USA > Pennsylvania > Lehigh County > Bethlehem > A history of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1741-1892, with some account of its founders and their early activity in America > Part 55
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86
502
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
They were particularly enraged by the discovery that Ettwein had gone to Philadelphia about the matter. Rising to the full height of their affronted official dignity, they issued a summons for Ettwein and sternly declared that if he did not appear before them on the 15th, and that too at ten of the clock in the forenoon, they would "have him fetched." On that morning Ettwein took his hat and walking-stick, declined the anxious offer of some to accompany him, and leisurely went to Allentown to face the irate squires. After a colloquy of three hours, they abandoned the idea of issuing any more warrants for whole towns to appear before them, and arranged to come to Bethlehem on April 18, to take the oath of those who were willing. William Henry persuaded them that this was what they had better do.
It must be borne in mind that from the time when Okely's com- mission as a Justice lapsed, with the decease of the Proprietary Government, there had been no Justice at Bethlehem. None was sought or desired for some years. It was thought that under the circumstances of the time, the place would be better off without one. This remained so for many years. Not until the election of William Henry, of Nazareth, December 22, 1787, was there a squire again in Bethlehem Township-it then yet included Nazareth-and it was still later before one again resided at Bethlehem. In spite of this, the place managed to get on fairly well.
In October, 1778, following that fiasco of the Allentown squires, another special appeal, at the suggestion of influential public men, was signed by citizens of Bethlehem, Nazareth and Lititz, and pre- sented to the Assembly. The belief was expressed by some leading men that another such a petition from the Moravians, speaking only for themselves, might help to influence that body to modify the act then in force, which prudent men were convinced was both needlessly oppressive and impolitic. John Bayard, Speaker of the House, referring to this, said, "we have made a sharp weapon and madmen have gotten it into their hands. We must try to get it from them again." Timothy Matlack had written to Ettwein on September II, that none of them must obey such a summons as that of the two squires, for if they did, its validity would thereby be recognized, and this must not be. It subsequently became known that the real instigator of the whole process was again John Wetzel, and that during the interview between Ettwein and the squires he was a surreptitious listener, concealed in an adjoining room. A man from
503
1778-1785.
Lancaster named Sutton, connected with the Moravian Church there as a society member, had appeared in Allentown with Ettwein. His presence mystified the squires and made them uneasy. They feared that he was present for the purpose of hastening to Philadelphia to report their proceedings. Afterwards, when twitted with not executing their blustering threats of what they would do with Ettwein when they got hold of him, their excuse was, "he has too many friends in the Assembly and Council." The failure of this effort broke Wetzel's influence. Later, after several consultations at Bethlehem and Nazareth, at which the most decided difference of opinion prevailed that had yet become manifest, it was agreed that, under the circumstances, it should not be regarded as a breach of faith towards those who were more tenderly and narrowly scrupulous, and might moreover be advisable, if certain classes of men, such as merchants, millers, tavern-keepers, physicians and others engaged in any kind of public business, took the test oath if they felt consci- entiously at liberty to do so. Some of them did then take the test.
At Nazareth there was more unanimity in favor of maintaining the previous position. Still more was this the case at Lititz, where the people were more secluded, lived more in the atmosphere of sur- rounding Mennonite and Tunker sentiment, so strong in the neigh- borhood, and had not felt the influencing touch of the more enlight- ened and elevated currents of the revolutionary spirit that had been flowing through Bethlehem. Most of these good people, like some at Bethlehem, held decidedly narrow views of the great struggle of the times and clung to their old position in a manner that became open to the charge of being fanatical and stubborn, even though the danger that any of them would in any way lend themselves to Tory intrigues was so remote that the supposition was absurd, as all public men who were best acquainted with them knew quite well. William Henry, at this juncture, strongly urged the men at Bethlehem to no longer hold out against taking the test and declined to believe that the dreaded schism would mar the peace of the place to the extent which some apprehended. Several men in the Executive Board inclined to the same view, notably de Schweinitz. Ettwein's senti- ments had been undergoing a change on the general question of the Revolution, and he no longer refused to recognize the ground taken by the colonies as justified. But his keen dread of internal dissen- sion among his brethren, if gradually a party that had taken the oath and one that had not should be formed, induced him to urge
504
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
maintaining the compact that had given them union and strength in the ordeals which had been passed, and would enable them to worry on through those which might yet follow, believing that noth- ing worse could befall them than had already been endured. Taking this position, he engaged to put forth every effort that was possible and to employ every influence he could set in motion, to secure relief from those disabilities and penalties of the test laws which were imposed to cover the case of real traitors and actual conspirators, in league with the enemy.
The test laws were amended by the passage of a bill, on November 26, which became law on December 5, 1778. The penalties of non- abjuration were removed, excepting disability to hold office under the Government, to vote at the election of public officers and to sit on juries. The relief sought by the Moravians was secured by the terms of this act and, although the embarrassments and financial burdens in connection with militia duty continued, they were no more harassed about taking the oath as before. The civil disabili- ties under which they now stood did not distress them. New uneasi- ness and discussion were occasioned a year later, when the party in the Assembly which had advocated drastic laws, again acquired the ascendency in the passage, October I, 1779, of a sup- plement to the act of the previous year. It did not revive the severe penalties of the former acts, but specified some additional disqualifications, not more grievous, but of wider range, and provided that those who did not take the oath required by the act of December 5, 1778, within the fixed time should be perpetually debarred from the privilege and disfranchised. This latter was the most serious part of the amendment. The question was now discussed whether the time had not come when all who felt so inclined should take the test, in protection of person and prop- erty, and again there were wide differences of opinion. Ettwein stoutly maintained that such an act of Assembly would not stand permanently, that the pendulum would swing back again. Others lacked this cool confidence. Again Ettwein went to Philadelphia and had interviews with the most able and reliable leading men; found that the act was regarded by them as only a temporary vic- tory of an extreme wing; received renewed assurances of friendship from the most influential quarters, and returned the last day of Octo- ber to still the troubled waters. But some were not satisfied, and when Ettwein, in pursuance of other duties, went to Hope, N. J.,
Etwein Episc
JOHN ETTWEIN
505
1778-1785.
de Schweinitz was commissioned by those who had favored another memorial to the Assembly, to go to Philadelphia and ascertain what prospect there would be for a hearing. The final conclusion was that "there was nothing to be done but to remain patient and quiet." Meanwhile those who wished to do so were, of course, at liberty to take the oath within the specified time. Thus the matter rested dur- ing the remainder of the Revolutionary period, and the subject of the test acts, as they affected Bethlehem, may be dismissed. They were modified in 1784, but not entirely repealed until 1789.
As regards the militia burdens, an instance of their weight appeared not long after this renewed excitement about the test. On December 14, 1779, Sheriff Jonas Hartzel came to Bethlehem, with many expressions of regret and sympathy, to collect six months' forfeit of men enrolled in the first class. The amount that had to be paid was £42.6, by each man.
After the visit of Martha Washington, in June, 1779, there are fewer references in the records to the presence of prominent people at Bethlehem than previously. One visit, noted on July 28, is of some interest. It is stated that three Virginians arrived, on their way to camp, one of them, "a certain Washington, nephew of the General," and that Ettwein escorted them to Christiansbrunn and Nazareth. This must have been Col. William Augustine Washington, the only relative of General Washington at that time active in the Continental service.8
That comparatively quiet interval at Bethlehem, the spring and summer of 1779, was distinguished by an important official visit which revived the interrupted connection of the Moravian settlements and congregations in America with the general directing board of the Church, the Unity's Elders Conference, in Europe. Much con- cern was felt by that body for the case of the American Moravians. Bishop Spangenberg, its President, was fully capable, through his long residence in America and his thorough acquaintance with American conditions, of appreciating their situation. He under-
8 Bushrod Washington, the General's well-known nephew, who visited Bethlehem in Oc- tober, 1804, was at this time (1779) only seventeen years old. Histories and works of ref- erence mention Col. Wm. Washington, not as a nephew, but merely as a relation of George Washington. Madam Riedesel, describing the sojourn of her party at Philip Van Horne's, in Somerset County, New Jersey, in October, 1779, just before their return the last time to Bethlehem, says they " found there a nephew of General Washington and a number of other American officers." This was evidently the same Washington who had passed through Bethlehem less than three months before.
506
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
stood the responsibilities, cares and trials of those who had to bear the brunt in leadership at Bethlehem, and could realize what devolved upon Ettwein when the enfeebled condition of Bishop Nathanael Seidel became known and his desire for relief from official duties was considered.
The question of the proper attitude to be assumed by the authori- ties of the Church over against the great struggle in America, as this was viewed by them from the standpoint of a European country, other than England, occasioned grave deliberations. Naturally, let- ters from Bethlehem reached them at long intervals only, and the few they did receive had to touch affairs of the time with caution and reserve, for obvious reasons. Deep sympathy for their Ameri- can brethren and the felt need of another strong and wise man to communicate such official messages and institute such measures as the exigencies of the time required, and to step in and help guide affairs, led to the decision that a protracted official visit should be undertaken by a competent member of the governing board, in the hope that the precarious situation of war times might not prevent his effort to reach Bethlehem, and from there, the other Moravian places.
This important and critical mission was entrusted to Bishop John Frederick Reichel. Not only his wife, but a number of other per- sons, accompanied him. Among these were the superintendent, Frederick William von Marschall, of Salem, North Carolina, with his wife and daughter. He and the Rev. David Zeisberger, Jr., of the Nazareth pastorate, and his wife, had been detained in Europe since the General Synod of 1775, which they attended. Zeisberger remained yet longer. Others who made up Bishop Reichel's party were John Jacob Swihola, who became pastor at Emmaus during the latter part of the Revolution; Dr. Christian Frederick Kamp- mann, sent over as physician at Hope, N. J .; Siegmund Leschinsky, who became connected with the management of the affairs of the Single Brethren's House at Bethlehem; Jacob Van Vleck, son of Henry Van Vleck, the former New York merchant, now a resident of Bethlehem, who had been pursuing his studies in the Theological Seminary of the Church at Barby in Saxony; and Anna Dorothea de Watteville, daughter of Bishop John de Watteville and grand- daughter of Count Zinzendorf, to be married to the Rev. John Chris- tian Alexander de Schweinitz, whose first wife, a daughter of von Marschall, had died at Bethlehem in 1775. The whole party reached
507
1778-1785.
London, October 9, 1778. There they secured the necessary pass- ports and safe conducts from the British Government, for use so far as these might serve, which it was hoped would be at least as far as New York, then in British possession. They left London, the end of October, and on Christmas Day they set sail at Ports- mouth with a fleet of more than seventy-five craft bound partly for New York and partly for the West Indies, under convoy of upwards of twenty English war vessels of various sizes and descriptions. After a further delay at the naval rendezvous of Tor Bay, they finally put out to sea, January I, and reached New York, March 26, I779. Their arrival was announced at Bethlehem on the 3Ist. De Schweinitz immediately started for Hope, N. J., to proceed from there to Elizabethtown for the purpose of ascertaining how passes through the lines to Bethlehem might be had. April 2, William Duer, of New York, member of Congress, then in Bethlehem, advised Ettwein to write to President Joseph Reed, at Philadelphia, and offered to speak with General Washington and Governor Liv- ingston, of New Jersey, about the matter. Henry Van Vleck went to Philadelphia on the 7th to apply for such good offices as Presi- dent Reed could render, which he secured without difficulty.9 His
9 Two papers issued by him are preserved in the Bethlehem archives. The first reads as follows :
PHILADELPHIA, APRIL 8th, 1779.
" SIR.
The Bearer hereof, Mr Van Vleck has applied to me in behalf of a Mr Marschall, his Lady and 2 Daughters, (one and de Watteville's daughter) the Revd Mr Reichel and his Lady, Mr Jacob Van Vleck, Mr Campman and Messrs Leshinsky and Swihola, all of the Society of Moravians. These persons are now at New York and are desirous to proceed to their Friends in this State at Bethlehem, for which they have my free Consent and Permis- sion so far as the same may be consistent with your convenience and the good of the Service. If therefore there is no Difficulty on that Account, you will be so obliging as to favour their Views by permitting them, their Servants and necessary Baggage to pass the Lines.
I am with much Regard Your most humble Serv't
TO BRIGADIER GENERAL MAXWELL
Comand'g Officer at Elizabethtown.
Jos. REED."
Another, probably written to the Commander-in-Chief-the address is torn off-is the fol- lowing :
DEAR SIR.
The Bearer hereof, Mr Van Vleck is a respectable Member of the Moravian Society and a Gentleman of amiable Character. Some Concerns of the Society as well as of a private
508
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
testimonials and requests were honored; the whole party was passed through the American lines and reached Bethlehem, April 17.
One of Bishop Reichel's first consultations with the executive board-Provincial Helpers' Conference-at Bethlehem related to the position recommended by the Unity's Elders' Conference over against the Revolution and the new Government. It struck a middle course between the stand taken by those who thought that former favors from England obligated them to loyalty, so long as the issues of the war were not concluded in the recognition of American independence, and that taken by others who held that the inability of the British Government to any longer protect them in the former privileges, released them, not only from all such allegi- ance, but also from standing together in declining to take any oath or to bear arms in active warfare, regardless of differing individual sentiments ; a position which, as had been formerly urged, they were considered under obligation to take, because exemption from these things was the special privilege they had sought and received. The principle he advocated was that of recognizing the powers that be de facto, leaving the question whether de jure or not out of account, so long as their claim was not yet recognized in terms of peace by their enemy, the former Government. On this basis they should endeavor to pursue their old calling to seek the peace of the places where they dwelt, and to seek the peace they desired of the existing Government in continuing to plead for the previous exemptions ; but, so far as was in their power, to render the taxes and other duties demanded in lieu of the service from which they sought exemption. If these duties should become onerous, under the stress of war, to the extent of spoliation, they should regard this as they would view suffering which might come upon them through other kinds of calamity. They should exhaust every means to secure exemption from oath, while exerting themselves just as strongly to prove, by word and conduct, that this did not signify a position of hostility to the new Government. If the pressure became extreme, so that it would be a matter of taking the oath under duress, for those whose
Nature may make it necessary for him to wait upon your Excellency. If so I beg Leave to recommend him to your favorable Notice, being assured he has no desires but what are per- fectly consistent with the Interests of America. I am with the greatest Respect and Regard Dear Sir Your most obedient and
PHILADIA APRIL 9th 1779.
very humble Serv't
Jos. REED.
509
1778-1785.
scruples were strongest, such persons could not rightfully expect others who did not share their scruples to this extent to go with them into a kind of martyrdom on this account, and should not insist on applying their own conscience to other men's conduct to such an extreme. Then it must become a matter for each indi- vidual to settle for himself. Those who preferred to take the oath before such a point was reached, must have liberty to do so without reproach. Those who preferred to stand by their convictions to the last, must examine their hearts and be sure that it was really a pure matter of conscience. The latter must not charge the former with violating faith. The former must not charge the latter with mak- ing themselves burdensome to their brethren. Each must bear with the other. In any case, if there arose such a division, it must not be on the ground of differing attitude towards the Government, but purely on that of conscience in the matter of oath. Meanwhile it was urged that those who were for abandoning the old position in a body should, for the sake of others, not needlessly precipitate this issue within the Congregation.
One of the important things Bishop Reichel did during his stay of more than two years was to introduce a body of articles, called a Brotherly Agreement, which all of the so-called city and country congregations adopted and signed, as a uniform covenant. The stat- utes of Bethlehem and of the other exclusive settlements, although a different body of articles, were in entire harmony with it in every declaration of principle. It was adopted by a conference of thirty ministers held at Bethlehem, April 26-28, 1781. It was substantially the same as the Brotherly Agreement at the present time issued by authority of the Northern Provincial Synod of the Church in America, as the covenant to be adopted by every new congregation organized. The seventh and eighth articles of that compact read as follows: "We will cordially subject ourselves to the government that is in power over us, and will conform to all human ordinances of the land in which we live; and we will by no means evade the payment of the taxes required of us for the support of our State . or County. Being called to maintain peace, and being by grace children of peace, we will follow after peace with all men, and in no wise will permit ourselves to become entangled in political agitation or controversies, but, if such take place, in the Providence of God, will strive to approve ourselves as orderly and quiet citizens." The significance of these articles of the covenant-for no such
510
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
Brotherly Agreement had before been adopted and signed by the people in the city and country congregations-was that they were introduced at this particular time, when the war was yet in progress and its result uncertain. They recognize an existing government, confess their obligation to it and promise subjection to it, while, on the other hand, avowing determination to keep aloof from politics. They refer explicitly to State and County. This means, therefore, due recognition of both general and local ordinances and officials. It is worthy of attention that at that time the Moravians were undoubtedly the only religious body in Pennsylvania which, as such, bound all its membership in its central church covenant, signed by all, to such a formal and explicit recognition of dutiful subjection to the Civil Government in its first experimental stage, with its armies in the field, fighting to establish its right to begin to exist. Some other bodies among those who objected to taking the test oath deemed it their duty to withhold recognition from the new Government. The adoption of these articles, at that time, shows the general drift of Bishop Reichel's policy, which meant that of the general authorities of the Moravian Church in Europe. It indicates their probable belief in the successful issue of the struggle for inde- pendence, and reveals that they did at least not view it as an unrighteous revolt. If they had strongly believed in the probable success of the British arms, or had strongly disapproved of the Revolution, they would hardly have favored the introduction of any kind of reference to civil government in the Brotherly Agreement, at a time when the end of the conflict was not yet in sight.
It is not unlikely that the influence of the statements and masterly achievements of Dr. Franklin in the interest of the cause while in Europe, particularly his securing the important French alliance, affected their opinions in this respect; especially those of Spangen- berg, who, like that eminent Moravian of England, James Hutton- although the latter was hard to convince-was a personal friend of Franklin. That Franklin found time and considered it worth while -for he had much intercourse with Hutton, personally and in writing-to bring some weight to bear upon these men's minds, in view of the interests with which they were connected in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, is not unlikely. Bishop Croeger states in his history, doubtless on the authority of official records, that Bishop Reichel, when he started on his journey to America, was commended to Franklin's good offices by Spangenberg and Hutton.
5II
1778-1785.
When Reichel assumed official charge, both in general, which required visits to all Moravian fields, including that in North Carolina, and locally at Bethlehem, Ettwein, actually, although not nominally the leader before, withdrew for the time being from his difficult post. Besides visiting various places to assist in getting the Brotherly Agreement properly introduced, he devoted his particular attention to the affairs of Hope, New Jersey, where he took up his residence for a while. During the first week in June, 1779, Reichel effected some reconstruction of boards at Bethlehem, in accordance with modifications that had been decreed by the General Synod of 1775. The general tendency of these modifications was in the line of reaction, to some extent, from the plan of organization fixed for the whole Unity and all of its parts, in 1769, towards a more compact federalism and a stronger central government-as intimated in a previous chapter, in elucidating some principles and features of organization. The Gemeinrath or Common Council of the village no longer consisted of all the' voting members or citizens, but of a representation from its different classes or choir divisions. There was a noticeable increase in the relative number of ex-officio members in the various official bodies; and in the case of those who were elected by the people, the employment of the lot to select from candidates chosen, was regulated in such a way that its check upon mere majority choice was more strongly felt. The paramount position of the Elders' Conference, or Board of Elders, representing the connection of the Congregation with the central Unity's Elders' Conference, became more distinct and effective. It opened an era of compactness and fixedness, under strongly centralized control, that marked the most stationary period of the whole Moravian Church and of all its exclusive villages and its congregations. In its practical working, so far as Bethlehem was concerned, this tendency was, at first, perhaps salutary under existing circumstances. It was like making things fast and going into snug winter-quarters for the vicissitudes of an inclement season. The unfortunate feature of it appeared at a later period, resulting from the fact that every- thing was left there too long, when greatly changed conditions called for opening up and relaxation of arrangements.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.