SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

SermonIndex.net : Christian Books : FOOTNOTES

History Of The Moravian Church by J. E. Hutton

FOOTNOTES

1 De Ecclesiâ.

2 Calixtine = Cup-ite, from the Latin, calix, a cup. Utraquist = in both kinds, from the Latin, utraque.

3 Pronounced: Kelchits. The ch is a guttural like the Hebrew kaph, or like ch in the word loch.

4 A common saying in Peter's day.

5 Pronounced Rockitsanna.

6 This outbreak made a great sensation, and was frequently quoted by the Brethren in their writings.

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.

8 These settled, not at Kunwald, but close by.

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.

10 This division into three classes is first found in a letter to Rockycana, written in 1464.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

17 A Brother, e.g., might take the oath to save another Brother's life.

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.

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).

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.

21 This tract, however, was probably a later Waldensian production.

22 So called because the Diet opened on St. James's day (July 25th, 1508).

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.

24 Jednota Rimska.

25 Jednota Lutherianska. For the Church Universal they used another word: Cirkey, meaning thereby all those elected by God.

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.

27 De Schweinitz. (p.126) actually sees in this passage the doctrine of justification by faith. I confess that I do not.

28 This letter was probably written by Luke of Prague.

29 Müller's Katechismen, page 231.

30 This was actually reported to the Pope as a fact by his agent, Henry Institoris. See Müller's Katechismen, p.319.

31 From the German edition of 1522; printed in full in Müller's |Die deutschen Katechismen der Böhmischen Brüder.|

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.

33 Letter to the Brethren, 1523.

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.

35 There is a beautiful copy of this |Confession| in the Moravian Theological College at Fairfield, near Manchester.

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.)

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.|

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.)

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.)

40 The Unitarians were specially strong in Poland.

41 The letter, that is, in which the Brethren had pleaded not guilty to the charge of treason.

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.

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.

44 It had been presented in 1564.

45 Confessio Bohemica; there is a copy in the archives at 32 Fetter Lane, E.C.

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.

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.

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.|

49 |The Imprisonment of John Augusta,| translated into German by Dr. J. T. Müller. An English translation has not yet appeared.

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.

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.

52 Printed in full in J. Müller's |Katechismen.|

53 Ranke, |History of the Popes.| Book VII. cap. II., sect.3 note.

54 In his |Labyrinth of the World.|

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.|

56 Surely a poetic exaggeration.

57 Succeeded in 1629 by Andreas Wengierski; known commonly to historical students as Regenvolscius, the author of an admirable |History of the Slavonic Churches.|

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.

59 Hymn No.851 in the present German Hymn-book.

60 Collegia pietatis.

61 Ecclesiolæ in ecclesia.

62 Ante is to be construed as an adverb.

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).

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.

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.

66 The phrase inscribed upon her tombstone at Herrnhut.

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.

68 In his treatise, |The German Mass,| published in 1526 (see Köstlin's |Life of Luther,| p.295; Longmans' Silver Library).

69 August, 1738.

70 See page 58.

71 Not to be confounded with Kunwald in Bohemia.

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.)

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.

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.|

75 Zinzendorf's expression.

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.

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.

78 There was, however, no community of goods.

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.

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.

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.

82 For striking examples see pages 230, 236, 266, 302, 394.

83 Luke xxii.17.

84 The whole question is thoroughly discussed by J. Müller in his |Zinzendorf als Erneuerer der alten Brüder-Kirche.|

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.

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.)

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.

88 E.g., Dr. George Smith's Short History of Christian Missions, Chapter XI.

89 See Book I., pp.74-5.

90 For details about this interesting point, see La Trobe's Letters to My Children, pp.13-25.

91 The first number appeared in 1790, and the first editor was Christian Ignatius La Trobe.

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.

93 For proof see Th. Bechler's pamphlet: Vor hundert Jahren und heut (pp.40-47).

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.|

95 i.e. By the Lot.

96 i.e. By the Lot. This is what Zinzendorf's language really means.

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.

98 See Benham's Memoirs of James Hutton, p.245, where the papers referring to Bishop Wilson's appointment are printed in full.

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.

100 Matthew xi.25. |Little Fools| (Närrchen) was Zinzendorf's rendering of naypeeoee {spelled in greek: nu, eta, pi, iota (stressed), omicron, iota}.

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.)

102 Cross-air -- soaring in the atmosphere of the Cross.

103 See Chapter XIV., p.384.

104 See Chapter III., p.208.

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.|

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.

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.|

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.

109 |And forthwith commenced the process of purging,| adds Overton. Witty, but untrue. Boehler did nothing of the kind.

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.

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.

112 Precise date uncertain.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

118 Cennick described these incidents fully in his book, Riots at Exeter.

119 See Moravian Hymn-book, No.846.

120 A nickname afterwards applied to John Wesley.

121 Now called Bishop Street.

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.

123 There was no real truth in these allegations.

124 See Boswell's |Johnson,| April 10, 1772; April 29, 1773; and April 10, 1775.

125 Regarded then as one of the wonders of England. (See Macaulay's History of England, Chapter III., Sect. Fashionable part of the capital.)

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.|

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.

128 Contents of a Folio History, 1750.

129 The Representation of the Committee of the English Congregations in Union with the Moravian Church, 1754.

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).

131 Indignantly denied by James Hutton, who was present at the service in question.

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.

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.

134 And yet Tyerman says that in 1752 the Moravian Church was |a luscious morsel of Antinomian poison.| Life of John Wesley, II., 96.

135 See Gerhard Reichel's admirable Life of Spangenberg, Chapter X. (1906. J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen.)

136 Translated by Samuel Jackson, 1838.

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.

138 Referred to hereafter as U.E.C.

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.|

140 E.g., in Labrador, where it is regularly read at week-night meetings.

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.

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.

143 For the poet Goethe's opinion of the Brethren, see Wilhelm Meister (Carlyle's translation), Book VI., |Confessions of a Fair Saint.|

144 At the special request of the Fulneck Conference an exception was made in the case of Fulneck School, in Yorkshire.

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.

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.

147 At the special invitation of William Hunt, a farmer.

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).

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.|

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 -- -- .|

151 See History of Fulneck School, by W. T. Waugh, M.A.

152 For a fine appreciation of the Brethren's music, see La Trobe, Letters to my Children, pp.26-45.

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.

154 P.431. See the transactions of the Synod of 1818.

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.

156 This is necessary in order to fulfil the requirements of German Law.

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.

158 See Goll, Quellen und Untersuchungen, II., pp.78 and 85, and Müller, Die deutschen Katechismen der Böhmischen Brüder, p.112.

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.

160 See preface to Moravian Tune Book, large edition.

161 Burkhardt: Die Brüdergemeine, Erster Theil, p.189.

<<  Contents 





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy