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 60
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
I The Elders' Conference, or Board of Elders, consisted of all the local clergy in official position-they have been mentioned in this chapter - the wives of those who were married and five other women in office : Juliana van Gammern and Catherine Lembke in the Widows' House, and Elizabeth Lewis, Anna Dorothea von Marschall and Verona Schneider in the Sisters' House.
The Board of External Supervision consisted of de Schweinitz, Muenster, Reich and Oerter, already mentioned, and the following : John Andrew Borhek, William Boehler, Sr., Joseph Horsfield, Henry Lindemeyer and Matthew Witke.
It may be added that, besides this official personnel, the Common Council of the village -this term is adopted for Gemeinrath in the character of that time to which the name in modern use, Church Council, does not suit, for town and church were then one - was made up, in 1790, in this wise : besides the above boards as ex-officio members, there were IO married couples, 2 widowers, 6 single men, 10 widows, 18 single women from the respective classes (choirs) of the population, drawn by lot from candidates chosen by ballot. The following persons who were masters of trades or were holding positions by appointment, were, by virtue of their office, members, in 1790: Matthew Weiss, the dyer; Jacob Rick- secker, the fuller ; Charles Weinecke, the tanner; John Kornmann, the currier; Herman Loesch, the miller ; Christian Ebert, the inn-keeper ; Frederick Beitel, the farmer; Chris- tian Heckewelder, the store-keeper; Schmick, the baker; Christian Hornig, the forester; George Stoll, the saw-miller; Massa Warner, the ferryman; Valentine Fuehrer, inn-keeper at the Crown; Dr. Kampmann, the Physician; Abraham Anders, head sacristan ; John Jungmann, connected with sustentation affairs; Joseph Horsfield and Francis Thomas, in their capacity as cicerones ; Andrew Borhek and William Boehler, as curators respectively of the Widows' and Sisters' Houses; Christian F. Oerter, the book-keeper; the widow Mary Apollonia Weber, as assistant to the head sacristan; Detlef Delfs and Eva Lanius, nurses ; Mary Catherine Gerhardt, stewardess in the Sisters' House; Elizabeth Beckel, attendant upon visitors ; Jacob Friis, itinerant minister of the neighborhood.
When it is considered that all of these positions were, by previously fixed arrangement, represented in the Council, and all the members of the two village boards were ex-officio members and the rest of its membership were drawn by lot from the candidates elected, it will be apparent how firmly the situation was held in the grasp of the "close regime," and how very little opportunity there was for a choice by the people in making up this body which nominally represented the vox populi. For a few years before the Revolution the Gemeinrath was really a town meeting, composed of all the adult male population and a number of women in office.
T
FS192
-
FS 92
VIEWS FRONT AND REAR OF THE SEMINARY OF 1790 THE BOYS' SCHOOL HOUSE OF 1822 WITH FUNERAL IN THE FOREGROUND
1
55I
1786-1806.
were moved into it in the forenoon and in the afternoon the forty-five boarding scholars and their six tutoresses, with the clergy and other chief men and women of the village, passed in ceremonious procession up from the old to the new building, where elaborate exercises were held. Thus began school history at the spot where the present generation of Bethlehemites are accustomed to see the troops of boys and girls who make up the day-school and the Sunday-school of the Moravian Church, gather about buildings more commodious but certainly less picturesque than that massive stone structure with its quaint curbed roof and heavy overhanging eaves and its embow- ering willows which, after serving a quarter of a century as board- ing-school and then for more than forty years as a dwelling and, in part, as school quarters for some years, had to be destroyed because those who then controlled such things were immovable in their decision that no place could be found at which to erect a Parochial School building, except by demolishing the old stone house, which many wished to see spared.
Some of the most classical memories of the famous institution which in subsequent years adopted the name Seminary for Young Ladies in preference to boarding-school for girls, are clustered about that old building which served as its second home; and certainly the largest comparative number of specially interesting and distin- guished family names figure on its roster during the twenty-four years of its history in that house, when it did not aspire to any more assuming name than simply boarding-school. If the diaries of those years had been kept in the manner of the earlier periods, there would undoubtedly be many allusions to persons about whom it is of interest now to read even trifling incidents, the larger number of whom were attracted to Bethlehem by the school more than by any- thing else. The occasional references to notable visitors are princi- pally when foreign Ambassadors, Ministers and Consuls came to see the town, as the common custom of such personages was. Now and then the name of some Governor, Congressman, Judge of the Supreme Court, or eminent scholar and educator appears. Among the latter class of public men was the Rev. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College, who was in Bethlehem several times, had some corre- spondence with Bishop Ettwein on various subjects and received sundry books treating of the history, doctrines and missions of the Moravian Church to be added to the library of his institution. The last known visit to the place by one of the Penns occurred in 1787,
552
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
when John Penn, son of Thomas-often called John Penn the poet, to distinguish him from his cousin of that name, the last Proprietary Governor-was in Bethlehem and felt his muse stirred to indite some lines to its memory which are to be found in his "Common Place Book," in possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.2
The most interesting visit of that period, in so far as it has added another to the published accounts of Bethlehem, was that of the famous Duke de la Rochefoucauld, who was pursuing his obser- vations and experiments in agriculture and economics, and naturally therefore investigated things at Bethlehem with particular attention. His visit occurred in June, 1797. The diary of that time, in its prosy brevity, disposes of his presence with the statement that "a French Duke was here and made very minute inquiries about all our arrange- ments." Moving about in the quality of a simple, untitled gentle- man, he announced himself as Monsieur Liancourt, using the name of another of his family estates, and probably did not encounter the ignorant criticisms for so doing, which certain quarrelsome relig- ionists in Pennsylvania who knew more about polemics than they did about etiquette, bestowed upon Count Zinzendorf in 1742, for announcing himself as von Thuernstein. This French nobleman came to Bethlehem with a letter of introduction from Alexander Dallas, Secretary of the Commonwealth, acting in the matter for Governor Mifflin and commending the visitor to the courtesies of
2 " Hail, Lehigh, to whose woody shores Monockesy his treasures pours, Thro' fertile meadows bro't; For when he writes. the groves and streams Most fill the poet's airy dreams And most inspire his thoughts.
Else, Bethlehem, had I pictured thee (Surrounding culture raised to see) My muse's earliest care ;
Or told the customs and the rites
Each brother boasts (as she indites) Or each religion 's fair.
From German fields the people came O'er stormy seas, with pious aim, Nor deemed the risk too much.
Irish in troops the same have done,
By bondage short their welfare won, Scotch, English, French and Dutch."
.
553
1786-1806.
Bishop Ettwein.3 He, of course, met with polite attention and in the account of his travels gave, at some length, the most correct statements about the place and about Moravian affairs generally that is to be met with in such printed narratives.
In his first reference to Bethlehem and the Moravian Brethren he says : "I have read in books of travels, so many different recitals respecting the government of their Society, their community of goods, their children even being taken away from the authority and superintendence of their parents, as belonging to the Society at large, and respecting several other points of their government, that I was desirous to judge, myself, of the truth of these assertions, and I have found at Bethlehem fresh reason not to credit, without proof, the recitals of travelers. This indisputable truth is, however, rather delicate to be averred by one who is writing travels." He reveals the correct insight he had gotten into the system of things by even explaining that the General Economy which existed prior to 1762, was an emergency arrangement, though "contrary to the rules and usages of their Society (i. e. elsewhere), from the necessity of circumstances which would have rendered the general progress of their Society more slow, and the situation of the individual families more incon- venient, if their labors and productions had been divided." It is agreeable, in contrast to the nonsense published by some, to read among his statements, this, in reference to the arrangements with the children in the time of the Economy: "The fathers and mothers being constantly employed in labour, could not, without inconven- ience to the Community, give their attention to the children. The Society therefore set apart some of the sisters to take care of the whole. The authority, however, and the superintendence of the parents was neither taken away nor diminished." His statements in regard to the alleged enforced surrender of private property about
3 " SIR.
Permit me, in the absence of the Governor, to introduce to your acquaintance Mr. Lian- court (formerly Duke de Liancourt) who is about to prosecute a tour through the interior of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Any information which you can communicate to him, and attention that you may be pleased to shew, will confer a favour on the Governor, as well as on me.
PHILA., 15 June 1797.
I have the honour to be,
with great respect, Reverend Sir,
THE RIGHT REV'D BISHOP ETTWEIN
Your most obed. Hble serv,
BETHLEHEM AND NAZARETH. .
A. J. DALLAS."
4 Voyage dans les Etats- Unis, translated under the title of Travels in North America.
554
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
which some had formerly written so much, are equally correct and lucid: "At that time, even (i. e. under the former General Economy) notwithstanding their community of goods, the Brethren that received any money from their families or friends, had the predis- posal of it. If any of them vested their property in the common stock, it was voluntary, and the effect of a zeal and disinterested action of which there were few examples. The Brethren possessed of any private property, had frequently their children with them ; they clothed them better and the care which they took of their infancy-a charge considered a relief to society-was a proof that at Bethlehem the children were not, as has been alleged, the property of the Community, and that it was no part of the constitution to make members renounce all private property." He then carefully states that the system of that time was abolished in 1762, and that, after that, Bethlehem was established "on the rules of the societies in Europe." His brief, clear statements about the regulations of the time at which he visited the place are almost without exception entirely correct. This eminent publicist, making a study of such matters, would, of course, get a clear insight into things more readily than untrained observers among mere tourists. Writing moreover with a sober purpose, his foremost desire was not to merely tell an entertaining story, while he had no disposition to distort things to the disadvantage of the Moravians, like some of the prejudiced ecclesiastics who had formerly written about the place. Fifty years after he wrote, changes even greater were made at Bethlehem than those of thirty-five years before that time, and yet, after fifty more years have passed since those greater changes, it is not uncommon to meet with statements in print about Bethlehem and the Moravians, as they are alleged to be at the present time, which would have been antiquated statements even at the time when de la Rochefou- cauld wrote, more than a century ago, and would have been corrected by his narrative of that time. His observation about caution in accepting narratives written is even yet not without value.
Much of the intercourse that took place between the authorities at Bethlehem and public men during the period sketched in this chapter, had to do with the affairs and aims of an important organ- ization that had been formed, to which allusion has not yet been made. Although it existed for the prosecution of mission work, and its principal operations lay at a distance from Bethlehem, belonging rather to the general work of the Moravian Church than to the local
555
1786-1806.
concerns of the town, its official seat has always been at Bethlehem and so much of its history is interwoven with the history of the town, that its founding can not properly be omitted from these pages. This was the "Society of the United Brethren for Propa- gating the Gospel Among the Heathen." When its formation was first discussed, October 15, 1766, it was at the instance of the General Directory of the Church in Europe which suggested a plan for placing the "Pennsylvania Heathen Society on the same footing as that in England." This recalls the fact that the Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel founded by Moravians in England in 1741, which had become decrepit, was at that time being revived under a new organ- ization, and the fact that the society of the same name founded in Pennsylvania, August 19, 1745, after the model of that in England, to which reference was made in a previous chapter, was now also in a decrepit state, had a mere nominal existence and was approach- ing its dissolution. The difficulties in the way of its re-organization on the proposed plan, seemed to be so great at that time that it was postponed. Meanwhile its nominal existence-which at last amounted to nothing more than its appearance as a factor in the finances, in the quality of a debtor to the so-called General Diaconate in the accounts of 1762-1771-was terminated when, in connection with the financial re-organization of 1771, its debt of £459.13 was charged off and not carried into the new books then opened. A memorandum in reference to that debt states that it "must be consid- ered sunk, as the said Society is dissolved and the income as well as the Expenses are now managed by the Sustentation in Bethle- hem." The question of re-organizing the society came up again in 1768 and was the subject of further correspondence with the authorities in Europe. While the matter was being delayed, the disturbances of the Revolution broke in and, of course, nothing was then done. Therefore a considerable interval elapsed between the dissolution of the old organization and the formation of the new one. In 1786, while Bishop de Watteville was in Pennsylvania, the proposition of 1768, was again discussed with the result, as stated in a paper in the hand-writing of Bishop John Ettwein, preserved in the archives, that "a proposal and a rough draft as a plan for a Brethren's Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen" was sent to the authorities in Europe and was by them "Kindly received, amended, approved and recommended for execu- tion, which was cheerfully done, and the Stated Rules of the Society
556
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen agreed on and subscribed in Bethlehem the 21st of Septem- ber, 1787, as printed.""
On May 5, 1787, the General Conference of Helpers at Bethlehem received the answer to their letter of December 25, 1786, proposing to the Unity's Elders' Conference that the new organization be now proceeded with and application be made to the Congress of the United States for a charter of incorporation. On August 3 and again on September 4, the articles of constitution worked over by the U. E. C. embodying their proposed amendments to the draft that had been sent them, were carefully considered seriatim. It is to be observed here that the common supposition that this constitution, which was adopted almost verbatim as then drafted, emanated in the first instance from the U. E. C. has been ascertained to be an error. The original draft was made by Bishop John Ettwein and, with the proposed alterations and amendments by the U. E. C., was eventually adopted. September 14, after securing the approval of the proposed constitution by the Elders' Conferences of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Lititz and Hope, and of the majority of the ministers of the city and country congregations, the General Board of Helpers resolved to call a meeting on September 21, of those persons at Bethlehem and Nazareth who under the constitution would be ex- officio members, to proceed with the organization. This meeting was held in the original chapel of Bethlehem in the old Community House, which had become the residence of local clergy exclu- sively and therefore, properly speaking, a Clergy House. After a formal opening and an address, the constitution was read and then signed by those present according to an order agreed upon. Then followed the election of a President and three Assistant Directors ; the members of the General Conference of Helpers-subsquently again Provincial Helpers' Conference and then Provincial Elders' Conference-being ex-officio directors, together with the members of the similar Executive Board in North Carolina, until some years later, when a separate organization was formed there. The first President of the Society was Bishop Ettwein, president of the board
5 For a full account of the original society of 1745. see Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society Vol. V. pp. 311-355. A Historical Sketch of the Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen, 1787-1887, compiled by the late Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz, and read at the centennial anniversary of the new society, was published in 1887 by the Board of Directors.
1786 -- 1806. 557
at Bethlehem. The Administrator of the property in Pennsylvania of the Unity or Church General, John Christian A. deSchweinitz, was appointed the first treasurer and Jacob Van Vleck the first sec- retary; he with Bernhard Adam Grube and John Frederick Peter being the first three elected assistant directors.
It was decided that August 21, the anniversary of the beginning of the Moravian missions to the Heathen, should be proposed, as the day for the annual general meeting of the Society. Bishop Ettwein was commissioned to draft a petition to Congress for an Act of incor- poration and to consult with Charles Thompson, Secretary of Con- gress, furnishing him a copy of the constitution. Thompson suggested that the more proper course would be to apply to the Assembly of Pennsylvania for incorporation, as the Society would be organized in that State. It is interesting to note, in this matter, the federalist conceptions of the Moravian authorities at that time, before the Constitution of the United States had been adopted, in thus turning at once to Congress as the body to be addressed. They were, for the most part, of this political persuasion which was in harmony with the genius of their own organization as then estab- lished under a strongly centralized federal government. In discussing the question of applying to Congress for incorporation at the meeting of September 21, 1787, it was debated whether they should wait until the adoption of the federal constitution-the Constitutional Convention had just finished its work and in the following December it was ratified by Pennsylvania-or proceed at once when there were yet many in Congress who were conversant with Moravian affairs and friendly disposed. On October 19, it was decided to have six to eight hundred copies of the constitution of the Society with an intro- duction by Ettwein printed in English and distributed for the infor- mation of the members of the Assembly and of different Congress- men and other public men. The proposition to ask the Assembly at the same time for a grant of land for the benefit of the Indian missions-no indemnification having ever been received for the improvements abandoned when the missions had to be transferred to Ohio-was deemed open to objection in connection with the petition for incorporation, unless well-informed and influential members of the Assembly should suggest the expediency of doing so. The first general meeting of the Society took place, November 1, 1787, and was attended by fifty-three members from Bethlehem and other places. The act of incorporation was passed by the Assembly of
-
558
A HISTORY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA.
Pennsylvania, February 27, 1788. Similar incorporation was later secured in New Jersey and New York, and then also in the new State of Ohio, where twelve thousand acres of land in the Tuscarawas Valley had been set apart by the United States Government for the Christian Indians in 1785, as an indemnification for the ruin of the missions. In 1796 the grant was confirmed and made over to the Society in trust. . In 1797 the survey took place and in 1798 the patent was finally signed by the President of the United States. Further proceedings of the Society need not be here pursued. After an unbroken existence of one hundred and fourteen years on the new foundation laid in 1787, it held its one hundred and twenty-eighth general meeting in 1901, in a vigorous and flourishing condition, its financial report showing $16,160.81 disbursed during the preceding fiscal year.6
Numerous interesting communications between the officers of the Society for Propagating the Gospel and the highest officials of the Government during the last decade of the eighteenth and the first of the nineteenth century are on record, and some of the letters that passed in these communications are preserved in the archives at Bethlehem. Its existence also gave occasion to renewed communi- cation between Bethlehem and General Washington. On March 28, 1788, Bishop Ettwein wrote a letter to him, then at his home at Mount Vernon, and with it sent a copy of the constitution and rules of the Society, together with a treatise he had prepared on Indian traditions, languages and customs. Washington wrote a reply under date of May 2, in which he courteously acknowledged the receipt of these documents and spoke in commendatory terms of the Society and its object.7
6 Founded in 1745, existing until 1771, then, after the Revolutionary break, re-organized in 1787, this Society is by far the oldest existing missionary organization in America ; a claim continually made for the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, organized, June 29, 1810.
7 This letter of May 2, 1788, reads as follows :
" DEAR SIR,
I have received your obliging letter of the 28th of March, inclosing a copy of some remarks on the customs, languages &c of the Indians, and a printed pamphlet con- taining the stated rules of a Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen ; for which tokens of polite attention and kind remembrance I must beg you to accept my best thanks.
So far as I am able of judging, the principles upon which the Society is founded, and the rules laid down for its government, appear to be well calculated to promote so laudable and arduous an undertaking; and you will permit me to add that if an event so long and so
559
1786-1806.
Again on July 10, 1789, at a meeting of the Directors of the Society, a congratulatory address was framed to be sent to him in view of his inauguration as President of the United States. It was committed to the Rev. James Birkby, the Moravian pastor in New York City, to present in person. This was done and a very cordial answer was returned by Washington, which was received August 20, 1789, to the board at Bethlehem.8 The sentiments expressed by
ardently desired as that of converting the Indians to Christianity and consequently to civili- zation can be effected, the Society at Bethlehem bids fair to bear a very considerable part in it. With sentiment of esteem,
I am your most obedient humble servant,
GEO. WASHINGTON."
8 The address of the Directors read as follows :
" TO HIS EXCELLENCY GEORGE WASHINGTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The Address of the Directors of the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.
SIR,
The Directors for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen do in the Name of this Society and in the name of all the Brethren's Congre- gations in these United States most cordially congratulate you on your being appointed President of the United States of America.
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.