder-­Unität. Barby: Christian Friedrich Laux, 1772. ———. Historie der Böhmischen Emigration: Eine historisch-­kritische Edition. Edited by Matthias Noller. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014. ———. Kurze, zuverlässige Nachricht von der, unter dem Namen der Böhmisch-­Mährischen Brüder bekanten, Kirche Unitas Fratrum Herkommen, Lehr-­Begrif, äussern und innern Kirchen-­Verfassung und Gebräuchen. N.p., 1757. David, Christian. “An die Gemeinde Christi in Herrenhut.” Geistliche Fama 2 (1735): 25–65. ———. Beschreibung und zuverläßige Nachricht von Herrnhut in der Ober-­Lausitz, wie es erbauet worden, und welcher Gestalt nach Lutheri Sinn und Meinung eine recht Christliche Gemeine sich daselbst gesammlet und eingerichtet hat. Leipzig: Samuel Benjamin Walther, 1735. ———. Evangelische Betrachtungen, uber die Acht Seligkeiten, Matth. V, vers 3–10. Berlin: 1752. [Copy at UA: R.21.A.24.a.7.] ———. Korte og Skri[f]tmeßige Betragtninger, Over de Otte Saligheder af Matt. 5, 3–12, Udi et Sende-­brev Til den Apostoliske Meenighed udi Kiøbenhavn. Fremlagde og forestillide af en Christi Discipel. Flensborg: Trykt paa gode Vennors Bekostning, 1733. Dietmann, Karl Gottlob. Die Gesamte der Ungeänderten Augsb. Confeßion Zugethane Priesterschaft in Dem Marggrafthum Oberlausitz. Lauban: 1777. Edelmann, Johann Christian. Selbstbiographie, geschrieben 1752. Edited by Carl Rudolph Wilhelm Klose. Berlin: Karl Wiegandt, 1849. Fliegel, John, and Vernon H. Nelson, eds. Christian David, Servant of the Lord: Being a Translation of the Memoir of Christian David as Written by Zinzendorf and Translations of Selected Letters and Reports Written by Christian David or Pertaining to Him. Bethlehem: Moravian Archives, 1962. Francke, August Hermann. Nicodemus oder Tractätlein von der Menschen-­Furcht. .  .  . Halle: Waisenhaus, 1702. ———. Die nöthige Prüfung sein selbst vor dem Gebrauch des Heiligen Abendmahls . . . Dabey ein Anhang von der unterschiedenen Beschaffenheit der würdigen Communicanten. .  .  . Halle: Waisenhaus, 1720. ———. Schriftmäßige Vortheile, deren man sich in der Ubung des wahren thätigen Christenthums und in dem von Gott darinnen anbefohlnen Wachsthum unter göttlichem Segen mit Nutzen bedienen kan. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1727. ———. Des seeligen August Hermann Franckens Gedancken von der Einfalt in einem Brieff an einige auswärtige Freunde, zum andern mahl auffgelegt. [Löbau?], 1727. Frisius, Petrus. Widerlegung der Schein-­Gründe mit welchen der Jesuit und Missionarius Regent neulichst behaupten wollen, dass die Lutheraner aus ihren Principiis die Schefferianer und Zinzendorffianer ihres Irrthums halben nicht überzeugen könten. Hamburg, 1729. [Copy at MAB: Malin 776 (3).] Das Gesang-­Buch der Gemeine in Herrn-­Huth. Herrnhut: Zu finden im Waysen-­Hause, 1735–48. [= Herrnhuter Gesangbuch.] Gruber, Eberhard Ludwig. J.J.J. Jesus-­Lieder für seine Glieder, sonderlich für seine Kleine und Reine, die mehr im Wesen haben als im Scheine. N.p., 1720–25. Ein guter Muth, als das tägliche Wohl-­Leben der Creutz-­Gemeine Christi zu Herrnshuth, im Jahr 1731, durch die Erinnerung ewiger Wahrheiten, alle Morgen neu. N.p., [1731]. [Copy at UA.] Guyon, Jeanne Marie Bouvier de La Motte. La vie de Madame J.M.B. de La Mothe Guion. Cologne: Jean de la Pierre, 1720.

272      bibliography [Heitz, J. G.], and N. L. von Zinzendorf. Die letzten Stunden Unsers Herrn und Heylandes auf dieser Erden, die Einsetzung des H. Nachtmahls, Sein würckliches Leiden und Tod in sich begreiffend. Wittenberg: Georg Marc Knoch, 1722. Herrnschmidt, Johann Daniel. Der fromme Wirth und christliche Gasthof. Frankfurt am Main: Jung, 1713. Horch, Heinrich. Filadelfia, das ist Bruder-­Liebe unter den rechtschaffenen Gläubigen in denen so genanten Lutherischen und Reformierten Gemeinen, ungeachtet der Streitfragen, welche dieselbe untereinander haben. Marburg: Joh. Kürßner, 1712. Der ietzige Betrübte Zustand Der Stadt Görlitz, Benebst der, Durch Tit. Herrn M. Melchior Schäffern angelegten Fabriquen oder Societät. N.p., 1730. [Copy at UL Wrocław.] Ittig, Thomas. De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum. Leipzig: Fridericus Lankisius, 1707. Kirchengesänge: Darinne die Hauptartickel des Christlichen Glaubens kurtz verfasset und ausgelegt sind. itzt abermals vom newen durchsehen und gemehret. N.p., 1606. Kirchengesänge darinnen die Hauptarticul des Chddddristlichen glaubens kurtz verfaßet und ausgeleget sind jetzt abermahls von newem durchsehen und gemehret. Lissa, 1639. Kirchen-­Haus-­und Hertzens-­Musica: oder der Heiligen Gottes auff Erden Erlustigungs-­Kunst, in Singen und Gott loben, bestehend, alt und new. In drey Theil getheilet. Als 1. Dess Königlichen Propheten Davidis, und der alten Israelitischen Kirchen, Psalmen. 2. M. Johannis Hussi, und seiner getrewen Nachfolger, der Böhmischen Brüder, Geistliche Gesänge. 3. D. Martini Lutheri, und seiner trewen Gehülffen, Geistreiche Lieder. Itzo frommen Hertzen zu Dienst und Erbawung zusammen gedruckt. Amsterdam: Johann Paskowsky and Johann Theophil Kopydlansky, 1661. Lead, Jane. Geistliche Schrifften. Amsterdam: Wettstein, 1719. ———. Ursachen und Gründe welche hauptsächlich Anlaß gegeben, die Philadelphische Societät aufzurichten und zu beförderen. Amsterdam: 1698. [Contains translations of Lee, State of the Philadelphian Society and Propositions Extracted from the Reasons.] Lee, Francis. The State of the Philadelphian Society: The Grounds of Their Proceedings Consider’d, in Answer to a Letter from Philalethes, upon Occasion of the Theosophical Transactions etc., to a Member of That Society. London: 1697. Liebisch, Martin, and David Schneider. “Erzählung der mährischen Exulanten in Herrnhut von ihrer Herkunft.” Edited by J. Th. Müller. ZBG 6 (1912): 186–95. Luther, Martin. Der Dritte Teil aller Deutschen Bücher und Schrifften des theuren seeligen Mannes Gottes, Doctor Martini Lutheri, . . . Aus denen Wittenbergischen, Jehnisch, und Eißlebischen Tomis zusammen getragen. Altenburg in Meissen: Fürstlich Sächsische Offizin, 1661. Marche, Christian Gottlieb. Zeugniß der Wahrheit, der Gemeinde zu Herrnhut, . . . wider Hn. P. Carl Regent, S.I. Missionarii, Nachricht von einer in Lausitz und Schlesien einreissen sollenden Secte. . . . Herrnhut: Zu finden im Waysen-­Hause, 1730. Meusel, Johannes Georgius. Lexikon der vom Jahr 1750 bis 1800 verstorbenen Teutschen. 15 vols. Leipzig, 1802–16. Moráwek, Carl Gottlob. Geschichte der böhmisch-­evangelischen Exulantengemeinde in Zittau: Sowie ihrer Prediger und Jugendlehrer von 1621–1847 treu nach böhmischen und deutschen Quellen bearbeitet. Zittau, 1847. Müller, Heinrich. Himmlischer Liebes-­Kuß oder Ubung deß wahren Christenthumbs, fliessend auß der Erfahrung Göttlicher Liebe. Frankfurt, 1659. Neisser, George. “A List of the Bohemian and Moravian Emigrants to Saxony, Collected from Various Sources in Print and Manuscript, Begun and Completed at New York from June 2 to July 20, 1772.” Translated and edited by Albert G. Rau. TMHS 9, no. 1/2 (1911): 37–93. Osterwald, Jean-­Frédéric. Treugemeinte Warnung vor der Unreinigkeit, darinne nicht nur aller dahin gehörigen Laster mit sich führende Schande, und daraus entstehender Schade, aus der Natur so wohl als aus der Heil. Schrift vorgestellet, sondern auch, wie solche zu vermeiden, und

bibliography      273 die edle Tugend der Keuschheit zu erlangen, kräftige Mittel angewiesen werden. Hamburg: Schiller, 1714. Petermann, Johann Erasmus. Als der unerschrockene Zeuge der Evangelischen Wahrheit, Herr M. Melchior Scheffer unter dem guten Seegen Gottes in Görlitz den 28. Octobr. 1730. seinen XLIXsten Geburths-­Tag erlebte. “Philadelphia,” 1730. Petersen, Johanna Eleonora. Geistlicher Kampff der Erstgebohrnen zu siegreicher Erstreitung der Crone der Erstgeburt. N.p., 1717. Pfaff, Christian Matthäus. Kurtzer Abriss vom wahren Christenthum. Tübingen: Reiss, 1720. Pius, Christian [pseud.]. Ausführliche und wahrhafft Beschreibung der grausamen Zerstöhrung der . . . Sechs-­Stadt Görlitz in Ober-­Lausitz. Lauban: Nicolaus Schill, n.d. Propositions Extracted from the Reasons for the Foundation and Promotion of a Philadelphian Society. London: 1697. Ramsay, Chevalier. Histoire de la vie de messr. François de Salignac de la Motte-­Fenelon, archeveque duc de Cambray. The Hague: Vaillant & N. Prevost, 1723. Regent, Carl. Unpartheyische Nachricht von der in Laußnitz überhandnehmenden und hieraus in die benachbarte Länder, insonderheit in Schlesien einreissenden neuen Sect der so genannten Schefferianer und Zinzendorffianer. . . . Breslau: Academ. Buchdr. Soc. Jesu, 1729. Reise der Heuchler auf den Grentzen des wüsten und glücklichen Arabiens, nach dem Himmel, unter Anführung dreyer Brüder, nemlich des Strengen, Strengerern und Strengsten Heuchlers. Jena: Johann Friederich Ritter, 1724. Reitz, Johann Heinrich. Das Neue Testament Unsers Herren Jesu Christi: Auffs neue ausm Grund verteutscht und mit Anziehung der verschiedenen Lesungen und vieler übereinstimmenden Schrifft-­Oerter versehen. Offenbach am Mayn: Bonaventura de Launoy, 1703. Rothe, Johann Andreas. “Erklärung über gewisse Puncte an einen guten Freund in Schlesien.” In Zinzendorf, Freiwillige Nachlese, 1496–98. ———. Der Von Jesu Christo Ergriffnen Seelen Unaufhörlicher Gegen-­Stand: Gegen Die Verde­ ckung Des Blutes Christi, in Ihrem Und Andrer Hertzen Stellte, Aus Der Historie Des Hertzens Und Der Amts-­Führung Des .  .  . Hn. M. Melchior Schäffers. Leipzig: Marchesche Buchhandlung, 1738. [Sachsen-­Eisenach, Johann Wilhelm von]. Christfürstliche Andachten und Betrachtungen etlicher biblischen Sprüche. Eisenach, 1709. Sammlung geistlicher und lieblicher Lieder, eine grosse Anzahl der kern-­vollesten alten, und erwecklichsten neuen Gesänge enthaltend. Leipzig: August Martini, 1725. [= Berthelsdorf hymnbook.] Scheffer, Melchior. Dissertatio Academica de Phantasia Ejusque Effectibus cum Applicatione ad Fanaticos. Leipzig: Johann Andreas Zschau, 1706. Schubert, Heinrich. Die Vereinigung einer gläubigen Seele mit Christo, . . . in einer daselbst am 7. Sept. 1722 gehaltenen Trau-­Rede, Aus dem Hohen-­Liede Sal. II, 16 betrachtet. Halle: gedruckt im Waysen-­Hause, 1730. [Schuster, Carl Gottfried]. Versuch eines oberlausitzischen Kirchenrechts für Predigtamts-­ Kandidaten und angehenden Landgeistliche. Frankfurt, 1796. [Seidel, Christoph Matthias]. Lutherus Redivivus oder des fürnehmsten Lehrers der Augspurgischen Confession, Herrn D. Martin Luthers Theologi zu Wittenberg hinterlassene Schrifftliche Erklärungen. Halle: Christoph Salfeld, 1697. Selden, John. De Diis Syriis Syntagmata. London, 1617. Siebenkees, J. C. Materialien zur Nürnbergischen Geschichte. [Nüremberg, 1792.] Spangenberg, August Gottlieb. Apologetische Schlußschrift: Worin über tausend Beschuldigungen gegen die Brüder-­Gemeinen und ihren zeitherigen Ordinativen nach der Wahrheit beantwortet werden. Leipzig, 1752. Reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1964. ———. Leben des Herrn Nicolaus Ludwig Grafen und Herrn von Zinzendorf und Pottendorf. Barby, 1772–75.

274      bibliography Spener, Philipp Jacob. Die Evangelische Glaubens-­Lehre. Frankfurt am Main, 1717. ———. Pia Desideria, oder Hertzliches Verlangen nach Gottgefälliger Besserung der wahren Evangelischen Kirchen. Frankfurt am Main: Johann David Zunner, 1676. ———. Sprüche Heiliger Schrift, welche von Welt-­Leuten mehrmahl zur Hegung der Sicherheit und wider die so Nothwendigkeit als Möglichkeit des wahren innerlichen und thätigen Christenthums mißbraucht zu werden pflegen. Frankfurt am Main, 1693. Summarischer Unterricht in Anno 1753 für reisende Brüder zu einer etwa erforderlichen Informatione in Facto. London, 1755. Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 18, Journal and Diaries I (1735–1738). Edited by W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988. Wiegner, Christopher. The Spiritual Diary of Christopher Wiegner. Pennsburg, PA: Society of Descendants of the Schwenkfeldian Exiles, 1978. Zedler, Johann Heinrich. Grosses vollständiges Universal-­Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste. Leipzig: J. H. Zedler, 1731–54. Zinzendorf, N. L. von. Biblia, die gantze Göttliche Heilige Schrifft Altes und Neues Testaments, nach der teutschen Ubersetzung D. Martin Luthers. Ebersdorf: Abraham Gottlieb Ludewig, 1727. [= Ebersdorf Bible.] ———. “Ein Extract aus der Anno 1743 entworfenen Special-­Historie von einer in die letzte Kirchen-­Zeit fallenden Kleinen Gnaden-­Oeconomie.” In Περι Εαυτου, das ist Naturelle Reflexiones über allerhand Materien, nach der Art, wie er bey sich selbst zu denken gewohnt ist, 3–32. N.p., 1748. ———. Die gegenwärtige Gestalt des Creutz-­Reichs Jesu in seiner Unschuld. . . . Frankfurt: Johann Christoph Stöhr, 1745. ———. “Die Geschichte der verbundenen vier Brüder.” Edited by J. Th. Müller. ZBG 6, no. 1 (1912): 71–108. ———. Gewisser Grund Christlicher Lehre, nach Anleitung des einfältigen Catechismi seel. Herrn D. Luthers, auf die untrüglichen Worte H. Schrifft, ohne menschlichen Zusatz und Griffe der falsch-­berühmten Kunst, zu allgemeinem Gebrauch gestellet, mit einer Vorrede M. Melchior Scheffers, Past. in Görlitz zur H. Dreyeinigkeit. Leipzig: Samuel Benjamin Walther, 1725. ———. “Historische Nachricht von meiner Führung.” Edited by J. Th. Müller. ZBG 5 (1911): 101–16. ———. “Historischer Begriff von der Beschaffenheit der Brüder aus Mähren und Böhmen, welche sich mit Beybehaltung ihrer innerlichen Verfassung und guten Zucht zu der Evangelischen Liturgie halten.” Edited by J. Th. Müller. ZBG 6, no. 1 (1912): 108–18. ———. Kleine Schrifften, gesammlet in verschiedenen Nachlesen bey den bisherigen gelehrten und erbaulichen Monaths-­Schrifften, nebst einigen andern erbaulichen Blättern. Frankfurt am Main: 1740. [= Freiwillige Nachlese.] ———. “Kurze Relation von Herrnhut und Bertholsdorff seith der Abreise des Herrn Heitz.” Edited by J. Th. Müller. ZBG 6, no. 1 (1912): 45–68. ———. “Kurze und authentique Erzehlung von dem ersten Ursprung und Wachsthum des Ortes Herrnhut, welcher auf einer Höhe im Walde bey Bertholsdorff angelegt ist Ao 1722, fortgesetzt bis in den Juli 2. 1726t. Jahrs.” Edited by J. Th. Müller. ZBG 5, no. 1 (1911): 94–100. ———. Lautere Milch der Lehre von Jesu Christo, das ist Gar einfältige und nach dem Begriff junger und kleiner Kinder eingerichtete Frage-­Stücke. . . . Löbau: Ehlerdt Henning Reimers, 1723. [Copy at UA.] ———. “Memoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclesiastique des vingt et quatre derniers and principalement en ce qui concerne le celebre bourg de Herrnhout.” Edited by J. Th. Müller. Pts. 1, 2, and 3. ZBG 6, no. 2 (1912): 212–17; 7, nos. 1 and 2 (1913): 114–21, 171–215. ———. “Neueste Nachricht zur Historie der Böhmischen Brüder und von Herrenhuth.” Altes und Neues aus dem Reich Gottes, no. 2 (1733): 3–40.

bibliography      275 ———. “Rest der neuesten Nachricht zur Historie der Böhmischen Brüder und von Herrnhut.” Altes und Neues aus dem Reich Gottes, no. 3 (1733): 3–34. ———. Der Teutsche Socrates, das ist: Aufrichtige Anzeige verschiedener nicht so wohl unbekannter als vielmehr in abfall gerathener Haupt-­Wahrheiten, in den Jahren 1725 und 1726 anfänglich in der Königlichen Residents-­Stadt Dreßden, hernach aber dem gesamten lieben Vaterland teutscher Nation zu einer guten Nachricht nach und nach ausgefertiget. Leipzig: Samuel Benjamin Walther, 1732. ———. Theologische und dahin einschlagende Bedencken welche Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorff . . . seit 20 Jahren entworfen. Büdingen: Johann Christoph Stöhr, 1742. Secondary Sources Aalen, Leiv. “Kirche und Mission bei Zinzendorf: Aus den Geburtswehen der evangelischen Weltmission.” Lutherische Rundschau (1955): 267–81. ———. Die Theologie des jungen Zinzendorf. Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1966. Ahlberger, Christer, and Per von Wachenfeldt, eds. Moravian Memoirs: Pillars of an Invisible Church. Skellefteå: Artos & Norma, 2017. Albrecht, Ruth. “Frauen.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:522–55. ———. Johanna Eleonora Petersen: Theologische Schriftstellerin des frühen Pietismus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Albrecht, Ruth, Ulrike Gleixner, Corinna Kirschstein, Eva Kormann, and Pia Schmid, eds. Pietismus und Adel: Genderhistorische Analysen. Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen, 2018. Albrecht-­Birkner, Veronika. “ ‘Reformation des Lebens’ und ‘Pietismus’—ein historiogra­ fischer Problemaufriss.” PuN 41 (2015): 126–53. Atwood, Craig. Community of the Cross: Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2004. ———. “Early Modern Moravianism.” In Lehner, Muller, and Roeber, Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 450–63. ———. “Separatism, Ecumenism, and Pacifism: The Bohemian and Moravian Brethren in the Confessional Age.” In Van Lieburg, Confessionalism and Pietism, 71–90. ———. The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2009. Bahlcke, Joachim, ed. Geschichte der Oberlausitz: Herrschaft, Gesellschaft und Kultur vom Mittelalter bis zum Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2004. Bahlcke, Joachim, and Rainer Bendel, eds. Migration und kirchliche Praxis: Das religiöse Leben frühneuzeitlicher Glaubensflüchtlinge in alltagsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Cologne: Böhlau, 2008. Barnes, Timothy D. “ ‘Fälschung’ and ‘Forgery.’ ” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 44, no. 4 (1995): 497–500. Bauer, Bruno. Einfluss des englischen Quäkerthums auf die deutsche Cultur und auf das englisch-­ russische Project einer Weltkirche. Berlin: Eugen Grosser, 1878. Bauer, Holger. Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und das lutherische Bekenntnis: Zinzendorf und die Augsburger Konfession von 1530. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2004. Bechler, Theodor. Ortsgeschichte von Herrnhut, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der älteren Zeit. Herrnhut: Missionsbuchhandlung, 1922. Becker, Bernhard. Zinzendorf und sein Christentum im Verhältnis zum kirchlichen und religiösen Leben seiner Zeit: Geschichtliche Studien. Leipzig: Friedrich Jansa, 1900. Becker-­Cantarino, Barbara. “Zur Bedeutung der Oeconomia im Engagement adliger Frauen im Pietismus: Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf.” In Albrecht et al., Pietismus und Adel, 155–77.

276      bibliography Bernet, Claus. “Expectations of Philadelphia and the Heavenly Jerusalem in German Pietism.” In Shantz, Brill Companion to German Pietism, 139–67. ———. Gebaute Apokalypse: Die Utopie es Himmlischen Jersualem in der Frühen Neuzeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2007. Bernheim, Ernst. Lehrbuch der historischen Methode. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1889. Berthold, Benjamin. “Kritik an der lutherischen Beichtpraxis in Gottfried Arnolds Unparteiischer Kirchen-­und Ketzerhistorie (1699/1700) am Beispiel von Peter Moritz aus Halle.” PuN 36 (2010): 11–48. Bettermann, Wilhelm. “Alte Sitten und Bräuche in der Brüdergemeine.” Pts. 1 and 2. Jahrbuch der Brüdergemeine (1935/36): 4–13; (1937/38): 11–16. ———. “Grundsätzliches zum Gottesdienst in der Brüdergemeine.” Monatschrift für Gottes­ dienst und Kirchliche Kunst 34 (1929): 33–37, 67–71. Beyreuther, Erich. “Die Bedeutung der tschechischen Exulantengemeinde Na kopečku im Nachbarort Herrnhuts 1724–1732.” Communio Viatorum 2 (1959): 163–72. ———. Der junge Zinzendorf. Marburg an der Lahn: Francke-­Buchhandlung, 1957. ———. Zinzendorf und die sich allhier zusammen finden. Marburg an der Lahn: Francke Buchhandlung, 1959. Blanckmeister, Franz. “Zinzendorf in Dresden.” Dresdner Geschichtsblätter 7 (1919): 206–14. Blaschke, Karlheinz. Afterword to Die Oberlausitz: Eine Ortsbestimmung, by Rudolf Hartmetz, 273–311. Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 2001. Bouman-­Komen, Truus. Bruderliebe und Feindeshaß: Eine Untersuchung von frühen Zinzendorftexten (1713–1727) in ihrem kirchengeschichtlichen Kontext. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2009. Bøytler, Jørgen. “Zinzendorf und Dänemark: Zu Zinzendorfs direktem und indirektem Einfluss in Dänemark.” In Meyer, Peucker, and Langerfeld, Graf ohne Grenzen, 73–81. Brecht, Martin. “August Hermann Francke und der Hallische Pietismus.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 2:439–539. ———. “Pfarrer und Theologen.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:211–26. ———. “Philipp Jakob Spener, sein Programm und dessen Auswirkungen.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 1:278–389. Brecht, Martin, Klaus Deppermann, Ulrich Gäbler, and Hartmut Lehmann, eds. Geschichte des Pietismus. Vol. 1, Der Pietismus vom siebzehnten bis zum frühen achtzehnten Jahrhundert. Edited by Martin Brecht and Klaus Deppermann. Vol. 2, Der Pietismus im achtzehnten Jahrhunder. Edited by Martin Brecht. Vol. 3, Der Pietismus im neunzehnten und zwanzigsten Jahrhundert. Edited by Ulrich Gäbler. Vol. 4, Glaubenswelt und Lebenswelten. Edited by Hartmut Lehmann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993–2004. Brecht, Martin, and Paul Peucker, eds. Neue Aspekte der Zinzendorf-­Forschung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Breul, Wolfgang. “Ehe und Sexualität im radikalen Pietismus.” In Breul, Meier, and Vogel, Der radikale Pietismus, 403–18. ———. “Marriage and Marriage-­Criticism in Pietism: Philipp Jakob Spener, Gottfried Arnold, and Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf.” In Strom, Pietism and Community, 37–53. ———, ed. Pietismus Handbuch. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. ———. “Theological Tenets and Motives of Mission: August Hermann Francke, Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf.” In Migration and Religion: Christian Transatlantic Missions, Islamic Migration to Germany, edited by Barbara Becker-­Cantarino, 41–60. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2012. Breul, Wolfgang, Marcus Meier, and Lothar Vogel, eds. Der radikale Pietismus: Perspektiven der Forschung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Breul, Wolfgang, and Jan Carsten Schnurr, eds. Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.

bibliography      277 Breul, Wolfgang, and Christian Soboth, eds. “Der Herr wird seine Herrlichkeit an uns offenbahren.” Liebe, Ehe und Sexualität im Pietismus. Halle: Hallesche Stiftungen, 2011. Brückner, Shirley. “Die Providenz im Zettelkasten: Divinatorische Lospraktiken in der pietistischen Frömmigkeit.” In Breul and Schnurr, Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung, 351–66. Büchner, Arno. “Johann Andreas Rothes Görlitzer Parentation Für Melchior Schäffer, 1738.” Jahrbuch für Schlesische Kirchengeschichte, n.s., 59 (1980): 100–107. Bunners, Christian. “Gesangbuch.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:121–42. ———. “Musik.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:428–55. Burkholder, Jared. “ ‘As on the Day of Pentecost’: Revivalism, John Greenfield, and the Memory of August 13, 1727.” JMH 19, no. 2 (2019): 182–210. Busch, Gudrun, and Wolfgang Miersemann, eds. Geist-­reicher Gesang: Halle und das pietistische Lied. Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen, 1997. Carstensen, Ulrike. Stadtplanung im Pietismus: Herrnhaag in der Wetterau und die frühe Architektur der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2009. Church Order of the Unitas Fratrum (Moravian Church) 2016. Christiansfeld: Unitas Fratrum, 2017. Crews, C. Daniel. Faith, Love, Hope: A History of the Unitas Fratrum. Winston-­Salem: Moravian Archives, 2008. Cröger, E. W. Geschichte der erneuerten Brüderkirche. 3 vols. Gnadau: Unitätsbuchhandlung, 1852–54. Čyževśkyj, D. “Der Kreis A. H. Franckes in Halle und seine slavistischen Studien: Ein vergessenes Kapitel aus der Geschichte der slavischen Philologie.” Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 16, no. 1/2 (1939): 16–68, 153–57. Daniel, Thilo. “Schwestern unter Brüdern: Drei Lebensläufe aus dem Umfeld Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorfs.” In Breul, Meier, and Vogel, Der radikale Pietismus, 159–70. ———. “Sokrates und Nikodemus.” In Soboth and Sträter, “Aus Gottes Wort und eigener Erfahrung gezeiget,” 459–71. ———. “Verbundene Brüder: Schweizer Reformierte im lutherischen Kursachsen zur Gründungszeit Herrnhuts.” In Gegen den Strom: Der radikale Pietismus im schweizerischen und internationalen Beziehungsfeld, edited by Jürgen Seidel, 196–223. Zürich: dreamis Verlag, 2011. ———. “Von der Heilung einer ‘gottverlobten Seele’: Gesundheit und Krankheit in der Anschauung des jungen Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und in seinem Umfeld.” In Sträter, Alter Adam und Neue Kreatu, 809–20. ———. “ ‘Weil derer allhier immer mehr werden’: Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und der Pietismus in Dresden.” In Brecht and Peucker, Neue Aspekte Der Zinzendorf-­Forschung, 37–63. ———. Zinzendorfs Unionspläne 1719–1723: Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorfs theologische Entwicklung bis zur Gründung Herrnhuts. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2004. ———. “Zum Dreßdnischen Socrates: Bemerkungen zu Zinzendorfs Dresdener Wochenschrift.” UnFr, no. 41 (1997): 53–74. Dannell, J. F. Kirchengeschichte der Stadt Salzwedel. Halle: Schwetschke, 1842. Dienst, Karl. “Rothe, Johann Andreas.” In Biographisch-­Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Bautz and Traugott Bautz, 8:756–58. Herzberg: Traugott Bautz, 1994. Doehler, Richard. Geschichte des Dorfes Leuba in der Königlich Sächsischen Oberlausitz. Zittau: Arthur Graun, 1907. Donnert, Erich, ed. In Europa in der Frühen Neuzeit: Festschrift für Günter Mühlpfordt. 7 vols. Cologne: Böhlau, 1997–2008.

278      bibliography Dorfner, Thomas. “Von ‘Bösen Sektierern’ zu ‘Fleissigen Fabrikanten’: Zum Wahrnehmungswandel der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine im Kontext kameralistischer Peuplierungspolitik (ca. 1750–1800).” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 45 (2018): 283–313. Dose, Kai. “A Note on John Wesley’s Visit to Herrnhut in 1738.” Wesley and Methodist Studies 7 (2015): 117–19. Drese, Claudia. “Der Berliner Beichtstuhlstreit oder Philipp Jakob Spener zwischen allen Stühlen?” PuN 31 (2005): 60–97. Ducreux, Marie-­Elisabeth. “Exil et conversion: Les trajectoires de vie d’émigrants tchèques à Berlin au XVIIIe siècle.” Annales 54, no. 4 (1999): 915–44. ———. “Reading unto Death: Books and Readers in Eighteenth-­Century Bohemia.” In The Culture of Print: Power and the Uses of Print in Early Modern Europe, edited by Roger Chartier, Andrew F. G. Bourke, and Lydia G. Cochrane, 191–230. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Eberhard, Winfried. “Bohemia, Moravia and Austria.” In The Early Reformation in Europe, edited by Andrew Pettegree, 23–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Ehrman, Bart D. Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Eller, David B. “The Recovery of the Love Feast in German Pietism.” In Van Lieburg, Confessionalism and Pietism, 11–30. Enenkel, Karl A. E., and Christine Göttler. Solitudo: Spaces, Places, and Times of Solitude in Late Medieval and Early Modern Cultures. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Erbe, Hans-­Walter. Zinzendorf und der fromme hohe Adel seiner Zeit. Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolge Eger & Sievers, 1928. Faull, Katherine M. “Anna Caritas Nitschmann.” In Bruch, Pietismus Handbuch, 197–202. ———. Speaking to Body and Soul: Instructions for the Moravian Choir Helpers, 1785–1786. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2017. Fischer, Otto. Evangelisches Pfarrerbuch für die Mark Brandenburg seit der Reformation. 2 vols. in 3. Berlin: Mittler, 1941. Fix, Andrew C. Prophecy and Reason: The Collegiants in the Early Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Franke, R. “Geschichte der evangelischen Privatbeichte in Sachsen.” Beiträge zur sächsischen Kirchengeschichte 19 (1905): 41–142. Geiger, Erika. “Zinzendorfs Stellung zum Halleschen Bußkampf und zum Bekehrungserlebnis.” UnFr, no. 49/50 (2002): 13–22. Geiger, Gottfried. “Gewisser Grund 1725.” In Meyer, Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, 39–268. ———. “Lautere Milch 1723.” In Meyer, Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, 1–38. ———. “Die Publikationsvorhaben des Vierbrüderbundes in Zinzendorfs ersten Jahren als Standesherr von Berthelsdorf-­Herrnhut.” In “Alles Ist Euer, Ihr Aber Seid Christ”: Festschrift für Dietrich Meyer, edited by Rudolf Mohr, 839–56. Cologne: Rheinland Verlag, 2000. ———. “Zinzendorfs Katechismus ‘Gewisser Grund’ (1725) als seine ‘Theologie’ in der Frühzeit Herrnhuts.” PuN 25 (1999): 43–82. Geller, Fritz. Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in den Herrnhuter Brüdergemeinen. Herrnhut: Gustav Winter, 1929. Gestrich, Andreas. “Ehe, Familie, Kinder im Pietismus: Der ‘gezähmte Teufel.’ ” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:498–521. ———. “Pietistisches Weltverständnis und Handeln in der Welt.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:556–83. Gleixner, Ulrike. “Lutherischer Pietismus, Geschlechterordnung und Subjektivität.” In Breul and Soboth, “Der Herr wird seine Herrlichkeit,” 133–43. ———. “Pietism.” In Rublack, Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, 329–49.

bibliography      279 ———. Pietismus und Bürgertum: Eine historische Anthropologie der Frömmigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. [Glitsch, Alexander]. “Friedrich Kühnel.” Der Brüder-­Bote 16 (1878): 177–85. Goebel, Max. Geschichte des christlichen Lebens in der rheinisch-­westphälischen evangelischen Kirche. Vol. 3, Die niederrheinische reformirte Kirche und der Separatismus in Wittgenstein und am Niederrhein im achtzehnten Jahrhundert. Koblenz: Karl Bädeker, 1860. Gordon, Scott Paul. “Glad Passivity: Mary Penry of Lititz and the Making of Moravian Women.” JMH 13, no. 1 (2013): 1–26. Grosse, Johannes. Studien über Friedrich von Watteville: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Herrnhutertums. Halle: Heinrich John, 1914. Gurlitt, Cornelius. Beschreibende Darstellung der älteren Bau-­und Kunstdenkmäler des Königreichs Sachsen. Vol. 34, Amtshauptmannschaft Löbau. Dresden: Meinhold, 1910. Haberkern, Phillip. “The Bohemian Reformation and ‘The’ Reformation: Hussites and Protestants in Early Modern Europe.” In Van Dussen and Soukup, Companion to the Hussites, 403–38. ———. “The Lands of the Bohemian Crown: Conflict, Coexistence, and the Quest for the True Church.” In A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, edited by Howard Louthan and Graeme Murdock, 11–39. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Hahn, Hans-­Christoph, and Hellmut Reichel, eds. Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüder: Quellen zur Geschichte der Brüder-­Unität von 1722 bis 1760. Hamburg: Wittig, 1977. Halama, Ota. “The Unity of Brethren (1458–1496).” In Van Dussen and Soukup, Companion to the Hussites, 371–402. Hamilton, J. Taylor, and Kenneth G. Hamilton. History of the Moravian Church: The Renewed Unitas Fratrum, 1722–1957. Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1967. Hardeland, August. Geschichte der speciellen Seelsorge in der vorreformatorischen Kirche und der Kirche der Reformation. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1898. Hark, F. S. “Der Konflikt der kursächsischen Regierung mit Herrnhut und dem Grafen von Zinzendorf, 1733–1738.” Neues Archiv für sächsische Geschichte 3 (1882): 1–65. Henry, James. Sketches of Moravian Life and Character. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1859. Herzig, Anton. Der Zwang zum wahren Glauben: Rekatholisierung vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Hessayon, Ariel, ed. Jane Lead and Her Transnational Legacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Hochhuth, C.  W.  H. “Geschichte und Entwicklung der philadelphischen Gemeinden.” Zeitschrift für die Historische Theologie 35 (1865): 171–290. Holenstein, André. Die Huldigung der Untertanen: Rechtskultur und Herrschaftsordnung (800– 1800). Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1991. Hull, Isabel V. Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany, 1700–1815. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Jacob, Joachim. “Einfalt: Zu einigen ästhetischen und rhetorischen Implikationen eines pietistischen Leitbegriffs.” In Sträter, Interdisziplinäre Pietismusforschungen, 341–52. Jakubowski-­Tiessen, Manfred. “Eigenkultur und Traditionsbildung.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:195–210. ———. “Hallischer Pietismus und Herrnhutertum in Dänemark.” PuN 29 (2003): 134–47. ———. “Der Pietismus in Niedersachsen.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 2:428–45. Jannasch, Wilhelm. “Erdmuthe Dorothea Gräfin von Zinzendorf, geborene Gräfin Reuss zu Plauen: Ihr Leben als Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pietismus und der Brüdergemeine dar­ gestellt.” ZBG 8 (1914): 1–507. Jung, Martin H. “The Impact of Pietism on Culture and Society in Germany.” In Religion as an Agent of Change: Crusades—Reformation—Pietism, edited by Per Ingesman, 211–30. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

280      bibliography Kaiser, Tobias. “Zinzendorfs Projekt einer französischen Arndt-­Ausgabe.” In Frömmigkeit oder Theologie: Johann Arndt und die “Vier Bücher vom wahren Christentum,” edited by Hans Otte and Hans Schneider, 337–56. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Katzer, Ernst. Das Evangelisch-­lutherische Kirchenwesen der sächsischen Oberlausitz. Leipzig: Georg Wigand, 1896. Kaufmann, Thomas. “Das Bekenntnis im Luthertum des konfessionellen Zeitalters.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 105 (2008): 281–314. Kettering-­Lange, Denise. “Philipp Spener and the Role of Women in the Church: The Spiritual Priesthood of All Believers in German Pietism.” Covenant Quarterly 75, no. 1 (2017): 50–69. Kevorkian, Tanya. “Pietists and Music.” In Shantz, Brill Companion to German Pietism, 171–200. Knothe, Hermann. “Die Stellung der Gutsunterthanen in der Oberlausitz zu ihren Gutsherrschaften von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Ablösung der Zinsen und Dienste.” Neues Lausitzisches Magazin 61 (1885): 159–308. Knouse, Nola Reed. “The Collegia Musica: Music of the Community.” In Knouse, Music of the Moravian Church in America, 189–211. ———, ed. The Music of the Moravian Church in America. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2008. Knoz, Tomáš. “Die mährische Emigration nach 1620.” In Leeb, Pils, and Winkelbauer, Staatsmacht und Seelenhei, 247–62. [Kölbing, Friedrich Ludwig]. The Memorial-­Days of the Renewed Church of the Brethren. Ashton-­ under-­Lyne: T. Cunningham, 1822. Körner, Ferdinand. Die kursächsische Regierung dem Grafen von Zinzendorf und Herrnhut bis 1760 gegenüber, nach den Akten des Hauptstaatsarchivs zu Dresden dargestellt. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1878. Korschelt, G. Geschichte von Berthelsdorf. Berthelsdorf: Selbstverlag, 1852. Köstlbauer, Josef. “ ‘I Have No Shortage of Moors’: Mission, Representation, and the Elusive Semantics of Slavery in Eighteenth-­Century Moravian Sources.” In Beyond Exceptionalism: Traces of Slavery and the Slave Trade in Early Modern Germany, 1650–1850, edited by Rebekka von Mallinckrodt, Josef Köstlbauer, and Sarah Lentz, 109–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2021. Kröger, Rüdiger. “Die Gemeintage: Form und Funktion; Beobachtungen zu einer Textsorte des Herrnhuter Pietismus.” In Medizin-­und kulturgeschichtliche Konnexe des Pietismus: Heilkunst und Ethik, arkane Traditionen, Musik, Literatur und Sprache, edited by Irmtraut Sahmland and Hans-­Jürgen Schrader, 303–16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Kröger, Rüdiger, Claudia Mai, and Olaf Nippe. Das Unitätsarchiv: Aus der Geschichte von Archiv, Bibliothek und Beständen. Herrnhut: Comenius-­Buchhandlung, 2014. Küppers-­Braun, Ute. “Geheimprotestantismus und Emigration.” In Leeb, Scheutz, and Weikl, Geheimprotestantismus, 361–93. Lange, Hermann. “History of the Text Book of the Moravian Church, Being the Scripture ‘Watchwords’ and ‘Doctrinal Texts.’ ” TMHS 13 (1944): 133–62. Langen, August. Der Wortschatz des deutschen Pietismus. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1954. Langer, Robert. Pallas und ihre Waffen: Wirkungskreise der Henriette Catharina von Gersdorff. Dresden: Neisse, 2008. Leeb, Rudolf, Susanne Claudine Pils, and Thomas Winkelbauer, eds. Staatsmacht und Seelenheil: Gegenreformation und Geheimprotestantismus in der Habsburgermonarchie. Vienna: R. Oldenbourg, 2007. Leeb, Rudolf, Martin Scheutz, and Dietmar Weikl, eds. Geheimprotestantismus und evangelische Kirchen in der Habsburgermonarchie und im Erzstift Salzburg (17./18. Jahrhundert) Vienna: Böhlau, 2009.

bibliography      281 ———. “Mühsam erkämpfte Legalität und widerstrebende Duldung: Der Protestantismus in der Habsburgermonarchie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert.” In Leeb, Scheutz, and Weikl, Geheimprotestantismus, 7–24. Lehmann, Hartmut. “ ‘Absonderung’ und ‘Gemeinschaft’ im frühen Pietismus: Allgemeinhistorische und sozialpsychologische Überlegungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des Pietismus.” PuN 4 (1977): 54–82. ———. “Absonderung und neue Gemeinschaft.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:487–97. ———. “Einführung.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:1–18. ———. “Grenzüberschreitungen und Grenzziehungen im Pietismus.” PuN 27 (2001): 7–18. ———. “Pietismusforschung nach dem Cultural Turn.” In Breul and Schnurr, Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung, 13–26. Lehner, Ulrich L., Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Lempa, Heikki, and Paul Peucker, eds. Self, Community, World: Moravian Education in a Transatlantic World. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press, 2010. Libin, Laurence. “The Personalia of John Clemm.” Tracker: Journal of the Organ Historical Society 51, no. 3 (2007): 8–16. Lier, Hermann Arthur. “Rothe, Johann Andreas.” In Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 351–53. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1889. Linder, Nikolaus. Die Berner Bankenkrise von 1720 und das Recht: Wine Studie zur Rechts-­, Banken-­und Finanzgeschichte der alten Schweiz. Zürich, Schulthess, 2004. Louthan, Howard. “The Bohemian Reformations.” In Rublack, Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, 124–45. Lückel, Ulf. Adel und Frömmigkeit: Die Berleburger Grafen und der Pietismus in ihren Territorien. Siegen: Vorländer, 2016. ———. “Die Wittgensteiner Pietisten und ihre Beziehungen nach Halle und Herrnhut in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Jahrbuch für Westfälische Kirchengeschichte 112 (2016): 119–55. Lütjeharms, W. Het philadelphisch-­oecumenisch streven der hernhutters in de Nederlanden in de achttiende eeuw. Zeist: Zendingsgenootschap der Evang. Broedergemeente, 1935. MacDonald, Gerald Theodor. Johann Georg Walchs Darstellung und Beurteilung des Grafen Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2016. Macek, Ondrej. “Geheimprotestanten in Böhmen und Mähren im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert.” In Leeb, Scheutz, and Weikl, Geheimprotestantismus, 237–69. Mahling, Lubina. Um der Wenden Seelenheyl hochverdient: Reichsgraf Friedrich Caspar von Gersdorf. Bautzen: Domowina-­Verlag, 2017. Marschke, Benjamin. “ ‘Wir Halenser’: The Understanding of Insiders and Outsiders Among Halle Pietists in Prussia Under King Frederick William I (1713–1740).” In Strom, Pietism and Community, 81–93. Martin, Lucinda. “Anna Nitschmann (1715–1760): Priesterin, Generalältestin, Jüngerin der weltweiten Brüdergemeine.” In Frauen gestalten Diakonie, vol. 1, Von biblischer Zeit bis zum Pietismus, edited by Adelheid von Hauff, 393–410. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007. ———. “God’s Strange Providence”: Jane Lead in the Correspondence of Johann Georg Gichtel.” In Hessayon, Jane Lead, 187–212. ———. “More than Piety: The Historiographic Neglect of Early Modern Lay Theology.” Church History and Religious Culture 98, no. 1 (2018): 96–125. ———. “Noch eine ‘res publica literaria’? Die Briefe der unsichtbaren Kirche als diskursiver Raum.” Aufklärung: Interdisziplinäres Jahrbuch zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts und seiner Wirkungsgeschichte 28 (2017): 135–72.

282      bibliography ———. “Öffentlichkeit und Anonymität von Frauen im (Radikalen) Pietismus: Die Spendentätigkeit adliger Patroninnen.” In Breul, Meier, and Vogel, Der radikale Pietismus, 385–402. ———. “Werkzeuge Gottes: Ergriffenheit und Besessenheit und ihre Transformationen im Pietismus.” In Soboth and Sträter, “Aus Gottes Wort und eigener Erfahrung gezeiget,” 145–61. Marx, Wolf. Die Saalkirche der deutschen Brüdergemeine im 18. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1932. Matthias, Markus. “Bekehrung und Wiedergeburt.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:49–79. ———. “Collegium pietatis und ecclesiola: Philipp Jakob Speners Reformprogramm zwischen Wirklichkeit und Anspruch.” PuN 19 (1993): 46–59. ———. Johann Wilhelm und Johanna Eleonora Petersen: Eine Biographie bis zur Amtsenthebung Petersens im Jahre 1692. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. ———. “Das Verhältnis von Ehe und Sexualität bei Luther und in der Lutherischen Orthodoxie.” In Breul and Soboth, “Der Herr wird seine Herrlichkeit,” 19–50. Matthias, Markus, and Ulf-­Michael Schneider, eds. Literatur und Sprache des Pietismus: Ausgewählte Studien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019. McCullough, Thomas J. “ ‘The Most Memorable Circumstances’: Instructions for the Collection of Personal Data from Church Members, Circa 1752.” JMH 15, no. 2 (2015): 158–76. Meier, Marcus. “Eberhard Ludwig Grubers ‘Grundforschende Fragen’: Zur Binnendifferenzierung des radikalen Pietismus.” In Breul, Meier, and Vogel, Der radikale Pietismus, 129–46. ———. “The ‘Little Church’ of Johann Amos Comenius and Philipp Jakob Spener: Approaches to Church Reform with a Comprehensive Social Perspective.” In Strom, Pietism and Community, 55–64. Metasch, Frank. “Erinnerungskultur und Identitätsstiftung: Die ‘Gemeinde böhmischer Exulanten in Dresden’ im 19. Jahrhundert.” In Korunní Zeme v Dejinách Českého Státu, edited by Lenka Bobková, 475–96. Prague: Filozofická fakulta, Ústav českych dejin, 2005. ———. “Die religiöse Integration der böhmischen Exulanten in Dresden während des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Bahlcke and Bendel, Migration und kirchliche Praxis, 69–94. Mettele, Gisela. Weltbürgertum oder Gottesreich: Die Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine als globale Gemeinschaft, 1727–1857. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Meyer, Dietrich, ed. Bibliographisches Handbuch zur Zinzendorf-­Forschung. Düsseldorf: Privately printed, 1987. ———. “Einführung in die Gesangbücher Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorfs.” In Berthelsdorfer Gesangbuch: Sammlung geistlicher und lieblicher Lieder, edited by Erich Beyreuther and Gerhard Meyer, 11–139. Hildesheim: Olms, 1979. ———. “Die Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine als Brücke zwischen radikalem und kirchlichen Pietismus.” In Breul, Meier, and Vogel, Der radikale Pietismus, 147–58. ———, ed. Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf: Katechismen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. ———. “Der Pietismus in der Oberlausitz.” In Wegmarken Der Oberlausitzer Kirchengeschichte, 11–36. Düsseldorf: Verein für Schlesische Kirchengeschichte, 1994. ———. “Zinzendorf und die böhmisch-­mährischen Brüder.” In Winzeler, Jan Hus, 120–29. ———. “Zinzendorf und Herrnhut.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 2:3–106. Meyer, Dietrich, Paul Peucker, and Karl-­Eugen Langerfeld, eds. Graf ohne Grenzen: Leben und Werk von Nikolaus Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorf. Herrnhut: Unitätsarchiv, 2000. Meyer, Gudrun. “Herrnhuts Stellung innerhalb der sächsischen Landeskirche bis 1737.” UnFr 2 (1977): 21–45. Mikulec, Jiří. “Das Ende der Reformation in Böhmen (1620–1628).” In Reformation als Kommunikationsprozess: Böhmische Kronländer und Sachsen, edited by Petr Hrachovec, Gerd Schwerhoff, Winfried Müller, and Martina Schattkowsky, 611–23. Vienna: Böhlau, 2021.

bibliography      283 ———. “Die staatlichen Behörden und das Problem der konfessionellen Emigration aus Böhmen nach dem Jahr 1620.” In Glaubensflüchtlinge: Ursachen, Formen und Auswirkungen frühneuzeitlicher Konfessionsmigration in Europa, edited by Joachim Bahlcke, 165–86. Münster: LIT, 2008. Mirtschin, Hans. “Die Anfänge brüderlichen Bauens in Herrnhut, 1722–1756: Die Häuser am Platz und in der Zittauer Gasse.” UnFr, no. 59/60 (2007): 113–34. Modrow, Irina. “Daniel Ernst Jablonski, Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und die Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” In Daniel Ernst Jablonski: Religion, Wissenschaft und Politik um 1700, edited by Joachim Bahlcke and Werner Korthaase, 331–43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008. ———. Dienstgemeine des Herrn: Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und die Brüdergemeine seiner Zeit. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1994. ———. “Frauen im Pietismus: Das Beispiel der Benigna von Solms-­Laubach, Hedwig Sophie von Sayn-­Wittgenstein-­Berleburg und der Erdmuthe Benigna von Reuß-­Ebersdorf als Vertreterinnen des frommen hohen Adels im frühen 18. Jahrhundert.” In Individualisierung, Rationalisierung, Säkularisierung: Neue Wege der Religionsgeschichte, edited by Michael Weinzierl, 186–99. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1997. ———. “Der radikale Pietismus: Einige Überlegungen zu den ‘linken’ Außenseitern einer sozial-­ religiösen Erweckungsbewegung in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Frühneuzeit-­Info 3, no. 2 (1992): 29–39. ———. “Überlegungen zum Verständnis von Glauben und Kirche bei Gottfried Arnold und Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf.” In Gottfried Arnold (1666–1714): Mit einer Bibliographie der Arnold-­Literatur ab 1714, edited by Dietrich Blaufuß and Friedrich Niewöhner, 197– 204. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. ———. “ ‘Wir sind philadelphische Brüder mit einem lutherischen Maul und Mährischen Rock . . .’: Die Lösung der Identitätsfrage der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” In Donnert, Europa in der Frühen Neuzeit, 1:577–91. Moeschler, Felix. “Gutsherrlich-­bäuerliche Verhältnisse in der Ober-­Lausitz, Rekonstruktion der Dörfer Rennersdorf, Berthelsdorf und Groß-­Hennersdorf bei Herrnhut i.S.; Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Siedlungsverhältnisse im Kolonialgebiet.” PhD diss., Leipzig University, 1905. Molnár, Amedeo. “A. H. Francke und die Bedeutung des hallischen Pietismus für die tschechischen Protestanten.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 89, no. 1 (1964): 1–10. Mori, Ryoko. Begeisterung und Ernüchterung in christlicher Vollkommenheit: Pietistische Selbst-­ und Weltwahrnehmungen im ausgehenden 17. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2004. ———. “Der Berliner Beichtstuhlstreit: Frömmigkeit und Zeitwende im 17. Jahrhundert.” PuN 17 (1991): 69–94. ———. “The Conventicle Piety of the Radicals.” In Shantz, Brill Companion to German Pietism, 201–24. Müller, J. Th. “Das Ältestenamt Christi in der erneuerten Brüderkirche.” ZBG 1 (1907): 1–32. ———. Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. 3 vols. Herrnhut: Missionsbuchhandlung, 1922. ———. Hymnologisches Handbuch zum Gesangbuch der Brüdergemeine. Herrnhut: Verlag des Vereins für Brüdergeschichte, 1916. ———. “Die neueste Historie der Brüder aus Mähren von Nicol. Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorf, 1727, mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen, Registern und 2 Beilagen versehen.“ Unpublished manuscript, 1937. [Copy in Unity Archives, R.6.A.a.2.i.] ———. “Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf: Übersicht der wichtigsten Lebensdaten.” In Meyer, Peucker, and Langerfeld, Graf ohne Grenzen, 1–9. ———. “Der Parther: Eine Wochenschrift anonym herausgegeben von Zinzendorf, Dresden 1725.” ZBG 4 (1910): 124–28. ———. Zinzendorf als Erneuerer der erneuerten Brüderunität. Leipzig: Friedrich Jansa, 1900.

284      bibliography Neß, Dietmar. Schlesisches Pfarrerbuch. Vol. 9, Schlesische Oberlausitz. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016. Neumann, C. G. Th. Geschichte von Görlitz. Görlitz: Heyn’sche Buchhandlung, 1850. Nielsen, Sigurd. Der Toleranzgedanke bei Zinzendorf: Ursprung, Entwicklung und Eigenart seiner Toleranz. Hamburg: Ludwig Appel, 1952. Noller, Matthias. “Glaubensausübung und Kirchenzugehörigkeit protestantischer Emigranten in der Aufnahmegesellschaft: Die Berliner Böhmen und ihr Religionsstreit 1747.” In Bahlcke and Bendel, Migration und kirchliche Praxis, 95–111. ———. Kirchliche Historiographie zwischen Wissenschaft und religiöser Sinnstiftung: David Cranz (1723–1777) als Geschichtsschreiber der Erneuerten Brüderunität. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016. ———. “Wege böhmischer Glaubensflüchtlinge in und durch die Oberlausitz in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Winzeler, Jan Hus, 107–19. Oemler, Ch. W. Zweckmäßiger Auszug aus Ch. W. Oemlers Repertorium über Pastoraltheologie und Kasuistik für angehende Prediger. 2 vols. Kempten: Tobias Dannheimer, 1805–6. Paisey, David L. Deutsche Buchdrucker, Buchhändler und Verleger 1701–1750. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. Patzelt, Herbert. Der Pietismus im Teschener Schlesien, 1709–1730. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Peschek, Christian Adolph. Die Böhmischen Exulanten in Sachsen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1857. Petterson, Christina. “From Communal Economy to Economic Community: Changes in Moravian Entrepreneurial Activities in the Eighteenth Century.” Journal for the History of Reformed Pietism 3, no. 1 (2017): 25–48. ———. The Moravian Brethren in a Time of Transition: A Socio-­Economic Analysis of a Religious Community in Eighteenth-­Century Saxony. Leiden: Brill, 2021. ———. “New Jerusalem in Greenland: Aspects of Moravian Mission.” In Tracing the Jerusalem Code, vol. 3, The Promised Land: Christian Cultures in Modern Scandinavia (ca. 1750–ca. 1920), edited by Ragnhild J. Zorgati and Anna Bohlin, 107–13. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2020. ———. “Reading the Sign of the Times: The Moravian Brethren’s Quiet Revolution.” In Reform, Revolution and Crisis in Europe: Landmarks in History, Memory, and Thought, edited by Bronwyn Winter and Cat Moir, 40–58. London: Routledge, 2019. Petterson, Christina, and Katherine M. Faull. “Speaking About Marriage: Notes from the 1744 Married Choir Conferences.” JMH 17, no. 1 (2017): 58–103. Peucker, Paul. “Aus allen Nationen: Nichteuropäer in den deutschen Brüdergemeinen des 18. Jahrhunderts.” UnFr, no. 59/60 (2007): 1–35. ———. “A Family of Love: Another Look at Bethlehem’s General Economy.” JMH 18, no. 2 (2018): 123–44. ———. Herrnhuter Wörterbuch: Kleines Lexikon von brüderischen Begriffen. Herrnhut: Unitätsarchiv, 2000. ———. “The Ideal of Primitive Christianity as a Source of Moravian Liturgical Practice.” JMH, no. 6 (2009): 7–29. ———. “In the Blue Cabinet: Moravians, Marriage, and Sex.” JMH, no. 10 (2011): 7–37. ———. “Pietism and the Archives.” In Shantz, Brill Companion to German Pietism, 393–420. ———. “The Role and Development of Brass Music in the Moravian Church.” In Knouse, Music of the Moravian Church in America, 169–88. ———. “Schreiben als Liturgie: Schreiben und Archivbildung in der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” In Soboth and Schmid, “Schrift soll leserlich seyn,” 431–43. ———. “Selection and Destruction in Moravian Archives Between 1760 and 1810.” JMH 12, no. 2 (2012): 170–215. ———. “The 1727 Statutes of Herrnhut.” JMH 20, no. 1 (2020): 73–113.

bibliography      285 ———.’s Heerendijk: Herrnhutters in IJsselstein, 1736–1770. Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 1991. ———. “The Textual History of the 1742 Bethlehem Diary.” JMH 18, no. 1 (2018): 102–12. ———. A Time of Sifting: Mystical Marriage and the Crisis of Moravian Piety in the Eighteenth Century. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2015. ———. “Wahnsinn in Herrnhut: Johann Siegmund Krüger und sein Auftreten in Herrnhut 1726.” In Gefühl und Norm: Religion und Gefühlskulturen im 18. Jahrhundert; Beiträge zum V. Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2018, edited by Daniel Cyranka, Thomas Ruhland, Christian Soboth, and Friedemann Stengel, 561–76. Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen, 2021. ———. “Zinzendorf ’s Plan for a ‘Complete History of the True Church of Christ.’ ” JMH 7 (2009): 59–82. Plitt, Hermann. Zinzendorfs Theologie. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1869. Podmore, Colin. The Moravian Church in England, 1728–1760. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Posselt, Ingeborg. Die Verfassung der Brüdergemeine, 1727–1775: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Verhältnisses zur sächsischen Landeskirche. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2018. Prell, Martin. “Selbstentwurf und Herrschaftspraxis: Die Briefe Erdmuthe Benignas von Reuß-­Ebersdorf (1670–1732).” In Albrecht et al., Pietismus und Adel, 73–95. Quack, Jürgen. “Vorreden und Summarien Zinzendorfs zur Ebersdorfer Bibel 1726/27.” In Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf: Bibel und Bibelgebrauch, edited by Dietrich Meyer, 1–292. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Reichel, Gerhard. Die Anfänge Herrnhuts: Ein Buch vom Werden der Brüdergemeine. Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionsbuchhandlung, 1922. ———. August Gottlieb Spangenberg: Bischof der Brüderkirche. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1906. ———. “Die Entstehung einer Zinzendorf feindlichen Partei in Halle und Wernigerode.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 23 (1902): 549–92. ———. Gottes Wunderführung im alten Herrnhut: Ein Beitrag zum inneren Werden der Brüdergemeine vor 200 Jahren. Gnadau: Unitätsbuchhandlung, 1927. Also published under the title “Der 13. August 1727.” English translation: The Story of the Thirteenth of August, 1727: The Spiritual Birthday of the Renewed Moravian Church. Translated by Douglas L. Rights. 1946. Winston-­Salem: Moravian Archives, 1994. ———. Der “Senfkornorden” Zinzendorfs: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis seiner Jugendentwicklung und seines Charakters. Leipzig: Friedrich Jansa, 1914. ———. “Zinzendorfs Studienzeit in Wittenberg: Eine Vorlesung.” UnFr, no. 44 (1998): 9–94. Reimann, Christoph. Die Tagebücher des Grafen Casimir zu Sayn-­Wittgenstein-­Berleburg (1687– 1741) als Selbstzeugnis eines pietistischen Landesherrn. Kassel: University Press, 2019. Renkewitz, Heinz. Hochmann von Hochenau (1670–1721): Quellenstudien zur Geschichte des Pietismus. Breslau: Maruschke & Berendt, 1935. Ričan, Rudolf. The History of the Unity of Brethren: A Protestant Hussite Church in Bohemia and Moravia. With a Chapter on Its Theology by Amédeo Molnár. Translated by C. Daniel Crews. Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1992. Ritschl, Albrecht. Geschichte des Pietismus. Vol. 3. Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1886. Rublack, Ulinka. “Introduction.” In Rublack, Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations, 1–19. ———, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Salomon, A[nne-­Louise]. La catholicité du monde Chrétien: D’après la correspondance inédite du comte Louis de Zinzendorf avec le cardinal de Noailles et les évêques appelants 1719–1728. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1929. Scheutz, Martin. “Konfessionalisierung von unten und oben sowie der administrative Umgang mit Geheimprotestantismus in den österreichischen Erbländern.” In Leeb, Scheutz, and Weikl, Geheimprotestantismus, 25–39.

286      bibliography Schian, M. “Der Trausermon bey der Trauung des Grafen Zinzendorf.” ZBG 5 (1911): 117–19. Schmid, Pia. “Die Kindererweckung in Herrnhut am 17. August 1727.” In Brecht and Peucker, Neue Aspekte der Zinzendorf-­Forschung, 115–33. Schmidt, Gottfried. “Die Banden oder Gesellschaften im alten Herrnhut.” ZBG 3 (1909): 145–207. Schmidt, Martin. “Das Frühchristentum in der evangelisch-­lutherischen Überlieferung vom 18.–20. Jahrhundert, insbesondere in Deutschland.” Oecumenica: Jahrbuch für ökumenische Forschung (1971): 88–110. Schneider, Hans. “Begegnung zweier Kavaliere: Graf Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf und Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm von Nassau-­Siegen.” In Oranien und Nassau in Europa: Lebenswelten einer frühneuzeitlichen Dynastie, edited by Rouven Pons, 551–64. Wiesbaden: Historische Kommission für Nassau, 2018. ———. German Radical Pietism. Translated by Gerald T. MacDonald. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007. ———. “Konfessionalität und Toleranz im protestantischen Deutschland des 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Konfessionalisierung vom 16.–19. Jahrhundert: Referate des 5. Internationalen Kirchenarchivtags Budapest 1987, edited by Helmut Baier, 87–106. Neustadt an der Aisch: Degener, 1989. ———. “Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf als Gestalt der Kirchengeschichte.” In Meyer, Peucker, and Langerfeld, Graf ohne Grenzen, 10–29. ———. “ ‘Philadelphische Brüder mit einem lutherischen Maul und mährischen Rock’: Zu Zinzendorfs Kirchenverständnis.” In Brecht and Peucker, Neue Aspekte der Zinzendorf-­ Forschung, 11–36. ———. “Der radikale Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 1:391–437. [English translation: German Radical Pietism.] ———. “Der radikale Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert.” In Geschichte des Pietismus, 2:107–87. [English translation: German Radical Pietism.] ———. “Understanding the Church: Issues of Pietist Ecclesiology.” In Strom, Pietism and Community, 15–35. ———. “Die ‘zürnenden Mutterkinder’: Der Konflikt zwischen Halle und Herrnhut.” PuN 29 (2003): 37–66. Schrader, Hans-­Jürgen. Literaturproduktion und Büchermarkt des radikalen Pietismus: Johann Henrich Reitz’ “Historie Der Wiedergebohrnen” und ihr geschichtlicher Kontext. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ———. “Terminologische und historische Eingrenzungen: Pietismus—Radikalpietismus— philadelphische Bewegung.” In Matthias and Schneider, Literatur und Sprache des Pietismus, 19–62. ———. “Zores in Zion: Zwietracht und Missgunst in Berleburgs toleranzprogrammatischem Philadelphia.” In Matthias and Schneider, Literatur und Sprache des Pietismus, 591–624. Schreiner, Klaus. “Iuramentum religionis: Entstehung, Geschichte und Funktion des Konfessionseides der Staats-­und Kirchendiener im Territorialstaat der frühen Neuzeit.” Der Staat 24, no. 2 (1985): 211–46. Schulz, Walter. “ ‘Viel Anschein zu mehrerem Licht’: Henriette Katharina von Gersdorff, geborene von Friesen, und ihre Bibliothek auf Großhennersdorf.” PuN 36 (2010): 63–118. Schunka, Alexander. “Bohemian Exiles (Exulanten) in Saxony Since the 17th Century.” In The Encyclopedia of European Migration and Minorities: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present, edited by Klaus J. Bade, Pieter C. Emmer, Leo Lucassen, and Jochen Oltmer, 255–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ———. “Emigration aus den Habsburgerländern nach Mitteldeutschland: Motive und soziale Konsequenzen.” In Leeb, Pils, and Winkelbauer, Staatsmacht und Seelenheil, 233–46.

bibliography      287 ———. Gäste, die bleiben: Zuwanderer in Kursachen und der Oberlausitz im 17. und frühen 18. Jahrhundert. Hamburg: LIT, 2006. ———. “A Missing Link: Daniel Ernst Jablonski as the Connection Between Comenius and Zinzendorf.” In Lempa and Peucker, Self, Community, World, 55–77. ———. “No Return? Temporary Exile and Permanent Immigration Among Confessional Migrants in the Early Modern Era.” In Migration in the German Lands, 1500–2000, edited by Jason Coy, Jared Poley, and Alexander Schunka, 67–87. New York: Berghahn, 2016. ———. “Die Oberlausitz zwischen Prager Frieden und Wiener Kongress (1635–1815).” In Geschichte der Oberlausitz: Herrschaft, Gesellschaft und Kultur vom Mittelalter bis zum Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts, edited by Joachim Bahlcke, 143–79. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2001. Schweinitz, Wolf Joachim von. Kreuz und Schwert: 800 Jahre Einsatz für Christentum und Vaterland des Geschlechts von Schweinitz. Beiträge zur Familiengeschichte und Erinnerungen. Privately printed, 1998. Seidel, J. Jürgen. “Zwischen Theosophie und Pietismus: Einblicke in die Korrespondenz der Schweizer Gichtelianer.” Zwingliana 34 (2007): 95–119. Shantz, Douglas H. Between Sardis and Philadelphia: The Life and World of Pietist Court Preacher Conrad Bröske. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———, ed. The Brill Companion to German Pietism. Leiden: Brill, 2015. ———. An Introduction to German Pietism: Protestant Renewal at the Dawn of Modern Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013. Skalský, Gustav Adolf. “Der Exulantenprediger Johann Liberda: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der böhmischen Emigration.” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Protestantismus in Österreich 31 (1910): 117–379. Šmahel, František, and Ota Pavliček, eds. A Companion to Jan Hus. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Soboth, Christian, and Pia Schmid, eds. “Schrift soll leserlich seyn”: Der Pietismus und die Medien; Beiträge zum IV. Internationalen Kongress für Pietsmusforschung 2013. Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen, 2016. Soboth, Christian, and Udo Sträter, eds. “Aus Gottes Wort und eigener Erfahrung gezeiget”: Erfahrung—Glauben, Erkennen und Handeln im Pietismus; Beiträge zum III. Internatio­ nalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2009. Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen, 2012. Sommer, Elisabeth. “Gambling with God: The Use of the Lot by the Moravian Brethren in the Eighteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Ideas 59, no. 2 (1998): 267–86. Sommer, Wolfgang. Die lutherischen Hofprediger in Dresden: Grundzüge ihrer Geschichte und Verkündigung im Kurfürstentum Sachsen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006. Spaans, Joke, and Jetze Touber. “Introduction.” In Enlightened Religion: From Confessional Churches to Polite Piety in the Dutch Republic, 1–18. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Steinberg, Hermann. Johann Andreas Rothe, Pfarrer in Berthelsdorf 1722–37: Ein Lebensbild aus der Entstehungszeit Herrnhuts. Herrnhut: Missionsbuchhandlung, 1922. Sterik, Edita. “Augustin Neisser (1683–1751).” In Lebensbilder aus der Brüdergemeine, edited by Dietrich Meyer, 2:149–68. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2014. ———. “Die böhmischen Emigranten und Zinzendorf.” In Brecht and Peucker, Neue Aspekte der Zinzendorf-­Forschung, 97–114. ———. Die böhmischen Exulanten in Berlin. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2016. ———. Christian David, 1692–1751: Ein Lebensbild des Gründers von Herrnhut und Mitbegründers der erneuerten Brüderunität. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2012. ———. “Mährische Brüder, Böhmische Brüder und die Brüderunität.” UnFr, no. 48 (2001): 106–14. ———. Mährische Exulanten in der Erneuerten Brüderunität im 18. Jahrhundert. Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2012.

288      bibliography ———. “Verzeichnis der mährischen und böhmischen Exulanten im 18. Jahrhundert in der erneuerten Brüder-­Unität (ohne die böhmische Gemeine in Berlin und Rixdorf).” Unpublished manuscript, 2019. Copy at MAB. Sträter, Udo, ed. Alter Adam und Neue Kreatur: Pietismus und Anthropologie. Beiträge zum II. Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2005. Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen, 2009. ———, ed. Interdisziplinäre Pietismusforschungen: Beiträge zum Ersten Internationalen Kongress für Pietismusforschung 2001. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2005 ———. “Soziales.” In Brecht et al., Geschichte des Pietismus, 4:617–45. Strom, Jonathan. German Pietism and the Problem of Conversion. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2018. ———, ed. Pietism and Community in Europe and North America, 1650–1850. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. “Pietism and Revival.” In Preaching, Sermon and Cultural Change in the Long Eighteenth Century, edited by Joris van Eijnatten, 173–218. Leiden: Brill, 2009. ———. “Problems and Promises of Pietism Research.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 71:3 (2002): 536–54. Strom, Jonathan, and Hartmut Lehmann. “Early Modern Pietism.” In Lehner, Muller, and Roeber, Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 402–35. Teigeler, Otto. “Eine Göttliche Erquickung? A. H. Franckes Besuch bei H. C. von Gersdorff Ende Januar 1704.” UnFr, no. 76 (2018): 333–72. ———. Die Herrnhuter in Russland: Ziel, Umfang und Ertrag ihrer Aktivitäten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. ———. Zinzendorf als Schüler in Halle 1710–1716: Persönliches Ergehen und Präformation eines Axioms. Halle: Franckesche Stiftungen, 2017. Temme, Willi. Krise der Leiblichkeit: Die Sozietät der Mutter Eva (Buttlarsche Rotte) und der radikale Pietismus um 1700. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Teufel, Aini. Eine Gräfin auf Pilgerschaft: Erdmuth Dorothea von Zinzendorf in ihren Reisetagebüchern. Dresden: KWB Verlag, 2014. Teufel, Eberhard. “Johann Andreas Rothe, 1688–1758: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte der Sächsischen Oberlausitz im 18. Jh.” Pts. 1 and 2. Beiträge zur sächsischen Kirchengeschichte 30 (1917): 1–69; 31 (1918): 1–111. ———. “Zur Geschichte der Brüdergemeine in Sorau N. L.” ZBG (1918): 79–116. Thune, Nils. The Behmenists and the Philadelphians: A Contribution to the Study of English Mysticism in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wikselss, 1948. Tillmann, Thomas. Hermeneutik und Bibelexegese beim jungen Goethe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Türk, Sebastian. “Die Spiritualität des radikalen Pietismus.” In Handbuch Evangelische Spiritualität, edited by Peter Zimmerling, 339–58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Uttendörfer, Otto. Alt-­ Herrnhut: Wirtschaftsgeschichte und Religionssoziologie Herrnhuts während seiner ersten zwanzig Jahre (1722–1742). Herrnhut: Missionsbuchhandlung, 1925. ———. “Die Entstehung der ‘Beschreibung und zuverlässigen Nachricht von Herrnhut.’ ” ZBG 6, no. 2 (1912): 220–32. ———. Das Erziehungswesen Zinzendorfs und der Brüdergemeine in seinen Anfängen. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1912. ———. Zinzendorfs christliches Lebensideal. Gnadau: Unitätsbuchhandlung, 1940. ———. “Zinzendorf und die Entwicklung des theologischen Seminars der Brüderunität.” Pts. 1, 2, 3, and 4. ZBG 10 (1916): 32–88; 11 (1917): 71–123; 12 (1918): 1–78; 13 (1919): 1–63. ———. Zinzendorf und die Mystik. [East] Berlin: Christlicher Zeitschriften Verlag, 1950. Vacovský, Adolf. “History of the ‘Hidden Seed’ (1620–1722).” In Unitas Fratrum: Herrnhuter Studien—Moravian Studies, edited by Mari P. van Buijtenen, Cornelis Dekker, and Huib Leeuwenberg, 35–54. Utrecht: Rijksarchief, 1975.

bibliography      289 Valeš, Vlasta. “Sprachverhalten in den Ländern der böhmischen Krone in der Frühen Neuzeit.” Frühneuzeit-­Info 10, nos. 1 and 2 (1999): 30–42. Van Dussen, Michael, and Pavel Soukup, eds. A Companion to the Hussites. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Van Lieburg, Fred, ed. Confessionalism and Pietism: Religious Reform in Early Modern Europe. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Vogt, Peter. “ ‘Als Christ ist man nicht Graf . . . ’: Paradoxien pietistisch-­aristokratischer Identität bei Zinzendorf.” In Albrecht et al., Pietismus und Adel, 97–117. ———. “Ehereligion: Religiös konzeptionierte Sexualität bei Zinzendorf.” In Sträter, Alter Adam und Neue Kreatur, 371–80. ———. “ ‘Headless and Un-­Erudite’: Anti-­Intellectual Tendencies in Zinzendorf ’s Approach to Religion.” In Lempa and Peucker, Self, Community, World, 107–26. ———. “Herrnhuter Liebeskommunismus: Das Ideal urchristlicher Gemeinschaft und seine Rezeption in der Brüdergemeine des 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Herrnhut als Modell einer christlichen Sozialutopie, edited by Torsten Hochmuth, 71–96. Berlin: Modrow Stiftung, 2020. ———. “Herrnhuter Schwestern der Zinzendorfzeit als Predigerinnen.” UnFr, no. 45/46 (1999): 29–60. ———. “ ‘Honor to the Side!’ The Adoration of the Side Wound of Jesus in Eighteenth-­Century Moravian Piety.” JMH, no. 7 (2009): 83–106. ———. “Katholizität und Apostolizität der Kirche im Verständnis der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” In Ursprung und Sendung der Kirche, edited by Burkhard Neumann and Jürgen Stolze, 95–114. Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2011. ———. “Die Medialität göttlicher Willenskundgebung in der Lospraxis der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” In Soboth and Schmid, “Schrift soll leserlich seyn,” 465–80. ———. “ ‘Philadelphia’: Inhalt, Verbreitung und Einfluß eines radikal-­pietistischen Schlüsselbegriffs.” In Sträter, Interdisziplinäre Pietismusforschungen, 2:837–48. ———. “A Voice for Themselves: Women as Participants in Congregational Discourse in the Eighteenth-­Century Moravian Movement.” In Women Preachers and Prophets Through Two Millennia of Christianity, edited by Beverly Mayne Kienzle and Pamela J. Walker, 227–45. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. ———. “Zinzendorf ’s ‘Seventeen Points of Matrimony’: A Fundamental Document on the Moravian Understanding of Marriage and Sexuality.” JMH 10 (2011): 39–67 Voigt, Karl Heinz. Kirchliche Minderheiten im Schatten der lutherischen Reformation vor 1517 bis nach 2017. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2018. Vollprecht, Frieder. “Von der Schloßekklesiola zur Ortsgemeinde: Ein Beitrag zum Entstehungsprozeß der Brüdergemeine Ebersdorf.” UnFr, no. 39 (1996): 7–51. Võsa, Aira. “Die Ehe bei Jakob Böhme und Johann Georg Gichtel.” In Breul and Soboth,“Der Herr wird seine Herrlichkeit,” 81–88. Wallmann, Johannes. Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970. ———. Der Pietismus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Wäntig, Wulf. Grenzerfahrungen: Böhmische Exulanten im 17. Jahrhundert. Konstanz: UVK, 2007. ———. “Der Weg ins Exil—der Weg in den Mythos: Böhmische Emigranten als ‘Exulanten’ in der oberlausitzischen Geschichte und Historiographie.” In Die Oberlausitz im frühneuzeitlichen Mitteleuropa: Beziehungen—Strukturen—Prozesse, edited by Joachim Bahlcke, 191–217. Leipzig: Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. Ward, W. R. “Power and Piety: The Origins of Religious Revival in the Early Eighteenth Century.” In Evangelicalism, Piety and Politics: The Selected Writings of W. R. Ward, edited by Andrew Chandler, 73–92. London: Routledge, 2014.

290      bibliography Weber, Julie Tomberlin. “An Eighteenth-­ Century Socrates? Lessing’s Appeal to Reread Zinzendorf.” In Lempa and Peucker, Self, Community, World, 81–106. Wehrend, Anja. Musikanschauung, Musikpraxis, Kantatenkompositionen in der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine: Ihre musikalische und theologische Bedeutung für das Gemeinleben von 1727 bis 1760. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995. Weigelt, Horst. Geschichte des Pietismus in Bayern: Anfänge, Entwicklung, Bedeutung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. ———. “Das ‘Kurtze Bekäntnus’ der schlesischen Schwenckfelder von 1726.” In Donnert, Europa in der frühen Neuzeit, 1:593–602. ———. Migration and Faith: The Migrations of the Schwenkfelders from Germany to America— Risks and Opportunities. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. ———. “Zinzendorf und die Schwenckfelder.” In Brecht and Peucker, Neue Aspekte der Zinzendorf-­Forschung, 64–96. Winter, Eduard. Die tschechische und slowakische Emigration in Deutschland im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert: Beiträge zur Geschichte der hussitischen Tradition. Berlin: Akademie-­Verlag, 1955. Winzeler, Marius, ed. Jan Hus: Wege der Wahrheit; Das Erbe des böhmischen Reformators in der Oberlausitz und in Nordböhmen. Görlitz: Gunter Oettel, 2015. Wollstadt, Hanns-­Joachim. Geordnetes Dienen in der christlichen Gemeinde dargestellt an den Lebensformen der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine in ihren Anfängen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Wotschke, Theodor. “Herrnhuts erste Arbeit in Schlesien, nach handschriftlichen Nachrichten im Unitätsarchiv zu Herrnhut.” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschichte Schlesiens 69 (1935): 184–238. Yoder, Peter. Pietism and the Sacraments: The Life and Theology of August Hermann Francke. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2021. Zöllner, Reinhard. “Das deutsche Kirchenlied in der Oberlausitz von der Mitte des 16. bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts; nebst einem Anhang und Register.” Neues Lausitzisches Magazin 48 (1871): 1–144.

INDEX

Aalen, Leiv, 6, 121, 197–98 Africa, 3, 209 Albrecht-­Birkner, Veronika, 7, 152 Altona, 240n66 Altränstadt, 82 Amsterdam, 46, 67, 87, 148 Anders, Anna Helena (Annalene), 103, 135–37, 149, 165–66, 223n52, 258n105 Andreas (Bartel), 179 Anhalt-­Dessau, Georg III von, 256n71 Annoni, Hieronymus, 46 Anton, Paul, 154 Ararat, 209 Arndt, Johann, 25, 58, 67, 81–82, 87, 154 Arnold, Gottfried, 14–15, 33, 121, 134, 138–39, 152, 154, 157, 172–73 Atwood, Craig, 77, 79 Augsburg Confession, 36–37, 95, 100, 102, 120, 174, 187, 191, 197, 204, 210 August 13, 1727, 3, 14, 16–17, 104–5, 122–26, 141, 147, 172, 173, 184 August the Strong. See Friedrich August I. Bakker, Pieter, 46 bands, 119, 134, 136, 140, 176 baptism, 83–84, 89, 96, 111, 113–14, 120, 165, 174, 204 Basel, 28, 50 Bauer, Holger, 37 Baumgart (family), 26 Baumgart, Elias, 26, 95, 240n76 Bautzen, 38, 62, 105, 119, 186 Oberamt, 38, 58, 62, 105, 161 Beatitudes, 143 Becker, Bernhard, 5 Benedict XIII (Pope), 68 Bengel, Johann Albrecht, 6 Berleburg, 15, 66, 181–82, 208 Berlin, 23, 32, 80–81, 85, 89, 99, 109, 153 Bern, 50 Berthelsdorf, 4–5, 10–11, 16, 20–21, 23, 28, 30, 33–37, 40–42, 44, 46–47, 50, 52–53, 57–58, 64, 66–67, 69, 71–72, 85, 94–96, 99–100,

102–3, 105–7, 109, 114–15, 119, 128, 135–37, 141, 147, 152, 160, 164–66, 168–70, 172–73, 180–82, 184, 187, 200–201, 204–5, 207 adjunct pastor, 191–92, 203–4, 210 brewer’s house, 161, 162 cemetery, 122, 161–62 church, 14, 52, 64, 69, 122, 124–25, 150, 156, 160, 164, 167, 173–75 doctrinal conference (Lehrkonferenz), girls’ school, 55, 64, 66, 71, 109 Lehngut, 40, 42 manor house, 2–3, 35–36, 40–41, 47–50, 53, 58, 66, 80, 98–99, 116, 144, 162, 165–67, 169–70, 172 parish, 5–6, 20, 89, 94, 98, 100, 104, 111, 116– 18, 120, 138, 157, 164–65, 173, 195, 201–3 school for the poor, 64 Bethabara, NC, 139 Bethlehem, PA, 139, 164 General Synod, 1957, 266n62 Moravian Archives, 86, 202 Beyer, Andreas, 92, 184–85 Beyer, Augustin, 32, 152 Beyer, Hans, 162 Beyreuther, Erich, 17, 196 Bielitz (Bielsko), 81 Blahe, Jacob, 109 Bogatzky, Carol von, 177 Böhme, Hans, 240n66 Böhme, Jacob, 11, 214n59 Bohemia, 2, 4, 37–38, 67, 72, 74, 76–84, 88–89, 91, 93, 96, 101, 126, 163, 178–79, 192, 207 Böhmer, Gottfried, 24 Bohemian Brethren. See Unity, Ancient Böhnisch, Friedrich, 232n32 Böhnisch, Georg, 232n32, 243n138, 262n170 Bonacker, Gustav, 109 Bonacker, Justina Regina, 64, 109–10, 144, 148, 193, 223n52, 258n105, 259n130 Bonin, Ulrich Bogislaw von, 61 Brandenburg, 147 breakthrough (Durchbruch), 142 Breslau (Wrocław), 23, 27, 163

292      index Brotherhood of Four (Vierbrüderbund), 20, 42–43, 54–62, 64–66, 68–73, 93–96, 114, 137, 157, 163, 190, 200–201, 204, 206 Brotherly Agreement. See statutes: Herrnhut Buchs (in Dresden), 251n132 Buchs, Daniel von, 228n141 Buchs, David Gottlob von, 121, 222n40, 228n141 Buddeus, Johann Franz, 82, 126–27, 265n57 Büdingen, 225n98 Buirette von Oehlefeld (family), 53 Bünau, von (privy councilor), 263n15 Buttlar, 213n55 Buttlar, Eva von, 110 Calvin, Jean, 88, 131 Calvinism, 52, 78–79, 81, 83, 180, 188 Caribbean, 3, 179, 209 Carl, Prince of Denmark, 68 Caroline, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, 3, 68 Castell-­Remlingen, Dorothea Renata zu, 30 Castell-­Remlingen, Sophie Theodora zu, 30 Castell, 30–31, 163 Chelčický, Petr, 77 Chemnitz, woman from, 195–96 choirs, 170, 175–76 Christian VI (King of Denmark), 67 Christianity, early. 8, 12, 14, 33, 77–78, 102, 121, 133, 138–39, 143–44, 157, 172–73, 195, 208 Chrudim, 81 Clausthal, 213n55 Clement of Alexandria, 153 Clemens, Gottfried, 208, 254n13 Coburg, 67 Collegiants, 14–15 Comenius, Jan Amos, 79, 81–82, 86–87, 104, 123, 126–29, 154–55, 172, 199 Commission, Royal (1732), 137, 185, 190–92, 200–201, 203–4, 210 Commission, Royal (1748), 197 Communion, Holy, 3, 8–9, 13, 34, 52, 77–78, 80, 83–84, 86, 88, 99–102, 104–7, 113–14, 116, 124–26, 128, 130, 141, 148, 165, 172–75, 195–96, 198, 204 community of goods, 139 confession, 25, 52, 72, 78, 84, 99–103, 114, 120, 164, 174, 195 confessionalization, 88, 210 Constance, 77 conventicles, 4, 7–8, 82, 131, 134, 156–57, 167, 169, 197, 199 See also prayer meetings; Görlitz: conventicle; Zinzendorf: in Dresden Copenhagen, 111, 190

correspondence, 68 Cranz, David, 126, 186 crypto-­Protestantism, 4, 17, 22, 67, 72, 74, 78–82, 85–88, 90–92, 94, 126, 132, 156, 167 Daniel, Thilo, 115, 237n6 Daut, Johannes Maximilian, 152 David, Anna Elisabeth (née Ludwig), 23, 40–42, 109 David, Christian, 11, 16, 19, 21–24, 26–28, 38–43, 45–46, 52, 54, 66, 70, 72, 74–76, 80–81, 90, 92–95, 100–101, 103–4, 107, 109–11, 117–19, 122, 124, 132–33, 137, 139–40, 143–44, 150, 155, 160, 162, 165, 171, 173–76, 178, 180, 183–85, 193, 199, 205, 209 David, Gottlieb Benjamin, 40, 42 David, Jan, 75 David, Rosina, 75 Demuth, Christoph, 232n32 Denmark, 3, 67, 178–79, 232n33 Diesdorf, 226n112, 249n85 Dietrich, Leopold Bernhard, 234n87 Dippel, Johann Conrad, 66, 208 Dirsdorf (Przerzeczyn-­Zdrój), 169 Dober, Andreas, Dober, Christiane Dorothea (née Lehmann), 140 Dober, Leonhard, 109, 140, 149, 209 Dober, Martin, 19, 109, 132–33, 139–43, 146, 149, 168–69, 173, 176, 185, 191, 202, 209, 246n12, 266n70 Dober (potter in Dresden), 251n132 Dörrer, Johann Georg, 179 Dresden, 3, 18–19, 28, 30, 32–35, 37, 40, 49–55, 58, 60–61, 65–66, 69, 80, 83–85, 88–90, 103, 105, 107–10, 112, 114–16, 138, 140, 146, 148, 152, 163–64, 168–69, 173, 195, 204–5, 207–8 city archives, 241n83 consistory, 25, 33, 38, 60, 83, 115, 191–92, 201 conventicles, 138, 140, 168, 173 privy council, 38, 115, 192 Saint John’s Church, 83 Saint Sophia’s Church, 69 Three Kings Church, 69 Ducreux, Marie-­Elisabeth, 90 Ebersbach, 261n145 Ebersdorf, 10, 16, 30–31, 37, 51–52, 58–61, 65, 67, 105–6, 109, 114–15, 149, 152–53, 204 ecclesiola in ecclesia, 6, 8, 41, 196, 198–99 Edelmann, Johann Christian, 246n12, 257n75, 258n95 Elers, Heinrich Julius, 81

index      293 England, 11, 14, 79, 147, 179 Erfurt, 8 Erlangen, 53 Ethiopia, 154 Fénelon, François, 153 Ferdinand II (emperor), 79 Fiedler, Anna, 151, 243n138 Fiedler, Johann Gottlob, 65 Fischer, Loth, 15–16, 28, 31 Forwerg, Hans Jacob, 24, 70, 95 France, 58, 67, 179, 232n33 Francke, August Hermann, 7–9, 28, 31–32, 57, 59, 70–72, 79, 81–82, 84, 94, 100–102, 122, 137, 144, 152, 154, 168, 208 Francke, Gotthilf August, 72, 208 Franconia, 30, 53, 67, 140 Frankfurt am Main, 7, 31 Fraticelli, 187 Frederik IV, King of Denmark, 68 Freylinghausen, Johann Anastasius, 61 Friedersdorf (Biedrzychowice), 80, 160, 228n141 Friedrich August I (the Strong), Elector of Saxony, 20, 32, 82–83, 96, 114–15, 190, 192 Friedrich August II, Elector of Saxony, 96, 192 Friedrich II (the Great), King of Prussia, 89 Friedrich Wilhelm I, King in Prussia, 81, 85, 109 Friedrich, Catharina Elisabeth. See Heintschel, Catharina Elisabeth Friedrich, Rosina, 103 Friedrich, Tobias, 18–19, 30, 32, 34, 137, 146, 152, 163, 176, 185 Fritsch, Matthäus, 232n32 Fulnek, 86 funerals, 19, 75, 83–84, 89, 96, 111, 120, 145, 161– 62, 164–65, 204 Gebhardsdorf (Giebułtów), 80, 85 Gerlachsheim (Grabiszyce), 80–81, 85, 251n144 Germantown, PA, 146 Gersdorf (family), 35, 217n42 Gersdorf, Abraham von, 87 Gersdorf, Georg Ernst von (royal commissioner), 190–92, 200–201, 203–4 Gersdorf, Gottlob Ehrenreich von, 116, 123 Gersdorf, Gottlob Friedrich von, 32, 115, 163, 221n9 Gersdorf, Henriette Katharina von, 15, 28, 40, 44, 49, 64, 137, 146, 195, 213n54, 250n108, 260n142 Gersdorf, Henriette Sophie von, 35, 42, 84–85, 96, 192 Gersdorf, Nicolaus von, Jr., 35 Gersdorf, Nicolaus von, 35, 38

Gichtel, Johann Georg, 15, 109, 148–49, 180, 218n62, 258n105 Glafey, Christian Gottlieb, 228n141 Glaucha, 9 Glew, Dennis, 267n91 Görlitz, 2, 23–27, 38, 40–41, 59–62, 65, 75, 94–95, 102, 115, 121, 140, 168, 190, 204–5 Christian company, 70–71 conventicle, 23–27, 60, 65, 69–70, 95–96, 165, 168, 181, 204–5 (see also statutes: Görlitz) fire (1717), 23 magistrate, 25, 70, 115 school for the poor, 55 Trinity Church, 23–24, 168 Graceham, MD, 216n31 Greenland, 3, 22, 209 Groß, Benedikt, 226n106 Großkniegnitz (Księginice Wielkie), 82 Großschönau, 67, 180, 261n145 Grundelstierna, Carl Heinrich, 178 Gutbier, Catharina Sophia (née Jungius), 66, 229n166 Gutbier, Dorothea Tugendreich (née Pfeiffer, wid. Nichte), 135, 137, 229n166, 247n35 Gutbier, Johann Christian, 61, 65–66, 108–9, 111–12, 123, 137, 154, 184, 234n67 Guyon, Jeanne Marie Bouvier de la Motte, 154, 249n91 Hague, The, 87 Hahn, Christina, 238n29 Hahn, Christoph, 238n29 Hahn (wife of Gottfried), 103, 223n52 Hahn, Gottfried, 103, 223n52 Hahn, Gottlob, 103, 165, 223n52 Halama, Ota, 77 Halle, 9, 17, 28, 30–32, 43, 50, 57, 59, 61, 65, 67, 70–72, 81–84, 87, 91, 94, 100–101, 106, 122, 126, 154, 168, 177, 208 See also statutes: Halle Hallunken, Pavel, 178 Hamburg, 112 Hanau, 65, 71 Händel, Johann Adam, 258n105 Harpersdorf (Twardocice), 95–96 Harrach, Graf, 234n87 Hartmannsdorf (Miłoszów), 123, 243n132 Häuser, Georg Wilhelm, 159 Hauswalde, 121, 151 Heerendijk, 46, 139 Heimburger (Zinzendorf ’s secretary), 30 Heinsius, Johann Samuel, 241n82 Heintschel (Heintzel), Catharina Elisabeth, 137, 146, 176

294      index Heitz, Apollonia Catharina (née Hanitsch), 47, 53 Heitz, Johann Georg, 16, 30, 32–33, 40, 42–54, 61, 100–101, 117, 140, 146, 165, 173, 178, 180, 206–7, 223n52 Henckel von Donnersmarck, Count Erdmann Heinrich, 72, 100–1 Hennersdorf, xv, 28, 30, 34–35, 39–40, 44, 49, 51–52, 66–67, 80, 83–85, 89, 96, 110, 119, 121–22, 125, 132–33, 137, 152, 172, 192 Hermsdorf (Jerzmanki), 203–4 Herrnhut apostolic congregation, 14, 47, 98, 104, 111, 113, 115–17, 125, 138–39, 176, 184–85, 187, 195, 202, 208 apothecary, 55, 66, 71 archives of the congregation, 18 book shop, 62 boys’ school, 64–66, 71, 111, 118, 122, 151, 200, 208 collegium musicum, 163 destruction (1945), 18, 241n91 diary, 19, 116, 122, 147 first house, 1–2, 42, 44, 46–47, 51, 74, 146, 165–66, 179 girls’ school, 50, 55, 64, 66, 71, 109, 136–37, 191, 193 Great House (Gemeinhaus), 24, 45, 54–58, 62, 64–66, 69, 71, 82, 122, 147, 157, 161, 174, 178, 191, 225n94, 259n120 Hutberg, 40, 42–47, 123, 135, 160–63 inn, 42, 45, 146, 150, 164, 179 library, 65 manor house (Herrschaftshaus), 66, 116 meeting hall (Saal), 18, 65, 69, 122, 137, 157, 160, 164, 170–71, 174–75, 186, 191, 204 memorial marker (Denkstein), 1–2 name, 45–46 orphanage, 42, 45, 64–66, 71, 118, 177, 191 population, 2, 5, 178–79 statutes. See statutes, Herrnhut Theological Seminary, 17 town plan, 42–45, 51, 158 Unity Archives, 18, 86 water supply, 43–44, 122 “wings”, 65–66, 116, 161, 176 Herrnhut model, 3, 165, 189–90, 208, 210 Hickel, Andreas, 232n32 Hilscher, Paul Christian, 34 Hinner, Georg, 109–10 Hirschberg (Jelenia Góra), 121, 228n141, 251n132 Hirschel, Zacharias, 86, 90 Hoffmann, Balthasar, 191 Hoffmann, Christoph, 96

Holleschau (Holešov), 22, 144 Holzkirch (Kościelnik), 24 Horch, Johann Henrich, 239n53 Horn, Johann, 36, 100, 237n6 Horn, (widow), 36, 49, 165, 220n87 Hus, Jan, 76–77, 88, 127, 200 Hussites, 69, 77, 94, 184, 187, 200 Ignatius of Antioch, 153 Immanuel (Jupiter), 179 Immig, Martha, 247n35 Indians, American, 3 indifferentism, confessional, 4, 13, 25, 88–89, 131 infant baptism. See baptism Ittig, Thomas, 153 Jablonski, Daniel Ernst, 81 Jablůnka, 81 Jäschke, Georg, 75 Jäschke, Michael, 40 Jena, 67, 82, 151, 153, 156, 181–85, 197, 208–9 Jerichovius, Traugott Immanuel, 183–84 Johann Georg I, Elector of Saxony, 83 Johanngeorgenstadt, 80 Kahl, Uwe, 243n132 Kalkreuth, Johann Gottlieb von, 64 Charles VI (emperor), 67, 90, 95–96, 190, 207 Charles XII, king of Sweden, 82 Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary), 25 Kemnitz, 221n13 Khoekhoe, 3 Klemm, Carl August, 240n67 Klemm, Johann Friedrich, 109–10 Klemm, Johann Gottlob, 33, 65, 69, 140, 163–64 Kluge, G., 65, 111 Knobloch, Johann Christian, 65 Knobloch, Johann Georg, 65 Königgrätz (Hradec Králové), 81 Köstritz, 220n97 Kralice, 78, 82 Krüger, Johann Siegmund, 105–11, 117, 149, 193 Krüger, Johanna Sophia (née Schmid), 105–6, 109, 149 Krumpe, Bartholomeus, 65 Kuhländchen (Kravařsko), 75, 85, 90 Kühnel, Friedrich, 145, 151, 180 Kühnel, Susanne, 124, 175, 247n35 Kunewald (Kunín, Moravia), 80, 92, 100 Kunkel, Johann Christian, 58 Kunvald (Eastern Bohemia), 77 Kunz, Hans, 86 Küppers-­Braun, Ute, 90

index      295 Labrador, 3 Lapland, 209 Larisch, Heinrich Christoph von, 32 Lauban (Lubań), 24, 62 Laurentius, Johann Gottlob, 227n137 Laurentius, Samuel, 26 laypeople, 4, 8, 20, 25, 34, 78, 80–81, 120, 132–33, 140, 164, 174, 181, 183, 186, 191–92, 198, 200, 204 See also preachers Lead, Jane, 11, 15, 28 Leberecht (from Dresden), 146 Lee, Francis, 11, 13 Lehmann, Anna Sophia (née Kutzer), 250n110 Lehmann, Gottfried, 140, 146, 164 Lehmann, Hartmut, 8, 147 Leipzig, 8, 17, 23–24, 27, 44, 67, 82 Leipziger, von (privy councillor), 263n15 Leschwitz, 137 Leuba, 27–28, 38, 40, 64 Leupold, Augustin, 163 Lhota, 81 Liberda, Johann, 84–85, 89, 121–22, 132, 192–93 Lichtenau (Lichkov), 163 Lichtenstein, 143, 157, 249n85, 267n86 Liebisch, Martin, 87 Lincke, Johanna Margarethe, 33 Linner, Martin, 19 Lissa (Lasów), 27 Lissa (Leszno), 86–87 Livonia, 179 Löbau, 18, 42, 58, 110 London, 15 Philadelphian Society, 11–12, 121, 196 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 68 Löscher, Valentin Ernst, 33 Loß, vom (privy councillor), 263n15 Loschwitz, 47 lot, use of the, 122, 177 love feast, 127–28, 146, 150, 172–76, 202 Ludewig, Abraham Gottlieb, 58–61 Ludewig, Georg Balthasar, 58 Ludolf, Hiob, 154 Luther, Martin, 8, 32, 36, 59–61, 82, 121, 130–31, 149, 152, 154, 187, 197–98, 203 Lutheranism, 4–7, 9, 11, 20, 23, 49, 52, 59–61, 75, 79, 83–85, 88–89, 92–93, 99–100, 103, 111, 113–14, 117–18, 131, 151, 162, 164–65, 174, 183–86, 188–91, 193, 195–99, 201–5, 210 Lütjeharms, Wilhelm, 6 Macek, Ondřej, 80, 88, 167 Magdeburg, 15

Manitius, Gottlob, 121 Manorial Commandments. See statutes: Herrnhut Marburg, 17 Marche, Anna Dorothea (née Scheffer), 26, 62, 221n9 Marche, Christian Gottfried, 44–45, 62, 64, 119, 179, 260n143 Marche, Christian Gotthelf, 119, 186 Maria Louise, Princess of Orange, 68 Maria (from St. Thomas), 260n140 Marienborn, 203 Marperger, Bernhard Walther, 65, 241n86 Martin, Lucinda, 7, 245n7 Meissen, 80, 109 memoirs, 19, 44, 75, 85, 90, 93 Metasch, Frank, 83 Milde, Heinrich, 82, 84 Mischke, Rev., 142 Modern (Modra), 23 Modrach, Heinrich Gottlob, 190–91 Mohammed (from India), 178 Mönchsroth, 140 Moravia, 2, 4, 20–24, 27, 38–40, 66–68, 70, 72, 74–84, 88–95, 100–101, 107, 110, 132, 144, 154, 163, 178–79, 190–92 Mordelt, Johann Friedrich, 103, 141, 152, 258n105 Mordelt, Magdalena, 103, 141, 258n105 Möschler, Johann Nicolaus, 241n89 Mucke, Caspar Leonhardt, 167 Müller, Heinrich, 62 Müller, Joseph Theodor, 61–62, 100, 127–29 Münster, Hans, 184 Münster, Johann, 232n32 Münster, Paul, 234n65 Münster, Rosina, 247n35 music, 26, 34, 69, 128, 146, 156, 161, 163–64, 171 Muthmann, Johann, 82, 256n68 Natzmer, Charlotte Justine (née von Gersdorf), 32 Natzmer, Gneomar von, 36 Neisser (family), 40–42, 52, 74–76, 90, 93–94, 165, 180 Neisser, Anna, 40, 75, 247n35, 258n105 Neisser, Augustin, 40, 42, 44, 54, 75, 103, 132–33, 143, 168, 202, 223n52, 258n105 Neisser, Friedrich Wenzel, 40 Neisser, Jacob, 40, 42, 44, 54, 75, 103, 146, 223n52, 232n32, 258n105 Neisser, Joseph, 40 Neisser, Judith, 74 Neisser, Juliana, 40 Neisser, Martha (niece), 40

296      index Neisser, Martha, 40, 53, 75, 258n105 Neisser, Wenzel, 229n179 Netherlands, 11, 14–15, 28, 79, 87 Neusalza, 80 Neuschweinitz (Nowa Świdnica), 80 Neutitschein (Nový Jičin), 22, 75 New York, NY, 164, 260n140 Nichte, Dorothea. See Gutbier, Dorothea Nichte, Gottfried, 55, 137 Nicolas, Armelle, 154 Niederndodeleben, 15 Niederwiese (Wieża), 23, 36, 40, 94, 122, 233n57 Nielsen, Sigurd, 6 night watch, 119–20, 160, 261n155 Nippe, Olaf, 267n91 Nitschmann, Anna Helena. See Anders, Anna Helena Nitschmann, Anna, 133, 135, 176, 205 Nitschmann, David (carpenter, 1696–1772), 81, 92, 123, 132, 200, 209, 229n179 Nitschmann, David (cobbler, 1696–1748), 132, 143 Nitschmann, David (confessor, 1696–1729), 235n90 Nitschmann, David (“Father”, wheelwright, 1676–1758), 92 Nitschmann, David (weaver, syndic, 1703–1779), 45, 67, 80, 86–88, 109, 132, 135, 149, 235n90 Nitschmann, David (not further identified), 119, 185, 202 Nitschmann, Hans, 67 Nitschmann, Melchior, 80, 92, 132, 175–76, 191, 235n90 Nitschmann, Rosina, 246n27, 247n35 Noailles, Louis-­Antoine de, 28, 58, 67, 130–31, 155 Noller, Matthias, 80 North America, 3, 208 Norway, 179 notarial instrument, 186–88, 197, 200 Nuremberg, 30, 214n59 Oberbürg, 30 Ödenburg (Sopron), 23 Oderberg (Bohumín), 72, 100 Oderwitz, 67, 151, 179–82 Oelsner, Caspar, 185 Oertel, Christiane, 32, 148 Oertel, Johann Karl, 157 Oetinger, Friedrich Christoph, 254n13 Opava, 215n6 Osterwald, Jean-­Fréderic, 153 Panke, Dirk, 245n2 Paris, 28, 50, 67, 130 Paul, Anna Dorothea, 137

Paus, Christoph, 26 Pennsylvania, 22, 96, 164, 192, 210 Persia, 209 Petersen, Johann Wilhelm, 15, 28, 62, 152 Petersen, Johanna Eleonora, 15, 28, 46, 144, 152–53 Pfaff, Christoph Matthäus, 81, 87, 217n37 Pfeiffer, Joachim, 247n45 Philadelphia, PA, 164, 250n113 Philadelphian movement, 6, 11–16, 28, 46, 111, 113, 118, 121, 153, 196, 210 Pietism, 4–5, 7–9, 17–18, 25, 72, 79, 128, 144, 152, 166, 168, 208 ecclesial, 8–10, 154 radical, 6, 8–11, 14–15, 17, 34, 46, 52, 58, 62, 72, 133–34, 148, 152, 154, 157, 203, 210 Pirna, 58 Pischkowitz (Piszkowice), 49 Plütschau, Heinrich, 209 Poland, 79, 82, 86, 178–79 Polheim, Juliane von, 30 Polheim, Margarethe Susanne von, 30, 47 Polycarp of Smyrna, 153 Pordage, John, 11 Posselt, Ingeborg, 6, 173 Potsdam, 106, 109 Prague, 67, 76, 81, 96, 207 prayer days (Gemeintage), 68, 209 prayer meetings, 4, 30, 33–34, 49, 52–53, 69, 80, 83–84, 86–87, 92, 96–97, 103, 119, 121–22, 124, 132–35, 138, 154, 156–57, 160, 163–72, 180, 191, 197 See also conventicles preachers (male), 103, 132–32, 135–36, 140, 154, 164, 171, 177, 181, 186, 191, 195, 204 preachers (female), 132, 135–37, 177 print shop, 55, 57–58, 61, 71, 105, 114–15 Prussia, 79–81 Quitt, Anna, 247n35 Quitt, Juliana, 247n35 Quitt, Susanna, 103, 247n35 Ranftler, Michael, 144, 163 Raschke, Adam, 232n32 Raschke, Johann, 86, 163, 232n32 Reca (Réte), 80 Regelein, Johann Friedrich, 58 Regent, Carl, 227n135, 235n108 Reichel, Gerhard, 17, 31, 53 Reichmeister, Christian Andreas, 65 Reichwein, Franz Joseph Anton, 65 Reimers, Ehlerdt Henning, 58, 60 Reimlich (Rybí), 215n6

index      297 Reinbeck, Johann Gustav, 81 Reitz, Johann Heinrich, 152 Retschel, Georg, 75 Reuss-­Ebersdorf (family), 16, 30–31, 106 Reuss, Benigna Marie, 61, 141 Reuss, Erdmuthe Benigna (née zu Solms-­ Laubach), 106 Reuss, Heinrich XXIV Count, 220n97 Reuss, Heinrich XXIX Count, 30, 58, 106, 226n102 Reuss, Theodora. See Castell Remlingen, Sophie Theodora zu Richter, Christian, 248n75 Richter, David, 227n137 Richter, Rosina, 258n105 Riemer, J. C., 65, 111 Rijnsburg, 214n59 Ritschl, Albrecht, 6 Rixdorf, 81, 85 Rohleder, Martin, 132, 245n9 Rohlíček, Martin, 81 Rome, 3, 68 Rostock, 62 Rothe, Aegidius, 217n39 Rothe, Immanuel Gottfried, 201 Rothe, Johann Andreas, 6, 10–11, 14, 16, 18–19, 21, 24–25, 27–28, 36–40, 43, 46, 49–50, 52–55, 58–62, 64–65, 69, 82, 85, 96, 99–104, 106–8, 110, 112–14, 116–19, 122, 124–25, 132, 134–35, 138, 140, 143, 146, 152, 162, 164–69, 173–74, 177, 180–81, 183–84, 186, 191, 195, 197, 201–6 Rothe, Juliane Concordia (née Rothe), 49 Rothenburg, 222n36 Rudolf II (emperor), 78–79 Russia, 179 Saalfeld, 67, 243n127 Sablat (Záblatí), 240n70 Sachsen-­Coburg-­Saalfeld, Christian Ernst von, 67 Sachsen-­Eisenach, Johann Wilhelm, Duke of, 154 Saint Thomas, 209, 260n140 Salzburgers, 73, 96 Sassadius, Samuel Ludwig, 75, 256n68 Sayn-­Wittgenstein, Casimir, Count, 228n149 Saxony, 3, 23, 36, 38, 52, 79–80, 83, 92, 99, 100, 115, 162, 182, 192, 196 Schade, Johann Caspar, 99 Schael, Gottfried Benjamin, 65, 71 Scheffer, Anna Blandina (née Kirchbach), 24 Scheffer, Anna Dorothea. See Marche, Anna Dorothea

Scheffer, Martha (née Gehler), 24, 26, 55, 205 Scheffer, Melchior, Sr., 24 Scheffer, Melchior, 10–11, 16, 18, 21, 23–27, 40, 46, 52–55, 59–62, 64–66, 69–72, 84, 94–96, 102, 106, 109–10, 113, 115, 121, 132, 134, 141, 147, 151–52, 154, 157, 165, 168, 171, 181–84, 201, 204–6 Scheffler, Johann, 230n180, 248n75 Schenk, Anna, 92 Schill, Nicolaus, 227n137 Schindler (man in Herrnhut), 184 Schmidt, Heinrich, 23 Schmiedeberg (Kowary), 66 Schneider, Anna, 91 Schneider, David, 86–87, 110, 139 Schneider, Hans, 6, 9, 15, 17, 31, 59, 71–72, 93, 152, 173, 187, 197–98, 208 Schneider, Martin, 87 Schneider, Samuel, 75, 87 Schönau (Šenov), 80, 110, 261n145 Schönbrunn (near Großhennersdorf), 84–85 Schöpfel, Adam Paul, 246n19 Schöps, Johann Jacob, 227n137 Schrader, Hans-­Jürgen, 209 Schrattenbach (cardinal), 263n4 Schubert, Heinrich, 106, 109 Schunka, Alexander, 83 Schütz, Johann Jacob, 152 Schwarzbach, Johann Christian, 32 Schwarzenau, 62, 208, 213n55 Schwedler, Johann Christoph, 36, 40, 94–95, 122, 233n57 Schweidnitz (Świdnica), 23, 184 Schweinitz (family), 27–28, 38, 64, 228n151 Schweinitz, Christian Abraham von, 228n148 Schweinitz, Christian Alexander von, 228n148 Schweinitz, Christian Ludwig von, 228n148 Schweinitz, David Christian von, 64 Schweinitz, Eva Maria von, 228n148 Schweinitz, Georg Abraham von, 106 Schweinitz, Hans Christian, 228n148 Schweinitz, Hans Christoph, 232n27 Schweinitz, Hans Siegmund von, 64 Schweinitz, Moritz Christian von, 64, 160, 226n112 Schwencke, Johann Heinrich, 114–15 Schwenckfeld von Ossig, Caspar, 95 Schwenkfelders, 3, 67, 73, 95–96, 151, 164, 180, 191–93, 205 Scultetus, Abraham, 87 Sehlen. See Söhle Seifhennersdorf, 67, 137, 180, 185, 247n41 Seitendorf (Hladké Životice), 80 Selden, John, 152

298      index Senftleben (Ženklava), 22, 75, 80 Senitz, Elisabeth von, 248n75 separatism, 3, 6, 8, 10–11, 14, 31, 101, 107, 114, 117, 127, 190, 193–96, 209 sermon repeat, 25, 33, 82, 112, 119, 122, 128, 147, 168–70 sexuality. See Zinzendorf: marital teachings Seydewitz, Charlotte von, 247n35 Seydewitz, Hanna von, 247n35 Siese (Süsse), Johann Lukas, 125 Silesia, 2–3, 21, 23–24, 40, 49, 59, 64, 66–67, 72, 75, 79–82, 94–95, 122–24, 141, 155, 169, 180, 183–84, 192, 199 simplicity (Einfalt), 143–44 song service (Singstunde), 26, 119, 128, 151, 156, 163, 168–69, 171 Slovakia. See Upper Hungary Söhle (Žilina), 22, 27, 39, 40, 74–76, 80, 90, 94, 100, 165 Sohr Neundorf (Żarska Wieś), 201 Sommer (pastor in Dirsdorf), 226n112 Sorau (Żary), 93, 142, 226n112, 229n166 Spangenberg, August Gottlieb, 5–6, 126, 151, 172, 197, 207–8 Spener, Philipp Jakob, 6–8, 14, 24, 28, 133, 137, 144, 152, 168, 198–99 Stach, Christian, 209 Stach, Matthäus, 209 statutes Berleburg, 181–82 Berthelsdorf, 135, 181, 205, Görlitz, 181–82, 205 Halle, 181–82, 208 Herrnhut, 5, 10, 14, 79, 89, 104, 117–22, 124– 29, 132, 137–38, 143, 145–46, 150, 156, 161, 164, 176, 180–81, 184, 186–87, 193–94, 199– 202, 205, 209 Herrnhut (revised 1728), 135, 186, 188 Jena, 181–82, 208 Oderwitz, 181 Philadelphian Society, 11, 121 Steinhofer, Friedrich Christoph, 204 Steinmetz, Johann Adam, 75, 81–82, 92, 94, 107–8, 117, 184, 208 Štěpánová, Magdalene, 81 Sterik, Editá, 19, 80, 93, 199 Stohske, Matthias, 81 Stolz (Stolec), 93 Strahwalde, 122, 146, 179 Stralsund, 23, 132 Strassburg, 213n55 Strom, Jonathan, 8, 133 Surat (India), 260n139 Suter, Christlieb, 18

Sweden, 82, 178–79 Switzerland, 28, 30, 50, 138, 179, 232n33 Taborites, 77 Tanneberger (Tannenberg), David, 75, 141, 232n32 Tauler, Johannes, 154 Tennhard, Johann, 152 Teschen (Cieszyn), 72, 75, 81–83, 87, 91, 94, 100, 107, 183, 226n112, 256n68 Teufel, Eberhard, 27, 36, 204 Tham, Johannes, 111–12, 178 Tharangambadi, 209 Thommendorf (Tomisław), 203 Thuringia, 67 Töltschig, Johann, 90, 229n179, 232n32, 235n90 Tranquebar. See Tharangambadi Trentschin (Trenčin), 23 Tübingen, 132 Tuchtfeld, Victor Christoph, 109 Turkey, 209 Tyrnau (Trnava), 23, 163 Unity, Ancient, 5, 14, 74, 76–79, 82, 85–88, 94, 99, 124, 126–29, 139, 143, 154, 165, 183–85, 187, 190, 193, 196–97, 200, 203 constitution, statutes, 5, 124, 126–29, 199–200, 204 hymnal, 24, 61–62, 86–87, 154 Unity, Renewed, xviii, 3, 5, 86, 99, 129, 154, 184, 193, 196, 199–200, 210 Unity Elders’ Conference, 201 Upper Hungary, 79–80, 90 Upper Lusatia, 10, 17, 37–38, 43, 79, 83, 99, 129, 138, 150, 161 Utrecht, 15–16, 31 Uttendörfer, Otto, 6, 64 Velim, 81 Vienna, 95, 147 Vierbrüderbund. See Brotherhood of Four Vrbovce, 81 Vsetín, 81 Wach, Johann Christian, 18 Waesberge, van (bookseller), 67 Wagner, Rosina, 247n35 Waldensians, 94, 187 Waldheim, 85 Wanek, Matthäus, 242n101 Watteville, Friedrich von, 16, 18, 28, 30, 43, 50–56, 59, 61, 64, 66–67, 71, 94, 100, 103, 106, 109, 112–13, 119, 138, 141–42, 173, 177, 180, 202, 206–7

index      299 Watteville, Johanna von. See Zezschwitz, Johanna von Wattevyl, Friedrich von, 50, 138 watchwords, daily, 171, 177–78 weddings, 9, 111, 120, 137, 145, 149–51, 165, 204 Werchow, 105–6 Wesley, John, 143, 167, 215n5 Wespen, 80 Wichstadtl (Mladkov), 163 Wieckowski, Alexander, 240n69 Wiegner, Christoph, 26, 96, 151, 205 Wigandsthal (Pobiedna), 80 Wilhelmsdorf, 53 Wittenberg, 28, 71, 152 Wollstadt, Hanns-­Joachim, 17, 103 women, 8, 43, 55, 78, 103, 121–23, 132–37, 139, 146, 151, 175–77 Wried, Gottlieb, 26 Württemberg, 31, 204 Zauchtenthal (Suchdol), 75, 81, 85–87, 91, 93, 100, 141 Zezschwitz, Agnes Elisabeth von, 50, 165, 222n40, 223n52 Zezschwitz, Agnes Louise von, 50, 165, 223n52 Zezschwitz, Johanna von, 16, 37, 43, 49–50, 55, 64, 71, 103, 109, 135–37, 144, 165–66, 172, 206, 218n54, 223n52, 224n73, 258n105, 259n130 Ziegenbalg, Barholomäus, 209 Zinzendorf, Benigna von, 115 Zinzendorf, Christian Renatus von, 191, 205

Zinzendorf, Erdmuth Dorothea, née Reuss, 16, 30, 33–34, 43, 49, 51–53, 55, 58, 61, 67, 71, 100, 103, 106, 109, 112, 115, 122, 135, 137, 141– 42, 149–50, 173–74, 177, 192 Zinzendorf, Georg Ludwig von, 30, 32 Zinzendorf, Johann Ernst von, 258n108 Zinzendorf, Nikolaus Ludwig von, xvii–xviii, 2–7, 10–11, 13–22, 24–62, 64–76, 79–82, 84–85, 89–90, 93–97, 100–144, 146–57, 160–74, 177, 180–87, 189–210 archives, 18 Berthelsdorf hymnbook, 59, 61–63, 125, 168 Christ-­Catholisches Singe-­und Betbüchlein, 68 Dannebrogorden, 67 in Dresden, 3, 18, 30, 32–35, 37, 40, 50–55, 61, 66, 103, 107–9, 112, 114–16, 138, 152, 163–64, 168–69, 173, 195, 207–8 Ebersdorf Bible, 59–60, 115, 152 Gewisser Grund (catechism), 58, 60–61 grand tour, 15–16, 28, 31–32, 35, 37, 49–50, 64, 130 homage as lord of the manor, 36, 47 Lautere Milch (catechism), 58 marital teachings, 148–52 Der Parther, 114 and Philadelphian movement, 13–14, 16 preaching, 169–70 and radikal Pietism, 10 Socrates, 25, 115 Zittau, 1, 42, 62, 80, 83–85, 88–89, 147 city library, 123 Zürich, 30