drawn--remained unimpaired. At best, however, it was only a compromise;
and in 1879 an alteration was made {1879.}. As Mission work was the only
work in which the whole Church took part as such, it was decided that
only the Mission Department of the U.E.C. should be elected by the
General Synod; the two other departments, the Educational and Financial,
were to be nominated by the German Provincial Synod; and in order that
the British and American Provinces should have a court of appeal, a new
board, called the Unity Department, was created. It consisted of six
members, i.e., the four members of the Missions Department, one from the
Educational Department, and one from the Finance Department. At the same
time the U.E.C., divided still into its three departments, remained the
supreme Board of Management.
But this arrangement was obviously doomed to failure {1890.}. In the
first place it was so complex that few could understand it, and only
a person of subtle intellect could define the difference between the
functions of the U.E.C. and the functions of the Unity Department; and,
in the second place, it was quite unfair to the German Brethren. In
Germany the U.E.C. still acted as German P.E.C.; of its twelve members
four were elected, not by a German Provincial Synod, but by the General
Synod; and, therefore, the Germans were ruled by a board of whom only
eight members were elected by the Germans themselves. At the next
General Synod, therefore (1889), the U.E.C. was divided into two
departments: first, the Foreign Mission Department, consisting of
four members, elected by the General Synod; second, the German P.E.C.,
consisting of eight members, elected by the German Provincial Synod.
Thus, at last, thirty-two years after the British and American
Provinces, did the German Province attain Provincial independence.
But even this arrangement proved unsatisfactory. As we thread our
way through these constitutional changes, we can easily see where the
trouble lay. At each General Synod the problem was, how to reconcile the
unity of the Church with the rights of its respective Provinces; and so
far the problem had not been solved. The flaw in the last arrangement is
fairly obvious. If the U.E.C. was still the supreme managing board, it
was unfair to the Americans and Britons that eight of its twelve members
should be really the German P.E.C., elected by the German Provincial
Synod.
The last change in the constitution was of British origin {1898.}. At a
Provincial Synod held in Mirfield, the British Moravians sketched a plan
whereby the U.E.C. and the Unity Department would both cease to
exist; and when the next General Synod met at Herrnhut, this plan was
practically carried into effect. At present, therefore, the Moravian
Church is constituted as follows {1899.}: First, the supreme legislative
body is still the General Synod; second, the Church is divided into four
Provinces, the German, the British, the American North, and the American
South; third, each of these four Provinces holds its own Provincial
Synods, makes its own laws, and elects its own P.E.C.; fourth, the
foreign mission work is managed by a Mission Board, elected by the
General Synod; and last, the supreme U.E.C., no longer a body seated in
Germany and capable of holding frequent meetings, is now composed of
the Mission Board and the four governing boards of the four independent
Provinces. In one sense, the old U.E.C. is abolished; in another, it
still exists. It is abolished as a constantly active Directing Board;
it exists as the manager of certain Church property,[156] as the Church's
representative in the eyes of the law, and as the supreme court of
appeal during the period between General Synods. As some of the members
of this composite board live thousands of miles from each other, they
are never able to meet all together. And yet the Board is no mere
fiction. In theory, its seat is still at Berthelsdorf; and, in fact, it
is still the supreme administrative authority, and as such is empowered
to see that the principles laid down at a General Synod are carried out
in every branch of the Moravian Church.[157]
And yet, though the Moravian Church is still one united ecclesiastical
body, each Province is independent in the management of its own
affairs. For example, let us take the case of the British Province. The
legislative body is the Provincial Synod. It is composed of, first, all
ordained ministers of the Church in active congregation service; second,
the Advocatus Fratrum in Angliâ and the Secretarius Fratrum in Angliâ;
third, lay deputies elected by the congregations. At a recent British
Provincial Synod (1907) the rule was laid down that every congregation
possessing more than one hundred and fifty members shall be entitled
to send two deputies to the Synod; and thus there is a tendency in the
British Province for the lay element to increase in power. In all local
British matters the power of the Provincial Synod is supreme. It has
power to settle the time and place of its own meetings, to supervise
the administration of finances, to establish new congregations, to
superintend all official Church publications, to nominate Bishops, and
to elect the Provincial Elders' Conference. As the U.E.C. act in the
name and by the authority of a General Synod, so the P.E.C. act in
the name and by the authority of a Provincial Synod. They see to
the execution of the laws of the Church, appoint and superintend all
ministers, pay official visits once in three years to inspect the state
of the congregations, examine candidates for the ministry, administer
the finances of the Province, and act as a Court of Appeal in cases of
dispute.
The same principles apply in individual congregations.
As each Province manages its own affairs subject to the general laws of
the Church, so each congregation manages its own affairs subject to the
general laws of the Province. As far as its own affairs are concerned,
each congregation is self-ruling. All members over eighteen years who
have paid their dues are entitled to a vote. They are empowered to elect
a deputy for the Provincial Synod; they elect also, once in three years,
the congregation committee; and the committee, in co-operation with the
minister, is expected to maintain good conduct, honesty and propriety
among the members of the congregation, to administer due discipline and
reproof, to consider applications for membership, to keep in order
the church, Sunday-school, minister's house, and other congregation
property, and to be responsible for all temporal and financial concerns.
Thus the constitution of the Moravian Church may be described as
democratic. It is ruled by committees, conferences and synods; and these
committees, conferences and synods all consist, to a large extent, of
elected deputies. As the Moravians have Bishops, the question may be
asked, what special part the Bishops play in the government of the
Church? The reply may be given in the words of the Moravians themselves.
At the last General Synod the old principle was reasserted, that "the
office of a Bishop imparts in and by itself no manner of claim to the
control of the whole Church or of any part of it; the administration
of particular dioceses does therefore not belong to the Bishops." Thus
Moravian Bishops are far from being prelates. They are authorized to
ordain the presbyters and deacons; they examine the spiritual
condition of the ordinands; and, above all, they are called to act as
"intercessors in the Church of God." But they have no more ruling power
as such than any other minister of the Church.
Finally, a word must be said about the use of the Lot. As long as the
Lot was used at all, it interfered to some extent with the democratic
principle; but during the last twenty or thirty years it had gradually
fallen into disuse, and in 1889 all reference to the Lot was struck out
of the Church regulations; and while the Brethren still acknowledge the
living Christ as the only Lord and Elder of the Church, they seek His
guidance, not in any mechanical way, but through prayer, and reliance on
the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
BOOK FOUR. -- THE MODERN MORAVIANS, 1857-1907.
When the Brethren made their maiden speech in the Valley of Kunwald four
hundred and fifty years ago, they little thought that they were founding
a Church that would spread into every quarter of the civilized globe. If
this narrative, however, has been written to any purpose, it has surely
taught a lesson of great moral value; and that lesson is that the
smallest bodies sometimes accomplish the greatest results. At no period
have the Brethren been very strong in numbers; and yet, at every stage
of their story, we find them in the forefront of the battle. Of all the
Protestant Churches in England, the Moravian Church is the oldest; and
wherever the Brethren have raised their standard, they have acted as
pioneers. They were Reformers sixty years before Martin Luther. They
were the first to adopt the principle that the Bible is the only
standard of faith and practice. They were among the first to issue a
translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek into the
language of the people. They led the way, in the Protestant movement, in
the catechetical instruction of children. They published the first Hymn
Book known to history. They produced in Comenius the great pioneer of
modern education. They saved the Pietist movement in Germany from an
early grave; they prepared the way for the English Evangelical Revival;
and, above all, by example rather than by precept, they aroused in the
Protestant Churches of Christendom that zeal for the cause of foreign
missions which some writers have described as the crowning glory of the
nineteenth century. And now we have only one further land to explore. As
the Moravians are still among the least of the tribes of Israel, it
is natural to ask why, despite their smallness, they maintain their
separate existence, what part they are playing in the world, what share
they are taking in the fight against the Canaanite, for what principles
they stand, what methods they employ, what attitude they adopt towards
other Churches, and what solution they offer of the social and religious
problems that confront us at the opening of the twentieth century.
Section I.--MORAVIAN PRINCIPLES--If the Moravians have any
distinguishing principle at all, that principle is one which goes
back to the beginnings of their history. For some years they have been
accustomed to use as a motto the famous words of Rupertus Meldenius:
"In necessariis unitas; in non-necessariis libertas; in utrisque
caritas"--in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in both,
charity. But the distinction between essentials and non-essentials goes
far behind Rupertus Meldenius. If he was the first to pen the saying, he
was certainly not the first to lay down the principle. For four hundred
and fifty years this distinction between essentials and non-essentials
has been a fundamental principle of the Brethren. From whom, if from any
one, they learned it we do not know. It is found in no mediæval writer,
and was taught neither by Wycliffe nor by Hus. But the Brethren held it
at the outset, and hold it still. It is found in the works of Peter
of Chelcic;[158] it was fully expounded by Gregory the Patriarch; it was
taught by the Bohemian Brethren in their catechisms; it is implied in
all Moravian teaching to-day. To Moravians this word "essentials" has a
definite meaning. At every stage in their history we find that in their
judgment the essentials on which all Christians should agree to unite
are certain spiritual truths. It was so with the Bohemian Brethren; it
is so with the modern Moravians. In the early writings of Gregory
the Patriarch, and in the catechisms of the Bohemian Brethren, the
"essentials" are such things, and such things only, as faith, hope,
love and the doctrines taught in the Apostles' Creed; and the
"non-essentials," on the other hand, are such visible and concrete
things as the church on earth, the ministry, the sacraments, and the
other means of grace. In essentials they could allow no compromise; in
non-essentials they gladly agreed to differ. For essentials they often
shed their blood; but non-essentials they described as merely "useful"
or "accidental."
The modern Moravians hold very similar views. For them the only
"essentials" in religion are the fundamental truths of the Gospel as
revealed in Holy Scripture. In these days the question is sometimes
asked, What is the Moravian creed? The answer is, that they have no
creed, apart from Holy Scripture. For the creeds of other churches
they have the deepest respect. Thy have declared their adherence to the
Apostles' Creed. They confess that in the Augsburg Confession the chief
doctrines of Scripture are plainly and simply set forth; they have never
attacked the Westminster Confession or the Articles of the Church of
England; and yet they have never had a creed of their own, and have
always declined to bind the consciences of their ministers and members
by any creed whatever. Instead of binding men by a creed, they are
content with the broader language of Holy Scripture. At the General
Synod of 1857 they laid down the principle that the "Holy Scriptures of
the Old and New Testament are, and shall remain, the only rule of our
faith and practice"; and that principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed.
They revere the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God; they acknowledge
no other canon or rule of doctrine; they regard every human system
of doctrine as imperfect; and, therefore, they stand to-day for the
position that Christians should agree to unite on a broad Scriptural
basis. Thus the Moravians claim to be an Union Church. At the Synod of
1744 they declared that they had room within their borders for three
leading tropuses, the Moravian, the Lutheran and the Reformed; and
now, within their own ranks, they allow great difference of opinion on
doctrinal questions.
Meanwhile, of course, they agree on certain points. If the reader
consults their own official statements--e.g., those laid down in the
"Moravian Church Book"--he will notice two features of importance.
First, he will observe that (speaking broadly) the Moravians are
Evangelicals; second, he will notice that they state their doctrines in
very general terms. In that volume it is stated that the Brethren hold
the doctrines of the Fall and the total depravity of human nature, of
the love of God the Father, of the real Godhead and the real Humanity
of Jesus Christ, of justification by faith, of the Holy Ghost and the
operations of His grace, of good works as the fruit of faith, of the
fellowship of all believers with Christ and with each other, and,
finally, of the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead
to condemnation or to life. But none of these doctrines are defined in
dogmatic language, and none of them are imposed as creeds. As long as a
man holds true to the broad principles of the Christian faith, he may,
whether he is a minister or a layman, think much as he pleases on many
other vexed questions. He may be either a Calvinist or an Arminian,
either a Higher Critic or a defender of plenary inspiration, and either
High Church or Methodistic in his tastes. He may have his own theory of
the Atonement, his own conception of the meaning of the Sacraments,
his own views on Apostolical Succession, and his own belief about
the infallibility of the Gospel records. In their judgment, the main
essential in a minister is not his orthodox adherence to a creed, but
his personal relationship to Jesus Christ. For this reason they are not
afraid to allow their candidates for the ministry to sit at the feet of
professors belonging to other denominations. At their German Theological
College in Gnadenfeld, the professors systematically instruct the
students in the most advanced results of critical research; sometimes
the students are sent to German Universities; and the German quarterly
magazine--Religion und Geisteskultur--a periodical similar to our
English "Hibbert Journal," is edited by a Moravian theological
professor. At one time an alarming rumour arose that the Gnadenfeld
professors were leading the students astray; the case was tried at a
German Provincial Synod, and the professors proved their innocence by
showing that, although they held advanced views on critical questions,
they still taught the Moravian central doctrine of redemption through
Jesus Christ. In England a similar spirit of liberty prevails. For some
years the British Moravians have had their own Theological College; it
is situated at Fairfield, near Manchester; and although the students
attend lectures delivered by a Moravian teacher, they receive the
greater part of their education, first at Manchester University, and
then either at the Manchester University Divinity School, or at the Free
Church College in Glasgow or Edinburgh, or at any other suitable home
of learning. Thus do the Moravians of the twentieth century tread in the
footsteps of the later Bohemian Brethren; and thus do they uphold the
principle that when the heart is right with Christ, the reasoning powers
may be allowed free play.
In all other "non-essentials" they are equally broad. As they have never
quarrelled with the Church of England, they rather resent being called
Dissenters; as they happen to possess Episcopal Orders, they regard
themselves as a true Episcopal Church; and yet, at the same time, they
live on good terms with all Evangelical Dissenters, exchange pulpits
with Nonconformist ministers, and admit to their Communion service
members of all Evangelical denominations. They celebrate the Holy
Communion once a month; they sing hymns describing the bread and wine as
the Body and Blood of Christ; and yet they have no definite doctrine of
the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They practise Infant Baptism;
but they do not hold any rigid view about Baptismal Regeneration. They
practise Confirmation;[159] and yet they do not insist on confirmation
as an absolute condition, in all cases, of church membership. If the
candidate, for example, is advanced in years, and shrinks from the
ordeal of confirmation, he may be admitted to the Moravian Church by
reception; and members coming from other churches are admitted in the
same way. They practise episcopal ordination, but do not condemn all
other ordinations as invalid; and a minister of another Protestant
Church may be accepted as a Moravian minister without being episcopally
ordained. At the Sacraments, at weddings and at ordinations, the
Moravian minister generally wears a surplice; and yet there is no
reference to vestments in the regulations of the Church. In some
congregations they use the wafer at the Sacrament, in others ordinary
bread; and this fact alone is enough to show that they have no ruling
on the subject. Again, the Moravians observe what is called the Church
year. They observe, that is, the seasons of Advent, Lent, Easter,
Whitsuntide, and Trinity; and yet they do not condemn as heretics those
who differ from them on this point. If there is any season specially
sacred to Moravians, it is Holy Week. To them it is generally known
as Passion Week. On Palm Sunday they sing a "Hosannah" composed by
Christian Gregor; at other services during the week they read the
Passion History together, from a Harmony of the Four Gospels; on
the Wednesday evening there is generally a "Confirmation"; on Maundy
Thursday they celebrate the Holy Communion; on Good Friday, where
possible, they have a series of special services; and on Easter Sunday
they celebrate the Resurrection by an early morning service, held in
England about six o'clock, but on the Continent at sunrise. Thus the
Brethren are like High Churchmen in some of their observances, and very
unlike them in their ecclesiastical principles. As the customs they
practise are hallowed by tradition, and have often been found helpful to
the spiritual life, they do not lightly toss them overboard; but, on
the other hand, they do not regard those customs as "essential." In
spiritual "essentials" they are one united body; in "non-essentials,"
such as ceremony and orders, they gladly agree to differ; and, small
though they are in numbers, they believe that here they stand for a
noble principle, and that some day that principle will be adopted by
every branch of the militant Church of Christ. According to Romanists
the true bond of union among Christians is obedience to the Pope as Head
of the Church; according to some Anglicans, the "Historic Episcopate";
according to Moravians, a common loyalty to Scripture and a common faith
in Christ; and only the future can show which, if any, of these bases of
union will be accepted by the whole visible Church of Christ. Meanwhile,
the Brethren are spreading their principles in a variety of ways.
Section II.--THE MORAVIANS IN GERMANY.--In Germany, and on the Continent
generally, they still adhere in the main to the ideal set up by
Zinzendorf. We may divide their work into five departments.
First, there is the ordinary pastoral work in the settlements and
congregations. In Germany the settlement system still flourishes. Of the
twenty-six Moravian congregations on the Continent, no fewer than
twelve are settlements. In most cases these settlements are quiet
little Moravian towns, inhabited almost exclusively by Moravians; the
Brethren's Houses and Sisters' Houses are still in full working order;
the very hotel is under direct church control; and the settlements,
therefore, are models of order, sobriety, industry and piety. There the
visitor will still find neither poverty nor wealth; there, far from
the madding crowd, the angel of peace reigns supreme. We all know how
Carlyle once visited Herrnhut, and how deeply impressed he was. At all
the settlements and congregations the chief object of the Brethren is
the cultivation of personal piety and Christian fellowship. We can see
this from the number of services held. At the settlements there are more
services in a week than many a pious Briton would attend in a month.
In addition to the public worship on Sunday, there is a meeting of some
kind every week-night. One evening there will be a Bible exposition;
the next, reports of church work; the next, a prayer meeting; the next
a liturgy meeting; the next, another Bible exposition; the next, an
extract from the autobiography of some famous Moravian; the next, a
singing meeting. At these meetings the chief thing that strikes an
English visitor is the fact that no one but the minister takes any
prominent part. The minister gives the Bible exposition; the minister
reads the report or the autobiography; the minister offers the prayer;
and the only way in which the people take part is by singing
the liturgies and hymns. Thus the German Moravians have nothing
corresponding to the "prayer meetings" held in England in Nonconformist
churches. In some congregations there are "prayer unions," in which
laymen take part; but these are of a private and unofficial character.
Meanwhile, a good many of the old stern rules are still strictly
enforced, and the Brethren are still cautious in welcoming new recruits.
If a person not born in a Moravian family desires to join the Moravian
Church, he has generally to exercise a considerable amount of patience.
He must first have lived some time in the congregation; he must have a
good knowledge of Moravian doctrines and customs; he must then submit to
an examination on the part of the congregation-committee; he must
then, if he passes, wait about six months; his name is announced to the
congregation, and all the members know that he is on probation; and,
therefore, when he is finally admitted, he is a Moravian in the fullest
sense of the term. He becomes not only a member of the congregation, but
a member of his particular "choir." The choir system is still in force;
for each choir there are special services and special labourers; and
though the Single Brethren and Single Sisters are now allowed to live in
their own homes, the choir houses are still occupied, and still serve a
useful purpose.
Second, there is the "Inner Mission." In this way each congregation
cares for the poor and neglected living near at hand. There are Bible
and tract distributors, free day schools, Sunday schools, work schools,
technical schools, rescue homes, reformatories, orphanages and young
men's and young women's Christian associations. In spite of the
exclusiveness of settlement life, it is utterly untrue to say that
the members of the settlements live for themselves alone. They form
evangelistic societies; they take a special interest in navvies, road
menders, pedlars, railwaymen and others cut off from regular church
connection; they open lodging-houses and temperance restaurants; and
thus they endeavour to rescue the fallen, to fight the drink evil, and
to care for the bodies and souls of beggars and tramps, of unemployed
workmen, and of starving and ragged children.
Third, there is the work of Christian education. In every Moravian
congregation there are two kinds of day schools. For those children who
are not yet old enough to attend the elementary schools, the Brethren
provide an "Infant School"; and here, having a free hand, they are able
to instil the first principles of Christianity; and, secondly, for the
older children, they have what we should call Voluntary Schools, manned
by Moravian teachers, but under Government inspection and control.
At these schools the Brethren give Bible teaching three hours a week;
special services for the scholars are held; and as the schools are
open to the public, the scholars are instructed to be loyal to whatever
Church they happen to belong. In England such broadness would be
regarded as a miracle; to the German Moravians it is second nature. In
their boarding-schools they pursue the same broad principle. At present
they have nine girls' schools and five boys' boarding-schools; the
headmaster is always a Moravian minister; the teachers in the boys'
schools are generally candidates for the ministry; and, although in
consequence of Government requirements the Brethren have now to
devote most of their energy to purely secular subjects, they are still
permitted and still endeavour to keep the religious influence to the
fore. For more advanced students they have a Pædagogium at Niesky;
and the classical education there corresponds to that imparted at our
Universities. At Gnadenfeld they have a Theological Seminary, open to
students from other churches.
Fourth, there is the Brethren's medical work, conducted by a
Diakonissen-Verband, or Nurses' Union. It was begun in 1866 by Dr.
Hermann Plitt. At Gnadenfeld the Brethren have a small hospital, known
as the Heinrichstift; at Emmaus, near Niesky, are the headquarters of
the Union; the work is managed by a special committee, and is supported
by Church funds; and on the average about fifty nurses are employed in
ministering to the poor in twenty-five different places. Some act as
managers of small sick-houses; others are engaged in teaching poor
children; and others have gone to tend the lepers in Jerusalem and
Surinam.
Fifth, there is the Brethren's Diaspora work, which now extends all over
Germany. There is nothing to be compared to this work in England. It is
not only peculiar to the Moravians, but peculiar to the Moravians on the
Continent; and the whole principle on which it is based is one which
the average clear-headed Briton finds it hard to understand. If the
Moravians in England held services in parish churches--supposing such
an arrangement possible--formed their hearers into little societies,
visited them in their homes, and then urged them to become good members
of the Anglican Church, their conduct would probably arouse considerable
amazement. And yet that is exactly the kind of work done by the
Moravians in Germany to-day. In this work the Brethren in Germany make
no attempt to extend their own borders. The Moravians supply the men;
the Moravians supply the money; and the National Lutheran Church
reaps the benefit. Sometimes the Brethren preach in Lutheran Churches;
sometimes, by permission of the Lutheran authorities, they even
administer the Communion; and wherever they go they urge their hearers
to be true to the National Church. In England Zinzendorf's "Church
within the Church" idea has never found much favour; in Germany it is
valued both by Moravians and by Lutherans. At present the Brethren have
Diaspora centres in Austrian Silesia, in Wartebruch, in Neumark, in
Moravia, in Pomerania, in the Bavarian Palatinate, in Würtemburg, along
the Rhine from Karlsruhe to Düsseldorf, in Switzerland, in Norway and
Sweden, in Russian Poland, and in the Baltic Provinces. We are not, of
course, to imagine for a moment that all ecclesiastical authorities on
the Continent regard this Diaspora work with favour. In spite of its
unselfish purpose, the Brethren have occasionally been suspected of
sectarian motives. At one time the Russian General Consistory forbade
the Brethren's Diaspora work in Livonia {1859.}; at another time the
Russian Government forbade the Brethren's work in Volhynia; and the
result of this intolerance was that some of the Brethren fled to South
America, and founded the colony of Brüderthal in Brazil (1885), while
others made their way to Canada, appealed for aid to the American
P.E.C., and thus founded in Alberta the congregations of Brüderfeld and
Brüderheim. Thus, even in recent years, persecution has favoured the
extension of the Moravian Church; but, generally speaking, the Brethren
pursue their Diaspora work in peace and quietness. They have now about
sixty or seventy stations; they employ about 120 Diaspora workers, and
minister thus to about 70,000 souls; and yet, during the last fifty
years, they have founded only six new congregations--Goldberg (1858),
Hansdorf (1873), Breslau (1892), and Locle and Montmirail in Switzerland
(1873). Thus do the German Moravians uphold the Pietist ideals of
Zinzendorf.
Section III.--THE MORAVIANS IN GREAT BRITAIN.--For the last fifty years
the most striking feature about the British Moravians is the fact that
they have steadily become more British in all their ways, and more
practical and enthusiastic in their work in this country. We can see it
in every department of their work.
They began with the training of their ministers. As soon as the British
Moravians became independent, they opened their own Theological Training
Institution; and then step by step they allowed their students to
come more and more under English influences. At first the home of the
Training College was Fulneck; and, as long as the students lived in that
placid abode, they saw but little of the outside world. But in 1874
the College was removed to Fairfield; then the junior students began to
attend lectures at the Owens College; then (1886) they began to study
for a degree in the Victoria University; then (1890) the theological
students were allowed to study at Edinburgh or Glasgow; and the final
result of this broadening process is that the average modern Moravian
minister is as typical an Englishman as any one would care to meet. He
has English blood in his veins; he bears an English name; he has been
trained at an English University; he has learned his theology from
English or Scotch Professors; he has English practical ideas of
Christianity; and even when he has spent a few years in Germany--as
still happens in exceptional cases--he has no more foreign flavour about
him than the Lord Mayor of London.
Again, the influence of English ideas has affected their public worship.
At the Provincial Synods of 1878 and 1883, the Brethren appointed
Committees to revise their Hymn-book; and the result was that when the
next edition of the Hymn-book appeared (1886), it was found to contain
a large number of hymns by popular English writers. And this, of course,
involved another change. As these popular English hymns were wedded to
popular English tunes, those tunes had perforce to be admitted into the
next edition of the Tune-book (1887); and thus the Moravians, like other
Englishmen, began now to sing hymns by Toplady, Charles Wesley, George
Rawson and Henry Francis Lyte to such well-known melodies as Sir Arthur
Sullivan's "Coena Domini," Sebastian Wesley's "Aurelia," and Hopkins's
"Ellers." But the change in this respect was only partial. In music the
Moravians have always maintained a high standard. With them the popular
type of tune was the chorale; and here they refused to give way to
popular clamour. At this period the objection was raised by some that
the old chorales were too difficult for Englishmen to sing; but to this
objection Peter La Trobe had given a crushing answer.[160] At St. Thomas,
he said, Zinzendorf had heard the negroes sing Luther's fine "Gelobet
seiest"; at Gnadenthal, in South Africa, Ignatius La Trobe had heard
the Hottentots sing Grummer's "Jesu, der du meine Seele"; in Antigua the
negroes could sing Hassler's "O Head so full of bruises"; and therefore,
he said, he naturally concluded that chorales which were not above
the level of Negroes and Hottentots could easily be sung, if they only
tried, by Englishmen, Scotchmen and Irishmen of the nineteenth century.
And yet, despite this official attitude, certain standard chorales fell
into disuse, and were replaced by flimsier English airs.
Another proof of the influence of English ideas is found in the decline
of peculiar Moravian customs. At present the British congregations
may be roughly divided into two classes. In some, such as Fulneck,
Fairfield, Ockbrook, Bristol, and other older congregations, the old
customs are retained; in others they are quite unknown. In some we still
find such things as Love-feasts, the division into choirs, the regular
choir festivals, the observance of Moravian Memorial Days; in others,
especially in those only recently established, these things are absent;
and the consequence is that in the new congregations the visitor of
to-day will find but little of a specific Moravian stamp. At the morning
service he will hear the Moravian Litany; in the Hymn-book he will find
some hymns not found in other collections; but in other respects he
would see nothing specially distinctive.
Meanwhile, the Brethren have adopted new institutions. As the old
methods of church-work fell into disuse, new methods gradually took
their place; and here the Brethren followed the example of their
Anglican and Nonconformist friends. Instead of the special meetings for
Single Brethren and Single Sisters, we now find the Christian Endeavour,
and Men's and Women's Guilds; instead of the Boys' Economy, the Boys'
Brigade; instead of the Brethren's House, the Men's Institute; instead
of the Diacony, the weekly offering, the sale of work, and the bazaar;
and instead of the old Memorial Days, the Harvest Festival and the
Church and Sunday-school Anniversary.
But the most important change of all is the altered conception of the
Church's mission. At the Provincial Synod held in Bedford the Brethren
devoted much of their time to the Home Mission problem {1863.}; and
John England, who had been commissioned to write a paper on "Our Aim and
Calling," defined the Church's mission in the words: "Such, then, I
take to be our peculiar calling. As a Church to preach Christ and Him
crucified, every minister and every member. As a Church to evangelize,
every minister and every member." From that moment those words were
accepted as a kind of motto; and soon a great change was seen in the
character of the Home Mission Work. In the first half of the nineteenth
century nearly all the new causes begun were in quiet country villages;
in the second half, with two exceptions, they were all in growing
towns and populous districts. In 1859 new work was commenced at
Baltonsborough, in Somerset, and Crook, in Durham; in 1862 at Priors
Marston, Northamptonshire; in 1867 at Horton, Bradford; in 1869 at
Westwood, in Oldham; in 1871 at University Road, Belfast; in 1874 at
Heckmondwike, Yorkshire; in 1888 at Wellfield, near Shipley; in 1890
at Perth Street, Belfast; in 1896 at Queen's Park, Bedford; in 1899 at
Openshaw, near Manchester, and at Swindon, the home of the Great Western
Railway Works; in 1907 at Twerton, a growing suburb of Bath; and in
1908 in Hornsey, London. Of the places in this list, all except
Baltonsborough and Priors Marston are in thickly populated districts;
and thus during the last fifty years the Moravians have been brought
more into touch with the British working man.
Meanwhile there has been a growing freedom of speech. The new movement
began in the College at Fairfield. For the first time in the history of
the British Province a number of radical Moravians combined to express
their opinions in print; and, led and inspired by Maurice O'Connor,
they now (1890) issued a breezy pamphlet, entitled Defects of Modern
Moravianism. In this pamphlet they were both critical and constructive.
Among other reforms, they suggested: (a) That the Theological Students
should be allowed to study at some other Theological College; (b) that
a Moravian Educational Profession be created; (c) that all British
Moravian Boarding Schools be systematically inspected; (d) that the
monthly magazine, The Messenger, be improved, enlarged, and changed into
a weekly paper; (e) that in the future the energies of the Church be
concentrated on work in large towns and cities; (f) and that all defects
in the work of the Church be openly stated and discussed.
The success of the pamphlet was both immediate and lasting. Of all the
Provincial Synods held in England the most important in many ways was
that which met at Ockbrook a few months after the publication of this
pamphlet. It marks the beginning of a new and brighter era in the
history of the Moravian Church in England. For thirty years the Brethren
had been content to hold Provincial Synods every four or five years
{1890.}; but now, in accordance with a fine suggestion brought forward
at Bedford two years before, and ardently supported by John Taylor, the
Advocatus Fratrum in Angliâ, they began the practice of holding Annual
Synods. In the second place, the Brethren altered the character of their
official church magazine. For twenty-seven years it had been a monthly
of very modest dimensions. It was known as The Messenger; it was founded
at the Bedford Synod (1863); and for some years it was well edited by
Bishop Sutcliffe. But now this magazine became a fortnightly, known
as The Moravian Messenger. As soon as the magazine changed its form it
increased both in influence and in circulation. It was less official,
and more democratic, in tone; it became the recognised vehicle for the
expression of public opinion; and its columns have often been filled
with articles of the most outspoken nature. And thirdly, the Brethren
now resolved that henceforth their Theological Students should be
allowed to study at some other Theological College.
But the influence of the pamphlet did not end here. At the Horton
Synod (1904) arrangements were made for the establishment of a teaching
profession, and at Baildon (1906) for the inspection of the Boarding
Schools; and thus nearly all the suggestions of the pamphlet have now
been carried out.
Finally, the various changes mentioned have all contributed, more or
less, to alter the tone of the Moravian pulpit. As long as the work was
mostly in country villages the preaching was naturally of the Pietistic
type. But the Moravian preachers of the present day are more in touch
with the problems of city life. They belong to a democratic Church; they
are brought into constant contact with the working classes; they are
interested in modern social problems; they believe that at bottom all
social problems are religious; and, therefore, they not only foster such
institutions as touch the daily life of the masses, but also in their
sermons speak out more freely on the great questions of the day. In
other words, the Moravian Church in Great Britain is now as British as
Britain herself.
Section IV.--THE MORAVIANS IN AMERICA.--In America the progress was of
a similar kind. As soon as the American Brethren had gained Home Rule,
they organized their forces in a masterly manner; arranged that their
Provincial Synod should meet once in three years; set apart £5,000 for
their Theological College at Bethlehem; and, casting aside the Diaspora
ideas of Zinzendorf, devoted their powers to the systematic extension
of their Home Mission work. It is well to note the exact nature of their
policy. With them Home Mission work meant systematic Church extension.
At each new Home Mission station they generally placed a fully ordained
minister; that minister was granted the same privileges as the minister
of any other congregation; the new cause was encouraged to strive for
self support; and, as soon as possible, it was allowed to send a deputy
to the Synod. At Synod after Synod Church extension was the main topic
of discussion; and the discussion nearly always ended in some practical
proposal. For example, at the Synod of 1876 the Brethren formed a Church
Extension Board; and that Board was entrusted with the task of raising
£10,000 in the next three years. Again, in 1885, they resolved to build
a new Theological College, elected a Building Committee to collect the
money, and raised the sum required so rapidly that in 1892 they were
able to open Comenius Hall at Bethlehem, free of debt. Meanwhile the
number of new congregations was increasing with some rapidity. At the
end of fifty years of Home Rule the Moravians in North America had one
hundred and two congregations; and of these no fewer than sixty-four
were established since the separation of the Provinces. The moral is
obvious. As soon as the Americans obtained Home Rule they more than
doubled their speed; and in fifty years they founded more congregations
than they had founded during the previous century. In 1857 they began
new work at Fry's Valley, in Ohio; in 1859 at Egg Harbour City; in 1862
at South Bethlehem; in 1863 at Palmyra; in 1865 at Riverside; in 1866
at Elizabeth, Freedom, Gracehill, and Bethany; in 1867 at Hebron and
Kernersville; in 1869 at Northfield, Philadelphia and Harmony; in 1870
at Mamre and Unionville; in 1871 at Philadelphia; in 1872 at
Sturgeon Bay; in 1873 at Zoar and Gerah; in 1874 at Berea; in 1877 at
Philadelphia and East Salem; in 1880 at Providence; in 1881 at Canaan
and Goshen; in 1882 at Port Washington, Oakland, and Elim; in 1886 at
Hector and Windsor; in 1887 at Macedonia, Centre Ville, and Oakgrove;
in 1888 at Grand Rapids and London; in 1889 at Stapleton and Calvary; in
1890 at Spring Grove and Clemmons; in 1891 at Bethel, Eden and Bethesda;
in 1893 at Fulp and Wachovia Harbour; in 1894 at Moravia and Alpha; in
1895 at Bruederfeld and Bruederheim; in 1896 at Heimthal, Mayodon and
Christ Church; in 1898 at Willow Hill; in 1901 at New York; in 1902 at
York; in 1904 at New Sarepta; and in 1905 at Strathcona. For Moravians
this was an exhilarating speed; and the list, though forbidding in
appearance, is highly instructive. In Germany Church extension is
almost unknown; in England it is still in its infancy; in America it is
practically an annual event; and thus there are now more Moravians in
America than in England and Germany combined. In Germany the number of
Moravians is about 8,000; in Great Britain about 6,000; in North America
about 20,000.
From this fact a curious conclusion has been drawn. As the American
Moravians have spread so rapidly, the suspicion has arisen in certain
quarters that they are not so loyal as the Germans and British to the
best ideals of the Moravian Church; and one German Moravian writer
has asserted, in a standard work, that the American congregations are
lacking in cohesion, in brotherly character, and in sympathy with true
Moravian principles.[161] But to this criticism several answers may be
given. In the first place, it is well to note what we mean by Moravian
ideals. If Moravian ideals are Zinzendorf's ideals, the criticism is
true. In Germany, the Brethren still pursue Zinzendorf's policy; in
England and America that policy has been rejected. In Germany the
Moravians still act as a "Church within the Church"; in England and
America such work has been found impossible. But Zinzendorf's "Church
within the Church" idea is no Moravian "essential." It was never one of
the ideals of the Bohemian Brethren; it sprang, not from the Moravian
Church, but from German Pietism; and, therefore, if the American
Brethren reject it they cannot justly be accused of disloyalty to
original Moravian principles.
For those principles they are as zealous as any other Moravians. They
have a deep reverence for the past. At their Theological Seminary in
Bethlehem systematic instruction in Moravian history is given; and the
American Brethren have their own Historical Society. For twenty years
Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz lectured to the students on Moravian
history; and, finally, in his "History of the Unitas Fratrum," he
gave to the public the fullest account of the Bohemian Brethren in the
English language; and in recent years Dr. Hamilton, his succesor, has
narrated in detail the history of the Renewed Church of the Brethren.
Second, the Americans, when put to the test, showed practical sympathy
with German Brethren in distress. As soon as the German refugees
arrived from Volhynia, the American Moravians took up their cause with
enthusiasm, provided them with ministers, helped them with money, and
thus founded the new Moravian congregations in Alberta. And third,
the Americans have their share of Missionary zeal. They have their own
"Society for Propagating the Gospel"; they have their own Missionary
magazines; and during the last quarter of a century they have borne
nearly the whole burden, both in money and in men, of the new mission
in Alaska. And thus the three branches of the Moravian Church, though
differing from each other in methods, are all united in their loyalty to
the great essentials.
Section V.--BONDS OF UNION.--But these essentials are not the only bonds
of union. At present Moravians all over the world are united in three
great tasks.
First, they are united in their noble work among the lepers at
Jerusalem. It is one of the scandals of modern Christianity that leprosy
is still the curse of Palestine; and the only Christians who are trying
to remove that curse are the Moravians. At the request of a kind-hearted
German lady, Baroness von Keffenbrink-Ascheraden, the first Moravian
Missionary went out to Palestine forty years ago (1867). There, outside
the walls of Jerusalem, the first hospital for lepers, named Jesus
Hilfe, was built; there, for some years, Mr. and Mrs. Tappe laboured
almost alone; and then, when the old hospital became too small, the new
hospital, which is standing still, was built, at a cost of £4,000,
on the Jaffa Road. In this work, the Moravians have a twofold object.
First, they desire to exterminate leprosy in Palestine; second, as
opportunity offers, they speak of Christ to the patients. But the
hospital, of course, is managed on the broadest lines. It is open to
men of all creeds; there is no religious test of any kind; and if the
patient objects to the Gospel it is not forced upon him. At present the
hospital has accommodation for about fifty patients; the annual
expense is about £4,000; the Managing Committee has its headquarters in
Berthelsdorf; each Province of the Moravian Church has a Secretary and
Treasurer; the staff consists of a Moravian Missionary, his wife, and
five assistant nurses; and all true Moravians are expected to support
this holy cause. At this hospital, of course, the Missionary and his
assistants come into the closest personal contact with the lepers.
They dress their sores; they wash their clothes; they run every risk
of infection; and yet not one of the attendants has ever contracted the
disease. When Father Damien took the leprosy all England thrilled at the
news; and yet if England rose to her duty the black plague of leprosy
might soon be a thing of the past.
Again, the Moravian Church is united in her work in Bohemia and Moravia.
At the General Synod of 1869 a strange coincidence occurred; and that
strange coincidence was that both from Great Britain and from North
America memorials were handed in suggesting that an attempt be made to
revive the Moravian Church in her ancient home. In England the leader of
the movement was Bishop Seifferth. In North America the enthusiasm was
universal, and the petition was signed by every one of the ministers.
And thus, once more, the Americans were the leaders in a forward
movement. The Brethren agreed to the proposal. At Pottenstein (1870),
not far from Reichenau, the first new congregation in Bohemia was
founded. For ten years the Brethren in Bohemia were treated by the
Austrian Government as heretics; but in 1880, by an Imperial edict, they
were officially recognized as the "Brethren's Church in Austria." Thus
is the prayer of Comenius being answered at last; thus has the Hidden
Seed begun to grow; thus are the Brethren preaching once more within the
walls of Prague; and now, in the land where in days of old their fathers
were slain by the sword, they have a dozen growing congregations, a
monthly Moravian magazine ("Bratrske Litsz"), and a thousand adherents
of the Church of the Brethren. Again, as in the case of the Leper
Home, the Managing Committee meets at Herrnhut; each Province has its
corresponding members; and all Moravians are expected to share in the
burden.
Above all, the Moravian Church is united in the work of Foreign
Missions. For their missions to the heathen the Moravians have long been
famous; and, in proportion to their resources, they are ten times as
active as any other Protestant Church. But in this book the story of
Moravian foreign missions has not been told. It is a story of romance
and thrilling adventure, of dauntless heroism and marvellous patience;
it is a theme worthy of a Froude or a Macaulay; and some day a master of
English prose may arise to do it justice. If that master historian ever
appears, he will have an inspiring task. He will tell of some of the
finest heroes that the Christian Church has ever produced. He will
tell of Matthew Stach, the Greenland pioneer, of Friedrich Martin,
the "Apostle to the Negroes," of David Zeisberger, the "Apostle to
the Indians," of Erasmus Schmidt, in Surinam, of Jaeschke, the famous
Tibetan linguist, of Leitner and the lepers on Robben Island, of Henry
Schmidt in South Africa, of James Ward in North Queensland, of Meyer and
Richard in German East Africa, and of many another grand herald of the
Cross whose name is emblazoned in letters of gold upon the Moravian
roll of honour. In no part of their work have the Brethren made grander
progress. In 1760 they had eight fields of labour, 1,000 communicants,
and 7,000 heathen under their care; in 1834, thirteen fields of labour,
15,000 communicants, and 46,000 under their care; in 1901, twenty fields
of labour, 32,000 communicants, and 96,000 under their care. As the
historian traces the history of the Moravian Church, he often finds
much to criticize and sometimes much to blame; but here, on the foreign
mission field, the voice of the critic is dumb. Here the Moravians have
ever been at their best; here they have done their finest redemptive
work; here they have shown the noblest self-sacrifice; and here, as the
sternest critic must admit, they have always raised from degradation to
glory the social, moral, and spiritual condition of the people. In
these days the remark is sometimes made by superior critics that foreign
missionaries in the olden days had a narrow view of the Gospel, that
their only object was to save the heathen from hell, and that they
never made any attempt to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. If that
statement refers to other missionaries, it may or may not be true;
but if it refers to Moravians it is false. At all their stations the
Moravian Missionaries looked after the social welfare of the people.
They built schools, founded settlements, encouraged industry, fought
the drink traffic, healed the sick, and cast out the devils of robbery,
adultery and murder; and the same principles and methods are still in
force to-day.
At the last General Synod held in Herrnhut the foreign mission work was
placed under the management of a General Mission Board; the Board was
elected by the Synod; and thus every voting member of the Church has
his share in the control of the work. In each Province there are
several societies for raising funds. In the German Province are the
North-Scheswig Mission Association, the Zeist Mission Society, and the
Fünf-pfennig Verein or Halfpenny Union. In the British Province are
the Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel, which owns that famous
missionary ship, the "Harmony"; the Juvenile Missionary Association,
chiefly supported by pupils of the boarding schools; the Mite
Association; and that powerful non-Moravian Society, the London
Association in aid of Moravian Missions. In North America is the Society
for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen. In each Province, too,
we find periodical missionary literature: in Germany two monthlies, the
Missions-Blatt and Aus Nord und Süd; in Holland the Berichten uit de
Heidenwereld; in Denmark the Evangelisk Missionstidende; in England the
quarterly Periodical Accounts and the monthly Moravian Missions; and
in North America two monthlies, Der Missions Freund and the Little
Missionary. In Germany the missionary training College is situated at
Niesky; in England at Bristol. In England there is also a special fund
for the training of medical missionaries. Of the communicant members
of the Moravian Church one in every sixty goes out as a missionary; and
from this fact the conclusion has often been drawn that if the members
of other churches went out in the same proportion the heathen world
might be won for Christ in ten years. At present the Mission field
contains about 100,000 members; the number of missionaries employed is
about 300; the annual expenses of the work are about £90,000; and of
that sum two-thirds is raised by the native converts.
There are now fourteen Provinces in the Mission field, and attractive is
the scene that lies before us. We sail on the "Harmony" to Labrador,
and see the neatly built settlements, the fur-clad Missionary in his
dog-drawn sledge, the hardy Eskimos, the squat little children at the
village schools, the fathers and mothers at worship in the pointed
church, the patients waiting their turn in the surgery in the hospital
at Okak. We pass on to Alaska, and steam with the Brethren up the
Kuskokwim River. We visit the islands of the West Indies, where
Froude, the historian, admired the Moravian Schools, and where his only
complaint about these schools was that there were not enough of them.
We pass on to California, where the Brethren have a modern Mission among
the Red Indians; to the Moskito Coast, once the scene of a wonderful
revival; to Paramaribo in Surinam, the city where the proportion of
Christians is probably greater than in any other city in the world; to
South Africa, where it is commonly reported that a Hottentot or Kaffir
Moravian convert can always be trusted to be honest; to German East
Africa, where the Brethren took over the work at Urambo at the request
of the London Missionary Society; to North Queensland, where the natives
were once so degraded that Anthony Trollope declared that the "game
was not worth the candle," where Moravians now supply the men and
Presbyterians the money, and where the visitor gazes in amazement at
the "Miracle of Mapoon"; and last to British India, near Tibet, where,
perched among the Himalaya Mountains, the Brethren in the city of Leh
have the highest Missionary station in the world.
As the Moravians, therefore, review the wonderful past, they see the
guiding hand of God at every stage of the story. They believe that their
Church was born of God in Bohemia, that God restored her to the light
of day when only the stars were shining, that God has opened the door
in the past to many a field of labour, and that God has preserved her to
the present day for some great purpose of his own. Among her ranks are
men of many races and many shades of opinion; and yet, from Tibet to
San Francisco, they are still one united body. As long as Christendom is
still divided, they stand for the great essentials as the bond of union.
As long as lepers in Palestine cry "unclean," they have still their
mission in the land where the Master taught. As long as Bohemia sighs
for their Gospel, and the heathen know not the Son of Man, they feel
that they must obey the Missionary mandate; and, convinced that in
following these ideals they are not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
they emblazon still upon their banner the motto encircling their old
episcopal seal:--
"Vicit Agnus noster: Eum sequamur."
(Our Lamb has conquered: Him let its follow.)
THE END.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
I.--THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.
A. H. Wratislaw: John Hus (S.P.C.K. 1882).
H. B. Workman: The Letters of Hus (Hodder and Stoughton).
Johann Loserth: Wyclif and Hus.
Anton Gindely: Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. For the external
fortunes of the Brethren, Gindely's narrative is excellent; but his
account of their inner life is poor and inaccurate.
Anton Gindely: Quellen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. A
collection of documents, dealing chiefly with the Brethren's relations
with Luther.
Anton Gindely: Geschichte des dreiszig-jährigen Krieges. (Vol. IV.)
Jaroslav Goll: Quellen und Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Böhmischen
Brüder (1882). Specially useful for Peter of Chelcic.
Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz: History of the Unitas Fratrum (Bethlehem,
Pa. 1885). This is the standard English work on the Bohemian Brethren.
It must, however, be used with caution. The author occasionally betrays
a tendency to make out the Brethren more evangelical than they
really were. Further, since Gindely and de Schweinitz wrote, many new
discoveries have been made; their conclusions must be tested by the
recent researches of J. T. Müller, the Brethren's Archivar at Herrnhut.
J. T. Müller: Die deutschen Katechismen der Böhmischen Brüder (Berlin:
A. Hofmann and Comp., 1887). Absolutely indispensable. No book ever
written gives so full a description of the Brethren's principles and
methods, or so true an estimate of the great part they played in the
Reformation.
J. T. Müller: Die Gefangenschaft des Johann Augusta (Leipzig, Friedrich
Jansa. 1895). A translation, with introduction and notes, of Jacob
Bilek's narrative. It throws quite a new light on Augusta's policy and
character.
J. T. Müller: Das Bischoftum der Brüder-Unität (Herrnhut. 1889).
J. T. Müller: "Gemeindeverfassung der Böhmischen Brüder," in Monatshefte
der Comenius-Gesellschaft, 1896.
L. G. Hassé and E. Walder: "Report of the Committee appointed by
the Synod of the Moravian Church in Great Britain for the purpose of
inquiring into the possibility of more friendly relations on the part of
this Church with the Anglican Church" (Moravian Publication Office, 32,
Fetter Lane, E.C.). Complete statement of the evidence on the Brethren's
Episcopal Orders.
Eugen Borgius: Aus Posens und Polens kirchlicher Vergangenheit (Berlin,
1898. Wiegandt und Grieben). Contains a discussion (pp. 46-51) of
Müller's Das Bischoftum.
Lützow, Count: History of Bohemian Literature (William Heinemann; new
edition, 1907). Contains useful information on the Brethren's literary
activities.
Benjamin Seifferth (Moravian Bishop): Church Constitution of the
Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (W. Mallalieu and Co., 97, Hatton Garden.
1866). Translation of the Ratio Disciplinae, with original text and
notes.
Walther E. Schmidt: Das religiöse Leben in den ersten Zeiten der
Brüderunität, in the Zeitschrift für Brüder-Geschichte (Herrnhut, NO. 1,
1907.)
J. T. Müller: Ueber eine Inquisition gegen die Waldenser in der
Gegend von Altenburg und Zwichau, in the Zeitschrift für Brüd. Gesch.
(Herrnhut. 1908).
Zeitschrift für Brüder-Geschichte. An historical half-yearly magazine,
edited by J. T. Müller and Gerhard Reichel. Scientific and scholarly;
complete guide to the most recent works on Brethren's History.
II.--JOHN AMOS COMENIUS.
S. S. Laurie: John Amos Comenius, his Life and Educational Works
(Cambridge, Pitt Press Series. 1895).
M. W. Keatinge: The Great Didactic (Edinburgh, A. and C. Black). The
introduction contains a good life of Comenius, perhaps the fullest in
the English language.
Daniel Benham: The School of Infancy.
Count Lützow: The Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the Heart
(Dent's Temple Classics. 1907). Translation, with brief memoir.
Monatshefle der Comenius-Gesellschaft (Berlin, R. Gaertner's
Verlagsbuchandlung). Founded 1892. See especially Vol. VII. (1898), Nos.
3 and 4, for articles on the Gymnasium at Lissa and on "Comenius und die
Volksschule."
III.--MORAVIANS IN GERMANY.
Albrecht Ritschl: Geschichte des Pietismus (Vol. III. 1889). By English
historians Ritschl's great work is generally regarded as a classic. But
his account of Zinzendorf and the Brethren is one of the most inaccurate
narratives ever written. It is bigoted in tone, careless in details, and
based on second-hand evidence; and absolutely misleading in the general
impression that it gives. It is not serious history; it is rather a
theological romance. (For examples, see notes passim.)
J. T. Müller: Zinzendorf als Erneuerer der alten Brüder-Kirche (Leipzig,
Friedrich Jansa. 1900). The only complete exposition of Zinzendorf's
policy. His exposure of Ritschl's fictions is admirable.
Bernhard Becker: Zinzendorf und sein Christentum im Verhältnis zum
kirchlichen und religiösen Leben seiner Zeit (Leipzig, Friedrich Jansa,
1886; second edition, 1900). A profound treatise; shows Zinzendorf's
greatness and originality as a theologian.
Theodor G. Schmidt: Zinzendorfs soziale Stellung (Basel, Adolf Geering.
1900). Deals with Zinzendorf's social policy.
Guido Burkhardt: Zinzendorf und die Brüdergemeine (Leipzig, Friedrich
Jansa. 1865 and 1901).
Guido Burkhardt: Die Brüdergemeine, Erster Theil (Gnadau,
Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1889).
Gneomar Ernst von Natzmer: Die Jugend Zinzendorfs (Eisenach, M.
Wilckens. 1894).
Hermann Römer: Nicolaus Ludwig, Graf von Zinzendorf (Gnadau,
Unitäts-Buchhandlung. 1900).
E. W. Croeger: Geschichte der erneuerten Brüder-Kirche (Gnadau,
Unitäts-Buchhandlung. 1852-1854).
David Cranz: Ancient and Modern History of the Brethren (translated
by Benjamin La Trobe. 1780). By no means out of date for Zinzendorf's
times.
John Beck Holmes: History of the Protestant Church of the United
Brethren (Vol. II. 1830).
J. Taylor Hamilton: History of the Moravian Church during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (Bethlehem, Pa. Times Publishing Co. 1900).
Augustus Gottlieb Spangenberg: Life of Zinzendorf (English translation
by Samuel Jackson. 1836).
Gerhard Reichel: August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Bischof der Brüderkirche
(Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1906. Of exceptional value and delightfully
candid.)
Original Sources: For lack of space these cannot be enumerated here,
but the student may find them all referred to in the foregoing works by
Becker, Müller, Schmidt, Cranz, and Reichel.
IV.--MORAVIANS IN ENGLAND.
Gerhard Wauer: Beginnings of the Brethren's Church in England.
Translated by John Elliott. (32, Fetter Lane, E.C. 1901.)
Bishop A. C. Hassé: The United Brethren in England (32, Fetter Lane,
E.C.).
Daniel Benham: Memoirs of James Hutton (Hamilton, Adams and Co. 1856).
J. P. Lockwood: Life of Peter Boehler (Wesleyan Conference Office.
1868).
Daniel Benham: Life of Rev. John Gambold (Mallalieu and Co., 97, Hatton
Garden. 1865).
John Wesley's Journal.
Charles Wesley's Journal.
Of the sources in the Moravian Archives at Fetter Lane, those that
I have found most useful are the following: (1) A miscellaneous
collection, entitled "Pamphlets"; (2) MS. and Note-books, containing
congregation diaries, copied out by the late Bishop A. C. Hassé; (3)
Minutes of British Provincial Synods.
For other sources see: (1) The above work by Gerhard Wauer, (2) My
own article, "The Moravian Contribution to the Evangelical Revival
in England," in the Owens College "Historical Essays" (Manchester
University Press. 1907). (3) My own John Cennick; a sketch (32, Fetter
Lane, E.C. 1906). (4) Catalogue of the Moravian Archives at 32, Fetter
Lane, E.C. (5) L. Tyerman: Life and Times of John Wesley. (6) L.
Tyerman: The Oxford Methodists.
V.--MORAVIANS IN AMERICA.
W. C. Reichel: Memorials of the Moravian Church (Philadelphia,
Lippincott and Co. 1870).
L. T. Reichel: Moravians in North Carolina (Salem, N. C. O. A. Keehln.
1857).
L. T. Reichel: Early History of United Brethren in North America
(Nazareth, Pa. 1888).
Abraham Ritter: Moravian Church in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, C.
Sherman. 1857).
Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society (Nazareth, Pa. 1859 to
1907).
VI.--THE FOREIGN MISSIONS.
J. T. Hamilton: History of the Missions of the Moravian Church during
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Moravian Publishing Office, 32,
Fetter Lane, E.C. 1900).
Adolf Schulze: Abrisz einer Geschichte der Brüder-Mission (Herrnhut,
Missionsbuchhandlung. 1901). This is the standard work on the subject.
It contains an elaborate bibliography.
FOOTNOTES
[Footnote 1: De Ecclesiâ.]
[Footnote 2: Calixtine = Cup-ite, from the Latin, calix, a cup. Utraquist = in both kinds, from the Latin, utraque.]
[Footnote 3: Pronounced: Kelchits. The ch is a guttural like the Hebrew kaph, or
like ch in the word loch.]
[Footnote 4: A common saying in Peter's day.]
[Footnote 5: Pronounced Rockitsanna.]
[Footnote 6: This outbreak made a great sensation, and was frequently quoted by the
Brethren in their writings.]
[Footnote 7: Rockycana's character is rather hard to judge. Some of his sermons
have been preserved, and they have the ring of sincerity. Perhaps, like
Erasmus in later years, he wished to avoid a schism, and thought that
the Church could be reformed from within.]
[Footnote 8: These settled, not at Kunwald, but close by.]
[Footnote 9: For many years there has been a tradition that the Moravian Church was
founded on March 1st, 1457; but this date is only a pious imagination.
We are not quite sure of the year, not to speak of the day of the month.
If the Moravian Church must have a birthday, March 1st, 1457, will do as
well as any other; but the truth is that on this point precise evidence
has not yet been discovered.]
[Footnote 10: This division into three classes is first found in a letter to
Rockycana, written in 1464.]
[Footnote 11: De Schweinitz (p. 107) says that the Brethren now took the title of
"Fratres Legis Christi," i.e., Brethren of the Law of Christ. This is a
mistake. This title is not found till towards the close of the sixteenth
century, and was never in general use; see Müller's "Böhmische-Brueder"
in Hauck's Real-Encyclopædie.]
[Footnote 12: The best way to understand the Brethren's attitude is to string
together their favourite passages of Scripture. I note, in particular,
the following: Matthew xviii. 19, 20; Jeremiah iii. 15; John xx. 23;
Revelation xviii. 4, 5; Luke vi. 12-16; Acts iv. 32.]
[Footnote 13: And this raises an interesting question: If the lot had decided
against the Brethren, what would they have done? They have given us the
answer themselves. If the inscribed slips had remained in the vase, the
Brethren would have waited a year and then tried again. The final issue,
in fact, did not depend on the use of the lot at all. They used it, not
to find out God's will, but simply to confirm that faith in their cause
which had already been gained in prayer.]
[Footnote 14: It is here stated by De Schweinitz (p. 137), on Gindely's authority,
that the members of the Synod were now re-baptized. The statement is
not correct. It is based on a letter written by Rockycana; but it is
unsupported by any other evidence, and must, therefore be rejected. As
the Brethren have often been confounded with Anabaptists (especially by
Ritschl, in his Geschichte des Pietismus), I will here give the plain
facts of the case. For a number of years the Brethren held that all who
joined their ranks from the Church of Rome should be re-baptized; and
the reason why they did so was that in their judgment the Romanist
baptism had been administered by men of bad moral character, and was,
therefore, invalid. But in 1534 they abandoned this position, recognised
the Catholic Baptism as valid, and henceforth showed not a trace of
Anabaptist views either in theory or in practice.]
[Footnote 15: 1. The "Six Commandments" are as follows:--
(1) Matthew v. 22: Thou shalt not be angry with thy brother.
(2) Matthew v. 28: Thou shalt not look upon a woman to lust after
her.
(3) Matthew v. 32: Thou shalt not commit adultery, or divorce thy
wife.
(4) Matthew v. 34: Thou shalt not take an oath.
(5) Matthew v. 39, 40: Thou shalt not go to law.
(6) Matthew v. 44: Thou shalt love thine enemy.
2. Moravian Episcopal Orders.--For the benefit of those, if such there
be, who like a abstruse historical problems, and who, therefore, are
hungering for further information about the origin, maintenance and
validity of Moravian Episcopal Orders, I here append a brief statement
of the case:--
(1) Origin.--On this point three opinions have been held: (a) For
many years it was stoutly maintained by Palacky, the famous Bohemian
historian, by Anton Gindely, the Roman Catholic author of the
"Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder," and also Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz
in his "History of the Unitas Fratrum," that Stephen, the Waldensian,
was made a Bishop at the Catholic Council of Basle, and that thus
Moravian Episcopal Orders have a Roman Catholic origin. But this view is
now generally abandoned. It is not supported by adequate evidence,
and is, on the face of it, entirely improbable. If Stephen had been a
Romanist or Utraquist Bishop the Brethren would never have gone near
him. (b) In recent years it has been contended by J. Müller and J.
Koestlin that Stephen was consecrated by the Taborite Bishop, Nicholas
von Pilgram. But this view is as improbable as the first. For Nicholas
von Pilgram and his rough disciples the Brethren had little more respect
than they had for the Church of Rome. Is it likely that they would take
their orders from a source which they regarded as corrupt? (c) The
third view--the oldest and the latest--is that held by the Brethren
themselves. They did not believe that Bishop Stephen had any connection,
direct or indirect, with the Church of Rome. They believed that he
represented an episcopate which had come down as an office of the Church
from the earliest Christian days. They could not prove, of course, up
to the hilt, that the Waldensian succession was unbroken; but, as far
as they understood such questions, they believed the succession to be at
least as good as that which came through Rome. And to that extent they
were probably right. There is no such thing on the field of history as
a proved Apostolic succession; but if any line of mediæval Bishops has
high claims to historical validity it is, as Dr. Döllinger has shown (in
his Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters), the line to which
Waldensian Stephen belonged.
(2) Maintenance.--We now come to another question: Has the Church of
the Brethren maintained the succession from the time of Stephen to the
present day? Here again the historian has a very tight knot to untie. At
one point (if not two) in the history of the Brethren's Church, 1500 and
1554, there is certainly the possibility that her Episcopal succession
was broken. For the long period of eleven years the Brethren had only
one Bishop, John Augusta; and Augusta was a prisoner in Purglitz Castle,
and could not, therefore, consecrate a successor. What, then, were
the Brethren to do? If John Augusta were to die in prison the line of
Bishops would end. Meanwhile the Brethren did the best they could. As
they did not wish the office to cease, they elected Bishops to perform
Episcopal functions for the time being. Now comes the critical question:
Did John August, some years later, consecrate these elected Bishops or
did he not? There is no direct evidence either way. But we know enough
to show us the probabilities. It is certain that in 1564 John Augusta
came out of prison; it is certain that in 1571 two Bishops-elect, Israel
and Blahoslav, consecrated three successors; it is certain that Augusta
was a stickler for his own authority as a Bishop; it is not certain
that he raised an objection to the conduct of Israel and Blahoslav; and,
therefore, it is possible that he had consecrated them himself. If
he did, the Moravian succession is unbroken; and, at any rate, it is
without a flaw from that day to this.
(3) Validity.--Is the Moravian Episcopacy valid? The answer depends on
the meaning of the word "Validity." If the only valid Bishops in the
Church of Christ are those who can prove an unbroken descent from the
Apostles, then the Brethren's Bishops are no more valid than the Bishops
of any other Church; and all historians must honestly admit that, in
this sense of the word "Valid," there is no such thing as a valid Bishop
in existence. But the word "Validity" may have a broader meaning. It may
mean the desire to adhere to New Testament sanctions; it may mean the
honest and loyal endeavour to preserve the "intention" of the Christian
ministry as instituted by Christ; and if this is what "Validity" means
the Moravian Episcopate is just as valid as that of any other communion.
Meanwhile, at any rate, the reader may rest content with the following
conclusions:--
(1) That Gregory the Patriarch and his fellow Brethren were
satisfied with Bishop Stephen's statement.
(2) That they acted honestly according to their light, and desired
to be true successors of the Primitive Church.
(3) That the Waldensian Episcopate was of ancient order.
(4) That no break in the Brethren's Episcopal succession has ever
been absolutely proved.
(5) That, during the whole course of their history the Brethren
have always endeavoured to preserve the Episcopal office
intact.
For a further discussion of the whole question see "The Report of the
Committee appointed by the Synod of the Moravian Church in Great Britain
for the purpose of inquiring into the possibility of more friendly
relations on the part of this Church with the Anglican Church"; see
also, in German, Müller's "Bischoftum," where the whole evidence is
critically handled.]
[Footnote 16: For the later history of the Brethren's Church this entrance of
German-speaking Waldenses was of fundamental importance; of far
greater importance, in fact, than is recognised either by Gindely or
de Schweinitz. As these men spoke the German language, the Brethren,
naturally, for their benefit, prepared German editions of their
Confessions, Catechisms, and Hymn-books; and through these German
editions of their works they were able, a few years later, to enter into
closer contact with the Reformation in Germany. But that is not the end
of the story. It was descendants of this German branch of the Church
that first made their way to Herrnhut in 1722, and thus laid the
foundations of the Renewed Church of the Brethren.]
[Footnote 17: A Brother, e.g., might take the oath to save another Brother's life.]
[Footnote 18: We are, therefore, justified in regarding the year 1495 as a
turning-point in the history of the Brethren. The revolution was
thorough and complete. It is a striking fact that Luke of Prague,
whose busy pen was hardly ever dry, did not back up a single passage by
appealing to Peter's authority; and, in one passage, he even attacked
his character and accused him of not forgiving an enemy.]
[Footnote 19: And here I beseech the reader to be on his guard. It is utterly
incorrect to state, with de Schweinitz, that at this period the Brethren
held the famous doctrine of justification by faith, as expounded
by Martin Luther. Of Luther's doctrine, Luke himself was a vigorous
opponent (see p. 69).]
[Footnote 20: Taine, History of English Literature, Book II. cap. V. For a good
defence of Alexander's character, see Cambridge Modern History, Vol I.
p. 241.]
[Footnote 21: This tract, however, was probably a later Waldensian production.]
[Footnote 22: So called because the Diet opened on St. James's day (July 25th,
1508).]
[Footnote 23: A corruption of Beghard. The term, however, appears to have been
used very loosely. It was simply a vulgar term of abuse for all who had
quarrelled with the Church of Rome. John Wycliffe was called a Picard.]
[Footnote 24: Jednota Rimska.]
[Footnote 25: Jednota Lutherianska. For the Church Universal they used another
word: Cirkey, meaning thereby all those elected by God.]
[Footnote 26: I desire to be explicit on this point. It is, of course, true enough
that when the Brethren in later years began to use the Latin language
they used the term "Unitas Fratrum" as the equivalent of Jednota
Bratrska, but in so doing they made an excusable blunder. The
translation "Unitas Fratrum" is misleading. It is etymologically
correct, and historically false. If a Latin term is to be used at all,
it would be better to say, as J. Müller suggests, "Societas Fratrum,"
or, better still, in my judgment, "Ecclesia Fratrum." But of all
terms to describe the Brethren the most offensive is "sect." It is
inconsistent for the same writer to speak of the "sect" of the Bohemian
Brethren and of the "Church" of Rome. If the Roman Communion is to be
described as a "Church," the same term, in common courtesy, should be
applied to the Brethren.]
[Footnote 27: De Schweinitz. (p. 126) actually sees in this passage the doctrine of
justification by faith. I confess that I do not.]
[Footnote 28: This letter was probably written by Luke of Prague.]
[Footnote 29: Müller's Katechismen, page 231.]
[Footnote 30: This was actually reported to the Pope as a fact by his agent, Henry
Institoris. See Müller's Katechismen, p. 319.]
[Footnote 31: From the German edition of 1522; printed in full in Müller's "Die
deutschen Katechismen der Böhmischen Brüder."]
[Footnote 32: Compare our Queen Elizabeth's view:--
Christ was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what that Word did make it,
That I believe, and take it.]
[Footnote 33: Letter to the Brethren, 1523.]
[Footnote 34: There is no doubt whatever on this last point. If the student will
consult any standard work on the history of the early Christian Church,
he will see how closely the institutions of the Brethren were modelled
on the institutions of the first three centuries as pourtrayed, not only
in the New Testament, but also in such documents as the Didache, the
Canons of Hippolytus, and the Apostolic Constitutions. For English
readers the best guide is T. M. Lindsay's The Church and the Ministry
in the Early Centuries; and the following references will be of special
interest: (1) For the Brethren's conception of priesthood, see p. 35;
(2) for their rule that the clergy should learn a trade, p. 203; (3) for
their ministry of women, p. 181; (4) for their contempt of learning, p.
182; (5) for their preference for unmarried ministers, p. 179; (6) for
the term "Brotherhood" (Jednota) a synonym for "Church," p. 21; (7) for
Acoluths and their duties, p. 355; (8) for their system of discipline,
Matthew xviii. 15-17; (9) for Beginners, Proficients, and Perfect--(a)
Heb. v. 13, (b) Heb. v. 14, vi. 1, (c) 1 Cor. ii. 6, 2 Cor. vii. 1, Rom.
xv. 14, Philipp iii. 15.]
[Footnote 35: There is a beautiful copy of this "Confession" in the Moravian
Theological College at Fairfield, near Manchester.]
[Footnote 36: An important point. It shows that the scheme which Augusta afterwards
sketched in prison was a long-cherished design, and not a new trick to
regain his liberty. (See Chapter XI.)]
[Footnote 37: It is perfectly clear from this prayer that the Brethren tried to
reconcile their loyalty to Ferdinand with loyalty to their faith. The
prayer is printed in full in J. Müller's "Gefangenshaft des Johann
Augusta."]
[Footnote 38: Gindely's narrative here is quite misleading. For no reason whatever
he endeavours to make out that the Brethren were the chief authors of
the conspiracy against Ferdinand. For this statement there is not a
scrap of evidence, and Gindely produces none. It is not often that
Gindely romances, but he certainly romances here, and his biting remarks
about the Brethren are unworthy of so great an historian! (See Vol I.,
p. 293.)]
[Footnote 39: Gindely's naïve remark here is too delightful to be lost. He says
that the rich Brethren had not been corrupted by their contact with
Luther's teaching, and that, therefore, they still possessed a little of
the milk of human kindness for the refreshment of the poor. (See Vol. I.
p. 330.)]
[Footnote 40: The Unitarians were specially strong in Poland.]
[Footnote 41: The letter, that is, in which the Brethren had pleaded not guilty to
the charge of treason.]
[Footnote 42: The fallacy underlying this argument is well known to logicians, and
a simple illustration will make it clear to the reader:--
All Hottentots have black hair.
Mr. Jones has black hair.
Therefore, Mr. Jones is a Hottentot.]
[Footnote 43: I must add a brief word in honour of Jacob Bilek. As that faithful
secretary was thirteen years in prison (1548-61), and endured many
tortures rather than deny his faith, it is rather a pity that two
historians have branded him as a traitor. It is asserted both by Gindely
(Vol. I., p. 452) and by de Schweinitz (p. 327) that Bilek obtained his
liberty by promising, in a written bond, to renounce the Brethren
and adhere to the Utraquist Church. But how Gindely could make such
a statement is more than I can understand. He professes to base his
statement on Bilek's narrative; and Bilek himself flatly denies the
charge. He admits that a bond was prepared, but says that it was handed
to the authorities without his knowledge and consent. For my part, I see
no reason to doubt Bilek's statement; and he certainly spent his last
days among the Brethren as minister of the congregation at Napajedl.]
[Footnote 44: It had been presented in 1564.]
[Footnote 45: Confessio Bohemica; there is a copy in the archives at 32 Fetter
Lane, E.C.]
[Footnote 46: This was doubtless an exaggeration, but it shows that the Brethren
were more powerful than the reader would gather from most histories of
the Reformation.]
[Footnote 47: A copy of this may be seen in the College at Fairfield. The copy is a
second edition, dated 1596. There are two columns to a page. The "title
page," "preface," and "contents" are missing in this copy.]
[Footnote 48: This point is ignored by most English historians, but is fully
recognised by Count Lutzow. "It can be generally stated," he says,
in his "History of Bohemian Literature," p. 201, "that with a
few exceptions all the men who during the last years of Bohemian
independence were most prominent in literature and in politics belonged
to the Unity."]
[Footnote 49: "The Imprisonment of John Augusta," translated into German by Dr. J.
T. Müller. An English translation has not yet appeared.]
[Footnote 50: J. Müller puts the estimate still higher. He thinks that at this time
at least half of the Protestants in Bohemia were Brethren; and that in
Moravia their strength was even greater.]
[Footnote 51: Prepared 1609; published 1616; republished in Latin, 1633; and
translated and published in England in 1866, by Bishop Seifferth. There
is one point in this treatise to which special attention may be
drawn. It contains no allusion to the fact that among the Brethren
the ministers had to earn their living by manual labour. The reason
is obvious. The practice ceased in 1609, as soon as the Charter was
granted, and from that time the Brethren's ministers in Bohemia (though
not in Moravia and Poland) stood on the same footing as the other
evangelical clergy.]
[Footnote 52: Printed in full in J. Müller's "Katechismen."]
[Footnote 53: Ranke, "History of the Popes." Book VII. cap. II., sect. 3 note.]
[Footnote 54: In his "Labyrinth of the World."]
[Footnote 55: I commend this book to the reader. It has recently been translated
into English by Count Lützow, and is included now in Dent's "Temple
Classics."]
[Footnote 56: Surely a poetic exaggeration.]
[Footnote 57: Succeeded in 1629 by Andreas Wengierski; known commonly to historical
students as Regenvolscius, the author of an admirable "History of the
Slavonic Churches."]
[Footnote 58: It is stated in most biographies of Zinzendorf that Spener stood
sponsor at his baptism; but Gerhard Wauer, in his recent work,
Beginnings of the Moravian Church in England, says that Spener's name is
not to be found in the baptismal register. And this, I imagine, should
settle the question.]
[Footnote 59: Hymn No. 851 in the present German Hymn-book.]
[Footnote 60: Collegia pietatis.]
[Footnote 61: Ecclesiolæ in ecclesia.]
[Footnote 62: Ante is to be construed as an adverb.]
[Footnote 63: In his classic Geschichte des Pietismus (Vol. III. p. 203), Albrecht
Ritschl says that Zinzendorf's unwillingness to be a missionary was due
to his pride of rank. The statement has not a shadow of foundation. In
fact, it is contradicted by Zinzendorf himself, who says: "ihre Idee war
eigentlich nicht, dieses und dergleichen selbst zu bewerkstelligen,
denn sie waren beide von den Ihrigen in die grosse Welt destiniert und
wussten von nichts als gehorsam sein." I should like here to warn
the student against paying much attention to what Ritschl says about
Zinzendorf's theology and ecclesiastical policy. His statements are
based on ignorance and theological prejudice: and his blunders have been
amply corrected, first by Bernhard Becker in his Zinzendorf und sein
Christentum im Verhältnis zum kirchlichen und religiösen Leben seiner
Zeit, and secondly by Joseph Müller in his Zinzendorf als Erneuerer der
alten Brüderkirche (1900).]
[Footnote 64: For further details of Zinzendorf's stay at Wittenberg I must refer
to his interesting Diary, which is now in course of publication in the
Zeitschrift für Brüdergeschichte. It is written in an alarming mixture
of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, and French; but the editors have kindly
added full explanatory notes, and all the student requires to understand
it is a working knowledge of German.]
[Footnote 65: This picture is now in the Pinakothek at Münich. It is wonderful how
this well-known incident has been misrepresented and misapplied. It is
constantly referred to now in tracts, sermons, and popular religious
magazines as if it was the means of Zinzendorf's "conversion"; and even
a scholar like the late Canon Liddon tells us how this German nobleman
was now "converted from a life of careless indifference." (Vide
Passiontide Sermons. No. VII., pp. 117, 118.) But all that the picture
really accomplished was to strengthen convictions already held and plans
already formed. It is absurd to talk about the "conversion" of a youth
who had loved and followed Christ for years.]
[Footnote 66: The phrase inscribed upon her tombstone at Herrnhut.]
[Footnote 67: The Smalkald Articles were drawn up in 1537; and the clause to which
Zinzendorf appealed runs as follows: "In many ways the Gospel offers
counsel and help to the sinner; first through the preaching of the
Word, second, through Baptism, third, through the Holy Communion, fourth
through the power of the keys, and, lastly, through brotherly discussion
and mutual encouragement, according to Matthew xviii., 'Where two or
three are gathered together.'" The Count, of course, appealed to the
last of these methods. For some reason, however, unknown to me, this
particular clause in the Articles was always printed in Latin, and was,
therefore, unknown to the general public.]
[Footnote 68: In his treatise, "The German Mass," published in 1526 (see Köstlin's
"Life of Luther," p. 295; Longmans' Silver Library).]
[Footnote 69: August, 1738.]
[Footnote 70: See page 58.]
[Footnote 71: Not to be confounded with Kunwald in Bohemia.]
[Footnote 72: It is probable that the Neissers were descendants of the Brethren's
Church, but we cannot be quite certain about it. About the third band,
that arrived in 1724, there is no doubt whatever. (See the next chapter,
p. 200.)]
[Footnote 73: "Hutberg"; i.e., the hill where cattle and sheep were kept secure.
The name "Hutberg" was common in Germany, and was applied, of course,
to many other hills. For the payment of a small rent the landlords often
let out "Hutbergs" to the villagers on their estates.]
[Footnote 74: Ps. lxxxiv. 3. The spot where David felled the first tree is now
marked by a monument, inscribed with the date and the text; and the date
itself is one of the Brethren's so-called "Memorial Days."]
[Footnote 75: Zinzendorf's expression.]
[Footnote 76: These "Injunctions and Prohibitions" are now printed for the
first time by J. Müller, in his Zizendorf als Erneuerer der alten
Bruder-Kirche (1900). They must not be confounded with the "Statutes"
printed in the Memorial Days of the Brethren's Church.]
[Footnote 77: Here again Ritschl is wrong. He assumes (Geschichte des Pietismus,
III. 243) that when Zinzendorf drew up his "Injunctions and
Prohibitions" and "Statutes" he was already acquainted with the Ratio
Disciplinæ. But the "Injunctions" and "Statutes" were read out on May
12th, and the "Ratio" was not discovered till July.]
[Footnote 78: There was, however, no community of goods.]
[Footnote 79: I am not exaggerating. In one of his discourses he says: "I regard
the Augsburg Confession as inspired, and assert that it will be the
creed of the Philadelphian Church till Christ comes again." See Müller,
Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, p. 90, and Becker, p. 335.]
[Footnote 80: As I write these words a copy of the first Text-book lies before me.
It has only one text for each day, and all the texts are taken from the
New Testament.]
[Footnote 81: It is often referred to in the English Congregation Diaries. It was
abandoned simply because it was no longer valued; and no one was willing
to take part.]
[Footnote 82: For striking examples see pages 230, 236, 266, 302, 394.]
[Footnote 83: Luke xxii. 17.]
[Footnote 84: The whole question is thoroughly discussed by J. Müller in his
"Zinzendorf als Erneuerer der alten Brüder-Kirche."]
[Footnote 85: Was this true to Luther, or was it not? According to Ritschl it was
not (Geschichte des Pietismus, III. 248); according to J. T. Müller, it
was (Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, p. 40). I agree with the latter writer.]
[Footnote 86: It is not clear from the evidence who suggested the use of the Lot.
According to Zinzendorf's diary it was the Brethren; but I suspect
that he himself was the first to suggest it. There is no proof that the
Brethren were already fond of the Lot; but there is plenty of proof that
the Pietists were, and Zinzendorf had probably learned it from them.
(See Ritschl II., 434, etc.)]
[Footnote 87: And here I correct a popular misconception. It has often been stated
in recent years that the first Moravian missionaries actually became
slaves. The statement is incorrect. As a matter of fact, white slavery
was not allowed in any of the West Indian islands.]
[Footnote 88: E.g., Dr. George Smith's Short History of Christian Missions, Chapter
XI.]
[Footnote 89: See Book I., pp. 74-5.]
[Footnote 90: For details about this interesting point, see La Trobe's Letters to
My Children, pp. 13-25.]
[Footnote 91: The first number appeared in 1790, and the first editor was Christian
Ignatius La Trobe.]
[Footnote 92: The vessel referred to was the Harmony. It belonged to the Brethren's
"Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel," and carried their
missionaries and goods to and from Labrador.]
[Footnote 93: For proof see Th. Bechler's pamphlet: Vor hundert Jahren und heut
(pp. 40-47).]
[Footnote 94: See 1 Peter i. 1: "Peter to the strangers scattered." The Greek word
is diaspora; this is the origin of the Moravian phrase, "Diaspora Work."]
[Footnote 95: i.e. By the Lot.]
[Footnote 96: i.e. By the Lot. This is what Zinzendorf's language really means.]
[Footnote 97: But this applied to Europe only. In America Bishop Spangenberg was
still Chief Elder; and Christ was not recognized as Chief Elder there
till 1748. What caused this strange incongruity? How could the Brethren
recognize a man as Chief Elder in America and the Lord Christ as Chief
Elder in Europe? The explanation is that in each case the question was
settled by the Lot; and the Brethren themselves asked in bewilderment
why our Lord would not at first consent to be Chief Elder in America.]
[Footnote 98: See Benham's Memoirs of James Hutton, p. 245, where the papers
referring to Bishop Wilson's appointment are printed in full.]
[Footnote 99: It was a little green book, with detachable leaves; each leaf
contained some motto or text; and when the Count was in a difficulty, he
pulled out one of these leaves at random.]
[Footnote 100: Matthew xi. 25. "Little Fools" (Närrchen) was Zinzendorf's rendering
of naypeeoee {spelled in greek: nu, eta, pi, iota (stressed), omicron,
iota}.]
[Footnote 101: For want of a better, I use this word to translate the German
"Lämmlein"; but, in common justice, it must be explained that "Lämmlein"
in German does not sound so foolish as "Lambkin" in English. In German,
diminutives are freely used to express endearment. (See James Hutton's
sensible remarks in Benham's Memoirs, p. 563.)]
[Footnote 102: Cross-air--soaring in the atmosphere of the Cross.]
[Footnote 103: See Chapter XIV., p. 384.]
[Footnote 104: See Chapter III., p. 208.]
[Footnote 105: It has often been urged, in Zinzendorf's defence, that he did not
know what was happening at Herrnhaag. But this defence will not hold
good. He was present, in 1747, when some of the excesses were at their
height; and during the summer of that year he delivered there a series
of thirty-four homilies on his "Litany of the Wounds."]
[Footnote 106: See, e.g., Kurtz's Church History. Dr. Kurtz entirely ignores the
fact that the worst features of the "Sifting Time" were only of short
duration, and that no one condemned its excesses more severely than the
Brethren themselves.]
[Footnote 107: Canon Overton's sarcastic observations here are quite beside the
point. He says (Life of John Wesley, p. 55) that Spangenberg subjected
Wesley to "a cross-examination which, considering the position and
attainments of the respective parties, seems to an outsider, in
plain words, rather impertinent." I should like to know where this
impertinence comes in. What were "the position and attainments of the
respective parties?" Was Spangenberg Wesley's intellectual inferior? No.
Did Spangenberg seek the conversation? No. "I asked his advice," says
Wesley, "with regard to my own conduct."]
[Footnote 108: Thus Overton, e.g., writes: "If John Wesley was not a true Christian
in Georgia, God help millions of those who profess and call themselves
Christians." Life of John Wesley, p. 58.]
[Footnote 109: "And forthwith commenced the process of purging," adds Overton.
Witty, but untrue. Boehler did nothing of the kind.]
[Footnote 110: See, e.g., Overton, Evangelical Revival p. 15; Fisher, History of
the Church, p. 516; Wakeman, History of the Church of England, p. 438.]
[Footnote 111: This clause is omitted by John Wesley in his Journal! He gives the
fundamental rules of the Society, but omits the clause that interfered
most with his own liberty. See Journal, May 1st, 1738.]
[Footnote 112: Precise date uncertain.]
[Footnote 113: What did the Brethren mean by this? We are left largely to
conjecture. My own personal impression is, however, that the Brethren
feared that if Wesley took Communion with them he might be tempted to
leave the Church of England and join the Moravian Church.]
[Footnote 114: Mr. Lecky's narrative here (History of England, Vol. II., p. 67,
Cabinet Edition) is incorrect. He attributes the above two speeches
to Moravian "teachers." No Moravian "teacher," so far as I know, ever
talked such nonsense. John Bray was not a Moravian at all. I
have carefully examined the list of members of the first Moravian
congregation in London; and Bray's name does not occur in the list.
He was an Anglican and an intimate friend of Charles Wesley, and is
frequently mentioned in the latter's Journal. It is easy to see how
Lecky went wrong. Instead of consulting the evidence for himself, he
followed the guidance of Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, Vol. I., p.
302-5.]
[Footnote 115: Cur religionem tuam mutasti? Generally, but wrongly, translated Why
have you changed your religion? But religio does not mean religion; it
means Church or denomination.]
[Footnote 116: I believe I am correct in stating that the Watch-Night Service
described in this chapter was the first held in England. As such
services were held already at Herrnhut, where the first took place in
1733, it was probably a Moravian who suggested the service at Fetter
Lane; and thus Moravians have the honour of introducing Watch-Night
Services in this country. From them the custom passed to the Methodist;
and from the Methodist to other Churches.]
[Footnote 117: This letter was first discovered and printed by the late Rev. L. G.
Hassé, B.D., in 1896. See Moravian Messenger, June 6th, 1896.]
[Footnote 118: Cennick described these incidents fully in his book, Riots at
Exeter.]
[Footnote 119: See Moravian Hymn-book, No. 846.]
[Footnote 120: A nickname afterwards applied to John Wesley.]
[Footnote 121: Now called Bishop Street.]
[Footnote 122: The congregations which owe their existence to the labours
of Cennick are as follows:--In England: Bristol, Kingswood, Bath,
Devonport, Malmesbury, Tytherton, Leominster; in Wales: Haverfordwest;
in Ireland:--Dublin, Gracehill, Gracefield, Ballinderry, Kilwarlin,
Kilkeel, Cootehill.]
[Footnote 123: There was no real truth in these allegations.]
[Footnote 124: See Boswell's "Johnson," April 10, 1772; April 29, 1773; and April
10, 1775.]
[Footnote 125: Regarded then as one of the wonders of England. (See Macaulay's
History of England, Chapter III., Sect. Fashionable part of the
capital.)]
[Footnote 126: The case of Gomersal may serve as an example. The certificate of
registration runs as follows: "14th June, 1754. These are to certify
that the New Chapel and House adjoining in Little Gumersall, in the
Parish of Birstall, in the County and Diocese of York, the property of
James Charlesworth, was this day Registered in the Registry of his Grace
the Lord Archbishop of York, for a place for Protestant Dissenters for
the public worship of Almighty God. "ROB. JUBB, "Deputy Registrar."]
[Footnote 127: Consolatory Letter to the Members of the Societies that are in some
connection with the Brethren's Congregations, 1752. I owe my knowledge
of this rare pamphlet to the kindness of the late Rev. L. G. Hassé.]
[Footnote 128: Contents of a Folio History, 1750.]
[Footnote 129: The Representation of the Committee of the English Congregations in
Union with the Moravian Church, 1754.]
[Footnote 130: His other works were: (a) A Solemn Call on Count Zinzendorf (1754);
(b) Supplement to the Candid Narrative (1755); (c) A Second Solemn Call
on Mr. Zinzendorf (1757); (d) Animadversions on Sundry Flagrant Untruths
advanced by Mr. Zinzendorf (no date).]
[Footnote 131: Indignantly denied by James Hutton, who was present at the service
in question.]
[Footnote 132: At one time I could not resist the conviction that Frey had
overdrawn his picture (see Owens College Historical Essays, p. 446); but
recently I have come to the conclusion that his story was substantially
true. My reason for this change of view is as follows:--As soon as the
settlement at Herrnhaag was abandoned a number of Single Brethren went
to Pennsylvania, and there confessed to Spangenberg that the scandals
at Herrnhaag were "ten times as bad" as described by Frey. See Reichel's
Spangenberg, p. 179. Frey's book had then appeared in German.]
[Footnote 133: Their chief apologetic works were the following: (1) Peremptorischen
Bedencken: or, The Ordinary of the Brethren's Churches. Short and
Peremptory Remarks on the Way and Manner wherein he has been hitherto
treated in Controversies (1753), by Zinzendorf. (2) A Modest Plea for
the Church of the Brethren (1754), anonymous. (3) The Plain Case of the
Representatives of the Unitas Fratrum (1754), anonymous. (4) A Letter
from a Minister of the Moravian Branch of the Unitas Fratrum to the
Author of the "Moravians Compared and Detected," (1755), probably by
Frederick Neisser. (5) An Exposition, or True State of the Matters
objected in England to the People known by the name of Unitas Fratrum
(1755), by Zinzendorf. (6) Additions, by James Hutton. (7) An Essay
towards giving some Just Ideas of the Personal Character of Count
Zinzendorf (1755), by James Hutton. (8) A Short Answer to Mr. Rimius's
Long Uncandid Narrative (1753), anonymous.]
[Footnote 134: And yet Tyerman says that in 1752 the Moravian Church was "a
luscious morsel of Antinomian poison." Life of John Wesley, II., 96.]
[Footnote 135: See Gerhard Reichel's admirable Life of Spangenberg, Chapter X.
(1906. J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen.)]
[Footnote 136: Translated by Samuel Jackson, 1838.]
[Footnote 137: Zinzendorf's Robe.--At a conference at Friedberg Zinzendorf
suggested (Nov. 17th, 1747) that a white robe should be worn on special
occasions, to remind the Brethren of Rev. vii. 9, 13; and, therefore,
the surplice was worn for the first time at a Holy Communion, at
Herrnhaag, on May 2nd, 1748, by Zinzendorf himself, his son Renatus, two
John Nitschmanns, and Rubusch, the Elder of the Single Brethren. This is
the origin of the use of the surplice by the modern Moravians.]
[Footnote 138: Referred to hereafter as U.E.C.]
[Footnote 139: A rule repeatedly broken by the rebellious British. It is frequently
recorded in the Synodal Minutes, "the British deputies turned up without
having had their election ratified by the Lot."]
[Footnote 140: E.g., in Labrador, where it is regularly read at week-night
meetings.]
[Footnote 141: But this was not the case in England. Only a few children were
educated at Broadoaks, Buttermere, and Fulneck; and the parents of the
children at Fulneck were expected to pay for them if they could. I am
indebted to Mr. W. T. Waugh for this information.]
[Footnote 142: For a fuller discussion of this fascinating subject see Bernhard
Becker's article in the Monatshefte der Comenius Gesellschaft, 1894,
p. 45; Prof. H. Roy's articles in the Evangelisches Kirchenblatt für
Schlesien, 1905, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6; and Meyer, Schleiermachers und C. G.
v. Brinkmanns Gang durch die Brüdergemeine, 1905.]
[Footnote 143: For the poet Goethe's opinion of the Brethren, see Wilhelm Meister
(Carlyle's translation), Book VI., "Confessions of a Fair Saint."]
[Footnote 144: At the special request of the Fulneck Conference an exception was
made in the case of Fulneck School, in Yorkshire.]
[Footnote 145: John Wesley, in his Journal, does not tell the story properly. He
makes no mention of the Love-feast, and says it was not the Moravian
custom to invite friends to eat and drink. The facts are given by Hegner
in his Fortsetzung of Cranz's Brüdergeschichte, part III., p. 6.]
[Footnote 146: The cause in Ayr was started in 1765 by the preaching of John
Caldwell, one of John Cennick's converts. It was not till 1778 that Ayr
was organized as a congregation; and no attempt was ever made to convert
the other societies into congregations.]
[Footnote 147: At the special invitation of William Hunt, a farmer.]
[Footnote 148: For complete list of the Brethren's societies in Scotland, see the
little pamphlet, The Moravian Church in Ayrshire, reprinted from the
Kilmarnock Standard, June 27th, 1903; and for further details about
abandoned Societies, see Moravian Chapels and Preaching Places (J.
England, 2, Edith Road, Seacombe, near Liverpool).]
[Footnote 149: In all this, the object of the Brethren was to be true to the Church
of England, and, to place their motives beyond all doubt, I add a minute
from the London Congregation Council. It refers to United Flocks, and
runs as follows: "April 11th, 1774. Our Society Brethren and Sisters
must not expect to have their children baptized by us. It would be
against all good order to baptize their children. The increase of this
United Flock is to be promoted by all proper means, that the members of
it may be a good salt to the Church of England."]
[Footnote 150: The certificate was as follows: "This is to certify, that the
Bearer, ----, of ----, in the Parish of ----, in the County of ----, is
a Member of the Protestant Episcopal Church, known by the name of Unitas
Fratrum or United Brethren, and such is entitled to the Privileges
granted by an Act of Parliament [22 Geo. II. cap. 120: in the year 1749;
and also by an Act of Parliament [43 Geo. III. cap 120: in the year
1803, exempting the members of the said Church from personal Military
Services. Witness my Hand and Seal this ---- day of ---- One Thousand
Eight Hundred ----."]
[Footnote 151: See History of Fulneck School, by W. T. Waugh, M.A.]
[Footnote 152: For a fine appreciation of the Brethren's music, see La Trobe,
Letters to my Children, pp. 26-45.]
[Footnote 153: P.E.C.=Provincial Elders' Conference--i.e., the Governing Board
appointed by the U.E.C.; known till 1856 as Provincial Helpers'
Conference.]
[Footnote 154: P. 431. See the transactions of the Synod of 1818.]
[Footnote 155: N.B.--The Moravians in America are not to be confounded with another
denomination known as the "United Brethren," founded in 1752 by Philip
William Otterbein (see Fisher's "Church History," p. 579). It is,
therefore, quite misleading to call the Moravians the "United Brethren."
The term is not only historically false, but also leads to confusion.]
[Footnote 156: This is necessary in order to fulfil the requirements of German Law.]
[Footnote 157: It was also settled in 1899 that the Advocatus Fratrum in Angliâ and
the Secretarius Fratrum in Angliâ should no longer be ex-officio members
of the General Synod.]
[Footnote 158: See Goll, Quellen und Untersuchungen, II., pp. 78 and 85, and
Müller, Die deutschen Katechismen der Böhmischen Brüder, p. 112.]
[Footnote 159: In the Moravian Church the rite of Confirmation is generally
performed, not by a Bishop, but by the resident minister; and herein, I
believe, they are true to the practice of the early Christian Church.]
[Footnote 160: See preface to Moravian Tune Book, large edition.]
[Footnote 161: Burkhardt: Die Brüdergemeine, Erster Theil, p. 189.]
End of Project Gutenberg's History of the Moravian Church, by J. E. Hutton