History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
HISTORY OF THE MORAVIAN CHURCH
J. E. HUTTON_
(Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged.)
1909
CONTENTS
BOOK ONE: The Bohemian Brethren: 1457-1673
1.The Rising Storm
2.The Burning of Hus July 6th, 1415
3.The Welter. 1415-1434
4.Peter of Chelcic. 1419-1450
5.Gregory the Patriarch and the Society at Kunwald. 1457-1472
6.Luke of Prague and the High Church Reaction.1473-1530
7.The Brethren at Home.
8.John Augusta and His Policy 1531-1548
9.The Brethren in Poland. 1548-1570
10.The Martyr Bishop. 1548-1560
11.The Last Days of Augusta. 1560-1572
12.The Golden Age. 1572-1603
13.The Letter of Majesty. 1603-1609
14.The Downfall. 1609-1621
15.The Day of Blood at Prague. June 21st 1621
16.Comenius and the Hidden Seed. 1621-1673
BOOK TWO: The Revival under Zinzendorf: 1700-1760.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
1.The Youth of Count Zinzendorf.
2.Christian David. 1690-1722
3.The Founding of Herrnhut. 1722-1727
4.Life at Herrnhut.
5.The Edict of Banishment. 1727-1736
6.The Foreign Missions and their Influence.1732-1760
7.The Pilgrim Band. 1736-1743
8.The Sifting Time. 1743-1750
9.Moravians and Methodists. 1735-1742
10.Yorkshire and the Settlement System. 1742-1755
11.The Labours of John Cennick. 1739-1755
12.The Appeal to Parliament. 1742-1749
13.The Battle of the Books. 1749-1755
14.The American Experiments. 1734-1762
15.The Last Days of Zinzendorf. 1755-1760
BOOK THREE: The Rule of the Germans: 1760-1857.
1. The Church and Her Mission; or, The Three Constitutional Synods. 1760-1775
2.The Fight for the Gospel; or, Moravians and Rationalists. 1775-1800
3.A Fall and a Recovery. 1800-1857
4.The British Collapse. 1760-1800
5.The British Advance.1′800-1857
6.The Struggle in America. 1762-1857
7.The Separation of the Provinces 1857-1899
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
BOOK FOUR: The Modern Moravians: 1857-1908.
1. Moravian Principles
2.The Moravians in Germany
3.The Moravians in Great Britain
4.The Moravians in North America
5.Bonds of Union
PREFACE
For assistance in the preparation of this second edition,
I
desire
he r e w i t h
friends:–To
knowledge
the
of
to
late
express
Rev.
Moravian
my
L.
history
obligations
G.
Hasse,
was
to
se v e r a l
B.D.,
pr o fo u n d ,
whose
and
w ho
g u i d e d m e s a fe ly i n m a n y m a t t e r s o f d e t a i l ; t o t h e R e v . N .
L i b b e y , M . A . , P r i n c i p a l o f t h e M o r a v i a n T he o lo g i c a l C o l l e g e ,
F a i r f i e l d , f o r t h e l o a n o f v a l u ab l e b o o k s ; t o th e R e v . J . T .
M u l l e r , D . D . , A r c h i v i s t a t H e r r nh u t , f o r r e v i s i n g p a r t o f t h e
M S . , - a n d f o r ma n y h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s ; t o Mr . W . T . W a u g h ,
M . A . , f o r a s s i s t a n c e i n c o r r e c t i n g t h e p r o o f - s he e t s , A n d f o r
m u c h v a l u a b l e c r i t i c i s m ; t o t h e m e m b e r s o f th e M o r a v i a n
G o ve r n i n g
B o ar d ,
documents
from
not
the
only
Fetter
fo r
Lane
c a r e f u l l y r e a d i ng t h r o u g h t h e
the
loan
archives,
MS.; to
the
of
books
but
also
and
for
ministers who
k i n d l y ’ s u p p l i e d m y p u l p i t f o r t h r e e mo n t h s ; a n d l a s t , b u t
not least, to the members of my own congregation, who
r e l i e ve d m e f r o m s o m e p a s t o r a l d u t i e s t o e n a b l e m e t o m a ke
good speed with my task.
Moravian Manse,
Heckmondwike.
BOOK ONE: THE BOHEMENIAN BRETHREN
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 1
“The Rising Story”
When
reading,
an
o r d i na r y
sees
Englishman,
mention
made
of
in
the
c o ur s e
M o r a v i a n s,
he
of
his
thinks
f o r t h w i t h o f a fo r e i g n l a n d , a f o r e i g n p e o p l e an d a f o r e i g n
Church.
He
wonders,
wonders
as
a
rule,
who
in
these
vain.
Moravians
We
have
all
may
be,
a nd
of
t he
heard
P r o t e s t a n t R e fo r m a t i o n ; w e k n o w i t s p r i n c i p l e s a n d a d m i r e
its
heroes;
a nd
the
famous
names
of
L ut h e r ,
C alvin,
M e l a n c t h o n , L a t i m e r , C r a n me r , K n o x a n d o t h e r g r e a t m e n
a r e fa m i l i a r i n o u r e ar s a s h o u se h o l d w o r d s . B ut f e w pe o p l e
i n t h i s c o u n t r y a r e aw a r e o f t he f a c t t h a t l o n g b e f o r e L u t he r
h a d b u r n e d t h e P o p e ’ s b u l l , a n d l o n g b e f o r e C r an m e r d i e d a t
the
stake,
there
had
be g u n
an
earlier
R e fo r m a t i o n ,
and
f l o u r i s h e d a R e fo r m i n g C h u r c h . I t i s t o t e l l t h e s t o r y o f t h a t
C h u r c h – t h e C h ur c h o f t h e B r e th r e n – t h a t t h i s l i t t l e b o o k i s
written.
F o r h e r cr a d l e a n d h e r e a r l i e st h o m e w e t u r n t o t h e
distressful
land
of
B o he m i a ,
a nd
the
pe o p l e
called
B o he m i a n s , o r C z e c h s . T o u s E n g l i s h r e a d e r s B o he m i a h a s
many charms. As we call to mind our days at school, we
r e me m b e r , i n a d i m a n d h a z y w a y , h o w f a m o u s B o he m i a n s i n
d a y s o f yo r e h a ve p l a y e d s o me pa r t i n o ur n a t i o na l s t o r y . W e
h a v e s u n g t h e p r a i s e s a t C hr i st m a s t i m e o f t h e B o h e m i a n
M o n a r c h , “G o o d K i n g W e n c e s l a us . ” W e h a ve r e ad h o w J o h n,
t h e b l i n d K i n g o f B o he m i a , f e l l m o r t a l l y w o u n d e d a t t h e
Battle of Crecy, how he died in the tent of King Edward III.,
a n d h o w h i s g e n e r o u s c o n q u e r o r e x c l a i m e d : “T h e cr o w n o f
chivalry has fallen today; never was the like of this King of
B o he m i a . ” W e h a v e a l l r e a d , t o o , h o w R i c h a r d I I . m a r r i e d
P r i n c e s s A n n e o f B o he m i a ; h o w t h e P r i n c e s s , so t h e s t o r y
g o e s , b r o u g h t a B o he m i a n B i b l e t o E n g l a n d ; h o w B o h e m i a n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
s c h o l a r s , a f e w y e a r s l a t e r , c am e t o s t u d y a t O x f o r d ; h o w
there they read the writings of Wycliffe, the “Morning Star of
the
R e fo r m a t i o n ” ;
and
how,
finally,
copies
of
Wycliffe’s
b o o k s w e r e c a r r i e d t o B o h e m ia , a n d t h e r e ga v e r i s e to a
r e l i g i o u s r e v i v a l o f w o r l d - w i d e im p o r t a n c e . We h a v e s t r u ck
t h e t r a i l o f o u r jo u r n e y . Fo r o n e p e r so n t h a t W yc l i f f e s t i r r e d
in England, he stirred hundreds in Bohemia. In England his
influence was fleeting; in Bohemia it was deep and abiding.
I n E n g l a n d h i s f o l l o w e r s w e r e s pe e d i l y s u p p r e s se d b y l a w ; i n
B o he m i a t h e y b e c a m e a g r e a t n a t i o n a l f o r c e , a n d p r e p a r e d
the way for the foundation of the Church of the Brethren.
F o r t h i s s t a r t l i n g f a c t t h e r e w a s a v e r y p o w e r f u l r e a so n .
I n m a n y w a y s t h e h i s t o r y o f B o h e m i a i s v e r y l ik e t h e h i s t o r y
of Ireland, and the best way to understand the character of
t h e p e o p le i s t o t h i n k o f o ur I r is h f r i e n d s a s w e k n o w t h e m
to-day. They sprang from the old Slavonic stock, and the
Slavonic is very like the Keltic in nature. They had fiery
Slavonic blood in their veins, and Slavonic hearts beat high
with
hope
in
their
bosoms.
They
had
all
the
delightful
Slavonic zeal, the Slavonic dash, the Slavonic imagination.
They were easy to stir, they were swift in action, they were
w i t t y i n s p e e c h , t h e y w e r e m y st i c a n d p o e t i c i n s o u l , a n d ,
l i k e t h e Ir i s h o f t h e p r e se n t d a y , t h e y r e v e l l e d i n t h e j o y o f
party politics, and discussed religious questions with the
k e e ne s t z e s t . W i t h t h e m r e l i g i o n c a m e f i r s t a n d f o r e m o s t . A l l
t h e i r p o e tr y w as r e l i g i o u s ; a l l t h e i r l e g e n d s w e r e r e l i g i o u s ;
a n d t h u s t h e m e s s a g e o f W y c l i f f e f e l l o n h e ar t s p r e p ar e d to
g i v e i t a k i n d l y w e l c o me .
Again, Bohemia, like Ireland, was the home of two rival
p o p u l a t i o n s . T h e o ne w as t h e n a t i v e C z e c h , th e o t h e r w a s
t h e i n t r u d i n g G e r m a n ; a n d t h e t w o h a d n o t y e t l e a r ne d t o
l o v e e a c h o t h e r . F r o m a l l s i d e s e x c e p t o n e th e s e G e r m a n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
invaders had come. If the
reader
w i l l c o n s ul t a m a p o f
E u r o p e h e w i l l s e e t h a t , e x ce pt o n t h e s o u t h -e a s t f r o n t i e r ,
where
the
s i st e r
co u n t r y ,
Moravia,
lies,
B o he m i a
is
s u r r o u n de d b y G e r m a n - s p e a k i n g S t a t e s . O n t h e no r t h - e a s t i s
S i l e s i a , o n t h e n o r t h - w e s t S a xo n y , o n t h e w e s t B a v ar i a a n d
t h e U p p e r P a l a ti n a t e , a n d t h u s B o he m i a w a s fl o o d e d w i t h
G e r m a n s fr o m th r e e s i d e s a t o nc e . F o r y e a r s t h e s e G e r m a ns
h a d b e e n i n c r e as i n g i n p o w e r , an d t h e w h o l e e ar l y h i s t o r y o f
B o he m i a i s o n e d r e a r y s u c ce s si o n o f b l o o d y w a r s a g a i n s t
German Emperors and Kings. Sometimes the land had been
r a v a g e d b y G e r m a n s o l d i e r s , so m e t i m e s a G e r m a n K i n g h a d
s a t o n t h e B o h e m i a n t h r o n e . B u t n o w t h e G e r ma n s e t t l e r s i n
B o he m i a h a d be c o me m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n e v e r . T he y h a d
s e t t l e d i n l a r g e n u m b e r s i n t h e c i t y o f P r a g u e , an d h a d t h e r e
obtained
s p e c ia l
privileges
for
t h e m se l v e s .
They
had
i n t r o d u c e d h u n d r e d s o f G e r m a n c l e r g y m e n , w h o p r e a c he d in
t h e G e r m a n l a n g u a g e . T h e y h a d m a r r i e d t h e i r d au g h t e r s i n t o
noble Bohemian families. They had tried to make German the
l a n g u a g e o f t h e c o ur t , h a d s p o k e n w i t h c o nt e m p t o f t h e
B o he m i a n l a n g u a g e , a n d h a d s a i d t h a t i t w a s o n l y f i t f o r
s l a v e s . T h e y h ad i n t r o d u c e d G e r m a n l a w s i n t o m a n y a t o w n ,
and German customs into family life; and, worse than all,
they had overwhelming power in that pride of the country,
t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f P r a g u e . F o r th e s e G e r m a n s th e h a t r e d o f
t h e p e o p l e w a s i n t e n s e . “ I t i s b e t t e r , ” s a i d o n e o f t h e ir
popular writers, “for the land to be a desert than to be held
by Germans; it is better to marry a Bohemian peasant girl
t h a n t o m a r r y a G e r m a n q u e e n .” A n d J u d a s I s c a r i o t h i m s e l f ,
said a popular poet, was in all probability a German.
Again, as in Ireland, these national feuds were mixed
u p w i t h r e l i g i o u s d i f f e r e n ce s . T h e s e e d s o f f u t u r e s t r i fe w e r e
e a r l y s o w n . C h r is t i a n i t y c a m e f r o m t w o o p p o s i t e s o u r c e s . O n
the one hand, two preachers, Cyril and Methodius, had come
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
f r o m t h e G r e e k C h u r c h i n C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , h a d r e c e i ve d t h e
b l e s s i n g o f t h e P o p e , a n d h a d p r e a c he d t o t h e p e o p l e i n t h e
B o he m i a n l a n g u a g e ; o n t h e o t he r , t h e G e r m a n A r c h b i s h o p o f
S a l z b u r g h a d b r o u g h t i n h o s t s o f G e r m a n p r i e st s , a n d h a d
t r i e d i n v a i n t o p e r s u a de t h e P o p e t o c o n de m n t h e t w o
p r e a c he r s a s h e r e t i c s . A n d t h e p e o p l e l o v e d t he B o he m i a n
p r e a c he r s , a n d h a t e d t h e G e r ma n p r i e s t s . T h e o l d f e u d w a s
r a g i n g s t i l l . I f t h e p r e ac h e r s p o k e i n G e r m a n , h e w a s h a t e d;
i f h e s p o k e i n B o h e m i a n , h e w as b e l o v e d ; a n d G r e g o r y V I I .
had
made
matters
w o r se
by
fo r b i d d i n g
p r e a ch i n g
in
the
language of the people.
The result can be imagined. It is admitted now by all
h i s t o r i a n s – C a t h o l i c a n d P r o t e s t a n t a l i k e – t h a t a bo u t t h e t i me
w h e n o u r s to r y o p e n s t h e C h ur c h i n B o h e m i a h a d l o s t h e r
hold upon the affections of the people. It is admitted that
sermons
the
pe o p l e
co u l d
understand
were
rare.
It
is
a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e B i b l e w a s k no w n t o fe w , t h a t t h e s e r v i c e s
held
in
the
parish
churches
ha d
b e c o me
mere
s e n se l e ss
s h o w s , a n d t h a t m o s t o f t h e c l e r g y n e v e r p r e a c he d a t a l l . N o
longer
hunted,
were
they
the
clergy
gambled,
e x a mp l e s
they
to
t h e ir
c a r o u se d ,
fl o c k s .
they
They
committed
adultery, and the suggestion was actually solemnly made
that they should be provided with concubines.
F o r s o m e y e ar s a n u m b e r o f p i o u s t e a c h e r s h ad m a d e
g a l l a n t b u t v a i n a t t e m p t s t o c le a n s e t he s t a b l e s . T he f i r s t
w a s C o nr a d o f W a l d h a u s e n , a n A u g u s t i n i a n F r i a r ( 1 3 6 4 - 9 ) .
A s t h i s m a n w a s a G e r m a n a n d s p o k e i n G e r ma n , i t i s n o t
l i k e l y t h a t h e h a d m u c h e f f e c t o n t h e c o m m o n p e o p l e , b u t he
c r e a te d q u i t e a s e n s a t i o n i n P r a g u e , d e no u n c e d a l i k e t he
vices of the clergy and the idle habits of the rich, persuaded
t h e l a d i e s o f h ig h d e g r e e t o g iv e u p t h e i r f i n e d r e s se s a n d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
j e w e l s , a n d e v e n c a u s e d c e r t a i n w e l l - k n o w n s i n n e r s t o c o me
and do penance in public.
T h e n e x t w a s M i l i c o f K r e m s i r ( 1 3 6 3 -7 4 ) . H e w a s a
B o he m i a n ,
and
p r e ac h e d
in
th e
Bohemian
la n g u a g e .
His
w h o l e l i f e w a s o n e o f n o b l e s e l f -s a c r i f i c e . F o r t h e s a k e o f t h e
poor
he
r e n o un c e d
his
position
as
C a no n ,
and
devoted
h i m s e l f e n t i r e l y t o g o o d w o r k s. H e r e s c u e d th o u s a n d s o f
f a l l e n w o m e n , an d b u i l t t h e m a n u m b e r o f ho m e s . H e w a s so
d i s g u s t e d w i t h t h e e v i l s o f h i s da y s t h a t h e t h o u g h t t h e e n d
o f t h e w o r l d w as c l o s e a t h a n d , d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e E m p e r o r ,
Charles IV., was Anti-Christ, went to Rome to expound his
views to the Pope, and posted up a notice on the door of St.
P e t e r ’ s , d e c l a r i ng t h a t A n t i - C h r i s t h a d c o m e .
T h e ne x t w a s th a t b e a u t i f u l w r i t e r , T ho m a s o f S t i t n y
(1370-1401). He exalted the Holy Scriptures as the standard
of
faith,
wrote
s e ve r a l
be a u ti f u l
devotional
books,
and
d e n o u n c e d t h e i m m o r a l i t y o f t h e m o n k s . “T h e y h a v e f a l l e n
a w a y fr o m lo v e ,” h e s a i d ; “ t h e y h a v e n o t t h e pe a c e o f G o d i n
t h e i r h e ar t s ; t h e y q u a r r e l , c o nd e m n a n d f i g h t e a c h o t he r ;
t h e y h a v e f o r s a ke n G o d f o r mo n e y . ”
I n s o m e w a y s t h e s e t h r e e R e fo r m e r s w e r e a ll a l i k e .
They were all men of lofty char acter; they all attacked the
vices of the clergy and the luxury of the rich; and they were
all loyal to the Church of Rome, and looked to the Pope to
carry out the needed reform.
B u t t h e n e x t R e f o r m e r , M a t t h e w o f J a n o w , c ar r ie d t he
movement
f u r t he r
( 1 3 8 1 -9 3 ) . T h e
c a u se
was the
famous
s c h i s m i n t h e P a p a c y . F o r t he l o n g p e r i o d o f n e a r l y fo r t y
y e a r s (1 3 7 8 - 1 4 1 5 ) t h e w ho l e C at h o l i c w o r l d w as s h o c k e d b y
t h e s c a n d a l o f t w o , a n d so m e t im e s t h r e e , r i v a l P o p e s , w ho
s p e n t t h e i r t i m e a b u s i n g a n d f i g h t i n g e a c h o t h e r . A s l o n g as
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
this schism lasted it was hard for men to look up to the Pope
as a true spiritual guide. How could men call the Pope the
H e a d o f t h e C h u r c h w h e n n o o n e k n e w w h i c h w a s t h e t r ue
P o p e ? Ho w c o u ld m e n r e s p e c t t h e P o p e s w he n s o m e o f t he
P o p e s w e r e m e n o f b a d m o r a l c h a r a c t e r ? P o pe U r b a n V I . w a s
a
f e r o c io u s
murdered;
b r ut e ,
P o pe
who
had
C l e me n t
five
VII.,
of
his
his
enemies
clever
secretly
rival,
was
a
scheming politician; and Pope John XXIII. was a man whose
c h a r a c t e r w i l l s c a r c e l y b e ar d e s c r i b i n g i n p r i n t . O f a l l t h e
scandals
in
the
Catholic
C h u r ch ,
this
disgraceful
quarrel
between rival Popes did most to upset the minds of good
m e n a n d t o pr e p a r e t he w a y f o r t h e R e f o r m a t i o n . I t a r o u se d
t h e s c o r n o f Jo h n W y c l i f f e i n E n g l a n d , a n d o f M a t t h e w o f
J a n o w i n B o h e mi a . “ T h i s s c h i s m , ” h e w r o te , “ h a s n o t a r i s e n
b e c a u s e t h e p r ie s t s l o v e d J e s u s C h r i s t a n d H i s C h u r c h , b u t
r a t h e r be c a u s e th e y l o v e d t h e m se l v e s a n d t h e w o r l d . ”
But Matthew went even further than this. As he did not
a t t a c k a n y C a t h o l i c d o g m a – e x ce p t t h e w o r s h i p o f p i c t u r e s
a n d i m a g e s – i t h a s b e e n c o n t e n de d b y s o m e w r i t e r s t h a t h e
was not so very radical in his views after all; but the whole
tone of his writings shows that he had lost his confidence in
the
Catholic
Christianity
Church,
of
Christ
and
and
desired
the
to
revive
Apostles.
“I
the
simple
consider
it
essential,” he wrote, “to root out all weeds, to restore the
word of God on earth, to bring back the Church of Christ to
its original, healthy, condensed condition, and to keep only
such regulations as date from the time of the Apostles.” “All
the
works
of
men,”
he
a d de d ,
“their
ceremonies
and
t r a d i t i o n s , s h a l l s o o n b e t o t a l ly d e s t r o ye d ; t h e L o r d J e s u s
s h a l l a l o n e b e e x a l t e d , a n d H i s W o r d s h a l l s t a nd f o r e v e r . ”
B a c k t o C h r i s t ! B a c k t o t h e A p o s t l e s ! S u c h w a s t h e m e s s age
o f M a t t h e w o f J an o w .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At this point, when the minds of men were stirred, the
w r i t i n g s o f W y c l i f f e w e r e b r o u g h t t o B o h e m i a , a nd a d d e d f u e l
t o t h e f i r e . He h a d a s s e r t e d t ha t t h e P o p e w as c a p a b l e o f
c o m m i t t i n g a s i n . H e h a d d e c l ar e d t h a t t h e P o pe w a s n o t to
b e o be y e d u n l e s s h i s c o m m a nd s w e r e i n a c co r d a n c e w i t h
S c r i p t u r e , a n d t h u s h a d p l a c e d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e B i b le
above
the
Doctrine
of
authority
of
the
Pope.
T r an s u b s t a n t i a t i o n ,
and
He
had
had
attacked
thus
denied
the
the
p o w e r o f t he p r ie s t s “ t o m a ke t h e B o d y o f C h r i s t . ” A b o v e a l l ,
i n h i s v o l u m e , “ D e E c c le s i a , ” he h a d de n o u n ce d t h e w ho l e
Catholic sacerdotal system, and had laid down the Protestant
doctrine that men could come into contact with God without
t h e a i d o f p r i e s t s . T h u s s t e p b y s t e p t h e w a y w a s p r e p ar e d
for
the
co m i n g
r e vo l u t i o n
in
B o he m i a .
There
was
strong
p a t r i o t i c n a t i o n a l f e e l i n g ; t h e r e w a s h a t r e d o f t h e G e r m an
p r i e s t s ; t h e r e w a s a g r o w i n g l o v e f o r t h e B i b l e ; t h e r e w as
l a c k o f r e s pe c t f o r t h e i m m o r a l c l e r g y , a n d l a c k o f b e l i e f i n
t h e P o p e s ; t h e r e w a s a va g u e d e s i r e to r e t u r n t o P r i m i t i v e
C h r i s t i a n i t y ; a n d a l l t h a t w a s n e e de d n o w w as a m a n t o
gather these straggling beams together, and focus them all
in one white burning light.
Chapter 2
“The Burning of Hus”
On
Saturday,
July
6th,
1415,
there
was
great
e x c i t e m e n t i n t h e c i t y o f C o n st a n c e . F o r t h e l a s t h a l f - y e a r
the city had presented a brilliant and gorgeous scene. The
great Catholic Council of Constance had met at last. From all
p a r t s o f t he We st e r n Wo r l d d i s t i n g u i s h e d m e n ha d c o m e . T h e
s t r e e t s w e r e a bl a z e o f co l o ur . T h e C a r d i n a l s r o d e b y i n t h e i r
s c a r l e t h a t s ; t he m o n k s i n t h e i r c o w l s w e r e te l l i n g t h e i r
b e a d s ; t h e r e ve l l e r s s i p p e d t h e i r w i n e a n d san g ; a n d t h e
r u m b l i n g c a r t s f r o m t h e co u n t r y - s i d e b o r e bo t t l e s o f w i n e ,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
c h e e se s , b u t t e r , h o n e y , v e n i s o n, c a k e s a n d f i n e c o n f e c t i o n s .
K i n g S i g i s m u n d w a s t he r e i n a l l h i s p r i d e , h is f l a x e n h a ir
falling in curls about his shoulders; there were a thousand
B i s h o p s , o ve r tw o t h o u s a n d D o c t o r s a n d M a s t e r s , a b o u t t w o
t h o u s a n d C o u n ts , B a r o n s a n d Kn i g h t s , v a s t h o s t s o f D u k e s ,
P r i n c e s a n d A m b a s s a d o r s – i n a l l o v e r 5 0 , 0 0 0 s tr an g e r s .
A n d n o w , a f t e r m o n t h s o f h o t d e b a t e , t h e C o u nc i l m e t i n
t h e g r e a t C a t h e d r a l t o s e t t l e o nc e f o r a l l t h e q u e s t i o n , W h a t
to do with John Hus? King Sigismund sat on the throne,
Princes flanking him on either side. In the middle of the
Cathedral floor was a scaffold; on the scaffold a table and a
b l o c k o f w o o d ; o n t h e b l o c k o f w o o d so m e p r ie s t l y r o b e s .
T h e M a s s w a s sa i d . J o h n H u s w a s l e d i n . H e m o u n t e d t h e
scaffold.
He
breathed
a
p r a ye r .
The
awful
p r o ce e d i n g s
began.
But why was John Hus there? What had he done to
offend both Pope and Emperor? For the last twelve years
J o h n H u s h a d b e e n t h e b o l d e s t r e f o r m e r , t h e f i n e s t p r e a c he r ,
the most fiery patriot, the most powerful writer, and the
most popular hero in Bohemia. At first he was nothing more
than a child of his times. He was born on July 6th, 1369, in
a humble
coppers
cottage
in
his
a t H u s i n e c , i n S o u t h B o he m i a ; e a r ne d
youth,
like
Luther,
by
chanting
hymns;
studied at Prague University; an d entered the ministry, not
b e c a u s e h e w a nt e d t o do g o o d , b u t b e c a u s e he w a n te d t o
enjoy
a
comfortable
living.
He
began,
of
course,
as
an
o r t h o d o x C a t h o l ic . H e w a s R e c t o r f i r s t o f P r a g u e U n i v e r s i t y ,
a n d t h e n o f t h e B e t h l e h e m C h ap e l , w h i c h h a d b e e n b u i l t b y
J o h n o f M i l h e i m f o r s e r v i ce s i n t h e B o h e m i a n l an g u a g e . F o r
s o m e y e ar s h e c o n f i n e d h i m s e l f a l m o s t e n t i r e l y , l i k e M i l i c
a n d S t i t n y b e f o r e h i m , t o p r e a c h i n g o f a n a lm o s t p u r e l y
moral
character.
He
attacked
the
sins
and
vices
of
all
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
classes;
he
s po k e
in
the
B ohemian
language,
and
the
B e t h l e he m C h a pe l w a s p a c k e d . H e b e g a n b y a t t a c k i n g t h e
v i c e s o f t he i d l e r i c h . A n o b l e la d y c o m p l a i n e d t o t h e K i n g .
The King told the Archbishop of Prague that he must warn
Hus to be more cautious in his language.
“No,
yo u r
Majesty,”
replied
the
Archbishop,
“H u s
is
bound by his ordination oath to speak the truth without
r e s pe c t o f p e r s o n s . ”
John Hus went on to attack the vices of the clergy. The
Archbishop now complained to the King. He admitted that
the clergy were in need of impr ovement, but he thought that
H u s ’ s l a n g u a g e w a s r as h , a n d w o u l d d o mo r e h a r m t h a n
good. “Nay,” said the King, “that will not do. Hus is bound
by his ordination oath to speak the truth without respect of
persons.”
And Hus continued his attacks. His preachin g had two
r e s u l t s . I t f a n ne d t h e pe o p l e ’ s d e s i r e f o r r e fo r m , a n d i t
taught them to despise the clergy more than ever.
A t t h e s a m e t i m e , w h e n o p p o r t u n i t y o f f e r e d , Jo h n H u s
made a practice of preaching on the burning topics of the
day;
and
the
most
popular
topic
then
was
the
detested
p o w e r o f G e r m an s i n B o h e m i a . G e r m a n s o l d i e r s r a v a g e d t h e
land;
German
scholars,
in
nobles
Prague
held
o f fi c e s
U n i v e r s i t y,
of
had
state;
and
three -fourths
German
of
t he
v o t i n g p o w e r . T h e B o h e m i a n pe o p l e w e r e f ur i o u s . J o h n H u s
f a n n e d t h e f l a m e . “ We B o h e m i an s , ” h e d e c l a r e d i n a f i e r y
s e r m o n , “a r e m o r e w r e t c h e d th a n d o g s o r s na k e s . A d o g
d e f e n d s t h e c o uc h o n w h i c h h e l i e s . I f a n o t h e r d o g t r i e s to
d r i v e h i m o f f , he f i g h t s h i m . A s n a k e d o e s t h e s a m e . B u t us
t h e G e r m a n s o pp r e s s . T h e y s e i z e t h e o f f i c e s o f s t a t e , a n d w e
a r e d u m b . I n F r a n c e t h e F r e n ch a r e f o r e m o s t . I n G e r m a n y
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the
Germans
are
f o r e mo s t .
What
use
would
a
Bohemian
bishop or priest, who did not know the German language, be
i n G e r m a n y ? He w o u l d b e a s u s e f u l a s a d u m b d o g , w h o
c a n n o t b a r k , t o a f l o c k o f s h e e p . O f e x a c t l y t h e s a m e u s e ar e
German
priests
to
us.
It
is
against
the
law
of
God!
I
p r o n o u n ce i t i l l e g a l . ” A t l a s t a r e g u l a t i o n w a s m a d e b y K i n g
Wenceslaus
t h at
the
B o h e m i an s
should
be
more
fa i r l y
r e p r e se n t e d a t P r a g u e U n i v e r s i t y . T h e y h a d n o w t h r e e v o te s
out
of
fo u r .
John
Hus
was
cr e d i t e d
by
the
people
with
b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e c h a n g e . He b e c a m e m o r e p o p u l a r t h a n
ever.
If Hus had only halted here, it is probable that he would
have been allowed to die in peace in his bed in a good old
a g e , a n d h i s n a m e w o u l d b e fo u n d e n r o l l e d to - d a y i n t h e
l o n g l i s t o f C a t h o l i c s a i n t s . H o w e v e r w i c ke d t h e c l e r g y m a y
h a v e b e e n , t h e y c o u l d h a r d l y c a l l a m a n a h e r e ti c f o r t e l l i n g
them plainly about the blots in their lives. But Hus soon
s t e p p e d o u t s i d e t h e s e n a r r o w b o u n d s . T h e m o r e c l o s e l y he
s t u d i e d t h e w o r ks o f W y c l i f f e , t h e m o r e c o n v i n c e d h e b e c a me
t h a t , o n t h e w h o l e , t h e g r e a t E n g l i s h R e f o r me r w a s r i g h t ;
a n d b e f o r e l o n g , i n t h e b o l d e s t p o s s i b l e w a y , h e b e g a n to
p r e a c h W y c l i f f e ’s d o c t r i n e s i n h i s s e r m o n s , a nd t o p u b l i s h
t h e m i n h i s b o o k s . H e k ne w p r e c i s e l y w h a t he w a s d o i n g . H e
k n e w t h a t W y c l i f f e ’ s d o c tr i n e s h a d b e e n c o n de m n e d b y t h e
E n g l i s h C h u r c h C o u n c i l a t B l a c k - F r i a r s . H e k ne w t h a t t h e se
v e r y s a me d o c tr i n e s h a d b e e n c o n d e m n e d a t a m e e t i n g o f
the Prague University Masters. He knew that no fewer than
two hundred volumes of Wycliffe’s works had been publicly
burned
at
Prague,
in
the
courtyard
of
the
Archbishop’s
P a l a c e . H e k n e w , i n a w o r d , t h at W y c l i f f e w a s r e g a r d e d a s a
heretic;
teaching.
and
It
yet
is
this
he
deliberatel y
that
justifies
d e fe n d e d
us
in
Wycliffe’s
calling
him
a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
P r o t e s t a n t , a n d t h i s t h a t c a u s e d t h e C a t ho l i c s t o c a l l h i m a
heretic.
J o h n H u s , m o r e o v e r , k ne w w h a t t h e e n d w o u l d be . I f he
stood
to
his
guns
they
would
burn
him,
and
burned
he
longed to be. The Archbishop forbade him to preach in the
B e t h l e he m C h a p e l . J o h n H u s , d e f i a n t , w e n t o n p r e a c h i n g . A t
o n e se r v i c e he a c t u a l l y r e a d t o t h e p e o p l e a le t t e r he h a d
r e ce i v e d f r o m R ic h a r d W y c h e , o ne o f W y c l i f f e ’ s fo l l o w e r s . A s
t h e y e a r s r o l l e d o n h e b e c a m e m o r e “ he t e r o do x ” t h a n e v e r .
A t t h i s p e r i o d t he r e w e r e s t i l l t w o r i v a l P o pe s , an d t h e g r e a t
q u e s t i o n a r o s e in B o he m i a w h i ch P o p e t h e c l e r gy t h e r e w e r e
t o r e c o g n i s e . J o h n H u s r e f u s e d t o r e c o g n i s e e i th e r . A t l a s t
o n e o f t h e r i v al P o p e s , t h e i m m o r a l J o h n X X I I I . , s e n t a
n u m b e r o f p r e a ch e r s t o Pr a g u e o n a v e r y r e m ar ka b l e e r r a n d .
H e w a n te d m o ne y t o r a i se a n a r m y t o go t o w a r w i t h t h e
K i n g o f N a p l e s ; t h e K i n g o f N a pl e s h a d s u p p o r te d t h e o t h e r
P o p e , G r e g o r y X I I . , a n d n o w P o p e J o h n s e n t h i s p r e a c he r s to
P r a g u e t o se l l i n d u l g e n c e s a t p o p u l a r p r i c e s . T h e y e n t e r e d
t h e c i t y p r e ce d e d b y d r u m m e r s , a n d p o s t e d t h e m s e l v e s i n
t h e m a r ke t p l a ce . T he y h a d a cu r i o u s m e s s a g e t o d e l i v e r . I f
t h e g o o d p e o p le , s a i d t h e y , w o u l d b u y t h e s e i n d u l g e n c e s ,
they would be doing two goo d things: they would obtain the
full forgiveness of their sins, and support the one lawful
P o p e i n h i s h o ly c a m p a i g n . J o h n H u s w a s h o t w i t h a n g e r .
W h a t v u l g a r t r a f f i c i n h o l y t h i n g s w a s t h i s ? H e be l i e v e d
neither in Pope John nor in his indulgences.
“ L e t w h o w i l l , ” h e t h u n d e r e d , “p r o c l a i m t h e c o n t r a r y ;
l e t t h e P o p e , o r a B i s h o p , o r a P r i e s t s a y , ‘ I f o r gi v e t h e e t h y
sins; I free thee from the pains of Hell.’ It is all vain, and
h e l p s t h e e no t h i n g . G o d a l o n e , I r e p e a t , c a n f o r g i v e s i ns
through Christ.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The
moment
religious
e x c i t e me n t
o n w ar d s
Hus
m o ve m e n t .
in
Prague
became
The
was
the
furious.
leader
preachers
of
went
From
a
this
national
on
se l l i n g
i n d u l g e n c e s { 1 4 0 9 . } . A t o n e an d t h e s a m e t im e , i n t h r e e
d i f f e r e n t c h u r c he s , t h r e e y o u n g a r t i s a n s s a n g o u t : “ P r i e s t ,
t h o u l i e s t ! T h e i n d u l g e n c e s a r e a f r a u d . ” F o r t hi s c r i m e t he
t h r e e yo u n g m e n w e r e b e he ad e d i n a c o r n e r n e a r G r e e n
Street.
Fond
women–sentimental,
as
usual –dipped
t h e ir
h a n d k e r c h i e f s i n t h e b l o o d o f t he m a r t yr s , a n d a n o b l e l a d y
spread fine linen over the ir corpses. The University students
picked up the gauntlet. They seized the bodies of the three
y o u n g m e n , a n d c a r r i e d t h e m t o b e b u r i e d i n t h e B e t h l e he m
C h a p e l . A t t h e h e a d o f t h e pr o c e s s i o n w a s H u s h i m s e l f , a n d
H u s c o n d u c t e d t h e f u n e r a l . T he w h o l e c i t y w a s in a n u p r o a r .
A s t h e l i f e o f H u s w a s n o w i n d a n g e r , a n d h i s p r e se n ce
i n t h e c i t y m i g h t l e a d t o r i o t s , h e r e t i r e d fo r a w h i l e f r o m
P r a g u e t o t h e ca s t l e o f K r a do n e c , i n t h e c o u n t r y ; a n d t h e r e ,
b e s i d e s p r e a c h in g t o v a s t c r o w d s i n t h e f i e l d s , h e w r o t e t h e
t w o b o o k s w h i c h d i d t h e m o s t t o b r i n g h i m t o t h e s t a k e . T he
first was his treatise “On Traffic in Holy Things”; the second
h i s g r e a t , e l a b o r a t e w o r k , “ T he C h ur c h . ” 1 I n t h e f i r s t he
denounced the sale of indulgences, and declared that even
the Pope himself could be guilty of the sin of simony. In the
s e c o n d , f o l l o w i ng W y c l i f f e ’ s l e ad , h e
orthodox
c o n ce p t i o n
of
the
day
of
criticised the
the
“ Ho l y
whole
Catholic
Church.” What was, asked Hus, the true Church of Christ?
According to the popular ideas of the day, the true Church of
Christ was a visible body of men on this earth. Its head was
the Pope; its officers were the cardinals, the bishops, the
p r i e s t s , a n d o t h e r e c c le s i a s t i c s ; a n d i t s m e m b e r s w e r e t h o s e
w h o h a d b e e n ba p t i z e d a n d w h o k e p t t r u e t o t h e o r t h o d o x
f a i t h . T h e i d e a o f H u s w a s d i f fe r e n t . H i s c o n ce p t i o n o f t h e
n a t u r e o f t h e t r u e C h ur c h w a s v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h a t h e l d b y
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
m a n y N o n - c o n f o r m i s t s o f t o - d a y. H e w a s a g r e at b e l i e v e r i n
predestination. All men, he said, from Adam onwards, were
divided into two classes: first, those predestined by God to
eternal
bliss;
second,
those
f o r e - d o o me d
to
eternal
d a m n a t i o n . T h e t r u e C h u r c h o f C h r i s t c o n s i s t e d o f t h o se
p r e d e s t i n e d t o e t e r n a l b l i s s , an d n o o ne b u t G o d H i m se l f
knew to which class any man belonged. From this p osition a
r e m ar k a b l e
co ns e q u e n ce
followed.
For
anything
the
P o pe
k n e w t o t h e c o nt r a r y , he m i g h t b e l o n g h i m s e l f to t h e n u m b e r
o f t h e d a m n e d . H e co u l d n o t , t h e r e f o r e , be t h e t r u e He a d o f
t h e C h u r c h ; h e co u l d n o t b e t h e V i c a r o f C h r i s t ; a n d t h e o n l y
H e a d o f t h e C h u r c h w a s C hr i s t H i m s e l f . T h e s am e a r g u m e nt
a p p l i e d t o C ar d i n a l s , B i s h o p s an d P r i e s t s . F o r a n y t h i n g h e
k n e w t o t h e c o nt r a r y , a n y C a r d in a l , B i s h o p o r P r i e s t i n t h e
C h u r c h m i g h t b e l o n g t o t h e n u m b e r o f t he d a m ne d ; h e m i g h t
be
a
servant,
not
of
C hr i s t ,
bu t
of
Anti-Christ;
and,
t h e r e fo r e , s a i d H u s , i t w a s u t t e r l y a b s u r d to l o o k t o m e n o f
s u c h d o u b t f u l c h a r a c t e r a s i n f al l i b l e s p i r i t u a l g u i d e s . W h a t
r i g h t , a s k e d H us , h a d t h e Po p e t o c l a i m t h e “p o w e r o f t he
keys?”
What
r ig h t
had
the
Pope
to
say
w ho
might
be
admitted to the Church? He had no right, as Pope, at all.
S o m e o f t h e P o p e s w e r e h e r e t ic s ; s o m e o f t h e c l e r g y w e r e
v i l l a i n s , f o r e d o o m e d t o to r me n t i n H e l l ; a n d , t h e r e fo r e , a l l i n
s e a r c h o f t h e tr u t h m u s t t u r n , n o t t o t h e P o p e a n d t h e
clergy, but to the Bible and the law of Christ. God alone had
t h e p o w e r o f t he k e y s ; G o d a l o n e m u s t b e o b e y e d ; a n d t h e
Holy
Catholic
Church
c o n s i s te d ,
not
of
the
Pope,
t he
C a r d i n a l s , t h e Pr i e s t s , a n d so m a n y b a p t i z e d m e m b e r s , b u t
“of all those that had been chosen by God.” It is hard to
i m a g i n e a d o c t r i n e m o r e P r o t e st a n t t h a n t h i s . I t s t r u c k a t
the root of the whole Papal conception. It undermined the
a u t h o r i t y o f t he C a t h o l i c C h u r ch , a n d n o o n e c o u l d s a y t o
what, ere long, it might lead. It was time, said many, to
t a k e d e c i s i v e a ct i o n .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
F o r t h i s p u r p o se S i g i s m u n d , K i n g o f t h e R o m a n s a n d o f
H u n g a r y , p e r s u ad e d P o p e J o h n X X I II . t o s u m mo n a g e ne r a l
Church
Council
at
invited
Hus
attend
to
Constance;
the
and
at
the
same
Council
in
person,
time
and
he
there
expound his views. John Hus set out for Constance. As soon
a s h e ar r i ve d i n t h e c i t y , h e r e c e i v e d fr o m S i gi s m u n d t h a t
famous letter of “safe conduct” on which whole volumes have
b e e n w r i t t e n . T h e K i n g ’ s p r o m i s e w a s a s c le a r a s d a y . He
promised Hus, in the plainest terms, three things: f irst, that
he
should
c o me
unharmed
to
the
city;
s e co n d ,
that
he
should have a free hearing; and third, that if he did not
submit to the decision of the Council he should be allowed to
go home. Of those promises only the first was ever fulfilled.
John
Hus
soon
found
himself
caught
in
a
trap.
He
w as
imprisoned by order of the Pope. He was placed in a dungeon
o n a n i s l a n d i n t h e R h i n e , a nd l a y n e x t t o a s e w e r ; a n d
S i g i s m u n d e i t h e r w o u l d n o t o r co u l d n o t l i f t a f i n g e r t o h e l p
h i m . F o r t h r e e an d a - h a l f m o u t h s h e l a y i n h i s du n g e o n ; a n d
then he was removed to the draughty tower of a castle on
L a k e G e n e v a . H i s o p i n i o n s w e r e e x a m i n e d a n d co n d e m n e d by
the Council; and at last, when he was called to appear in
p e r s o n , h e f o u nd t h a t h e h a d b e e n c o n d e m ne d a s a he r e t i c
already. As soon as he opened his month to speak he was
i n t e r r u p t e d ; a nd w h e n h e c l o se d i t t h e y r o a r e d , “ H e h a s
admitted his guilt.” He had one chance of life, and one
chance only. He must recant his heretical Wycliffite opinions,
e s p e c i a l l y t h o se s e t fo r t h i n h is t r e a t i se o n t h e “ C h ur c h . ”
What need, said the Council, could there be of any further
trial? The man was a heretic. His own books convicted him,
and justice must be done.
A n d n o w , o n t he l a s t d a y o f t he t r i a l , J o h n H us s t o o d
b e f o r e t h e gr e a t C o u n c i l . T h e s ce n e w as a p p a l l i n g . F o r s o m e
w e e k s t h i s g a l l a n t s o n o f t he mo r n i n g h a d b e e n t o r m e n te d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
by neuralgia. The marks of suffering were on his brow. His
f a c e w a s p a l e ; h i s c h e e k s w e r e su n k e n ; h i s l i m b s w e r e w e ak
and trembling. But his eye flashed with a holy fire, and his
w o r d s r a n g c l e ar a n d t r u e . A r o u n d h i m g l e a m e d t h e p u r p l e
and
gold
and
the
s c ar l e t
robes.
B e fo r e
hi m
sat
King
S i g i s m u n d o n t h e t h r o ne . T he tw o m e n l o o ke d e a c h o t he r i n
t h e f a c e . A s t he a r t i c l e s w e r e r a p i d l y r e a d o u t a g a i n s t h i m ,
J o h n H u s e n d e av o u r e d t o s pe a k i n h i s o w n de f e n c e . H e w a s
t o l d t o h o l d h i s t o n g u e . L e t h i m a n s w e r t h e ch a r g e s a l l a t
o n c e a t t h e c l o se .
“How can I do that,” said Hus, “when I cannot even
bear them all in mind?”
H e m a d e a no t h e r a t t e m p t .
“ H o l d y o ur t o n gu e , ” s a i d C a r d i na l Z a b ar e l l a ; “ w e h a ve
already given you a sufficient hearing.”
With clasped hands, and in ringing tones, Hus begged in
v a i n f o r a he a r in g . A g a i n h e w a s t o l d t o h o l d h i s p e a c e , a nd
s i l e n t l y h e r a i s e d h i s e y e s t o h e a v e n i n p r ay e r . He w as
accused
of
denying
the
Catholic
doctrine
of
t r a n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n . H e s p r a n g t o h i s f e e t i n a n g e r . Z a b ar e l l a
t r i e d t o s h o u t hi m d o w n . T h e vo i c e o f H u s r a ng o u t a b o v e
the babel.
“ I h a v e n e ve r he l d , t a u g h t o r p r e a c he d , ” h e c r ie d , “ t h a t
i n t h e s a c r a m e nt o f t h e a l t a r m a t e r i a l b r e a d r e m a i n s a f t e r
c o n s e cr a t i o n . ”
T h e t r i a l w a s sh o r t a n d s h a r p . T h e ve r d i c t h ad b e e n
g i v e n b e f o r e h a nd . H e w a s n o w a c c u s e d o f a n o th e r h o r r i b l e
crime.
He
had
actually
described
himself
as
the
p e r s o n i n t h e G o d h e a d ! T h e c h ar g e w a s m o n s t r o u s .
f o ur t h
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“Let that doctor be named,” said Hus, “who has given
t h i s e v i d e n c e a ga i n s t m e . ”
B u t t h e n a m e o f h i s f a l s e a c c u s e r w a s n e ve r g i v e n . H e
w a s n o w a c c u se d o f a s t i l l m o r e d a n g e r o u s e r r o r . H e h ad
appealed to God instead of appealing to the Church.
“O
Lord
God,”
he
exclaimed,
“t his
Council
now
c o n d e m n s T h y ac t i o n a n d l a w a s a n e r r o r ! I a f f i r m t h a t t h e r e
i s n o s a f e r a p pe a l t h a n t h a t t o t h e L o r d J e s u s C h r i s t . ”
With
those
brave
words
he
signed
his
own
death
w a r r a n t . F o r a l l h i s o r t h o do x y o n c e r t a i n p o i n t s , h e m a de i t
clearer now than ever that he set the authority of his own
conscience
above
the
authority
of
the
Council;
and,
t h e r e fo r e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t a n d a r d o f t h e d a y , h e h a d t o be
t r e a t e d a s a he r e t i c .
“ M o r e o ve r , ” he s a i d , w i t h h i s e y e o n t h e K i n g , “ I c a m e
h e r e fr e e l y t o t h i s C o u n c i l , w i t h a s a f e - co n d u c t f r o m m y L o r d
the King here present, with the desire to prove my innocence
and to explain my beliefs.”
At
those
words,
said
the
story
in
later
y e ar s ,
King
Sigismund blushed. If he did, the blush is the most famous
i n t h e a n n a l s o f h i s t o r y ; i f h e di d n o t , s o m e t h i n k h e o u g h t
t o h a v e do n e . Fo r H u s t h e l a s t o r d e a l h a d n o w a r r i v e d ; a n d
the
Bishop
of
Concordia,
in
solemn
tones,
read
out
the
d r e a d f u l a r t i c l e s o f co n d e m n a t i o n . F o r he r e t i c s t h e C h u r c h
h a d t h e n b u t l i t t l e m e r c y . H i s b o o k s w e r e a l l t o b e b u r ne d ;
his priestly office must be taken from him; and he himself,
expelled from the Church, must be handed over to the civil
p o w e r . I n v a i n , w i t h a l a s t a p pe a l f o r j u s t i c e , h e p r o t e s t e d
that
he
had
ne v e r
been
obstinate
in
error.
In
vain
he
c o n t e n d e d t h a t h i s p r o u d a c c u s e r s h a d n o t e ve n t a k e n t h e
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
trouble to read some of his books. As the sentence against
h i m s e l f w a s r e ad , a n d t h e v i s io n o f d e a t h r o se u p be f o r e
h i m , h e f e l l o n c e m o r e o n h i s k n e e s a n d p r ay e d , n o t f o r
himself, but for his enemies.
“Lord Jesus Christ,” he said, “pardon all my enemies, I
p r a y t h e e , fo r th e s a k e o f T h y g r e a t me r c y ! T h o u k n o w e s t
t h a t t h e y h a v e f a l s e l y a c c u s e d m e , b r o u g h t f o r w ar d f a l s e
w i t n e s s e s a n d f a l s e a r t i c l e s a g ai n s t m e . O ! p a r d o n t h e m f o r
T h i n e i n f i n i t e m e r c i e s ’ s a ke . ”
A t t h i s b e a u t i f u l p r a y e r t h e pr i e s t s a n d b i s h o p s j e e r e d .
H e w a s o r de r e d n o w t o mo u n t t h e s c a f f o l d , to p u t o n t h e
p r i e s t l y g a r m e n ts , a n d t o r e c a n t h i s h e r e t i c a l o p i n i o n s . T h e
f i r s t t w o c o m ma n d s h e o be y e d; t h e t h i r d h e t r e a t e d w i t h
s c o r n . A s h e d r e w t h e a l b o ve r h i s s h o u l d e r s , h e a p p e a l e d
o n c e m o r e to C hr i s t .
“ M y L o r d J e s u s C h r i s t , ” h e s a i d , “ w a s mo c k e d i n a w h i t e
r o b e , w h e n l e d fr o m H e r o d t o P i l a t e . ”
T h e r e o n t h e s ca f f o l d h e s t o o d , w i t h h i s l o n g w h i t e r o b e
upon him and the Communion Cup in his hand; and there, in
i m m o r t a l b u r n i n g w o r d s , h e r e fu s e d t o r e c a n t a s i n g l e w o r d
that he had written.
“ B e ho l d , ” h e c r i e d , “ t h e s e B i s h o p s d e m a n d t h a t I r e c a nt
and abjure. I dare not do it. If I did, I should be false to
God, and sin against my conscience and Divin e truth.”
T h e B i s ho p s w e r e f u r i o u s . T he y s w a r m e d a r o un d h i m .
T h e y s n a t c h e d th e C u p f r o m h i s h a n d .
“ T h o u c u r se d J u d a s ! ” t h e y r o a r e d . “ T h o u h a s t f o r s a ke n
t h e c o u n c i l o f p e a c e . T ho u h a s t b e c o m e o ne o f t h e J e w s . We
t a k e f r o m t he e th i s C u p o f S a l v a t i o n . ”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“But I trust,” replied Hus, “in God Almighty, and shall
drink this Cup this day in His Kingdom.”
T h e ce r e m o n y o f d e g r a d a t i o n n o w t o o k p l a ce . A s s o o n
as his robes had been taken from him, the Bishops began a
h o t d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t h e pr o pe r w a y o f c u t t in g h i s h a i r .
Some clamoured for a razor, others were all for scissors.
“See,”
said
H us
to
the
King,
“these
B i s h o ps
cannot
agree in their blasphemy.”
At last the scissors won the victory. His tonsure was cut
in four directions, and a fool’s cap, a yard high, with a
picture
of devils tearing his soul, was placed upon that
hero’s head.
“ S o , ” s a i d t h e B i s h o p s , “ w e de l i v e r y o ur s o u l t o t h e
devil.”
“ M o s t j o y f u l l y , ” s a i d H u s , “ w i l l I w e a r t h i s cr o w n o f
s h a m e f o r t h y s a k e , O J e s u s ! w h o f o r me d i d s t w e ar a c r o w n
of thorns.”
“ G o , t a ke h i m , ” s a i d t h e K i n g . A n d H u s w a s l e d t o h i s
d e a t h . A s h e p as s e d a l o n g h e sa w t h e b o n f i r e in w h i c h h i s
b o o k s w e r e b e i ng b u r n e d . H e s mi l e d . A l o n g t h e s t r e e t s o f t h e
c i t y h e s t r o de , w i t h f e t t e r s c l a n k i n g o n h i s f e e t, a t h o u s a n d
s o l d i e r s fo r h i s e s co r t , a n d cr o w d s o f a d m i r e r s s u r g i n g o n
every hand. Full soon the fatal spot was reached. It was a
q u i e t m e a d o w am o n g t h e g a r d e n s , o u t s i d e t h e c i t y g a t e s . A t
t h e s t a k e he k ne l t o n c e mo r e in p r a y e r , a n d t h e f o o l ’ s c a p
fell from his head. Again he smiled. It oug ht to be burned
along with him, said a watcher, that he and the devils might
be together. He was bound to the stake with seven moist
thongs and an old rusty chain, and faggots of wood and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
s t r a w w e r e p i l e d r o u n d h i m t o t h e c h i n . F o r t h e la s t t i m e t h e
M a r s h a l a p p r o a ch e d t o g i v e h i m a f a i r c h a n c e o f a b j u r i n g .
“ W h a t e r r o r s , ” h e r e t o r t e d , “ s ha l l I r e n o u n c e ? I k n o w
myself guilty of none. I call God to witness that all that I
have
written
an d
p r e a c he d
ha s
been
with
the
view
of
r e s c u i n g s o u l s fr o m s i n a n d pe r d i t i o n , a n d t h e r e fo r e m o st
j o y f u l l y w i l l I c o n f i r m w i t h m y b lo o d t h e t r u t h I h a v e w r i t t e n
and preached.”
As the flame arose and the wood crackled, he chanted
t h e C a t h o l i c b u r i a l p r a y e r , “ J e su , S o n o f D a v i d , h a v e m e r c y
u p o n m e . ” F r o m t h e w e s t a g e n t l e b r e e z e w as b l o w i n g , a n d a
g u s t d a s h e d t h e s m o k e a n d s p ar k s i n h i s f a c e . A t t h e w o r d s
“ W h o w a s b o r n o f t h e V i r g i n M a r y ” h e c e a se d ; h i s l i p s m o v e d
f a i n t l y i n s i l e n t p r a y e r ; a n d a f e w m o m e n t s l a t e r t h e m a r t yr
b r e a t h e d no m o r e . A t l a s t t h e cr u e l f i r e d i e d d o w n , a n d t h e
s o l d i e r s w r e n c h e d h i s r e m a i n s f r o m t h e p o s t, h a c k e d h i s
skull in pieces, and ground his bones to powder. As they
p r o d d e d a bo u t am o n g t h e g l o w in g e m b e r s t o se e h o w m u c h
o f H u s w a s l e f t , t h e y f o u n d , t o t h e i r s u r p r i s e , th a t h i s h e a r t
w a s s t i l l u n b u r n e d . O ne f i x e d i t o n t he p o i n t o f h i s s p e ar ,
t h r u s t i t b a c k i n t o t h e f i r e , a n d w a t c h e d i t f r i z z l e a w a y ; a nd
f i n a l l y , b y t h e M a r s h a l ’ s o r de r s, t h e y g a t h e r e d a l l t h e a s h e s
together, and tossed them into the Rhine.
H e h a d d i e d , s ay s a C a t h o l i c w r i t e r , f o r t he n o b l e s t o f
a l l c a u s e s . H e h a d d i e d f o r t h e fa i t h w h i c h h e b e l i e v e d t o be
true.
Chapter 3
“ T h e W e l t e r , 1 4 1 5 -1 4 3 4 ″
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
T h e e xc i t e m e n t i n B o h e m i a w a s in t e n s e . A s t h e a s h e s o f
H u s f l o a t e d do w n t h e R h i n e , t he ne w s o f h i s de a t h s p r e a d
o v e r t h e c i v i l i z e d w o r l d , a n d in e v e r y B o he m ia n t o w n a n d
h a m l e t t h e p e o p l e f e l t t h a t t h e i r g r e a t e s t m an h a d b e e n
u n j u s t l y m u r d e r e d . H e h a d b e co m e t h e n a t i o n a l h e r o a n d t h e
n a t i o n a l s a i n t , a n d n o w t h e p e o p l e sw o r e t o a v e n g e h i s
death. A Hussite League was formed by his followers, a
C a t h o l i c L e a g u e w a s f o r m e d by h i s e n e m i e s . T h e H u s s i t e
Wars began. It is important to note with exactness what took
p l a c e . A s w e s tu d y t h e h i s t o r y o f me n a n d n at i o n s , w e ar e
apt to fancy that the rank and file of a country can easily be
u n i t e d i n o n e b y c o m m o n a d h e r e n ce t o a c o mm o n c a u s e . I t
is not so. For one man who will steadily follow a principle,
t h e r e a r e h u n d r e d s w h o w o u l d r a t h e r f o l l o w a l e a d e r . A s l o ng
as Hus was alive in the flesh, he was able to command the
loyalty of the people; but now that his tongue was sil ent for
e v e r , h i s f o l l o w e r s s p l i t i n t o ma n y c o n t e n d i n g f a c t i o n s . F o r
a l l h i s e l o q u e n ce h e h a d n e ve r b e e n a b le t o s t r i k e o ne c l e ar
c o m m a n d i n g n o t e . I n s o me o f h is v i e w s h e w a s a C a t h o l i c , i n
others
a
P r o te s t a n t .
To
some
he
was
m e r e ly
the
fiery
p a t r i o t , t o o t h e r s t h e c h a m p i o n o f C h u r c h R e fo r m , t o o t h e r s
t h e h i g h - s o u l e d m o r a l t e a c he r , t o o t h e r s t h e e n e m y o f t h e
P o p e . I f t h e pe o p l e h a d o n l y be e n u n i t e d t h e y m i g h t n o w
have gained their long-lost freedom. But unity was the very
q u a l i t y t h e y l a c k e d t h e mo s t . T h e y h a d n o c le a r n o t i o n o f
what they wanted; they had no definite scheme of church
r e fo r m ; t h e y h a d n o g r e a t l e a d e r t o s h o w th e m t h e w a y
t h r o u g h t h e j u n g l e , a n d t h u s , i n s t e a d o f c l o s i ng t h e i r r a n ks
against the common foe, they split up into jangling sects
a n d p a r t i e s , a n d m a d e t h e c o n f us i o n w o r se co n f o u n d e d .
F i r s t i n r a n k a n d f i r s t i n p o w e r c a m e t h e U t r a qu i s t s o r
Calixtines.2 For some reason these men laid all the stress on
a d o c t r i n e t a u g ht b y H u s i n h i s l a t e r ye a r s . A s he l a y i n h i s
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
gloomy
dungeon
near
C o n s t a nc e ,
he
had
w r it t e n
letters
c o n t e n d i n g t h a t l a y m e n s h o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d t o t a k e t h e w i ne
at
the
Communion.
For
this
doctrine
the
Utraquists
now
f o u g h t t o o t h a n d n a i l . T h e y e m b l a z o n e d t h e C u p o n t h e ir
b a n n e r s . T he y w e r e t h e a r i s t o c r a t s o f t h e m o v e m e n t ; t h e y
w e r e l e d b y t h e U n i v e r s i t y d o n s ; t h e y w e r e po l i t i c a l r a t h e r
t h a n r e l i g i o u s i n t h e i r a i m s ; t h e y r e g a r de d H u s a s a p a t r i o t ;
and, on the whole, they did not care much for moral and
s p i r i t u a l r e f o r m s.
Next came the Taborites, the red -hot Radicals, with
S o c i a l i s t i d e a s o f p r o pe r t y a n d l o o se i d e a l s o f m o r a l s . T he y
b u i l t t h e m s e l v e s a f o r t o n M o u n t T a b o r , a n d h e l d g r e a t o pe n air
meetings.
They
r e j e c te d
purgatory,
m a ss e s
and
the
w o r s h i p o f s a i n t s . T h e y c o n d e mn e d i n c e n s e , i m a g e s , b e l l s ,
relics
and
f a s ti n g .
They
d e c la r e d
that
p r ie s t s
were
an
u n n e c e s s ar y n u i s a n c e . T he y c e le b r a t e d t he H o ly C o m m u n i o n
in barns, and baptized their babies in ponds and brooks.
They
he l d
that
every
man
had
the
right
to
his
own
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e ; t h e y d e s p i s e d l e a r n in g a n d a r t ;
and
they
r e ve l l e d
in
pulling
churches
down
and
burning
monks to death.
Next came the Chiliasts, who fondly believed that the
end of all things was at hand, that the millennial reign of
Christ would soon begin, and that all the righteous –that is,
t h e y t h e m s e l v e s – w o u l d h a v e t o h o l d t h e w o r l d at b a y i n F i v e
Cities
of
R e f ug e .
For
some
years
these
mad
fanatics
r e g ar d e d t h e m s e l v e s a s t h e c h o s e n i n s t r u m e n t s o f t h e D i v i n e
displeasure,
a nd
only
awaited
a
signal
from
heaven
to
commence a general massacre of their fellow me n. As that
signal
never
disappointed.
came,
however,
they
were
g r i e v o u s ly
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
N e x t i n f o l l y c am e t h e A d a m i t e s , s o c a l l e d b e ca u s e , i n
shameless wise, they dressed like Adam and Eve before the
f a l l . T h e y m a d e t h e i r he a d - q u a r t e r s o n a n i s l a n d o n t he
R i v e r N e s ar k a , a n d s u r v i v e d e ve n a f t e r Z i s k a ha d d e s t r o ye d
their camp.
B u t o f a l l t h e h e r e t i c a l b o d i e s i n B o h e m i a t he m o s t
influential
were
the
Waldenses.
As
the
history
of
the
Waldenses is still obscure, we cannot say for certain what
v i e w s t h e y h e l d w h e n t h e y f i r s t c a m e f r o m I t a ly s o m e f i f t y
o r s i x t y y e a r s be f o r e . A t f i r s t t h e y s e e m t o h a v e b e e n a l m o s t
C a t h o l i c s , b u t a s t h e H u s s i t e Wa r s w e n t o n t h e y f e l l , i t i s
s a i d , u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e T a b o r i te s , a n d a d o p t e d m a n y
r a d i c a l T a b o r i t e o p i n i o n s . T he y h e l d t h a t p r a ye r s h o u l d b e
a d d r e s se d , n o t to t h e V i r g i n M ar y a n d t h e S a i n t s, b u t t o G o d
a l o n e , a n d s p o ke w i t h s c o r n o f t h e p o p u l a r d o c tr i n e t h a t t h e
V i r g i n i n h e a v e n s h o w e d h e r b r e a s t w h e n i n t e r ce d i n g f o r
sinners. As they did not wish to create a disturbance, they
attended the public services of the Church of Rome; but they
d i d n o t b e l i e v e i n t h o s e s e r v i c e s t h e m s e l v e s , a nd a r e s a i d t o
h a v e e m p l o ye d t h e i r t i m e a t C hu r c h i n p i c k i n g h o l e s i n t h e
logic
of
the
speaker.
They
c h u r c h e s , n o r in s a y i n g
be l i e v e d
neither
in
building
masses, nor in the adoration of
pictures, nor in the singing of hymns at public worship. For
a l l p r a c t i c a l i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s t h e y r e je c t e d e n t i r e l y t h e
orthodox
C a t h o li c
distinction
between
things
secular
and
things sacred, and held that a man could wor ship God just as
well in a field as in a church, and that it did not matter in
t h e l e a s t w h e t h e r a m a n ’ s bo d y w a s b u r ie d i n c o n s e c r a te d o r
u n c o n s e c r a te d
ground.
What
use,
they
asked,
were
ho l y
w a t e r , h o l y o i l , h o l y p a l m s , r o o t s , c r o s se s , h o l y s p l i n t e r s
from
the
Cross of
Christ?
T he y
r e je c t e d
the
doctrine
of
purgatory, and said that all men must go either to heaven or
t o h e l l . T he y r e je c t e d t he d o c tr i n e o f T r a n s u b s t an t i a t i o n , a n d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
s a i d t h a t t h e w in e a n d b r e a d r e m a i n e d w i n e a n d b r e a d . Fo r
u s , h o w e ve r , t h e c h i e f p o i n t o f i n t e r e s t l i e s i n t h e a t t i t u d e
t h e y a d o p t e d t o w a r d s t he p r ie s t s o f t he C h ur c h o f R o me . A t
t h a t t i m e t h e r e w a s s p r e a d a l l o v e r E ur o p e a l e ge n d t h a t t h e
Emperor,
C o n s ta n t i n e
the
Great,
had
made
a
so -called
“ D o n a t i o n ” t o Po p e S y l v e s t e r ; a n d t h e W a l d e n s e s h e l d t h a t
the Church of Rome, by thus consenting to be endowed by
the
State,
p o s s e s se d
r e a so n
had
the
they
b e c o me
keys
utterly
of
morally
the
corrupt,
K in g d o m
despised
the
of
and
no
He a ve n .
Roman
longer
For
this
priests;
a nd
contended that, being wor ldly men of bad character, they
w e r e q u a l i f i e d n e i t h e r t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e s a cr a me n t s n o r t o
h e a r co n f e ss i o ns . A t t h i s p o i n t w e l a y o u r f i n g e r o n t h e
p r i n c i p l e w h i c h l e d t o t h e f o u n d at i o n o f t h e Mo r av i a n C h u r c h .
W h a t i d e a l , w e a s k , d i d t h e W a ld e n s e s no w s e t b e f o r e t he m?
W e c a n a n s w e r th e q u e s t i o n i n a s e n t e n c e . T h e w h o l e o b j e c t
t h e W a l d e n s e s ha d n o w i n v i e w w a s t o r e t u r n t o t h e s i m p l e
t e a c h i n g o f C h r i s t a n d t h e A p o s t l e s . T h e y w i s h e d t o r e v i ve
w h a t t h e y r e g a r d e d a s t r u e p r im i t i v e C h r i s t i a n i t y . F o r t h i s
r e a so n t h e y b r us h e d a s i d e w i t h s c o r n t h e b u l l s o f P o p e s a n d
t h e d e c r e e s o f C o u n c i l s , a n d a p p e a l e d t o t he c o mm a n d o f t h e
New Testament Scriptures. For them the law of Christ was
supreme and final; and, appealing to His teaching in the
S e r m o n o n t he M o u n t , t h e y d e c la r e d t h a t o a t h s w e r e w i c k e d ,
a n d t h a t w a r w as n o be t t e r t h a n m u r d e r . I f t h e la w o f C h r i s t
were
o b e ye d ,
said
they,
w h at
need
would
there
be
of
g o v e r n me n t ? Ho w l o n g t h e y h a d h e l d t h e se v i e w s w e d o no t
k n o w . S o m e t h in k t h e y h a d h e ld t h e m f o r ce n tu r i e s ; s o me
t h i n k t h e y h a d l e a r ne d t h e m r e ce n t l y f r o m t h e T a b o r i te s . I f
s c h o l a r s i n s i s t o n t h i s l a t t e r v i e w , w e ar e fo r ce d b a c k o n t h e
f u r t h e r q ue s t i o n : W h e r e d i d t h e T a b o r i te s g e t t he i r a d v a n ce d
o p i n i o n s ? I f t h e T a b o r i te s t a u g h t t h e W a l d e n s e s , w h o t a u g h t
t h e T a b o r i t e s? W e d o n o t k n o w . F o r t h e p r e s e n t a l l w e c a l l
say is that the Waldenses in a quiet way were fast becoming
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
a m i g h t y f o r c e i n t h e c o u n t r y . T h e y a d d r e s se d e a c h o t h e r as
b r o t h e r a n d s i st e r ; t h e y a r e sa i d t o h a v e h ad t h e i r o w n
t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t h e B i b l e ; t h e y c l a i m e d a d e s ce n t f r o m t he
A p o s t l e s ; a n d th e y a r e e ve n he l d b y s o m e ( t h o u g h h e r e w e
tread
on
very
thin
ice)
to
have
p o s se s se d
their
own
e p i s c o p a l s u c c e ss i o n .
B u t t h e m e t h o d o f t h e T a bo r i te s w a s d i f f e r e nt . I f t h e
Kingdom of God was to come at all, it must co me, they held,
b y f o r ce , b y f i r e , b y t h e sw o r d , b y p i l l a g e a n d b y f a m i n e .
What
need
to
tell
here
the
blood -curdling
story
of
t he
H u s s i t e W a r s? W h a t n e e d t o te l l h e r e h o w Po p e M a r t i n V .
summoned
the
whole
Catholic
world
to
a
g r an d
crusade
a g a i n s t t h e B o he m i a n p e o p l e ? W h a t n e e d t o te l l h o w t h e
p e o p l e o f Pr a g ue a t t a c k e d t h e T o w n H a l l , a n d p i t c h e d t h e
b u r g o m a s t e r a nd s e v e r a l a l d e r m e n o u t o f t he w i n d o w s ? Fo r
twenty
years
th e
whole
land
was
one
b o i l in g
welter
of
confusion; and John Ziska, the famous blind general , took
t h e l e a d o f t h e T a b o r i t e ar m y , a n d , s t a n d i n g o n a w a g o n ,
w i t h t h e b a n n e r a b o v e h i m e m b l a z o ne d w i t h t h e H u s s i t e C u p ,
h e s w e p t t h e co u n t r y f r o m e nd t o e n d l i k e
a devouring
prairie fire. It is held now by military experts that Ziska was
the greatest military genius of the age. If military genius
c o u l d h a v e s a v e d B o h e m i a , B o he m i a w o u l d n o w h a v e b e e n
s a v e d . F o r s o me y e a r s h e m a n ag e d t o h o l d a t b a y t h e f i n e s t
chivalry of Europe; and he certainly saved the Hussite cause
f r o m b e i n g c r u sh e d i n i t s b i r t h . F o r f a i t h a n d f r e e do m h e
fought–the faith of Hus and the freedom of Bohemia. He
formed
the
r o ug h
B o he m i a n
peasantry
into
a
disciplined
a r m y . H e a r me d h i s m e n w i t h l a n c e s , s l i n g s , i r o n - p o i n t e d
flails
and
clubs.
He
formed
his
barricades
of
i r o n - c l ad
w a g o n s , a n d w h i r l e d t h e m i n m u r d e r o u s m a z e s r o u n d t he
field. He made a special study of gunpowder, and taught his
men
the
art
of
shooting
straight.
He
has
often
been
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
c o m p a r e d t o O l i v e r C r o m w e l l , a n d l i k e o u r O l i ve r he w a s i n
many ways. He was stern in dealing with his enemies, and
once had fifty Adamites burned to death. He was sure that
G o d w a s o n h i s s i d e i n t h e w a r . “ B e i t k n o w n , ” h e w r o t e to
h i s s u p p o r t e r s , “ t h a t w e a r e c o ll e c t i n g m e n f r o m a l l p a r t s o f
t h e c o u n t r y a g a i n s t t h e s e e n e m ie s o f G o d a n d d e v a s t a t o r s o f
o u r B o he m i a n l a n d . ” H e c o m po se d a s t i r r i n g b a t t l e s o n g , a n d
t a u g h t h i s m e n t o s i n g i t i n c h o r u s w he n t h e y m a r c h e d t o
m e e t t h e fo e .
T h e r e fo r e , m a n f u l l y c r y o u t : “ A t t h e m ! r u s h a t t h e m . ”
W i e l d b r a v e l y yo u r ar m s ! P r a y t o y o u r L o r d G o d . S t r i k e a n d
kill! spare none!
What a combination of piety and fury! It was all in vain.
T h e gr e a t ge n e r a l d i e d o f a fe ve r . T h e t h u n d e r b o l t f e l l . A t a
m e e t i n g i n P r a gu e t h e U tr a q u i s t s a n d C a t h o l i c s a t l a s t c a m e
to
terms,
and
drew
up
a
compromise
k no w n
as
the
“ C o m p a c t a t a o f B a s l e ” (1 4 3 3 ) . F o r n e ar l y t w o hu n d r e d y e ar s
a f t e r t h i s t h e se “ C o m p a c t a t a ” w e r e r e g ar d e d a s t h e l a w o f
t h e l a n d ; a n d t h e U t r a q u i s t C h u r c h w a s r e co g n i s e d b y t he
P o p e a s t h e n a t io n a l s e l f - g o ve r ni n g C h u r c h o f B o h e m i a . T he
terms
of
the
Compactata
were
fo u r
in
number.
T he
Communion was to be given to laymen in both kinds; all
m o r t a l s i n s w e r e t o be p u n i s h e d b y t h e p r o pe r a u t h o r i t i e s ;
t h e W o r d o f G o d w a s t o be f r e e ly p r e a c he d b y f ai t h f u l p r i e s t s
and
deacons;
and
no
priests
were
to
have
any
worldly
possessions. For practical purposes this agreement meant
t h e d e f e a t o f t h e a d v a n c e d r e f o r m i n g m o v e m e nt . O n e p o i n t
t h e U t r a q u i s t s h a d g a i n e d , a n d o n e a lo n e ; t h e y w e r e a l l o w e d
t o t a k e t h e w in e a t t h e C o mm u n i o n . F o r t h e r e s t t h e se
Utraquist followers of Hus were as Catholic as the Pop e
h i m s e l f . T h e y ad o r e d t he H o s t , r e a d t h e m a s se s , k e p t t he
f a s t s , a n d s a i d t h e p r a ye r s a s th e i r f a t h e r s h a d d o n e be f o r e
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
t h e m . F r o m t h a t m o m e n t t h e f a t e o f t h e T a b o r i te p a r t y w a s
s e a l e d . A t t h e b a t t l e o f L i p a n t h e y w e r e d e fe a t e d , r o u te d ,
crushed
out
of
existence.
{1 4 3 4 } .
The
battle
b e c a me
a
m a s s a c r e . T h e sl a u g h t e r c o n t i n u e d a l l t h e n i g h t a n d p a r t o f
t h e f o l l o w i n g da y , a n d h u n d r e d s w e r e b u r n e d t o de a t h i n
their huts.
Was this to be the end of Hus’s strivings? What was it
i n H u s t h a t w a s d e s t i n e d t o s u r vi v e ? W h a t w a s i t t h a t w o r k e d
l i k e a s i l e n t l e av e n a m i d t h e c la m o u r s o f w ar ? W e s h a l l se e .
A m i d t h e s e c h a r r e d a n d s m o k i ng r u i n s t h e M o r a v i a n C h u r c h
a r o se .
Chapter 4
“ P e t e r o f C he l c i c , 1 4 1 9 - 1 4 5 0 ″
Meanwhile a mighty prophet had arisen, with a clear
a n d s t a r t l i n g m e s s a g e . H i s n am e w a s Pe t e r , a n d h e l i v e d
d o w n s o u t h , i n t h e l i t t l e v i l l a g e o f C h e l c i c . 3 A s th e h i s t o r i a n
r u m m a g e s a m o ng t h e a n c i e n t r e c o r d s , h e d i s c o v e r s t o h i s
s o r r o w t h a t s c ar c e l y a n y t h i n g i s k n o w n o f t h e l i f e o f t h i s
g r e a t m a n ; b u t , o n t h e o t h e r ha n d , i t i s a j o y t o k n o w t h a t
while his story is wrapped in mystery, his teaching has been
p r e se r ve d , a n d t h a t s o m e o f t he w o n d e r f u l b o o k s h e w r o t e
a r e tr e a s ur e d s t i l l i n h i s n a t i v e l a n d a s g e m s o f B o h e m i an
l i t e r a t u r e . I n l a te r ye a r s i t w a s co m m o n l y s a i d t h a t h e b e g a n
l i f e a s a c o b b l e r ; b u t t h a t s t o r y , a t l e a s t , m a y be d i s m i s s e d
as a legend. He enlisted, we are told, in the army. He then
discovered that a soldier’s life was wicked; he then thought
of entering a monastery, but was shocked by what he heard
of the immoralities committed within the holy walls; and
f i n a l l y , h a v i n g s o m e me a n s o f h i s o w n , r e t i r e d t o h i s l i t t l e
estate at Chelcic, and spent his time in writing pamphlets
about
the
troubles
of
his
country.
He
had
picked
up
a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
smattering
writings
of
of
education
W yc l i f f e
in
Prague.
of
Hu s ,
and
He
and
had
studied
often
appealed
the
to
W y c l i f f e i n h i s w o r k s . He co u l d q u o t e , w he n he l i k e d , f r o m
t h e g r e a t C h u r ch F a t h e r s . H e h a d a f a i r w o r k i ng k n o w l e d ge
of the Bible; and, above all, he had the teaching of Christ
and
the
heart.
As
Apostles
he
e n g r a ve d
was
independent;
as
not
he
a
up o n
his
conscience
p r ie s t ,
he
could
afford
little
Latin,
he
k ne w
but
and
his
to
be
w r o te
in
B o he m i a n ; a n d t h u s , l i k e S t i t n y a n d H u s b e f o r e h i m , h e
appealed
to
the
people
in
language
they
coul d
all
u n d e r s t a n d . O f a l l t h e l e a de r s o f m e n i n B o he m ia , t h i s P e t e r
was the most original and daring. As he pondered on the
woes
of
his
native
land,
he
came
to
the
firm
but
sad
conclusion that the whole system of religion and politics was
r o t t e n to t h e co r e . N o t o n e o f th e j a n g l i n g s e c t s w a s i n t he
r i g h t . N o t o n e w a s t r u e t o t he s p i r i t o f C h r i s t . N o t o ne w a s
f r e e f r o m t h e d ar k r e d s t a i n o f m u r d e r . H i s c h i e f w o r k s w e r e
his Net of Faith, his Reply to Nicholas of Pilgram, his Reply
to
Rockycana,
his
Image
of
th e
Beast,
his
theological
t r e a t i s e O n t h e B o d y o f C hr i s t , h i s t r a c t T h e F o u n d a t i o n o f
W o r l d l y L a w s , hi s d e v o t i o n a l c o m m e n t a r y , E x p o s i t i o n o f t h e
P a s s i o n a c c o r d i n g t o S t . J o h n , a n d , l a s t , t h o u g h n o t l e a s t,
h i s v o l u m e o f d i s c o u r se s o n t h e G o s pe l l e s so n s fo r t he ye a r ,
e n t i t l e d P o s t i l l i a . O f t h e s e w o r ks t h e m o s t f a mo u s w a s h i s
masterly
Net
of
Faith.
He
explained
the
title
himself.
“ T h r o u g h H i s d i s c i p l e s , ” s a i d P e t e r , “ C h r i s t c a u gh t t h e w o r l d
i n t h e n e t o f H i s f a i t h , b u t t h e b i g g e r f i s h e s , b r e a k i n g t he
n e t , e s c a p e d . T he n o t he r s fo l l o w e d t h r o u g h t he se s a me h o le s
made by the big fishes, and the net was left almost empty.”
H i s m e a n i n g w a s c l e a r t o a l l . T he n e t w a s t h e t r u e C h u r c h o f
C h r i s t ; t h e t w o w h a l e s w ho b r o k e i t w e r e t h e E m p e r o r a n d
t h e P o p e ; t h e b i g f i s h e s w e r e th e m i g h t y “ l e a r n e d p e r so n s ,
h e r e t i c s a n d o f fe n d e r s” ; a n d t h e l i t t l e f i s h e s w e r e t h e t r ue
f o l l o w e r s o f C h r is t .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
H e o pe n e d h i s b o l d c a m p a i g n i n d r a m a t i c s t y l e . W h e n
John Ziska and Nicholas of Husinec declared at Prague that
t h e t i m e h a d c o m e f o r t h e f a i t h f u l t o t a k e u p ar m s i n t h e ir
own
d e f e n ce ,
Peter
was
present
at
the
debate,
and
c o n t e n d e d t h a t f o r C hr i s t i a n s w a r w a s a cr i m e . { 1 4 1 9 . }
“What is war?” he asked. “It is a breach of the laws of
God!
All
soldiers
are
v i o le n t
men,
m u r d e r e r s,
a
godless
mob!”
H e h a t e d w a r l ik e a Q u a k e r , an d s o l d i e r s l i k e T o l s t o y
h i m s e l f . H e r e g ar d e d t h e te r r i b l e H u s s i t e W a r s as a d i s g r a c e
t o b o t h s i d e s . A s t h e f i e r y Z is k a s w e p t t h e la n d w i t h h i s
waggons,
this
Apostle
of
p e ac e
was
sick
with
horror.
“ W h e r e , ” h e a sk e d , i n h i s R e pl y t o R o c k y c a na , “ h a s G o d
r e c a l l e d H i s c o mm a n d s , ‘ T h o u s ha l t n o t k i l l , ’ ‘ T ho u s h a l t n o t
s t e a l , ’ ‘ T h o u s ha l t n o t t a k e t h y n e i g h b o u r ’ s g o o d s ’ ? I f G o d
h a s n o t r e p e a le d t h e s e co m m an d s , t h e y o u g h t s t i l l t o b e
o b e y e d to - d a y i n P r a g u e a n d T a b o r . I h a v e le a r n e d f r o m
Christ,
and
by
Christ
I
stand;
and
if
the
Apostle
Peter
himself were to come down from Heaven and say that it was
r i g h t f o r u s t o ta k e u p a r m s t o d e f e n d t h e t r u t h, I s h o u l d n o t
believe him.”
F o r P e t e r t h e te a c h i n g o f C h r i s t a n d t h e A p o s t l e s w a s
e n o u g h . I t w a s s u p r e m e , f i n a l , p e r fe c t . I f a k i n g m a d e a n e w
l a w , h e w a s s po i l i n g t h e t e a ch i n g o f C h r i s t . I f t h e P o pe
issued a bull, he was spoiling the teaching of Christ. If a
C o u n c i l o f B i s ho p s d r e w u p a d e c r e e , t h e y w e r e s p o i l i n g t h e
t e a c h i n g o f C h r is t . A s G o d , s a i d P e t e r , h a d r e v e a l e d H i s w i l l
t o f u l l p e r f e c t i o n i n J e s u s C h r i s t , t h e r e w a s no n e e d f o r l a w s
m a d e b y me n . “I s t h e l a w o f G o d s u f f i c i e n t , w i t h o u t w o r l d l y
laws, to guide and direct us in the path of the true Christian
religion? With trembling, I answer, it i s. It was sufficient for
Christ Himself, and it was sufficient for His disciples.” And,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
t h e r e fo r e , t h e d u t y o f a l l t r u e C h r i s t i a n s w a s a s c l e a r a s t h e
noon-day sun. He never said that Christian people should
b r e a k t he l a w o f t h e l a n d . H e ad m i t t e d t h a t G o d m i g h t u s e
t h e l a w f o r g o o d p u r p o s e s ; an d t h e r e f o r e , as C h r i s t h a d
submitted
to
Pilate,
so
Christians
must
submit
to
G o ve r n me n t . B ut t h e r e t he i r co n n e c t i o n w i t h G o ve r n me n t
m u s t e n d . F o r h e a t h e n s t h e S t a t e w a s a n e c e s sa r y e v i l ; f o r
Christians it was an uncle an thing, and the less they had to
d o w i t h i t t h e b e t t e r . T he y mu s t n e v e r a l l o w t h e S t a t e t o
i n t e r f e r e i n m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e C h u r c h . T h e y m u st n e v e r d r a g
e a c h o t h e r b e fo r e t h e l aw c o ur t s . T h e y m u s t n e v e r a c t a s
judges
or
m a g is t r a t e s .
T he y
must
never
take
a ny
part
w h a t e v e r i n m u n i c i p a l o r n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t. T h e y m u s t
never, if possible, live in a town at all. If Christians, said
Peter, lived in a town, and paid the usual rates and taxes,
t h e y w e r e s i m p ly h e l p i n g t o s u p p o r t a s y s t e m w h i c h e x i s t e d
f o r t he p r o t e c t io n o f r o b be r s . H e r e g ar d e d to w n s a s t h e
a b o d e s o f v i c e , a n d c i t i z e n s a s r o g u e s a n d k n a ve s . T h e f i r s t
t o w n , h e sa i d , w a s b u i l t b y t h e m u r de r e r , C ai n . H e f i r s t
m u r d e r e d h i s b r o t h e r A b e l ; h e t h e n g a t h e r e d hi s f o l l o w e r s
t o g e t h e r ; h e t he n b u i l t a c i t y , s u r r o u n d e d b y w a l l s ; a n d
t h u s , b y r o b b e r y a n d v i o l e n ce , h e b e ca m e a w e l l - t o - d o m a n .
A n d m o d e r n t o w n s , s a i d P e t e r , w e r e no w h i t b e t t e r . A t t h a t
time the citizens of some towns in Bohemia enjoyed certain
special rights and privileges; and this, to Peter, seeme d
grossly
unfair.
He
c o n d e m ne d
those
c i t i z e ns
as
thieves.
“ T h e y a r e , ” h e s a i d , “ t h e s t r e ng t h o f A n t i - C h r i s t ; t h e y a r e
a d v e r s ar i e s t o C h r i s t ; t h e y a r e a n e v i l r a b b l e ; t h e y a r e b o ld
i n w i c k e d n e s s ; a n d t h o u g h t h e y p r e t e n d t o f o l lo w t h e t r u t h ,
they
will
sit
at
tables
with
wicked
people
and
knavish
f o l l o w e r s o f J u d a s . ” F o r t r ue C hr i s t i a n s , t h e r e fo r e , t h e r e w a s
o n l y o n e c o ur s e o p e n . I n s te a d o f l i v i n g i n g o d l e s s t o w n s,
they should try to settle in country places, earn their living
a s f a r m e r s o r g ar d e n e r s , a n d t h u s k e e p a s c le a r o f t h e S t a t e
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
a s p o s s i b l e . T he y w e r e no t t o t r y t o s u p p o r t t h e l a w a t a l l . I f
they did, they were supporting a wicked thing, which never
t r i e d t o m a k e m e n b e t t e r , b u t o n l y c r u s h e d t he m w i t h c r u e l
and useless punishments. They must never try t o make big
profits in business. If they did, they were simply robbing and
cheating their neighbours. They must never take an oath, for
o a t h s w e r e i n ve n t e d b y t he de v i l . T h e y m u s t n e v e r , i n a
word, have any connection with that unchristian institution
called the State.
And
here
Peter
w a xe d
vigorous
and
e l o q ue n t .
He
objected, like Wycliffe, to the union of Church and State. Of
all the bargains ever struck, the most wicked, ruinous and
p e r n i c i o u s w a s t h e b a r g a i n s t r u ck b e t w e e n C h u r ch a n d S t a t e ,
w h e n C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t f ir s t t o o k t he C hr i s t i a n s u n d e r
t h e s h a d o w o f h i s w i n g . F o r t h r e e h u n d r e d y e a r s, s a i d P e t e r ,
t h e C h u r c h o f C h r i s t h a d r e m a i n e d t r u e t o he r M a s t e r ; a n d
then this disgusting heathen Emperor, who had not repented
of
a
single
sin,
came
in
with
his
vile
“Donation,”
and
p o i s o n e d a l l t h e s p r i n g s o f he r l i f e . I f t h e Em p e r o r , s a i d
P e t e r , w a n t e d to b e a C h r i s t i a n , h e o u g h t f i r s t t o h a v e l a i d
d o w n h i s c r o w n . H e w a s a r a ve no u s b e a s t ; h e w a s a w o l f i n
t h e f o l d ; h e w as a l i o n s q u a t t i n g a t t h e t a b l e ; a n d a t t h a t
f a t a l m o m e n t i n h i s t o r y , w he n he g a v e h i s “ Do n a t i o n ” t o t he
P o p e , a n a n g e l i n h e a v e n h a d sp o k e n t h e w o r d s : “ T h i s d a y
h a s p o i s o n e n t e r e d t h e b l o o d o f t h e C h u r c h . ”4
“Since
that
time,”
said
Peter,
“these
two
p o w e r s,
I m p e r i a l a n d P ap a l , h a v e c l u n g t o g e t h e r . T he y h a v e t u r ne d
e v e r y t h i n g t o a c c o u n t i n C h u r c h a n d i n C h r i s t e n d o m f o r t he ir
o w n i m p i o u s p u r p o s e s . T h e o lo g i a n s , p r o f e s s o r s , a n d p r i e s t s
a r e t h e s a tr a p s o f t h e E m p e r o r . T h e y a s k t h e E m p e r o r t o
p r o t e c t t he m , so t h a t t h e y m ay s l e e p a s l o n g a s p o s s i b l e ,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
a n d t h e y c r e a t e w a r s o t h a t t h e y m a y h a v e e v e r yt h i n g u n d e r
their thumb.”
If Peter lashed the Church with whips, he lashed her
p r i e s t s w i t h s c o r p i o n s . H e a c c u s e d t h e m o f v a r i o u s v i c e s.
T h e y w e r e i m m o r a l ; t h e y w e r e su p e r s t i t i o u s ; t h e y w e r e v a i n ,
ignorant
and
empty-headed;
and,
instead
of
feeding
the
Church of God, they had almost starved her to death. He
l o a t h e d t h e se “h o n o u r a b l e m e n, w h o s i t i n g r e a t h o u se s ,
t h e s e p u r p l e me n , w i t h t h e i r b e a u t i f u l m a n t l e s , t h e i r h i g h
caps, their fat stomachs.” He accused them of fawning on
t h e r i c h a n d d e s p i s i n g t h e p o o r . “ A s f o r l o v e o f p l e a s u r e , ” he
said, “immorality, laziness, greediness, uncharitableness and
cruelty–as for these things, the priests do not hold them as
s i n s w h e n c o m mi t t e d b y p r i n c e s , n o b l e s a n d r i c h c o m m o n e r s.
T h e y do n o t te l l t h e m p l a i n l y , “ Y o u w i l l g o t o he l l i f y o u l i v e
on the fat of the poor, and live a bestial life,” although they
k n o w t h a t t h e r i c h a r e c o n d e m ne d t o e t e r n a l d e a t h b y s u c h
b e h a v i o u r . O h , n o ! T h e y pr e fe r t o g i v e t h e m a gr a n d f u n e r a l .
A
crowd
of
priests,
clergy,
and
other
folk
make
a
long
p r o c e s s i o n . T he b e l l s a r e r u n g . T h e r e ar e m as se s , s i n g i n g s ,
candles
and
offerings.
The
virtues
of
the
dead
man
are
p r o c l a i m e d fr o m t h e p u l p i t . T h e y e n t e r h i s s o u l i n t h e b o o k s
of their cloisters and churches to be continually prayed for,
a n d i f w h a t t he y s a y b e tr u e , t h a t s o u l c a nn o t p o s s i b l y
p e r i s h , f o r h e ha s b e e n s o k i n d t o t h e C h u r c h , a n d m u s t ,
i n d e e d , b e w e l l c a r e d fo r . ”
He
accused
them,
further,
of
laziness
and
gluttony.
“ T h e y p r e t e n d to f o l l o w C h r i s t , ” h e s a i d , “ a n d h a v e p l e n t y t o
e a t e ve r y d a y . T h e y h a v e f i s h , s p i c e s , b r a w n , h e r r i n g s , f i g s ,
almonds,
Greek
wine
and
other
l u x u r ie s .
T he y
g e ne r a l ly
drink good wine and rich beer in large quantities, and so
t h e y g o t o s le e p . W h e n t h e y ca n n o t g e t l u x u r i e s t h e y f i l l
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
t h e m s e l v e s w i t h v u l g a r p u d d i n g s t i l l t h e y n e ar l y b u r s t . A n d
this is the way the priests fast.” He wrote in a similar strain
o f t h e m e n d i c a n t f r i a r s . H e h a d n o b e l i e f i n t h e i r p r o fe s s i o n
of poverty, and accused them of gathering as much money
a s t h e y c o u l d . T h e y p o c ke t e d m o r e mo n e y b y b e g g i n g , h e
declared,
than
honest
folk
could
earn
by
working;
they
despised plain beef, fat bacon and peas, and they wagged
their tails with joy when they sat down to game and other
l u x u r i e s . “ M a n y c i t i z e n s , ” s a i d P e t e r , “ w o u l d r e ad i l y w e l c o m e
this kind of poverty.”
H e a c c u s e d t h e p r i e s t s o f l o o s e t e a c h i n g a n d s h a m e l e ss
w i n k i n g a t s i n . “ T h e y p r e p a r e Je s u s , ” h e s a i d , “ a s a s w e e t
s a u c e fo r t he w o r l d , s o t h a t t h e w o r l d m a y n o t ha v e t o s h a p e
i t s c o u r s e a f t e r J e s u s a n d H i s h e a v y C r o s s , b ut t h a t J e s u s
may conform to the world; and they make Him softer than
o i l , s o t h a t e v e r y w o u n d m a y b e s o o t h e d , a n d t h e v i o l e n t,
thieves,
m u r de r e r s
and
adulterers
may
h a ve
an
easy
e n t r a n c e i n t o he a v e n . ”
H e a c c u se d t h e m o f de g r a d i n g t h e Se v e n S a cr a m e n t s.
They baptized sinners, young and old, without demanding
r e pe n t a n c e . T he y s o l d t h e C o mm u n i o n t o r a s c a ls a n d r o g u e s ,
l i k e a h u c k s t r e ss o f f e r i n g h e r w a r e s . T he y a b u se d C o n fe s s i o n
b y p a r d o n i n g m e n w h o ne v e r i n t e n d e d t o a m e n d t h e i r e v i l
ways.
They
allowed
me n
of
the
vilest
character
to
be
o r d a i n e d a s p r ie s t s . T he y d e gr a d e d m a r r i a g e b y p r e a c h i n g
the
doctrine
that
it
was
less
holy
than
celibacy.
They
d i s t o r t e d t h e o r ig i n a l d e s i g n o f E x t r e m e U n c t i o n, f o r i n s t e a d
of using it to heal the sick they used it to lin e their own
p o c k e t s . A n d a l l t h e s e b l a s p h e mi e s , s i n s a n d fo l l i e s w e r e t h e
o f f s p r i n g o f t h at a d u l t e r o u s u n i o n b e t w e e n t h e C h u r c h a n d
t h e S t a t e , w h i c h b e g a n i n t h e d ay s o f C o n s t a n t i n e t h e G r e a t .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
F o r o f a l l t h e e v i l s u n d e r H e a ve n , t h e g r e a te s t, s a i d P e t e r ,
w a s t h a t c o n t r a di c t i o n i n t e r m s – a S t a t e C h u r c h .
He attacked the great theologians and scholars. Instead
o f u s i n g t h e i r m e n t a l p o w e r s in t h e s e a r c h fo r t r u t h , t h e se
c o l l e g e me n , s a id P e t e r , h a d d o n e t h e i r b e s t t o s u p p r e s s t h e
t r u t h ; a n d a t t h e t w o gr e a t C o un c i l s o f C o n s t a nc e a n d B a s le ,
t h e y h a d a c t u a l l y o b t a i n e d t h e he l p o f t h e t e m p o r a l p o w e r to
c r u s h a l l w h o d ar e d t o ho l d d i f f e r e n t v i e w s fr o m t h e i r s . W h a t
u s e , a s k e d P e t e r , w e r e t h e se l e a r n e d p u n d i t s ? T h e y w e r e n o
u s e a t a l l . T h e y n e v e r i n s t r u c t e d a n y b o d y . “ I d o n o t k n o w ,”
he said, “a single person whom they have helped with their
l e a r n i n g . ” H a d t h e y i n s t r u c t e d Hu s ? N o . H u s h a d t h e f a i t h i n
himself;
Hus
was
instructed
by
God;
and
all
that
these
r a v e n s d i d f o r Hu s w a s t o f l o c k to g e t h e r a g a i n s t h i m .
Again, Peter denounced the Bohemian nobles. As we
read his biting, satirical phrases we can see that he was no
r e s pe c t e r o f pe r s o n s a n d n o b e l ie v e r i n a r t i f i c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s
of rank. For him the only distinction worth anything was the
m o r a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h o se w h o f o l l o w e d t h e c r u c i f i e d
J e s u s a n d t h o s e w h o r i o te d i n s e lf i s h p l e a s u r e s .
He had no belief in blue blood and noble birth. He was
almost, though not quite, a Socialist. He had no definite,
c o n s t r u c t i v e s o ci a l p o l i c y . H e w a s r a t h e r a c h am p i o n o f t h e
r i g h t s o f t h e p o o r , a n d a n a p o s t l e o f t h e s i m p l e l i f e . “ T he
w h o l e v a l u e o f n o b l e b i r t h , ” h e sa i d , “ i s f o u n d e d o n a w i c k e d
i n v e n t i o n o f t h e h e a t h e n , w h o o b t a i n e d c o a t s o f a r m s fr o m
e m p e r o r s o r k i ng s a s a r e w a r d fo r so m e d e e d o f v a l o u r . ” I f a
man could only buy a coat of arms–a stag, a gate, a wolf’s
h e a d , o r a s a u sa g e – he b e c a me t h e r e b y a n o b l e m a n , b o a s t e d
o f h i s h i g h d e sc e n t , a n d w a s r e g a r d e d b y t h e p u b l i c a s a
s a i n t . F o r s u c h “n o b i l i t y ” P e t e r ha d a w i t h e r i n g c o n t e m p t . He
declared that nobles of this stamp had no r ight to belong to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
t h e C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h . T h e y l i v e d, h e s a i d , i n f l a t o p p o s i t i o n
to the spirit of Jesus Christ. They devoured the poor. They
were a burden to the country. They did harm to all men.
T h e y se t t h e i r mi n d s o n w o r l d l y g l o r y , a n d s p e n t t h e i r m o n e y
on
e x t r a va g a n t
dress.
“ T he
men,”
said
he,
“wear
c a pe s
r e a c h i n g d o w n to t h e g r o u n d , an d t h e i r l o n g h a i r f a l l s d o w n
t o t h e i r s ho u l d e r s ; a n d t h e w o m e n w e a r so ma n y p e t t i c o a t s
that they can hardly drag themselves along, and strut about
l i k e t h e P o p e ’ s co u r t e z a n s , t o t he s u r p r i se a n d di s g u s t o f t h e
whole
world.”
What
right
had
these
selfish
fops
to
call
t h e m s e l v e s C h r is t i a n s ? T h e y d i d m o r e h a r m t o t h e c a u s e o f
Christ than all the Turks and heathens in the world.
Thus
grievous
Peter,
faults
belonging
in
them
all.
to
none
As
he
of
the
always
se c t s,
found
mentions
the
W a l d e n s e s w i t h r e s pe c t , i t h a s b e e n s u g g e s te d th a t h e w a s a
W a l d e n s i a n h i m s e l f . B u t o f t h a t t h e r e i s n o r e a l p r o o f . He
h a d , a p p a r e n t l y , n o o r g a n i z i n g s k i l l ; h e n e v e r at t e m p t e d t o
form a new sect or party, and his mission in the world was
t o t h r o w o u t h i n t s a n d l e a v e i t t o o t h e r s t o c ar r y t h e s e h i n t s
i n t o p r a c t i c e . H e c o n de m n e d th e U t r a q u i s t s b e c a u s e t he y
u s e d t h e s w o r d . “ I f a m a n , ” he s a i d , “ e a t s a bl a c k p u d d i n g
o n F r i d a y , y o u b l a m e h i m ; b u t i f h e s h e d s h i s b r o t h e r ’s b l o o d
o n t h e s c a f fo l d o r o n t h e f i e l d o f b a t t l e y o u p r a i s e h i m . ” He
c o n d e m n e d t h e T a b o r i te s b e c au s e t h e y m a d e l i g h t o f t h e
S a c r a m e n t s . “Y o u h a v e c a l l e d th e H o l y B r e a d , ” h e s a i d , “a
b u t t e r f l y , a b a t , a n i d o l . Y o u h av e e ve n t o l d t h e p e o p l e t h a t
i t i s b e t t e r t o k n e e l t o t h e d e v il t h a n t o k n e e l a t t h e a l t a r ;
and
thus
you
have
taught
them
to
de s p i s e
religion
and
wallow in unholy lusts.” He condemned the King for being a
K i n g a t a l l ; f o r n o i n t e l l i g e n t m a n , s a i d P e t e r , co u l d p o s s i b l y
be a King and a Christian at the same time. And finally he
c o n d e m n e d t h e P o p e a s A n t i c h r i s t a n d t h e e n e my o f G o d .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Y e t P e te r w a s so m e t h i n g m o r e th a n a c a u s t i c c r i t i c . F o r
t h e t e r r i b l e i l l s o f h i s a g e a n d co u n t r y h e h a d o n e p l a i n a n d
h o m e l y r e me d y , a n d t h a t f o r a l l t r u e C h r i s t i a n s t o l e a v e t h e
C h u r c h o f R o me a n d r e t u r n t o th e s i m p l e t e a c h i n g o f C h r i s t
a n d H i s A p o s t l e s . I f t h e r e a de r g o e s t o Pe t e r fo r s y s t e m a t i c
t h e o l o g y , h e w i ll b e g r ie v o u s l y d i s a p p o i n t e d ; b u t i f h e g o e s
f o r m o r a l v i g o u r , h e w i l l f i n d a w e l l - s p r e a d t a b le .
H e d i d n o t r e a so n h i s p o s i t i o n s o u t l i k e W y c l i f f e ; h e w a s
a s u g g e s t i v e e s sa y i s t r a t h e r t h a n a c o n s t r u c t i v e p h i l o s o p h e r ;
a n d , r a d i c a l t h o u g h h e w a s i n s o m e o f h i s v i e w s , h e he ld
f i r m t o w h a t h e r e g a r de d a s t h e f u n d a m e n t a l a r t i c l e s o f t h e
C h r i s t i a n f a i t h . H e b e l ie v e d i n th e r e d e m p t i v e v a l u e o f t h e
d e a t h o f C h r i s t . H e b e l i e v e d t ha t m a n m u s t b u i l d h i s h o p e s ,
n o t s o m u c h o n h i s o w n g o o d w o r k s , b u t r a t h e r o n t h e g r a ce
o f G o d . H e b e l ie v e d , a l l t h e sa m e , t h a t g o o d w o r k s w e r e
n e e de d a n d w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e ir d u e r e w a r d . H e b e l i e v e d ,
further,
in
the
real
bodily
p r e se n c e
of
C hr i s t
in
the
Sacrament; and on this topic he held a doctrine very similar
to
Luther’s
d o ct r i n e
of
C o n s ub s t a n t i a t i o n .
But,
over
a nd
above all these beliefs, he insisted, in season and out of
s e a s o n , t h a t me n c o u l d p a r t a ke o f s p i r i t u a l b l e s si n g s w i t h o u t
t h e a i d o f R o m an p r i e s t s . S o me f r u i t o f h i s l a bo u r s he s aw .
As the fire of the Hussite Wars died down, a few men in
d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r y – e sp e c i a l l y a t C h e l c i c , W i l e n o w
and Divischau–began to take Peter as their spiritual guide.
T h e y r e a d h i s pa m p h l e t s w i t h d e l i g h t , b e c a m e k n o w n a s t h e
“ B r e t h r e n o f C he l c i c , ” a n d w o r e a d i s t i n c t i v e d r e s s , a g r e y
cloak
with
spread,
the
a
cord
tied
societies
round
the
multiplied,
waist.
and
thus,
The
in
m o v e me n t
a
way
no
r e co r d s t e l l , w e r e l a i d t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f t h e C h u r c h o f t h e
B r e t h r e n . D i d P e t e r se e t h a t C h u r c h ? W e d o n o t k n o w . N o
o n e k n o w s w h e n P e t e r w a s b o r n , a n d n o o n e k no w s w h e n he
d i e d . H e d e l i v e r e d h i s m e s s a ge ; h e s h o w e d th e w a y ; h e
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
f l a s h e d h i s l a n t e r n i n t h e d a r kn e s s ; a n d t h u s , w h e t h e r he
knew it or not, he was the literary founder of the Brethren’s
Church. He fired the hope. He drew the plans. It was left to
another man to erect the building.
Chapter 5
“GREGORY
THE
P A T R I AR C H
AND
THE
S O C IE T Y
AT
KUNWALD, 1457-1473.”
A brilliant idea is an excellent thing. A man to work it
o u t i s s t i l l b e t t e r . A t t h e v e r y t i m e w h e n P e t e r ’ s fo l l o w e r s
w e r e m a r s h a l l i n g t h e i r f o r c e s , J o h n R o c k y c a n a ,5 A r c h b i s h o p elect of Prague (since 1448), was making a mighty stir in
that
drunken
ci t y .
What
Peter
had
do n e
with
his
pen,
R o c k y c a n a w a s d o i n g w i t h h i s t o n g u e . H e p r e ac h e d P e t e r ’ s
d o c t r i n e s i n t h e g r e a t T he i n C h u r c h ; h e c o r r e sp o n d e d w i t h
h i m o n t h e b u r n i n g t o p i c s o f t h e d a y ; h e w e n t to s e e h i m a t
h i s e s t a t e ; h e r e c o m m e n de d h is w o r k s t o h i s h e a r e r s ; a n d
w e e k b y w e e k , i n f i e r y l a n g u a g e , h e d e no u n c e d t h e C h u r c h
o f R o me a s B a b y l o n , a n d t h e P o p e a s A n t i c h r i s t h i m s e l f . H i s
style was vivid and picturesque, his language cutting and
c l e a r . O n e d a y h e c o m p ar e d t h e C h u r c h o f R o m e t o a b u r ne d
a n d r u i n e d c i t y , w h e r e i n t h e b e as t s o f t h e f o r e s t s m a d e t h e i r
l a i r s ; a n d , a g a i n , h e c o m p ar e d h e r t o a s t o r m - t o s s e d s h i p ,
w h i c h s a n k b e n e a t h t h e h o w l i n g w a v e s b e c a u se t h e s a i l o r s
w e r e f i g h t i n g e a c h o t h e r . “ I t i s b e t t e r , ” he s a i d , “ t o t i e a d o g
t o a p u l p i t t h a n a l l o w a p r ie s t t o d e f i l e i t . I t i s b e t t e r , o h ,
w o m e n ! f o r y o ur s o n s t o b e h a n g m e n t h a n t o b e p r i e s t s ; f o r
t h e h a n g m a n o n l y k i l l s t h e b o d y , w h i l e t h e p r ie s t k i l l s t h e
soul.
Look
there,”
he
s u d d e nl y
exclaimed
one
Sunday,
pointing to a picture of St. Peter on the wall, “there is as
much
difference
between
the
priests
of
to -day
and
the
t w e l v e a p o s t l e s a s t h e r e i s b e t w e e n t h a t o l d p a in t i n g a n d t h e
living St. Peter in heaven.6 For the priests have put the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
d e v i l i n t o t h e s a c r a m e n t s t h e ms e l v e s , a n d a r e l e a d i n g y o u
straight to the fires of Hell.”
I f a n e lo q u e n t sp e a k e r a t t a c k s th e c l e r g y , h e i s s u r e to
d r a w a c r o w d . N o w o n d e r t h e T he i n C h u r c h w a s c r a m m e d . N o
wonder the people listened with delight as he backed up his
h o t a t t a c k w i t h t e x t s f r o m t h e p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h. N o w o n d e r
t h e y c r i e d i n t h e i r s i m p l e z e a l : “ B e ho l d , a s e c o n d J o h n H u s
has arisen.”
B u t J o h n R o c k y ca n a w a s no s e c o n d J o h n H u s . F o r a l l h i s
f i r e i n t h e p u l p i t , h e w a s o n l y a c r a v e n a t h e ar t . “ I f a t r u e
C h r i s t i a n , ” s a i d h e t o a f r i e n d, “ w e r e t o t u r n u p n o w i n
Prague, he would be gaped at like a stag with golden horns.”
B u t h e w a s no t a s t a g w i t h go l d e n h o r n s h im s e l f . A s h e
t h u n d e r e d a g a i n s t t h e C h u r c h o f R o me , h e w a s s e e k i n g , n o t
the
Kingdom
of
God,
but
his
own
fame
and
glory.
His
f o l l o w e r s so o n d i s c o v e r e d h i s w e a k n e s s . A m o n g t h o s e w h o
t h r o n g e d t o h e a r h i s s e r mo n s w e r e c e r t a i n q u i e t m e n o f
action, who were not content to paw the ground for ever.
T h e y w e r e f o l l o w e r s o f P e te r o f C he l c i c ; t h e y p a s s e d h i s
p a m p h l e t s i n s e c r e t f r o m h a nd t o h a n d ; t h e y t o o k d o w n
n o t e s o f R o c k yc a n a ’ s s e r m o n s ; a n d n o w t h e y r e so l v e d t o
p r a c t i s e w h a t t h e y h e a r d . I f P e te r h a d t a u g h t t h e m n o t h i n g
e l s e , he h a d a t le a s t c o n v i n c e d t h e m a l l t h a t t h e f i r s t d u t y o f
C h r i s t i a n m e n w a s t o q u i t t h e C h u r c h o f R o me . A g a i n a n d
a g a i n t h e y a p p e a l e d t o R o c k y c an a t o b e t h e i r h e a d , t o a c t u p
t o h i s w o r d s , a nd t o l e a d t h e m o u t t o t h e p r o m i s e d l a n d . T he
g r e a t o r a t o r he m m e d a n d h a w e d , p u t t h e m o f f w i t h e x c u s e s ,
a n d t o l d t h e m , a f t e r t h e m a n n e r o f c o w ar d s , t h a t t h e y w e r e
t o o h a s t y a n d r e c k l e s s . “ I k n o w y o u a r e r i g h t , ” sa i d h e , “ b u t
i f I j o i n e d y o u r r a n k s I s h o u l d b e r e v i l e d o n e v e r y h a n d . ”7
B u t t h e se l i s t e ne r s w e r e n o t to b e co w e d . T he m o r e t he y
studied
Peter’s
writings,
the
more
they
lo s t
faith
in
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
R o c k y c a n a . A s R o c k y c a n a r e f u se d t o l e a d t h e m , t h e y l e f t h i s
church
in
a
themselves.
body,
His
and
name
found
was
a
braver
Gregory;
he
leader
was
a m o ng
known
as
G r e g o r y t h e P a tr i a r c h ; a n d i n du e t i m e , a s w e s h a l l s e e , he
b e c a m e t he f o un d e r o f t h e C h ur c h o f t h e B r e t h r e n . He w as
a l r e a d y a m i d d l e - a g e d m a n . He w a s t he so n o f a B o he m i a n
k n i g h t , a n d w a s n e p h e w t o R o c ky c a n a h i m s e l f . H e h a d s p e n t
his youth in the Slaven cloister at Prague as a bare -footed
monk,
had
found
the
cloister
not
so
moral
as
he
had
e x p e c t e d , h a d l e f t i t i n d i s g u s t , a n d w a s n o w w e l l k n o w n in
B o he m i a a s a ma n o f s te r l i n g ch a r a c t e r , p i o u s a n d s e n s i b l e ,
humble and strict, active and spirited, a good writer and a
g o o d s p e a k e r . He w a s a p e r s o n al f r i e n d o f P e t e r , h a d s t u d i e d
h i s w o r k s w i t h c a r e , a n d i s s a id t o h a v e b e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y
f o n d o f a l i t t l e e s s a y e n t i t l e d “ T h e I m a ge o f t h e B e a s t , ”
w h i c h h e h a d b o r r o w e d fr o m a b l a c k s m i t h i n W a c h o v i a . A s
t i m e w e n t o n he l o s t p a t i e n ce w i t h R o c k y c a na , c a m e i n t o
t o u c h w i t h t h e l i t t l e s o c i e t i e s a t W i l e n o w a nd D i v i s c h a u ,
v i s i t e d P e t e r o n h i s e s t a t e , a n d g r a d u a l l y f o r me d t h e p l a n o f
f o u n d i n g a n i n d e p e n d e n t s o c ie t y , a n d t h u s d o i n g h i m s e l f
what
R o c k y ca n a
was
a fr a i d
to
do.
As
soldiers
d e se r t
a
c o w a r d l y ge n e r al a n d r a l l y r o u n d t h e s t a n d a r d o f a b r a ve
o n e , so t h e se li s t e n e r s i n t he o l d T h e i n C h u r ch f e l l a w a y
from
halting
Patriarch.
Rockycana,
From
all
parts
and
rall ied
of
B o he m i a ,
round
from
Gregory
all
the
ranks
of
society, from all whom Peter’s writings had touched, from all
who
were
d i s gu s t e d
with
the
Church
of
Rome,
and
who
w i s h e d t o s e e t h e T r u e C h u r ch o f t h e A p o s t l e s b l o o m i n
p u r i t y a n d b e a ut y a g a i n , f r o m al l e s p e c i a l l y w h o d e s i r e d t h e
m i n i s t r a t i o n o f p r i e s t s o f m o r a l ch a r a c t e r – fr o m a ll t h e s e w a s
his little band recruited. How it all happened we know not;
b u t s l o w l y t h e nu m b e r s s w e l l e d . A t l a s t t h e t e r r ib l e q u e s t i o n
a r o se : H o w a n d w h e r e m u s t t h e y l i v e ? T he q u e st i o n w a s o ne
o f l i f e a n d d e a t h . N o t a l w a y s c o u l d t h e y w o r s hi p i n s e c r e t ;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
n o t a l w a y s b e sc a t t e r e d i n l i t t l e g r o u p s . I t w as t i m e , t h e y
s a i d , t o c l o s e t h e i r r a n k s a n d f o r m a n ar m y t h a t s h o u l d l a s t .
“ A f t e r u s , ” R o c ky c a n a h a d s a i d in a s e r m o n , “ s ha l l a p e o p le
c o m e w e l l - p l e a s in g u n t o G o d a n d r i g h t h e a l t h y f o r m e n ; t h e y
s h a l l f o l l o w t h e S c r i p t u r e s , a nd t h e e x a m p l e o f C h r i s t a n d
t h e f o o t s t e p s o f t h e A p o s t l e s . ” A n d t h e s e s t e r n m e n f e lt
c a l l e d t o t h e h o ly t a s k .
In
the
year
1457,
Uladislaus
Po stumus,
King
of
B o he m i a , d i e d , a n d G e o r g e P o di e b r a d r e i g n e d in h i s s t e a d ;
a n d a b o u t t h e s a m e t i m e i t c a m e t o t h e e ar s o f G r e g o r y t h e
Patriarch that in the barony of Senftenberg, on the north e a s t b o r de r o f B o h e m i a , t h e r e l a y a v i l l a g e t h a t w o u l d s e r ve
a s a h o m e f o r hi m a n d h i s t r u s t y f o l l o w e r s . A n d t h e v i l l a g e
was called Kunwald, and the old castle hard by was called
Lititz.
The
village
was
almost
deserted,
and
only
a
few
simple folk, of the same mind as Gregory, lived there now.
W h a t b e t t e r r e fu g e c o u l d b e f o u n d ? G r e go r y t h e P a t r i a r c h
l a i d t h e s c h e me b e f o r e h i s u n c l e R o c k y c a n a ; R o ck y c a n a , w h o
sympathized
with
their
views
and
wished
to
help
them,
b r o u g h t t h e m a tt e r be f o r e K i n g G e o r ge ; t h e K i ng , w h o o w n e d
t h e e s t a t e , g a v e h i s g r a c i o u s p e r m i s s i o n ; a n d G r e go r y a n d
his faithful friends wended their way to Kunwald, and there
began to form the first settlement of the Church of the
B r e t h r e n . A n d n o w m a n y o t h e r s f r o m f a r a n d w i d e c a m e to
make
Kunwald
their
home.
Some
came
fr o m
the
Thein
C h u r c h i n P r a g ue , s o me a c r o s s t h e G l a t z H i l l s fr o m M o r a v i a ,
s o m e fr o m W i l e n o w , D i v i s c h a u a n d C h e l c i c , s o m e f r o m t he
U t r a q u i s t C h u r c h a t K ö n i g g r a t z , 8 s o me , c l o t h e d a n d i n t h e i r
r i g h t m i n d s , f r o m t h o s e q u e e r fo l k , t h e A d a m i t e s , a n d s o m e
f r o m l i t t l e W a l d e n s i a n g r o u p s th a t l a y d o t t e d h e r e a n d t h e r e
a b o u t t h e l a n d . T h e r e w e r e c i t iz e n s fr o m Pr a gu e a n d o t h e r
c i t i e s . T h e r e w e r e b a c he l o r s an d m a s t e r s fr o m t h e g r e a t
U n i v e r s i t y . T h e r e w e r e pe a s a n ts a n d n o b l e s , l e a r ne d a n d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
s i m p l e , r i c h a n d p o o r , w i t h t h e i r w i v e s a n d ch i l d r e n ; a n d
t h u s d i d m a n y , w h o l o n g e d t o be p u r e a n d f o l l o w t h e M a s t e r
a n d H i m a l o n e , f i n d a B e t h a n y o f P e a ce i n t h e s m i l i n g l i t t l e
valley of Kunwald.
H e r e , t h e n , i n th e v a l l e y o f K u nw a l d , d i d t h e s e p i o n e e r s
lay the foundation stones of the Moravian Church {1457 or
1 4 5 8 . } . 9 T he y w e r e a l l o f o n e h e a r t a n d o n e m i n d . T h e y
honoured
Christ
alone
as
King;
they
c o n f e s se d
His
laws
a l o n e a s b i n d i n g . T h e y w e r e no t d r i v e n f r o m th e C h u r c h o f
R o me ; t h e y l e f t o f t h e i r o w n fr e e w i l l . T h e y w e r e me n o f
d e e p r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n ce . A s t h e y m u s t e r e d t h e i r f o r c e s i n
t h a t q u i e t d a l e , t h e y k n e w t h a t t h e y w e r e p a r ti n g c o m p a n y
f r o m C h u r c h a nd S t a t e a l i k e . T h e y h a d s o u g h t t h e g u i d a n c e
of
God
in
p r a ye r ,
and
de c l a r e d
that
their
prayers
were
a n s w e r e d . T he y h a d m e t t o se e k t h e t r u t h o f G o d , n o t f r o m
p r i e s t s , b u t f r o m G o d H i m s e l f . “ A s w e k n e w n o t w h e r e to
turn,” they wrote to Rockycana, “we turned in prayer to God
H i m s e l f , a n d b e s o u g h t H i m t o r e v e a l to u s H i s g r a c i o u s w i l l
i n a l l t h i n g s . W e w a n t e d t o w al k i n H i s w a y s ; w e w a n t e d
i n s t r u c t i o n i n H i s w i s d o m ; a n d i n H i s m e r c y H e a n s w e r e d o ur
p r a y e r s . ” T h e y w o u l d r a t h e r , t he y s a i d , s p e n d w e e k s i n g a o l
than take the oath as councillors. They built cottages, tilled
t h e l a n d , o p e n e d w o r k s ho p s , a n d p a s s e d t h e i r ti m e i n p e a ce
a n d q u i e t n e s s . F o r a l a w a n d a te s t i m o n y t h e y ha d t h e B i b le
a n d t h e w r i t i n g s o f P e te r o f C h e l c i c . I n M i c h a e l B r a d a c i u s , a
U t r a q u i s t p r i e s t , t h e y f o u n d a f a i t h f u l p a s t o r . T h e y m ade
their own laws and appointed a body of twenty -eight elders
t o e n fo r ce t h e m . T h e y d i v i d e d t h e m s e l v e s i n t o t hr e e c l a s se s ,
the
Beginners,
the
L e a r ne r s
and
the
Perfect;10
and
the
P e r fe c t g a v e u p t h e i r p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e g o o d o f t he
c o m m o n c a u s e . T h e y h a d o v e r s e e r s t o c a r e fo r t h e p o o r .
T h e y h a d pr i e s ts t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e s a c r a m e n ts , T h e y h a d
g o d l y l a y m e n t o t e a c h t h e S c r i p t u r e s . T h e y h ad v i s i t o r s t o
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
s e e t o t h e p u r i t y o f f a m i l y l i f e . T h e y w e r e s h u t o f f f r o m t he
m a d d i n g c r o w d b y a n a r r o w g o r g e , w i t h t h e G l at z M o u n t a i n s
towering on the one side and the hoary old castle of Lititz, a
few miles off, on the other; and there in that fruitful v alley,
w h e r e o r c h a r d s s m i l e d a n d g a r d e n s b l o o me d , a n d n e a t l i t t l e
cottages peeped out from the woodland, they plied their
t r a d e s a n d r e a d t h e i r B i b l e s , a nd k e p t t h e m s e l ve s p u r e a n d
u n s p o t t e d f r o m th e w o r l d u n d e r th e e ye o f G o d A lm i g h t y . 1 1
B u t i t w a s n o t lo n g b e f o r e t h e se B r e t hr e n h a d t o s h o w
of what metal they were made. With each other they were at
p e a c e , b u t i n B o h e m i a t h e se a st i l l r o l l e d f r o m th e s t o r m . I t
is
curious
Brethren
how
u se d
people
r e a so ne d
bread
instead
in
of
those
wafer
da y s .
at
As
the
the
H oly
C o m m u n i o n , a r u m o u r r e a c h e d th e e ar s o f t h e Ki n g t h a t t h e y
w e r e d a n g e r o u s c o n s p i r a t o r s , an d h e l d s e c r e t m e e t i n g s o f a
mysterious and unholy nature. And King George held himself
a n o r t h o d o x K i ng , a n d h a d s w o r n t o a l l o w n o h e r e t i c s i n h i s
k i n g d o m . A s s o o n t h e r e fo r e , a s h e h e a r d t h a t G r e go r y t he
Patriarch had come on a visit to Prague, and was actually
h o l d i n g a m e e t in g o f U n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s i n t h e N e w T o w n ,
h e c a m e do w n u p o n t h e m l i k e a w o l f o n t he f o l d , a n d g a v e
o r d e r s t o ar r e s t t h e m o n t h e s p o t . H e w a s s u r e t h e y w e r e
h a t c h i n g a v i l l a i n o u s p l o t o f s o m e k i n d . I n v a i n s o m e f r ie n d s
s e n t w a r n i n g to t h e s t u d e n t s . T h e y r e s o l v e d , w i t h a f e w
exceptions, to await their
fate
and stand to
their
guns.
“ C o me w h a t m a y , ” s a i d t h e y , i n t h e i r f i e r y z e a l , “ l e t t h e r a c k
b e o u r b r e a k f a st a n d t h e f u n e r a l p i l e o u r d i n n e r ! ” T he d o o r
of
the
room
f le w
open.
T he
magistrate
and
his
bailiffs
a p p e a r e d . “ A l l , ” s a i d t h e m a g i s t r a t e , a s he st o o d a t t he
threshold,
“who
wish
to
live
godly
in
Christ
Jesus
must
s u f f e r p e r s e c u t io n . F o l l o w m e t o p r i s o n . ” T he y f o l l o w e d h i m ,
a n d w e r e a t o nc e s t r e t c h e d u po n t h e r a c k . A s s o o n a s t h e
s t u d e n t s f e l t t h e p a i n o f t o r t u r e t h e i r c o ur a g e m e l t e d l i ke
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
April snow. After they had tasted the breakfast they had no
a p p e t i t e f o r t h e d i n n e r . T h e y w e n t i n a bo d y to t h e T he i n
C h u r c h , m o u n t e d t h e p u l p i t o n e b y o n e , p l e a de d g u i l t y t o t h e
charges
brought
against
them,
and
c o n f e s s e d,
before
an
admiring crowd, their full belief in all the dogmas of the Holy
C h u r c h o f R o me . B u t f o r G r e g o r y t h e P a t r i a r c h , w h o w a s no w
g r o w i n g o l d , t h e p a i n w a s to o s e v e r e . H i s w r i s t s c r a c k e d ; he
s w o o ne d , a n d w a s t h o u g h t t o b e d e a d , a n d i n h i s s w o o n he
d r e a me d a dr e am w h i c h s e e m e d t o h i m l i k e th e d r e a m s o f
t h e p r o p h e t s o f o l d . H e s a w , in a l o v e l y m e ad o w , a t r e e
laden with fruit; the fruit was be ing plucked by birds; the
flights of the birds were guided by a youth of heavenly
b e a u t y , a n d t h e t r e e w a s g u a r de d b y t h r e e m e n w h o s e f a ce s
h e s e e me d t o kn o w . W h a t m e an t t h a t d r e a m t o G r e g o r y a n d
h i s B r e t h r e n? I t w a s a v i s i o n o f t h e g o o d t i m e c o m i n g . T he
t r e e w as t h e C h u r c h o f t h e B r e th r e n . T h e f r u i t w a s h e r B i b le
t e a c h i n g . T h e b i r d s w e r e h e r m i n i s t e r s a n d h e l p e r s . T he
youth of radiant beauty was the Divine Master Himself. And
t h e t h r e e me n w h o s t o o d o n g u a r d w e r e t h e th r e e m e n w ho
were
a f t e r w ar d s
chosen
as
the
first
three
E ld e r s
of
the
B r e t h r e n’ s C h u r ch .
W h i l e G r e g o r y la y i n h i s s w o o n , h i s o l d t e a c h e r , h i s
u n c l e , h i s s o m e t i m e f r i e n d , J o h n R o c k y c a n a , he ar i n g t h a t h e
was dying, came to see him. His conscience was stricken, his
h e a r t b l e d , a n d, w r i n g i n g h i s h a n d s i n a g o n y , h e m o a ne d :
“ O h , m y G r e g o r y, m y G r e g o r y , w o u l d I w e r e w h e r e t h o u a r t .”
W h e n G r e go r y r e c o ve r e d , R o c k yc a n a p l e a d e d f o r h i m , a n d
the King allowed the good old Patriarch to return in peace to
Kunwald.
M e a n w h i l e , t h e f i r s t p e r s e c u t io n o f t h e B r e th r e n h a d
b e g u n i n d e a d l y e a r ne s t { 1 4 6 1 . }. K i n g G e o r g e Po d i e b r a d w a s
f u r i o u s . H e i s s ue d a n o r d e r t h a t a l l h i s s u b j e c t s w e r e t o j o i n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
e i t h e r t h e U t r a qu i s t o r t h e R o m an C a t h o l i c C h u r c h . H e i s s u e d
a n o t h e r o r d e r t ha t a l l p r i e s t s w h o c o n d u c t e d t h e C o m m u n i o n
i n t h e b l a s p h e m o u s m a n n e r o f t h e B r e t hr e n s ho u l d f o r t h w i t h
be put to death. The priest, old Michael, was cast into a
dungeon;
four
leading
Brethren
were
burned
alive;
the
p e a c e f u l h o me i n K u n w a l d w a s b r o k e n ; a n d t h e B r e t h r e n f l e d
t o t h e w o o d s an d m o u n t a i n s . F o r t w o f u l l ye ar s t h e y l i v e d
the life of hunted deer in the forest. As they durst not light
a f i r e b y d a y , th e y c o o k e d t he i r m e a l s b y n i g ht ; a n d t h e n ,
w h i l e t h e e n e my d r e a m e d a n d s l e p t , t h e y r e a d t h e i r B i b l e s
by the
watch-fires’ glare, and prayed till the
dripping
formed
from
a
their
knees.
procession,
and
If
provisions
marched
in
ran
single
bloo d was
short,
file
to
they
the
nearest village; and when the snow lay on the ground they
t r a i l e d b e h i n d t h e m a p i n e - t r e e b r a n c h , s o t h at f o l k w o u l d
t h i n k a w i l d b e a s t h a d b e e n pr o w l i n g ar o u n d . W e c a n se e
t h e m g a t h e r i n g i n t h o s e B o he m i a n g l a d e s . A s t h e se n t i n e l
stars set their watch in the sky, and the night wind kissed
t h e p i n e t r e e s , t h e y r e a d t o e ac h o t h e r t he g o ld e n p r o m i se
t h a t w h e r e t w o o r t h r e e w e r e g a t h e r e d t o g e t he r i n H i s n a me
H e w o u l d b e i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e m ; 1 2 a n d r e jo i c e d t h a t t h e y ,
t h e c h o s e n o f G o d , h a d b e e n c a l l e d t o s u f f e r fo r t h e t r u t h
a n d t h e C h u r c h t h a t w a s y e t t o be .
I n v a i n t h e y a pp e a l e d t o R o c k yc a n a ; h e h a d do n e w i t h
t h e m f o r e ve r . “ T h o u a r t o f t he w o r l d , ” t h e y w r o t e , “ a n d w i l t
perish with the world.” They were said to have made a
covenant
with
the
de v i l ,
and
were
c o mm o n l y
dubbed
“ P i t m e n ” b e c a u se t h e y l i v e d i n p i t s a n d c a v e s . Y e t n o t fo r a
m o m e n t d i d t h e y l o s e h o pe . A t t h e v e r y t i m e w h e n t h e k i n g
i n h i s f o l l y t h o u g h t t h e y w e r e cr u s h e d b e n e a t h hi s f o o t , t h e y
w e r e i n r e a l i t y i n c r e a s i n g i n n u m b e r s e ve r y d a y . A s t h e i r
w a t c h - f i r e s s h o n e i n t h e d a r k n e s s o f t h e fo r e s t s , s o t h e i r
p u r e l i v e s s ho ne a m o n g a d a r ke n e d pe o p l e . N o w e a po n d i d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
they
use
e x ce p t
the
pen.
Th ey
n e ve r
r e t al i a t e d ,
never
r e be l l e d , n e ve r t o o k u p a r m s i n t h e i r o w n d e f e n c e , ne ve r
e v e n a p p e a le d t o t h e a r m o f j u s t i c e . W h e n s m i t t e n o n o n e
c h e e k , t h e y t u r n e d t h e o t h e r ; a n d f r o m i l l - r e po r t t h e y w e n t
t o g o o d r e p o r t , t i l l t h e K i n g f o r v e r y s h a me h a d t o l e t t h e m
b e . W e l l a w ar e w a s h e t h a t b r ut a l f o r c e co u l d n e v e r s t a m p
o u t s p i r i t u a l l i f e . “ I a d v i s e yo u , ” s a i d a c e r t a i n B i s h o p , “ to
shed no more blood. Martyrdom is somewhat like a half r o a s t e d jo i n t o f m e a t , a p t t o b r e e d m a g g o t s . ”
A n d n o w t h e t i m e d r e w n e ar f o r G r e go r y ’ s d r e a m t o
come
true.
Kunwald
W he n
they
the
had
Brethren
only
done
settled
half
in
their
the
valley
work.
They
of
had
q u i t t e d t h e “ b e n i g h t e d ” C h u r c h o f R o me ; t h e y h a d n o t y e t
put a better Church in her place. They had settled on a
Utraquist
estate;
Utraquist
King;
they
they
were
under
attended
the
p r o te c t i o n
s e r v i ce s
of
conducted
a
by
Utraquist priests. But this black -and-white policy could not
l a s t f o r e ve r . I f t h e y w i s h e d t o b e g o d l y m e n t h e m s e l v e s ,
they must have godly men in the pulpits. What right had
t h e y , t h e c h o se n o f G o d ( a s t h e y c a l l e d t h e m s e l ve s ) t o l i s t e n
t o s e r m o n s fr o m m e n i n l e a g u e w i t h t h e S t a t e ? W h a t r i g h t
h a d t h e y t o t a k e t h e H o l y B r e ad a n d W i n e f r o m t h e t a i n t e d
h a n d s o f U t r a q u i s t p r i e s t s ? W h at r i g h t h a d t h e y t o c o n f e ss
their
sins
to
men
with
the
brand
of
Rome
upon
their
f o r e h e a d s? I f t h e y w e r e t o h av e a n y p r i e s t s a t a l l , t h o s e
p r i e s t s , l i k e C ae s a r ’ s w i f e , m us t b e a b o ve s us p i c i o n . T h e y
m u s t b e p a s t o r s a f t e r G o d ’ s o w n h e a r t , w h o s ho u l d f e e d t he
p e o p l e w i t h k n o w l e d g e a n d u n de r s t a n d i n g ( J e r . i i i . 1 5 ) . T h e y
must be clear of any connection with the State. They must
be
d e s ce n d e d
from
t he
twelve
Apostles.
T he y
must
be
i n n o c e n t o f t h e c r i m e o f s i m o n y. T h e y m u s t w o r k w i t h t h e i r
h a n d s f o r t he i r l i v i n g , a n d b e w i l l i n g t o s p e n d t h e i r m o ne y
o n t h e p o o r . B ut w h e r e co u l d s u c h c l e a n v e s se ls o f t h e L o r d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
b e f o u n d ? F o r a w h i l e t h e B r e t hr e n w e r e a l m o s t i n d e s p a i r ;
f o r a w h i l e t h e y w e r e e ve n h a l f i n c l i n e d t o d o w i t h o u t p r i e s t s
a t a l l . I n v a i n th e y se a r c he d t he co u n t r y r o u n d; i n v a i n t h e y
i n q u i r e d a b o u t p r i e s t s i n f o r e ig n l a n d s . W h e n t h e y a s k e d
a b o u t t h e p u r e N e s t o r i a n C h u r ch s u p p o s e d t o e x i s t i n I n d i a ,
they
r e ce i v e d
the
answer
that
that
Church
was
now
as
c o r r u p t a s t h e R o m i s h . W he n t h e y a s ke d a b o ut t h e G r e e k
C h u r c h i n R u s s ia , t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e a n s w e r t h at t h e R u s s i a n
B i s h o p s w e r e w i ll i n g t o c o n s e cr at e a n y m a n , g o o d o r b a d , so
l o n g a s h e p a i d t h e f e e s . T h e q ue s t i o n w a s p r e ss i n g . I f t h e y
d i d w i t h o u t g o o d p r i e s t s m u c h l o n g e r , t h e y w o ul d l o s e t h e i r
s t a n d i n g i n t h e c o u n t r y . “Y o u m u s t , ” s a i d B r o t h e r M ar t i n
L u p a c , a U t r a q ui s t p r i e s t , w h o h a d j o i n e d t h e i r r a n k s , “ yo u
must
establish
a
p r o pe r
o r de r
of
priests
from
a m o ng
y o u r s e l ve s . I f y o u d o n ’ t , t h e w h o l e c a u s e w i l l b e r u i n e d . T o
d o w i t h o u t p r i e s t s i s n o s i n ag a i n s t G o d ; b u t i t i s a s i n
a g a i n s t y o u r f e ll o w - m e n . ” A s t h e y p o n d e r e d o n t h e f a t e f u l
question, the very light of Heaven itself seemed to flash
u p o n t h e i r so u l s . I t w a s t h e y w ho p o s se s se d t h e u n i t y o f t he
s p i r i t ; a n d t h e r e f o r e i t w a s t h e y w h o w e r e c a l l e d t o r e ne w
t h e C h u r c h o f t he A p o s t l e s . T h e y h a d n o w be c o me a po w e r f u l
body; they were founding settlements all over the land; they
stood, they said, for the truth as it was in Jesus; they had
a l l o n e f a i t h , o n e h o p e , o ne ai m , o n e s e n s e o f t h e S p i r i t
l e a d i n g t h e m o n w a r d ; a n d t h e y p e r ce i v e d t h a t i f t h e y w e r e
t o w e a t h e r t h e g a l e i n t h o s e s t o r m y t i m e s t he y m u s t c u t t h e
chains that bound them to Rome, and fly their own colours in
the breeze.
A n d s o , i n 1 4 6 7 , a b o u t t e n y e ar s a f t e r t h e f o u n da t i o n o f
K u n w a l d , t h e r e m e t a t L h o t a a S y n o d o f t h e B r e t h r e n to
s e t t l e t h e m o me n t o u s q u e s t i o n {1 4 6 7 . } , “ I s i t G o d ’ s w i l l t h a t
w e s e p ar a t e e nt i r e l y f r o m t h e p o w e r o f t h e P a p a c y , a n d
h e n c e f r o m i t s p r i e s t h o o d? I s i t G o d ’ s w i l l t h a t w e i n s t i t u t e ,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
according to the model of the Primitive Church, a ministerial
o r d e r o f o u r o w n ? ” F o r w e e k s th e y h a d pr a y e d a n d f a s t e d
d a y a n d n i g h t . A b o u t s i x t y B r e t h r e n a r r i v e d . T he S y n o d w a s
h e l d i n a t a n n e r ’ s c o t t a g e , un d e r a ce d a r tr e e ; a n d t h e
guiding
spirit
Gregory
the
P at r i a r c h ,
for
his
dream
was
h a u n t i n g h i m s t i l l . T h e c o t t a g e h a s l o n g s i n c e go n e ; b u t t h e
tree is living yet.
T h e f a t e f u l d a y a r r i v e d . A s t h e m o r n i n g b r o ke , t h o s e
sixty men were all on their knees in prayer. If that prayer
h a d b e e n o m i t t e d t h e w h o l e pr o ce e d i n g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n
invalid. As the Master, said they, had prayed on the Mount
b e f o r e he c h o se H i s t w e l v e d i s c i p l e s , s o t h e y m us t s p e n d t h e
night in prayer before they chose the elders of the Church.
A n d s t r a n g e , i n d e e d , t h e i r m a n ne r o f c h o o s i n g w a s . F i r s t t h e
Synod nominated by ballot nine men of blameless life, from
whom
were
to
be
c ho s e n ,
should
God
so
will,
the
first
P a s t o r s o f t he N e w C h ur c h . N e xt t w e l v e s l i p s o f p a p e r w e r e
f o l d e d a n d p u t i n t o a v a se . O f th e s e s l i p s n i n e w e r e b l a n k ,
a n d t h r e e w e r e m a r k e d “ J e s t , ” t h e B o he m i a n f o r “ i s . ” T h e n a
b o y n a m e d P r o co p e n t e r e d t h e r o o m , d r e w o u t n i n e s l i p s ,
and handed them round to the nine nominated Brethren.
T h e r e w a s a h us h , a d e e p h u s h , i n t h a t h u m b l e r o o m .
A l l w a i t e d f o r G o d t o s p e a k . T he f a t e o f t h e i nf a n t C h u r c h
s e e me d t o h a n g i n t h e b a l a n c e . F o r t h e m o m e nt t h e w h o l e
g r e a t i s s u e a t s ta k e d e pe n d e d o n t h e t h r e e p a pe r s l e f t i n t h e
vase.
It
had
been
agreed
t h at
the
three
Brethren
w ho
r e ce i v e d t h e t hr e e i n s c r i b e d pa p e r s s h o u l d b e o r d a i n e d t o
t h e m i n i s t r y . T h e s i t u a t i o n w a s c u r i o u s . A s t h e B r e t h r e n r o se
from their knees that morning they were all as su re as men
c o u l d b e t h a t G o d d e s i r e d t he m to h a v e P a s t o r s o f t h e i r o w n ;
a n d y e t t h e y de l i b e r a t e l y r a n t h e r i s k t h a t th e l o t m i g h t
d e c i d e a g a i n s t th e m . 1 3 W h a t s l ip s w e r e t h o se no w l y i n g i n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
t h e v a s e ? P e r h ap s t h e t h r e e i n s c r i b e d o ne s . B u t i t t u r n e d o u t
o t h e r w i s e . A l l t h r e e w e r e d r aw n , a n d M a t t h i a s o f K u n w a l d ,
T h o m a s o f P r e lo u i c , a n d E l i a s o f C h r e no u i c , a r e k n o w n t o
h i s t o r y a s t h e f ir s t t h r e e m i n i s t e r s o f t h e B r e t h r e n ’ s C h u r c h .
And
then
G r e go r y
the
P a t r i ar c h
stepped
forward,
and
a n n o u n c e d w i t h t r e m b l i n g v o i ce t h a t t h e se t h r e e m e n w e r e
the very three that he had seen in his trance in the torture c h a m b e r a t Pr ag u e . N o t a m a n i n t h e r o o m w a s s u r p r i se d ;
n o t a m a n do u b t e d t h a t h e r e ag a i n t h e i r p r a ye r s h a d be e n
p l a i n l y a n s w e r e d . T o g e t he r t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e S y n o d a r o se
and saluted the chosen three. Together, next day, they sang
in a hymn written for the occasion: –
We needed faithful men, and He Granted us such. Most
e a r ne s t l y ,
We
Pray,
Lord,
let
Thy
gifts
descend,
That
b l e s s i n g m a y T h y w o r k a t t e n d .1 4
But the battle was not won even yet. If these three
g o o d me n , n o w c h o s e n b y C h r i st , w e r e to b e ac k n o w l e d g e d
a s p r i e s t s i n B o he m i a , t h e y m u s t b e o r d a i n e d i n t h e o r t h o do x
w a y b y a B i s h o p o f p u r e de s c e n t f r o m t he A p o s t le s . F o r t h i s
p u r p o s e t h e y a pp l i e d t o S t e p h e n, a B i s h o p o f t h e W a l de n s e s.
H e w a s j u s t t h e m a n t h e y n e e de d . H e w a s a ma n o f n o b l e
character. He was a man whose word could be trusted. He
h a d o f t e n g i v e n t h e m i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e Wa l d e n s i a n l i n e
o f B i s ho p s . H e h a d t o l d t h e m ho w t h a t l i n e r a n b a c k t o t he
days
of
the
early
Church.
He
had
told
t he m
how
the
W a l d e n s i a n B i s ho p s h a d k e p t t h e a n c i e n t f a i t h u n s u l l i e d , a n d
had never
b r o ke n t h e
law
of Christ by uniting with the
wicked State. To that line of Bishops he himself belonged.
H e h a d n o c o nn e c t i o n w i t h t h e C h u r c h o f R o m e , a n d n o
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e S t a t e . W ha t p u r e r o r d e r s , t h o u g h t t h e
Brethren, could they desire? They believed his statements;
they
trusted
his
honour;
th e y
admired
his
personal
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
c h a r a c t e r ; a n d n o w t h e y se n t o l d M i c h a e l B r ad a c i u s t o s e e
h i m i n S o u t h M o r a v i a a n d t o l ay t h e i r c a se b e fo r e h i m . T he
o l d B i s h o p s h e d t e a r s o f j o y . “ He l a i d h i s h a n d o n m y h e a d ,”
says Michael, “and consecrated me a Bishop.” Forthwith the
n e w B i s ho p r e t u r n e d t o L h o t a , o r d a i n e d t h e c h o s e n t h r e e as
P r i e s t s , a n d c o n s e c r a te d M a t t h i a s o f K u n w a l d a B i s h o p . A n d
thus
arose
maintained
t ho s e
in
the
Episcopal
Church
of
Orders
the
which
Brethren
have
down
been
to
the
p r e se n t d a y .
T h e g o a l w a s r e a c h e d ; t h e C hu r c h w a s fo u n d e d ; t h e
w o r k o f G r e g o r y w a s d o ne . F o r t w e n t y y e ar s he h a d t a u g h t
h i s B r e t h r e n t o s t u d y t h e m i nd o f C h r i s t i n th e S c r i p t u r e s
a n d t o se e k t h e g u i d a n c e o f G o d i n u n i t e d p r a ye r , a n d n o w
h e s a w t h e m j o in e d a s o n e to f ac e t h e r i s i n g s t o r m .
“ H e n c e fo r t h , ” he w r o t e g l a d l y t o K i n g G e o r g e P o di e b r a d ,
“ w e h a ve d o n e w i t h t h e C h u r c h o f R o me . ” A s h e s a w t he
e v e n i n g o f l i f e d r a w n e ar , h e ur g e d h i s B r e t h r e n m o r e a n d
m o r e t o h o l d f as t t h e t e a c h i n g o f P e t e r o f C he l c i c , a n d t o
r e g u l a t e t he i r da i l y c o n d u c t b y t h e l a w o f C h r i s t ; a n d b y t h at
l a w o f C h r i s t he p r o b a b l y me a n t t h e “ S i x C o m ma n d m e n t s ” o f
t h e S e r m o n o n t h e M o u n t . 1 5 He t o o k t h e se C o m m a n d m e n t s
l i t e r a l l y , a n d e nf o r ce d t h e m w i t h a r o d o f i r o n . N o B r o t he r
c o u l d b e a j u d g e o r m a g i s t r a te o r c o u n c i l l o r . N o B r o t he r
c o u l d t a k e a n o a t h o r k e e p an i n n , o r t r a de b e y o n d t he
b a r e s t ne e d s o f l i f e . N o n o b l e , un l e s s h e l a i d d o w n h i s r a n k ,
c o u l d b e c o me a B r o t h e r a t a l l. N o pe a s a n t co u l d r e n de r
military service or act as a bailiff on a farm. No Brother
c o u l d e v e r d i v o r c e h i s w i f e o r t ak e a n a c t i o n a t l a w . A s l o n g
a s G r e g o r y r e ma i n e d i n t h e i r m i d s t , t h e B r e t h r e n he l d t r ue
to him as their leader. He had not, says Gindely, a single
t r a c e o f pe r so na l a m b i t i o n i n h i s n a t u r e ; a n d , t h o u g h h e
might have become a Bishop, he remained a layman to the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
e n d . F u l l o f y e ar s h e d i e d , a n d h i s b o n e s r e p o s e i n a c l e f t
where tufts of forget-me-not grow, at Brandeis-on-the-Adler,
h a r d b y t h e M o r a v i a n f r o n t i e r {S e p t . 1 3 t h , 1 4 7 3 . } .
Chapter 6
“ L u k e O f Pr a g u e A n d T h e H i g h C h u r c h R e a c t i o n, 1 4 7 3 1530.”
O f t h e B r e t h r e n w h o se t t l e d i n t h e v a l l e y o f K u n w a l d
t h e g r e a t e r n u m b e r w e r e co u n t r y p e a s a n t s a n d t r a d e s m e n o f
humble
rank.
But
already
t he
noble
and
mighty
were
p r e s s i n g i n . A s t h e e ye s o f G r e g o r y c lo s e d i n d e a t h , a ne w
p a r t y w a s r i s i n g t o p o w e r . A l r e ad y t h e B r e t h r e n w e r e s t r o n g
in
numbers,
fetters
that
and
already
Gregor y
had
they
were
p l a ce d
lo n g i n g
upon
their
to
snap
feet.
t he
From
N e u s t a d t i n t h e N o r t h t o S k u t c h i n t h e S o u th , a n d f r o m
C h l u m e c i n t h e W e s t t o K u n w a ld i n t h e E a s t , th e y n o w l a y
thickly
sprinkled;
and
in
all
the
principal
towns
of
that
d i s t r i c t , a n a r e a o f n i n e h u n d r e d s q u a r e m i l e s, t h e y w e r e
winning rich and influential members. In came the University
d o n s ; i n c a m e th e a l d e r me n a n d k n i g h t s . I n c a m e , a b o ve a l l ,
a l a r g e c o l o n y o f W a l d e n se s , w h o h a d i m m i g r at e d f r o m t h e
Margravate
of
Brandenburg
{1480.}.
Some
settled
at
Fulneck, in Moravia, others at Landskron, in Bohemia; and
now,
by
their
own
request,
they
were
a d m it t e d
to
the
B r e t h r e n’ s C h u r c h . 1 6 F o r a w h i l e t h e B r e t h r e n h e l d t o t he
r u l e t h a t i f a n o b l e m a n j o i n e d t h e i r C h u r c h he m u s t f i r s t l a y
d o w n h i s r a n k . B u t n o w t h a t r ul e w a s b e g i n n i n g t o g a l l a n d
c h a f e . T he y w e r e w i n n i n g g o l d e n o p i n i o n s o n e v e r y h a n d ;
they were becoming known as the best men for positions of
t r u s t i n t h e S t a t e ; t h e y w e r e j u st t h e m e n t o m a k e t h e b e s t
m a g i s t r a t e s a n d a l d e r m e n ; a n d t h u s t h e y f e l t f o r c e d b y t h e ir
v e r y v i r t u e s t o r e n o u n ce t h e n a r r o w i d e a s o f P e t e r a n d t o
play their part in national and city life.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At this moment, when new ideas were budding, there
e n t e r e d t h e s e r vi c e o f t h e C h ur ch a y o u n g m a n w h o i s k no w n
a s L u k e o f P r a gu e . H e w a s b o r n a b o u t 1 4 6 0 , w a s a B a c h e l o r
o f P r a g ue U n i v e r s i t y , w a s a w e l l - r e a d t h e o l o gi c a l s c h o l a r ,
a n d f o r f i f t y y e a r s w a s t h e t r us t e d l e a d e r o f t h e B r e t h r e n.
F o r t h w i t h h e r e a d t h e s i g n s o f t h e t i m e s , a n d t o o k t h e t i de
a t t h e f l o o d . I n P r o c o p o f N e uh a u s , a n o t h e r g r a d u a t e , h e
found a warm supporter. The two scholars led the van of the
n e w m o ve m e n t . T h e s t r u g g l e w as f i e r ce . O n t h e o n e s i d e w a s
t h e “ g r e a t p a r ty ” o f c u l t u r e , l e d b y L u k e o f P r a g u e a n d
P r o c o p o f N e u h au s ; o n t h e o t h e r t h e s o - c a l l e d “ l i t t l e p a r t y , ”
the old-fashioned rigid Radicals, led by two farmers, Amos
and Jacob. “Ah, Matthias,” said Gregory the Patriarch, on his
d e a t h - b e d , “ b e w a r e o f t h e e d u ca t e d B r e t hr e n ! ” B u t , d e s p i t e
t h i s w a r n i n g , t h e e d u c a t e d B r e t h r e n w o n t h e da y . F o r o n ce
a n d f o r e v e r t h e B r e t h r e n r e s o l ve d t h a t t h e w r i t i n g s o f P e t e r
a n d G r e go r y s ho u l d n o l o n g e r b e r e g ar d e d a s b i n d i n g . A t a
S y n o d h e l d a t R e i c h e n a u t h e y r e j e c t e d t h e a u t h o r i t y o f P e te r
entirely {1494.}. They agreed that nobles might join the
C h u r c h w i t h o u t la y i n g d o w n t h e ir r a n k ; t h e y a gr e e d t h a t i f a
m a n ’ s b u s i n e s s w e r e h o ne s t h e m i g h t m a k e p r o f i t s t h e r e i n ;
they agreed that Brethren might enter the service of the
State; and they even agreed that oaths might be taken in
cases of special need.17 And then, next year, they made
their position still clearer {1495.} . Instead of taking Peter
a s t h e i r g u i d e , t h e y n o w t o o k t he B i b l e a n d t h e B i b l e a l o n e .
“We content ourselves,” they solemnly declared, at another
S y n o d h e l d a t R e i c h e n a u , “w i t h t h o s e s a c r e d b o o k s w h i c h
h a v e b e e n a c ce p t e d f r o m o f o ld b y a l l C h r i s t i a n s , a n d a r e
f o u n d i n t h e B i b l e ” ; a n d t h u s , fo r t y y e a r s b e fo r e J o h n C a l v i n ,
a n d e i g h t y y e a r s b e f o r e t h e L ut h e r a n s , t h e y de c l a r e d t h a t
the
words
of
Holy
Scripture,
apart
from
an y
disputed
interpretation, should be their only standard of faith and
p r a c t i c e . N o l o ng e r d i d t h e y h o n o u r t h e m e m o r y o f P e t e r ; n o
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
l o n g e r d i d t he y a p p e a l t o h i m i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s ; n o l o n g e r , i n
a word, can we call the Brethren the true followers of Peter
o f C he l c i c . I n s t e a d , h e n c e fo r w ar d , o f r e g a r d i n g P e t e r a s t h e
founder
of
their
Church,
they
began
now
to
regard
t h e m s e l v e s a s th e d i s c i p l e s o f Hu s . I n d a y s g o n e b y t h e y h a d
s p o k e n o f H u s as a “ c a u s e r o f w a r . ” N o w t h e y he l d h i s n a m e
a n d m e m o r y s ac r e d ; a n d f r o m t h i s t i m e o n w a r d t h e r e a l
f o l l o w e r s o f P e te r w e r e , n o t t h e B r e t h r e n , b u t t h e “ l i t t l e
party” led by Amos and Jacob.18
But the scholars led the Brethren further still. If the
r e a de r w i l l k i n d l y r e fe r t o t h e ch a p t e r o n P e t e r , h e w i l l s e e
that that racy pamphleteer had far more to say about good
w o r k s t h a n a b o u t t h e m e r i t s o f s a v i n g f a i t h ; b u t n o w , a f te r
y e a r s o f ke e n d i s c u s s i o n , P r o c o p o f N e u h a u s p u t t o
the
Council of Elders the momentous question: “By what is a
m a n j u s t i f i e d ? ” T h e a n sw e r g i v e n w a s c l e a r : “B y t h e m e r i t s
o f J e s u s C h r i s t . ” T h e g r e a t d o c t r i n e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n b y g r a ce
w a s t a u g h t ; t h e o l d d o c t r i n e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n b y w o r k s w as
m o d i f i e d ; a n d t h u s t h e B r e t hr e n ’ s C h u r c h b e c am e t h e f i r s t
o r g a n i z e d E v a n g e l i c a l C h u r c h i n E u r o p e .1 9
A n d L u k e d e s i g ne d t o m a ke h e r t h e s t r o n ge s t , t o o . H i s
energy never seemed to flag. As he wished to establish th e
ministry
more
firmly,
he
had
the
number
of
Bishops
e n l a r g e d , a n d b e c a m e a B i s h o p h i m s e l f . H e e n l a r g e d t he
g o v e r n i n g C o u n c i l , w i t h h i s f r i e n d P r o co p o f N e u h a u s as
E c c l e s i a s t i c a l J u d g e . H e b e a u t i f i e d t h e C h u r c h Se r v i c e s , a n d
made
the
ritual
more
ornate.
He
i n t r o d uc e d
golden
communion cups and delicately embroidered corporals, and
s o m e o f t h e B r e t h r e n ac t u a l l y t h o u g h t t h a t h e w a s l e a d i n g
them back to Rome. He gave an impulse to Church music,
e n c o u r a ge d r e a di n g b o t h i n P r i e s t s a n d i n p e o p l e , a n d m a d e
a
use
of
the
printing
press
which
in
those
days
was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
a s t o u n d i n g . O f t h e f i v e p r i n t i n g p r e s se s i n a l l B o h e m i a , t h r e e
belonged
to
the
Brethren;
of
sixty
printed
works
that
a p p e a r e d b e t w e e n 1 5 0 0 a n d 1 5 1 0 , no f e w e r t ha n f i f t y w e r e
p u b l i s h e d b y t h e B r e t hr e n ; a nd o f a l l t h e s cr i b e s o f t h e
s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y , L u k e w a s t he m o s t p r o l i f i c . H e w r o t e a
“Catechism
for
Children.”
He
edited
the
first
B r e t hr e n ’ s
hymn book (1501), the first Church hymnal in history. He
published
a
commentary
on
the
Psalms,
another
on
the
G o s pe l o f S t . J o h n , a n d a n o t h e r o n t h e e l e ve n t h c h a p t e r o f 1
C o r i n t h i a n s ; h e d r e w u p “ C o n fe s s i o n s o f F a i t h , ” a n d s e nt
them to the King; and thus, for the first time in the history
of Bohemia, he made the newly invented press a mighty
power in the land.
A n d e v e n w i t h t h i s t h e g o o d B i s h o p w a s no t c o n t e n t
{ 1 4 9 1 . } . I f t h e B r e t hr e n , t h o ug h t h e , w e r e tr u e t o t h e i r
n a m e , t h e y m u s t s u r e l y l o n g f o r f e l l o w s h i p w it h o t h e r s o f
like mind with themselves. For this purpose Luke and his
f r i e n d s s e t o f f t o s e ar c h f o r B r e t h r e n i n o t he r l a n d s . A w a y
w e n t o ne t o f i n d t h e p u r e N e s t o r i a n C h u r c h t h a t w a s s a i d to
e x i s t i n I n d i a , g o t a s f a r a s An t i o c h , J e r u s a l e m a n d E g y p t ,
and, being misled somehow by a Jew, returned home with
t h e w o n d e r f u l n o t i o n t h a t t h e R i v e r N i l e f lo w e d f r o m t h e
G a r de n o f E d e n , b u t w i t h n o mo r e k no w l e d ge o f t h e C h ur c h
i n I n d i a t h a n w h e n h e f ir s t s e t o u t . A n o t h e r e x p l o r e d t he
South of Russia, and the third sought Christians in Turkey.
A n d L u k e h i m se l f h a d l i t t l e mo r e s u c ce s s . He e x p l o r e d a
n u m b e r o f M o n as t e r i e s i n G r e e ce , c a m e o n t o R o m e { 1 4 9 8 . } ,
s a w t h e s tr e e t s o f t h e c i t y l i t t e r e d w i t h c o r p s e s o f m e n
murdered
by
C æ s ar
Borgia,
picked
up
some
useful
i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p r i v a t e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e P o p e , s aw
Savonarola
put
to
death
in
F l o r e n ce ,
fell
in
with
a
few
W a l d e n s e s i n t he S a v o y , a n d t he n , h a v i n g s o u g h t f o r p e a r l s
in vain, returned home in a state of disgust, and convinced
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that, besides the Brethren, there was not to be found a true
C h r i s t i a n C h u r ch o n t h e f a c e o f G o d ’ s f a i r e ar t h . H e e ve n
found fault with the Waldenses.
I t w a s t i m e , i n d e e d , f o r L u k e t o r e t u r n , f o r t r o ub l e w a s
b r e w i n g a t h o me . F o r s o m e y e ar s t h e r e d w e l t i n t h e t o w n o f
J u n g b u n z l a u , t h e h e a d q u a r te r s o f t h e B r e t h r e n’s C h u r c h , a
s m a r t y o u n g m a n , b y n a m e J o h n L e z e k . H e be g a n l i f e a s a
brewer’s
apprentice;
he
then
entered
the
service
of
a
B r o t h e r , a n d l e ar n e d a g o o d d e al o f t h e B r e t h r e n ’ s m a n n e r s
and customs; and now he saw the chance of turning his
k n o w l e d g e t o go o d a c c o u n t . I f o n l y h e t o l d a g o o d t a l e
a g a i n s t t h e B r e th r e n , h e w o u l d b e s u r e t o b e a p o p u l a r h e r o .
F o r t h i s p u r p o se h e v i s i t e d t h e p a r i s h p r i e s t , an d c o n f e s se d
to a number of abominations committed by him while among
t h e w i c k e d B r e th r e n . T he p ar i s h p r i e s t w a s d e l i g h t e d ; t h e
p e n i t e n t w a s t ak e n t o t h e C h u r c h ; a n d t h e r e h e t o l d t he
a s s e m b l e d c r o w d t h e s t o r y o f hi s g u i l t y p a s t . O f a l l t h e b a d
m e n i n t h e co u nt r y , h e s a i d , t h e s e B r e t h r e n w e r e t h e w o r s t .
He had even robbed his own father with their consent and
a p p r o v a l . T h e y b l a s p h e m e d . T h e y t o o k t h e C o mm u n i o n b r e a d
t o t h e i r h o u se s , a n d t h e r e h a ck e d i t i n p i e c e s . T h e y w e r e
thieves, and he himself had committed many a burglary for
t h e m . T h e y m u r d e r e d m e n a n d k i d n a p p e d t h e i r w i v e s . T he y
h a d t r i e d t o b lo w u p R o c k y c an a i n t h e T he i n C h u r c h w i th
g u n p o w d e r . T h e y s w a r me d n a ke d u p p i l l a r s l i k e A d a m a nd
E v e , a n d h a n d e d e a c h o t he r a p p le s . T he y p r e p a r e d p o i s o n o u s
d r i n k s , a n d p u t p o i s o n o u s s m e l l in g p o w d e r s i n th e i r l e t t e r s .
They were skilled in witchcraft, worshipped Beelzebub, and
w e r e w o n t i r r e ve r e n t l y t o s a y t h a t t h e w a y t o He l l w a s p a v e d
with
the
bald
heads
of
p r ie s t s .
As
t his
story
was
bo t h
alarming and lively, the parish priest had it taken down,
s e a l e d a n d s i g n e d b y w i t n e s s e s, c o p i e d o u t , a n d s c a t t e r e d
b r o a d c a s t t h r o ug h t h e l a n d . I n v a i n J o h n L e z e k c o n fe s s e d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
soon
after,
when
brought
by
the
Brethren
before
a
M a g i s t r a t e , t h a t h i s w h o l e s t o r y w a s a v i l e i nv e n t i o n . I f a
man
tells
a
f al s e h o o d
and
then
denies
it,
he
does
not
t h e r e b y p r e ve n t t h e f a l s e h o o d f r o m s p r e a d i n g .
For now a more powerful foe than Lezek made himself
f e l t i n t h e l a n d . O f a l l t h e P o p e s t h a t e v e r do nn e d t h e t i a r a ,
A l e x a n d e r V I . i s s a i d t o h a v e p r e s e n t e d t h e mo st s u c c e s s f u l
i m a g e o f t h e de v i l . 2 0 He w a s t h e f a t h e r o f t h e p r i n c e o f
p o i s o n e r s , C ae sa r B o r g i a ; he w a s g r e e d y , i m mo r a l , f o n d o f
ease
and
p l e a su r e ;
he
was
even
said
to
be
a
poisoner
himself. If a well-known man died suddenly in Rome, the
common
people
took
it
fo r
gr a n t e d
that
the
P o pe
h ad
poisoned his supper. For all that he was pious enough in a
w a y o f h i s o w n ; a n d n o w , i n h i s z e a l f o r t h e C at h o l i c c a u s e ,
h e t o o k s t e r n me a s u r e s a g a i n s t t h e C h u r c h o f t h e B r e t h r e n.
H e h a d he a r d s o m e t e r r i b l e t a le s a b o u t t h e m . He h e a r d t h a t
Peter’s pamphlet, “The Antichrist,”21 was read all over the
c o u n t r y . H e h e ar d t h a t t h e n u m b e r o f t h e B r e t h r e n n o w w as
o v e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . He r e so l v e d t o c r u s h t h e m t o p o w d e r { P a p a l
Bull, Feb. 4th, 1500.}. He sent an agent, the Dominican, Dr.
H e n r y I n s t i t o r i s , a s c e n s o r o f t h e p r e ss . A s s o o n a s I n s t i t o r i s
a r r i v e d o n t h e sc e n e , he h e ar d , t o h i s h o r r o r , t h a t m o s t o f
t h e B r e t h r e n co u l d r e a d ; a n d t h e r e u p o n he i n f o r m e d t he
Pope
that
they
had
l e a r ne d
th i s
art
from
th e
devil.
He
r e v i v e d t h e s t o r i e s o f L e z e k , t h e p o p u l a r f e e l i ng w a s f a n n e d
to fury, and wire-pullers worked on the tender heart of the
King.
“Hunt
out
and
destroy
t h e se
shameless
vagabonds,”
w r o te D r . A u g us t i n K ä s e b r o t t o K i n g U l a d i s l a u s , “ t h e y a r e
n o t e ve n g o o d e n o u g h t o b e b u r n t a t t h e s t a k e . T h e y o u g h t
t o h a v e t h e i r bo d i e s t o r n b y w i l d b e a s t s a n d t h e i r b l o o d
l i c k e d u p b y d o g s . ” F o r t h e l a s t f i v e y e ar s t h e r e h a d gr o w n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
i n t h e l a n d a s m a l l s e c t k n o w n a s A m o s i t e s. T h e y w e r e
f o l l o w e r s o f o l d F a r m e r A m o s ; t h e y h a d o n ce b e lo n g e d t o t h e
B r e t h r e n ; t h e y h a d b r o k e n o f f w h e n t h e s c h o la r s h a d w o n
the day, and now they sent word to the King to say that the
Brethren
were
planning
to
defend
their
c a us e
with
the
s w o r d . “ W h a t ! ” s a i d t h e K i n g , “ d o t h e y me a n to p l a y Z i s k a?
W e l l , w e l l ! W e k n o w h o w t o s to p t h a t ! ” T h e y w e r e w o r se
t h a n T u r k s , h e d e c l a r e d ; t h e y be l i e v e d ne i t h e r in G o d n o r i n
t h e C o m m u n i o n; t h e y w e r e a s e t o f l a z y va g a b o n d s . H e
w o u l d s o o n p a y t h e m o u t fo r t he i r de v i l i s h c r a ft , a n d s w e e p
them off the face of the earth. And to this end he summoned
the Diet, and, by the consent of all three Estates, issued the
famous Edict of St. James {July 25th, 1508.}.22 The decree
w a s s w e e p i n g an d t h o r o u g h . T he m e e t i n g s o f th e B r e t h r e n ,
p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e , w e r e f o r b i d de n . T h e b o o k s a n d w r i t i n g s
o f t h e B r e t h r e n m u s t b e b u r n t . A l l i n B o h e m i a w h o r e f u se d t o
j o i n t h e U t r a q ui s t o r R o m a n C a t h o l i c C h u r c h w e r e to b e
e x p e l l e d f r o m t h e c o u n t r y ; a l l n o b l e s h a r b o ur i n g B r e t h r e n
were to be fined, and all their priests and teachers were to
be imprisoned.
The persecution began. In the village of Kuttenburg
lived a brother, by name Andrew Poliwka. As Kuttenburg was
a Romanist village, he
fled for
r e f u ge
to
the
Brethren’s
s e t t l e m e n t a t L e i t o m i s c h l . B u t h i s w i f e b e t r ay e d h i m . H e
r e t u r ne d
to
the
village,
and,
desiring
to
please
her,
he
attended the parish Church.
T h e o c c a s i o n w as a n i n s t a l l a t i o n s e r v i ce . A s t h e s e r m o n
ended and the host was raised, he could hold his tongue no
longer. “Silence, Parson Jacob,” he cried to the priest, “you
h a v e b a b b l e d e no u g h ! M i n e h o ur i s c o me ; I w i l l s p e a k . De a r
f r i e n d s , ” h e co nt i n u e d , t u r n i n g t o t h e p e o p l e , “w h a t a r e yo u
doing? What are you adoring? An idol made of bread! Oh!
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
A d o r e t h e l i v i n g G o d i n h e a ve n ! H e i s b le s s e d f o r e v e r m o r e ! ”
T h e pr i e s t o r de r e d h i m t o ho l d h i s p e a c e . He o n l y s h r i e k e d
t h e l o u d e r . He w a s s e iz e d , h i s h e a d w a s d a s he d a g a i n s t t h e
p i l l a r , a n d h e w a s d r a g g e d b l e e d i n g t o p r i s o n . N e x t d a y he
was tried, and asked to explain why he had interrupted the
service.
“Who
c a u se d
Ab r a m , ”
he
a n sw e r e d ,
“ to
f o r sa k e
his
i d o l a t r y a n d a d o r e t h e l i v i n g G o d? W h o i n d u c e d D a n i e l t o
f l e e f r o m i d o l s ? ” I n v a i n w a s h e s t r e t c h e d u p o n th e r a c k . N o
f u r t h e r a n sw e r w o u l d h e g i v e . H e w a s b ur n t t o d e a t h a t t h e
stake. As the flames began to lick his face, he prayed aloud:
“ J e s u s , T h o u So n o f t h e l i v i n g G o d , h a v e m e r cy u p o n m e ,
miserable sinner.”
At
Strakonic
dwelt
the
B r o t he r
George
W o l in s k y ,
a
d e p e n d e n t o f B a r o n J o h n o f R o s e n b e r g { 1 5 0 9 .} . T h e B a r o n
w a s a m i g h t y m a n . H e w a s G r a n d P r i o r o f th e K n i g h t s o f
Malta; he
w a s a n o r t h o d o x s ub j e c t o f t h e
King, and he
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t o n h i s e s t a t e n o v i l l a i n o u s P i c a r d s 2 3 s h o u ld
l i v e . “ S e e , ” h e s a i d o n e d a y t o G e o r ge , “ I h a v e m a d e y o u a
s e r v a n t i n t h e C h u r c h . Y o u m us t g o t o C h u r c h . Y o u a r e a
P i c a r d , a n d I h a v e r e c e i v e d i n s tr u c t i o n s f r o m P r a g u e t h a t a l l
m e n o n m y e s t a te m u s t b e e i t h e r U t r a q u i s t s o r C a t h o l i c s . ”
T h e B r o t h e r r e fu s e d ; t h e B a r o n i n s i s t e d ; a n d t h e P r i o r
o f S t r a k o n i c w as b r o u g h t t o c o n v e r t t h e h e r e t ic . “ N o o ne , ”
s a i d t h e P r i o r , “ s h o u l d e v e r b e to r t u r e d i n t o f a i t h . T h e r i g h t
method is reasonable instruction, and innocent blood always
c r i e s t o He a v e n , ‘ L o r d , L o r d , w he n w i l t T h o u a v e n g e m e . ’ ”
B u t t h i s c o m m o n s e n s e w a s lo st o n t h e f u r i o u s B a r o n .
A s B r o t h e r G e o r g e r e f u se d t o y i e l d , t h e B a r o n ca s t h i m i n t o
t h e d e e pe s t d u ng e o n o f h i s c a st l e . T h e br e a d a n d m e a t h e
h a d s e c r e t e d i n h i s p o c k e t s w e r e r e mo v e d . T h e d o o r o f t h e
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
d u n g e o n w a s b ar r e d , a n d a l l t h a t w a s l e f t f o r t h e c o m fo r t o f
h i s s o u l w a s a h e a p o f s t r a w w h e r e o n t o d i e an d a c o m b t o
do his hair. For five days he lay in the dark, and then the
B a r o n c a m e t o s e e h i m . T h e pr i s o n e r w a s a l m o s t d e a d . H i s
t e e t h w e r e c l o se d ; h i s m o u t h w a s r i g i d ; t h e l a s t s p a r k o f l i f e
w a s f e e b l y g l i m m e r i n g . T h e B ar o n w a s a g h a s t . T h e m o u t h
was
f o r ce d
o pe n ,
hot
soup
was
poured
in,
the
prisoner
revived, and the Baron burst into tears.
“Ah,”
he
exclaimed,
“I
am
g la d
he
is
living”;
and
a l l o w e d G e o r g e t o r e t u r n to h i s B r e t h r e n .
Amid
scenes
l ik e
this,
Bishop
Luke
was
a
to w e r
of
strength to his Brethren. For six years the manses were
closed,
the
C hu r c h e s
empty,
the
Pastors
homeless,
the
p e o p l e s c a t t e r e d; a n d t h e B i s h o p h u r r i e d f r o m g l e n t o g l e n ,
held services in the woods and gorges, sent letters to the
p a r i s h e s h e co ul d n o t v i s i t , a n d p l e a d e d t h e c a u s e o f h i s
B r e t h r e n i n w o e i n l e t te r a f t e r l e t t e r to t h e K i n g . A s t h e
s t o r m o f p e r se cu t i o n r a g e d , h e f o u n d t i m e t o w r i t e a s t i r r i n g
t r e a t i s e , e n t i t l e d , “ T h e R e ne w a l o f t h e C h u r c h , ” a n d t h u s b y
p e n a n d b y c h e e r y w o r d h e r e v i ve d t h e f l a g g i n g h o p e o f a l l .
F o r a w h i l e t h e B r e t h r e n w e r e r o b b e d o f t h i s m o r se l o f
c o m f o r t . A s t h e B i s h o p w a s h a s te n i n g o n a p a s to r a l v i s i t , h e
w a s c a p t u r e d by P e t e r v o n S u d a , t h e b r i g a n d , “ t h e p r i n ce
a n d m a s t e r o f a ll t h i e v e s , ” w a s lo a d e d w i t h c h a i n s , c a s t i n t o
a d u n g e o n , a n d t h r e a te n e d w i t h t o r t u r e a n d t h e s t a k e . A t
that
moment
destruction
co m p l e t e
and
final
seemed
to
t h r e a t e n t h e B r e t h r e n . N e ve r h ad t h e b i l l o w s r o ll e d s o h i g h ;
n e v e r h a d t h e b r e a ke r s r o a r e d s o l o u d ; a n d b i t t e r l y t h e
hiding Brethren complained that their leaders had steered
t h e m o n t h e r o ck s .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Yet sunshine gleamed amid the gathering clouds. For
some time there had been spreading among the common
p e o p l e a co n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e B r e t h r e n w e r e u n d e r t h e s p e c i a l
p r o t e c t i o n o f G o d , a n d t h a t a n y m a n w h o t r i e d to h a r m t h e m
would come to a tragic end. It was just while the Brethren
w e r e s u n k i n de s p a i r t h a t s e ve r a l o f t h e i r e ne mi e s s u d d e n l y
died, and people said that God Himself had struck a blow for
the
persecuted
“Pitmen.”
The
great
Dr.
Augustin,
their
f i e r c e s t f o e , f e l l d e a d f r o m h i s c h a i r a t d i n n e r . B ar o n C o l d i t z ,
t h e C h a n c e l l o r , f e l l i l l o f a c a r bu n c l e i n h i s f o o t , a n d d i e d .
Baron Henry von Neuhaus, who had boasted to the King how
many Brethren he had starved to death, went driving in his
s l e i g h , w a s u p se t , a n d w a s s ke w e r e d o n h i s o w n h u n t i n g
k n i f e . B a r o n P u ta v o n S w i h o w w a s f o u n d d e a d i n h i s c e l l a r .
Bishop
John
caught
on
miserably
exclaimed:
of
a
G r o s sw a r de i n
fell
from
sharp
nail,
had
his
p e r i sh e d .
And
the
people,
“Let
him
that
is
his
bowels
tired
of
carriage,
torn
s t r u ck
life
out,
with
persecute
w as
and
awe,
t he
B r e t h r e n , fo r he i s s u r e n o t t o l iv e a n o t h e r y e ar .”
T h u s t h e B r e t hr e n p o s s e s se d t h e i r s o u l s i n p a t i e n c e t i l l
t h e p e r se c u t i o n e n d e d . T he K i n g o f B o h e m i a , U la d i s l a u s I I . ,
d i e d { M a r c h 1 3 th , 1 5 1 6 . } . H i s su c c e s s o r w a s o nl y a b o y . T he
Utraquists and Catholics began to quarrel with each other.
T h e r o b b e r , v o n S u d a , s e t L u k e a t l i b e r t y . T h e g r e a t B i s ho p
b e c a m e c h ie f E ld e r o f t h e C h u r c h . T h e w h o l e l a n d w a s s o o n
i n a s t a t e o f d i s o r d e r . T h e b ar o n s a n d k n i g h t s w e r e f i g h t i n g
e a c h o t h e r , a n d , i n t h e g e ne r a l s t r e s s a n d s t o r m , t h e q u i e t
B r e t h r e n w e r e a lm o s t f o r g o t te n an d a l l o w e d t o l i v e i n p e a c e .
A n d j u s t a t t h i s j u n c t u r e c a me n e w s fr o m a fa r t h a t
s e e me d
to
the
Brethren
like
glad
tidings
from
H e a ve n
{ 1 5 1 7 . } . N o l o ng e r w e r e t h e B r e t h r e n t o b e a l o n e , n o l o n ge r
to
be
a
so l i t a r y
voice
crying
in
the
wilderness.
As
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren
r e t u r ne d
from
the
woods
and
mountains,
and
w o r s h i p p e d o n ce a g a i n b y t h e l i g h t o f d a y , t h e y h e a r d , w i t h
a m a z e me n t a n d j o y , h o w M a r t i n L u t h e r , o n H a l l o w s E v e , h a d
p i n n e d h i s f a m o u s n i n e t y - f i v e T h e s e s t o t he C hu r c h d o o r a t
W i t t e n b e r g . T h e e x c i t e m e n t i n B o he m i a w a s i n t e n s e . F o r a
while it seemed as though Martin Luther would wield as
g r e a t a n i n f l u e n c e t h e r e a s e ve r h e h a d i n G e r m a n y . F o r a
w h i l e t h e U t r a qu i s t p r i e s t s t h e m s e l v e s , l i k e R o c k y c a n a o f
yore, thundered in a hundred pulpits against the Church of
R o me ; a n d L u t h e r , t a k i n g t h e k e e n e s t i n t e r e s t i n t h e g r o w i n g
m o v e m e n t , w r o te a l e t t e r t o t he B o he m i a n D i e t , a n d u r g e d
t h e e c c le s i a s t i c a l l e a d e r s i n P r ag u e t o br e a k t he l a s t fe t t e r s
t h a t b o u n d t h e m t o R o me .
For a while his agent, Gallus Cahera, a butcher ’s son,
who had studied at Wittenberg, was actually pastor of the
Thein
Church
{ 1 5 2 3 -9 . } ,
referred
in
his
sermons
to
the
“ c e l e br a t e d Dr . M a r t i n L u t h e r , ” a n d o p e n l y u r ge d t h e p e o p l e
to pray for that “great man of God.” For a while even a
p r e a c he r o f t h e B r e t h r e n , n a m e d M a r t i n , w a s a l l o w e d t o
s t a n d w h e r e H us h a d s t o o d , an d p r e a c h i n t h e B e t h l e h e m
C h u r c h . F o r a w h i l e , i n a w o r d , i t s e e m e d t o t h e B r e t hr e n
that
the
Reformation
now
spreading
in
Germany
would
c o n q u e r B o h e m ia a t a r u s h . T he g r e a t L u t h e r w a s l o ve d b y
m a n y c l a s s e s . H e w a s l o v e d by t h e U t r a q u i s t s b e c a u s e he
h a d b u r n e d t h e P o p e ’ s B u l l . He w a s l o v e d b y t h e y o u n g
b e c a u s e h e f a v o u r e d l e a r n i n g . H e w a s l o v e d b y t h e B r e t hr e n
because
{1522.}.
he
As
u ph e l d
soon
the
as
Bible
Luther
as
the
had
l eft
standard
the
of
Wartburg,
faith
the
B r e t h r e n bo l d l y h e l d o u t t o h i m t h e r i g h t h a n d o f f e l l o w s h i p ;
s e n t t w o G e r m an B r e t h r e n , J o hn H o r n a n d M i c h a e l W e i s s , t o
s e e h i m ; p r e se n t e d h i m w i t h a c o p y o f t h e i r C o n f e s s i o n a n d
Catechism;
points
of
b e ga n
d o c t r in e
a
friendly
and
c o r r e s p o n de n c e
discipline,
and
thus
on
various
opened
t h e ir
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
h e a r t s t o h e a r w i t h r e s p e c t w ha t t h e g r e a t R e fo r m e r h a d t o
say.
A m i d t h e s e b r i g h t p r o s p e c t s L uk e o f P r a g ue b r e a t h e d
h i s l a s t { D e c . 1 1 t h , 1 5 2 8 . } . A s G r e go r y t h e Pa t r i a r c h h a d
gone to his rest when a ne w party was rising among the
B r e t h r e n , s o L uk e o f P r a g ue c r o s s e d t h e co l d r i v e r o f de a t h
when new ideas from Germany were stirring the hearts of his
f r i e n d s . H e w a s n e v e r q u i t e e as y i n h i s m i n d a b o u t M a r t i n
L u t h e r . He s t i l l b e l i e v e d i n t h e S e v e n S a cr a m e n t s . H e s t i l l
b e l i e v e d i n t h e B r e t h r e n’ s s y s t e m o f s t e r n m o r a l d i s c i p l i n e .
He still believed, for practical reasons, in the celibacy of the
c l e r g y . “ T h i s e a t i n g , ” h e w r o te , “ t h i s d r i n k i n g , t h i s s e l f indulgence, this marrying, this living to the world –what a
p o o r pr e p ar a t i o n i t i s f o r m e n w h o a r e l e a v i n g B a b y l o n . I f a
m a n d o e s t h i s h e i s y o k i n g h i m s e l f w i t h s t r a n g e r s . M a r r i a ge
never made anyone holy yet. It is a hindrance to the higher
l i f e , a n d c a u s e s e n d l e s s t r o u b le . ” A b o v e a l l , h e o b j e c t e d t o
Luther’s way of teaching the great doctrine of justification
by faith.
“ N e ve r , n e ve r , ” h e s a i d , i n a l e t t e r t o L u t h e r , “ ca n y o u
ascribe a man’s salvation to faith alone. The Scriptures are
against you. You think that in this you are doing a good
w o r k , b u t y o u ar e r e a l l y f i g h t i n g a g a i n s t C h r i s t H i m s e l f a n d
clinging
to
an
error.”
He
regarded
Luther’s
teaching
as
e x t r e me a n d o n e - s i d e d . H e w a s s h o c k e d b y w h at h e h e ar d o f
t h e j o v i a l l i f e l e d b y L u t h e r ’ s s t u d e n t s a t W i t t e n b e r g , a nd
c o u l d n e v e r u nd e r s t a n d h o w a r o l l i c k i n g y o u t h c o u l d b e a
p r e p a r a t i o n fo r a h o l y m i n i s t r y . A s G r e g o r y t h e P a t r i a r c h h a d
w a r n e d M a t t h i a s a g a i n s t “ t h e l e a r n e d B r e t h r e n ,” s o L u ke , i n
h i s t u r n , n o w w a r n e d t h e B r e t hr e n a g a i n s t t h e l o o s e l i v e s o f
L u t h e r ’ s m e r r y -h e a r t e d s t u d e n ts ; a n d , i n o r de r t o p r e se r ve
t h e B r e t h r e n ’ s d i s c i p l i n e , h e n o w i s s u e d a c o m p r e h e n s i ve
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
treatise,
divided
into
two
parts –the
f ir s t
entitled
“ I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r P r i e s t s , ” a n d t h e s e c o n d “ I n s tr u c t i o n s a n d
Admonitions for all occupations, all ages in life, all ranks
a n d a l l s o r t s o f c h a r a c te r s . ” A s h e l a y o n h i s d e a t h - b e d a t
Jungbunzlau,
his
heart
was
stirred
by
mingled
feelings.
There was land in sight–ah, yes!–but what grew upon the
e n c h a n t i n g i s l a n d ? H e w o u l d r a th e r s e e h i s C h u r c h a l o n e a n d
p u r e t h a n s w e p t a w a y i n t h e Pr o t e s t a n t c u r r e n t. H a p p y w a s
he in the day of his death. So far he had steered the Church
safely. He must now resign his post to another pilot who
knew well the coming waters.
Chapter 7
“The Brethren At Home.”
A s w e h a ve n o w a r r i v e d a t t h a t b e n d i n t h e l a n e , w h e n
t h e B r e t h r e n , n o l o n g e r m a r c h in g a l o n e , b e c a me a r e g i m e n t
i n t h e c o n q u e r in g P r o t e s t a n t ar m y , i t w i l l b e c o n v e n i e n t t o
halt in our story and look at the Brethren a little more
c l o s e l y – a t t h e i r h o m e s , t h e i r t r a d e s , t h e i r p r in c i p l e s , t h e i r
d o c t r i n e s , t h e i r f o r m s o f se r v i ce , a n d t h e i r l i f e f r o m d a y t o
d a y . A f t e r a l l , w h a t w e r e t h e se B r e t h r e n , a n d h o w d i d t h e y
live?
They
called
t he m s e l v e s
J e d no t a
Bratrska –i.e.,
the
C h u r c h o f t h e B r e t h r e n . A s t h i s w o r d “ Je d n o t a ” m e a n s u n i o n ,
a n d i s u s e d i n t h i s s e n s e i n B o he m i a a t t h e p r e se n t d a y , i t i s
p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e a d e r m a y t h in k t h a t i n s t e a d o f c a l l i n g t h e
Brethren a Church, we ought rather to call them the Union or
Unity
of
the
Brethren.
If
he
does,
however,
he
will
be
m i s t a k e n . W e h a v e n o r i g h t t o c a l l t h e B r e t hr e n a m e r e
B r o t h e r ho o d o r U n i t y . T h e y r e g a r d e d t h e m s e l ve s a s a t r ue
a p o s t o l i c C h u r ch . T h e y be l i e v e d t h a t t h e i r e p is c o p a l o r d e r s
w e r e va l i d . T h e y c a l l e d t h e C hu r c h o f R o m e a J e d n o t a ; 2 4
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
they called the Lutheran Church a Jednota;25 they called
t h e m s e l v e s a J e d n o t a ; a n d , t h e r e fo r e , i f t h e w o r d J e d n o ta
means
Church
when
applied
to
Lutherans
and
R o m an
C a t h o l i c s , i t m u s t a l s o m e a n C h u r c h w he n ap p l i e d t o t h e
B o he m i a n B r e t hr e n . I t i s n o t c o r r e c t t o c a l l t h e m t h e U n i t a s
F r a t r u m . T h e t e r m i s m i s l e a d i n g . I t s u g g e s t s a B r o t he r h o o d
r a t h e r t h a n a n o r g a n i z e d C h ur ch . W e h a ve no r i g h t t o c a l l
them
a
se c t ;
the
term
is
a
n e e d le s s
i n s ul t
to
their
m e m o r y .2 6 A s t h e B r e t h r e n s e t t l e d i n t h e V a l l e y o f K u n w a l d ,
the great object which they set before them was to recall to
vigorous life the true Catholic Chur ch of the Apostles; and as
soon as they were challenged by their enemies to justify
t h e i r e x i s t e n ce , t h e y r e p l i e d i n go o d s e t te r m s .
“Above all things,” declared the Brethren, at a Synod
h e l d i n 1 4 6 4 , “w e ar e o ne i n th i s p u r p o s e . W e h o l d f a s t t h e
f a i t h o f t h e L o r d C h r i s t . W e w i l l a b i d e i n t h e r ig h t e o u s n e ss
a n d l o v e o f G o d. W e w i l l t r u s t i n t h e l i v i n g G o d . W e w i l l d o
g o o d w o r k s . W e w i l l s e r ve e a c h o t h e r i n t h e s pi r i t o f l o ve .
W e w i l l l e a d a v i r t u o u s , h u m b l e , g e n t l e , so b e r , p a t i e n t a n d
pure life; and thereby shall we know that we hold the faith
in truth, and that a home is prepared for us in heaven. We
w i l l s h o w o b e d ie n c e to o ne a no t h e r , a s t he Ho l y S c r i p t u r e s
c o m m a n d . W e w i l l t a k e f r o m e ac h o t h e r i n s t r u ct i o n , r e p r o o f
and
punishment,
established
by
and
God
thus
through
shall
we
t he
Lord
keep
the
C h r i s t . ”2 7
covenant
To
this
purpose the Brethren held firm. In every detail of their
l i v e s – i n b u s i n e ss , i n p l e a s u r e , in c i v i l d u t i e s – t h e y t o o k t h e
Sermon on the Mount as the lamp unto their feet. From the
c h i l d t o t h e o l d m a n , f r o m t h e s e r f t o t h e lo r d , f r o m t he
a c o l u t h t o t h e bi s h o p , t h e s a m e s t r i c t l a w h e l d g o o d . W h at
m a d e t h e B r e t hr e n ’ s C h u r c h s hi n e s o br i g h t l y i n B o he m i a
before Luther’s days was not their doctrine, but their lives;
not their theory, but their practic e; not their opinions, but
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e . W i t h o u t t h a t d i s c i p l i n e t h e y w o ul d h a v e b e e n
a s h e l l w i t h o u t a ke r ne l . I t ca l l e d f o r t h t he a d m i r a t i o n o f
Calvin, and drove Luther to despair. It was, in truth, the
jewel of
the
Church,
her
c h ar m
against
foes
wit hin
and
without; and so great a part did it play in their lives that in
later years they were known to some as “Brethren of the Law
of Christ.”
N o po r t i o n o f t h e C h u r c h w a s m o r e c ar e f u l l y w a t c h e d
than the ministers. As the chief object which the Brethren
s e t b e fo r e
followed,
required
personal
t h e m w a s o be d i e nc e
as
in
the
a
night
minister
c h a r ac t e r .
the
da y ,
was
W he n
to
not
a
t h e L aw o f C hr i s t , i t
that
the
theological
man
c a me
ch i e f
quality
learning,
fo r w ar d
but
as
a
c a n d i d a t e f o r t h e m i n i s t r y h e kn e w t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e t o
stand
a
most
searching
e x a mi n a t i o n .
His
character
and
conduct were thoroughly sifted. He must have a working
k n o w l e d g e o f th e B i b l e , a b l am e l e s s r e co r d , a n d a l i v i n g
faith in God. For
c l a s s i c a l l e ar n i n g t h e
honest
It
c o n t e mp t .
smacked
too
B r e t hr e n h a d a n
much
of
Rome
and
monkery. As long as the candidate was a holy man, and
could teach the people the plain truths of the Christian faith,
they felt that nothing more was required, and did not expect
him to know Greek and Hebrew. In vain Luther, in a friendly
l e t t e r , u r g e d t he m t o c u l t i v a t e m o r e k n o w l e d ge . “ W e h a ve n o
need,”
t he y
replied,
“of
t e a ch e r s
who
u n de r s t a n d
other
t o n g u e s , s u c h as G r e e k a n d H e b r e w . I t i s n o t o u r c u s t o m to
appoint
ministers
who
have
been
t r a i ne d
at
advanced
s c h o o l s i n l a n g u a g e s a n d f i n e ar t s . W e p r e f e r B o h e m i a n s a n d
G e r m a n s w h o h av e c o m e t o a k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t r u t h t h r o u g h
personal
e x p e r ie n c e
and
p r a c ti c a l
service,
an d
who
are
t h e r e fo r e q u a l i f i e d t o i m p a r t to o t h e r s t h e p ie t y t h e y h a ve
first acquired themselves. And here we are true to the law of
G o d a n d t he pr a c t i c e o f t h e e a r l y C h u r c h . ” 2 8 I n s t e a d o f
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
r e g ar d i n g l e a r n i n g a s a n a i d t o f a i t h , t h e y r e g a r d e d i t a s a n
hindrance
and
a
snare.
It
l e d,
they
d e c l ar e d,
to
w o r dy
battles, to quarrels, to splits, to uncertainties, to doubt s, to
corruptions.
As
long,
they
said,
as
the
ministers
of
the
C h u r c h o f C h r i st w e r e s i m p l e a n d u n l e t t e r e d m e n , s o l o n g
w a s t h e C h u r c h a u n i t e d b o d y o f b e l i e ve r s ; b ut a s s o o n a s
t h e p a r s o n s b e ga n t o b e s c h o l a r s , a l l s o r t s o f e v i l s a r o se .
W h a t g o o d , t h e y a r g u e d , h a d le a r n i n g d o n e i n t h e p a s t ? I t
h a d c a u s e d t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f th e B i b l e i n t o L at i n , a n d h a d
thus
hidden
t h e r e fo r e , ”
its
they
truths
from
insisted,
the
“we
common
despise
the
people.
“And
learning
of
tongues.”
For this narrow attitude they had also another reason.
In order to be true to the practice of the early Christian
Church, they laid down the strict rule that all ministers
s h o u l d e a r n t h e i r l i v i n g b y m a n u a l l a b o u r ; a n d t h e r e s u l t w as
t h a t e v e n i f a m i n i s t e r w i s h e d t o s t u d y h e co u l d n o t f i n d
t i m e t o d o s o . F o r h i s w o r k a s a m i n i s t e r h e n e v e r r e c e i ve d a
p e n n y . I f a m an a m o n g t h e B r e t h r e n e n t e r e d t h e m i n i s t r y ,
h e d i d s o f o r t h e p u r e l o v e o f th e w o r k . H e h a d n o c h a n c e o f
b e c o m i n g r i c h . H e w a s n o t a l l o w e d t o e n g a g e in a b u s i n e s s
t h a t b r o u g h t i n l a r g e p r o f i t s . I f h e e ar n e d a n y m o r e i n t h e
s w e a t o f h i s b r o w t h a n h e n e e d e d t o m a k e e nd s m e e t , h e
w a s c o m pe l l e d to h a n d t h e s u r p l u s o v e r t o t h e ge n e r a l f u n d s
of the Church; and if some one kindly left him some money,
t h a t m o n e y w a s t r e a te d i n t h e s a m e w a y . H e w a s t o b e a s
m o d e r a te a s p o ss i b l e i n e a t i n g a n d d r i n k i n g ; h e w a s t o a v o i d
a l l g a u d y s h o w i n d r e s s a n d h o us e ; h e w a s no t t o g o t o f a i r s
a n d b a n q u e t s ; a n d , a b o v e a l l , h e w a s no t t o m a r r y e x c e p t
with the consent and approval of the Elders. Of marriage the
B r e t h r e n h a d r at h e r a p o o r o p in i o n . T h e y c l u n g s t i l l t o t h e
o l d C a t h o l i c v i e w t h a t i t w a s l e s s h o l y t h a n c e l ib a c y . “ I t i s , ”
they said, “a good thing if two people find that they cannot
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
live continent without it.” If a minister married he was not
r e g ar d e d w i t h f a v o u r ; h e w a s su p p o s e d t o h a v e b e e n g u i l t y
o f a f l e s h l y w e ak n e s s ; a n d i t i s r a t h e r s ar c a s t i ca l l y r e c o r d e d
i n t h e o l d “ B o o k o f t h e D e a d ” th a t i n e v e r y c a se i n w h i c h a
minister failed in his duties, or was convicted of immorality,
the culprit was a married man.
And yet, for all his humble style, the minister was held
in honour. As the solemn time of ordination drew near there
were consultations of ministers with closed doors, and days
set
apart
for
fasting
and
prayer
t h r o u g h o ut
the
whole
C h u r c h . H i s d u t i e s w e r e m a n y an d v a r i o u s . H e w a s c o m m o n l y
s p o k e n o f , n o t a s a p r i e s t , b u t a s t h e “ s e r v a n t ” o f t he
C h u r c h . H e w a s n o t a p r i e s t in t h e R o m i s h se n s e o f t h e
w o r d . He h a d no d i s t i n c t i v e s a c e r d o t a l po w e r s. H e h a d n o
m o r e p o w e r t o c o n se c r a te t h e S a c r a me n t t h a n a n y g o d ly
l a y m a n . O f p r i e s t s a s a s e p ar at e c l a s s t he B r e t h r e n k n e w
n o t h i n g . A l l t r u e b e l i e v e r s i n C h r i s t , s a i d t h e y , w e r e pr i e s t s .
We can see this from one of their regulations. As the times
were
stormy,
and
persecution
might
break
out
at
any
m o m e n t , t h e B r e t h r e n ( a t a S y n o d i n 1 5 0 4 ) l ai d d o w n t h e
r u l e t h a t w h e n th e i r m e e t i n g s a t C h u r c h w e r e fo r b i d d e n t h e y
s h o u l d b e h e l d i n p r i v a t e h o u s e s, a n d t h e n , i f a m i n i s t e r w a s
not available, any godly layman was authorised to conduct
the Holy Communion.29 And thus the min ister was simply a
u s e f u l “ s e r va n t . ” H e g a v e i n s t r u c t i o n i n C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e .
H e h e a r d c o n fe s s i o n s . H e e x p e l l e d s i n n e r s . H e w e l c o me d
penitents.
He
administered
the
Sacraments.
He
trained
t h e o l o g i c a l s t u d e n t s . I f h e h a d t h e n e e d f u l g i f t , h e p r e a c he d ;
i f n o t , h e r e a d pr i n t e d s e r mo n s . H e w a s n o t a r u l e r l o r d i n g i t
over the flock; he was rather a “servant” bound by rigid
rules.
He
sermons;
was
he
not
ha d
allowed
to
to
preach
select
from
his
the
own
topics
Scripture
for
lesson
a p p o i n t e d f o r t he d a y . H e w a s b o u n d t o v i s i t e v e r y me m b e r
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
o f h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n a t l e a s t o n ce a q u a r te r ; h e w a s b o u n d t o
u n d e r t a k e a n y jo u r n e y o r m i s s io n , h o w e ve r d an g e r o u s , a t
the command of the Elders; and he was bound, for a fairly
obvious
reason, to
take
a
companion
with
him
when
he
c a l l e d a t t h e h o u s e s o f t h e s i c k. I f h e w e n t a l o n e h e m i g h t
p r a c t i s e a s a d o c t o r , a n d g i v e d a n g e r o u s m e d i c al a d v i c e ; a n d
that, said the Brethren, was not his proper business. He was
n o t a l l o w e d t o vi s i t s i n g l e w o m e n o r w i d o w s . I f h e d i d , t h e r e
might
be
scandals
about
him,
as
there
were
about
t he
C a t h o l i c p r i e s t s. F o r t h e s p i r i t u a l n e e d s o f a ll u n m a r r i e d
women
t he
Brethren
made
s pe c i a l
provision.
They
were
v i s i t e d b y a s p e c i a l “ C o m m i t t e e o f Wo m e n , ” a n d t h e m i n i s t e r
was not allowed to interfere.
T h e g o o d m a n d i d n o t e v e n p o s se s s a h o m e o f h i s o w n .
I n s t e a d o f l i v i n g i n a p r i v a t e m a n s e h e o c c u pi e d a s e t o f
rooms in a large building known as the Brethren’s House;
and the minister, as the name implies, was not the only
Brother in it. “As Eli had trained Samuel, as El ijah had
trained Elisha, as Christ had trained His disciples, as St.
Paul
trained
Timothy
and
Titus,”
so
a
minister
of
t he
Brethren had young men under his charge. There, under the
m i n i s t e r ’ s e ye , t h e c a n d i d a t e s f o r s e r v i c e i n t h e C h u r c h w e r e
trained. Neither now nor at any period of their history had
t h e B o he m i a n B r e t h r e n a n y t h e o l o g i c a l c o l l e g e s . I f a b o y
desired
to
b e co m e
a
minister
he
entered
the
Brethren’s
House at an early age, and was there taught a useful trade.
Let us look at the inmates of the Hou se.
First in order, next to
the
P r ie s t h i m s e l f , w e r e
t he
D e a c o n s . T he y o c c u p i e d a d o u b le p o s i t i o n . T h e y w e r e i n t he
f i r s t s t a g e o f pr i e s t h o o d , a n d i n t h e l a s t s t a g e o f p r e p ar a t i o n
f o r i t . T he i r d ut i e s w e r e m a n i fo l d . T h e y s u p p l i e d t h e o u t preaching
places.
They
r e pe a t e d
the
pastor’s
sermon
to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
t h o s e w h o h a d n o t b e e n a b l e to a t t e n d t he S un d a y s e r v i ce .
T h e y a s s i s t e d at t h e H o l y C o mm u n i o n i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
t h e b r e a d a n d w i n e . T he y pr e a c h e d n o w a n d t h e n i n t he
village
Church
to
give
their
su p e r i o r
an
o p po r t u n i t y
for
criticism and correction. They managed the domestic affairs
o f t h e h o u se . T h e y a c t e d a s sa c r i s t a n s o r c hu r c h w a r de n s .
T h e y a s s i s te d i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a l m s , a nd t o o k t h e ir
share with the minister in manual labour; and then, in the
i n t e r v a l s b e t w e e n t h e s e t r i f l i n g d u t i e s , t h e y d e v o t e d t h e ir
t i m e t o B i b l e s tu d y a n d p r e p ar at i o n f o r t he m i ni s t r y p r o pe r .
N o w o n de r t h e y n e v e r b e c a m e ve r y s c h o l ar l y p u n d i t s ; a n d n o
w o n d e r t h a t w h e n t h e y w e n t o f f t o p r e a c h t h e i r s e r m o n s h ad
f i r s t t o b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e h e a d o f t h e h o u se f o r a p p r o v a l .
N e x t t o t h e De ac o n s c a m e t h e A c o l u t h s , y o u n g m e n o r
boys
living
in
the
same
building
and
preparing
to
be
D e a c o n s . T he y w e r e t r a i n e d b y t h e m i n i s t e r , v e r y o f t e n f r o m
childhood
upwards.
T he y
rang
the
bell
and
lighted
the
candles in the Church, helped the Deacons in household
a r r a n ge m e n t s , an d t o o k t u r n s in c o n d u c t i n g t h e h o u se h o l d
w o r s h i p . O c c a s io n a l l y t h e y w e r e a l l o w e d t o d e l i v e r a s h o r t
address in the Church, and the congregation “listened with
k i n d l y f o r b e ar a nc e . ” W he n t h e y w e r e ac c e p t e d by t h e S y n o d
as
Acoluths
which
was
they
generally
intended
to
received
e x pr e s s
some
s o me
Biblical
f e a tu r e
name,
in
the
c h a r a c t e r . I t i s t h u s t h a t w e a c c o u n t f o r s u ch n a m e s a s
J a c o b B i l e k a n d A m o s C o me n i u s .
I n s i d e t h i s b u s y i n d u s t r i a l h i v e t h e r u l e s w e r e r ig i d . T h e
w h o l e p l a c e w as l i k e a b o a r d i n g - s c h o o l o r c o l l e g e . A t t h e
s o u n d o f a b e l l a l l r o se , a n d th e n c a m e u n i t e d p r a y e r a n d
S c r i p t u r e r e a d i n g ; a n h o u r l a t e r a s e r v i c e , a n d th e n m o r n i n g
s t u d y . A s t h e a f t e r n o o n w a s n o t c o n s i d e r e d a go o d t i m e f o r
b r a i n w o r k , t h e B r e t h r e n e m p l o ye d i t i n m a n u a l l a b o u r , s u c h
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
as weaving, gardening and tailoring. In the evening there
w a s s a c r e d m u si c a n d s i n g i n g . A t m e a l t i m e s t h e A c o l u t h s
recited passages of Scripture, or read discourses, or took
part in theological discussions.
No
o ne
could
leave
the
ho u s e
without
the
pastor’s
p e r m i s s i o n , a n d t h e p a s t o r h i m s e l f c o u l d n o t l e av e h i s p a r i s h
w i t h o u t t h e B i s ho p ’ s p e r m i s s i o n . I f h e tr a v e l l e d a t a l l h e d i d
so
on
official
business,
and
then
he
lodged
at
other
B r e t h r e n’ s H o u s e s , w h e n t h e A c o l u t h s w a s h e d h i s f e e t a n d
a t t e n d e d t o h i s p e r s o n a l co m f o r t s .
T h e B r e t h r e n ’s r u l e s s t r u c k d e e pe r s t i l l . A s t h e B r e t h r e n
despised University education, it is natural to draw the plain
conclusion that among them the common people were the
m o s t b e n i g h t e d a n d i g n o r a n t i n t h e l a n d . T h e v e r y o p p o s i te
w a s t h e c a se . A m o n g t h e m t h e c o m mo n p e o pl e w e r e t h e
m o s t e n l i g h t e n e d i n t h e c o u n t r y. O f t h e B o he m i a n p e o p l e , i n
t h o s e d a y s , t h e r e w e r e fe w w h o c o u l d r e a d o r w r i t e ; o f t h e
Brethren
there
was
scarcely
one
who
could
not.
If
the
B r e t h r e n t a u g h t t h e p e o p l e n o t h in g e l s e , t h e y a t l e a s t t a u g h t
t h e m t o r e a d th e i r n a t i v e t o n g u e ; a n d t h e i r o b j e c t i n t h i s
w a s t o s p r e a d t h e k n o w le d g e o f th e B i b l e , a n d t h u s m a k e t he
people good Protestants. But in those days a man wh o could
r e a d w as r e g a r de d a s a p r o d i g y o f l e a r n i n g . T he r e s u l t w a s
w i d e s p r e a d a l a r m . A s t h e r e po r t g a i n e d g r o u n d t h a t a m o n g
t h e B r e t h r e n t he h u m b l e s t p e o p l e c o u l d r e a d as w e l l a s t h e
p r i e s t , t h e g o o d f o l k i n B o h e m ia f e l t c o m p e l l e d t o c o n c o c t
some
explanation,
and
the
only
explanation
they
could
i m a g i n e w a s t h at t h e B r e t h r e n ha d t h e s p e c i a l as s i s t a n c e o f
t h e d e v i l . 3 0 I f a m a n , s a i d t he y , j o i n e d t h e r a n k s o f t h e
Brethren,
the
devil
immediately
taught
him
the
art
of
r e a d i n g , a n d i f , o n t h e o t h e r h a nd , h e d e s e r t e d th e B r e t h r e n ,
t h e d e v i l p r o m pt l y r o b b e d h i m o f t h e p o w e r , an d r e d u c e d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
h i m a g a i n t o a w h o l e so m e b e n ig h t e d c o n d i t i o n . “ I s i t r e a l l y
true,”
said
B ar o n
R o s e n be r g
to
his
dependant
G e o r ge
W o l i n s k y , “ t h a t t h e d e v i l t e a c h e s a l l w h o b e c o me P i c a r d s t o
r e a d , a n d t h a t i f a p e a s a n t le a v e s t h e B r e t h r e n h e i s a b l e to
r e a d n o lo n g e r ? ”
In this instance, however, the devil was innocent. The
real culprit was Bishop Luke of Prague. Of all the services
r e n d e r e d b y L uk e t o t he c a u se o f p o p u l a r e d u c a t i o n a n d
moral
and
s p ir i t u a l
instruction,
the
g r e a te s t
was
his
publication of his “Catechism for Children,” commonly known
as
“The
Children’s
Questions.”
It
was
a
masterly
and
c o m p r e he n s i v e tr e a t i s e . I t w a s p u b l i s h e d f i r s t , o f c o u r se , i n
t h e B o h e m i a n l an g u a g e { 1 5 0 2 . } . I t w a s p u b l i s h e d a g a i n i n a
G e r m a n e d i t i o n f o r t h e be n e f i t o f t h e G e r m a n m e m b e r s o f
the
Church
{1522.}.
It
was
published
again,
with
some
a l t e r a t i o n s , b y a L u t h e r a n a t M a g d e b u r g { 1 5 2 4 . } . I t w as
published again, with more alterations, by another Lutheran,
at Wittenberg {1525.}. It was published again, in abridged
form,
at
Z ü r i c h,
and
was
r e co m m e n d e d
as
a
manual
of
instruction for the children at St. Gallen {1527.}. And thus
i t e x e r c i se d a pr o f o u n d i n f l u e n c e o n t h e w h o l e co u r s e o f t he
R e fo r m a t i o n , b o t h i n G e r m a n y a n d i n S w i t z e r la n d . F o r u s ,
h o w e ve r , t h e p o in t o f i n t e r e s t i s i t s i n f l u e n c e i n B o he m i a a n d
Moravia. It was not a book for the priests. It was a book for
the
fathers
of
families.
It
was
a
book
f o un d
in
every
B r o t h e r ’ s h o me . I t w a s t h e c h i l d r e n ’ s “R e a d e r . ” A s t h e b o y s
a n d g i r l s g r e w u p i n t h e B r e t h r e n ’ s C h u r c h , t he y l e a r ne d t o
read, not in national schools, but in their own homes; and
thus the Brethren did for the children what ought to have
b e e n d o n e b y t he S t a t e . A m o n g t h e m t h e d u t i e s o f a f a t h e r
w e r e c l e ar l y d e f i n e d . H e w a s b o t h a s c h o o l m a s t e r a n d a
religious instructor. He was the priest in his own family. He
w a s t o br i n g h i s c h i l d r e n u p i n t h e C hr i s t i a n f a i t h . H e w a s
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
not to allow them to roam at pleasure, or play with the
wicked children of the world. He was to s ee that they were
devout
at
prayers,
respectful
in
speech,
and
noble
and
upright in conduct. He was not to allow brothers and sisters
t o s l e e p i n t h e s a m e r o o m , o r b o y s a n d g i r l s to r o a m t he
daisied fields together. He was not to strike his children with
a stick or with his fists. If he struck them at all, he must do
so with a cane. Above all, he had to teach his children the
C a t e c h i s m . T he y w e r e t a u g h t b y t h e i r p ar e n ts u n t i l t h e y
w e r e t w e l v e y e ar s o l d ; t h e y w e r e t h e n t a ke n i n h a n d b y t h e i r
s p o n s o r s ; a n d th u s t h e y w e r e pr e p ar e d f o r C o n fi r m a t i o n , n o t
as in the Anglican Church, by a clergyman only, but partly
b y t h e i r o w n p a r e n t s a n d f r i e n d s.
T h e B r e t hr e n ’ s r u l e s s t r u c k d e e p e r s t i l l . F o r l a w a n d
o r d e r t h e B r e t h r e n h a d a p a s si o n . E a c h c o n g r e g a t i o n w a s
d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e c l a s s e s : t he B e g i n n e r s , t h o s e w ho w e r e
l e a r n i n g t h e “ Q u e s t i o n s ” a n d t h e f i r s t e l e m e n ts o f r e l i g i o n ;
t h e P r o f i c i e n t s , t h e s t e a d y me m b e r s o f t h e C h u r c h ; a n d t he
P e r fe c t , t h o s e so e s t a b l i s h e d i n f a i t h , h o p e a n d lo v e a s t o b e
able
to
enlighten
Catechism
was
others.
prepared.
For
At
each
the
class
head,
a
too,
separate
of
e a ch
c o n g r e g a t i o n w as a b o d y o f c i v i l E l d e r s . T h e y w e r e e le c t e d
by the
c o n gr e ga t i o n f r o m t he P e r fe c t . T he y a s s i s t e d t h e
p a s t o r i n h i s p a r o c h i a l d u t i e s . T h e y l o o ke d a f t e r h i s s u p p o r t
in case he were in special need. They acted as poor -law
g u a r d i a n s , l a w y e r s , m a g i s t r a te s a n d u m p i r e s , an d t h u s t h e y
t r i e d t o ke e p th e p e o p l e a t p e a c e a n d p r e v e n t t h e m f r o m
going to law. Every three months they visited the houses of
t h e B r e t h r e n , an d i n q u i r e d w h e t h e r b u s i n e s s w e r e h o ne s t l y
c o n d u c t e d , w h e th e r f a m i l y w o r sh i p w e r e h e l d , w h e t h e r t h e
children were properly trained. For example, it was one of
t h e d u t i e s o f a fa t h e r t o t a l k w i t h h i s c h i l d r e n a t t h e S u n d a y
d i n n e r - t a b l e o n w h a t t h e y h a d he a r d a t t h e mo r n i n g s e r v i c e ;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and
when
the
Elder
paid
his
quarterly
visit
he
soon
d i s c o v e r e d , b y e x a m i n i n g t h e c h i l d r e n , h o w f ar th i s d u t y h a d
been fulfilled.
The
Brethren’s
rules
struck
d e e pe r
still.
For
t he
l a b o u r e r i n t h e fi e l d , f o r t h e a r t iz a n i n t h e w o r k sh o p , f o r t h e
tradesman with his wares, for the baron and his tenants, for
t h e m a s t e r a n d h i s s e r v a n t s , t h e r e w e r e l a w s an d c o d e s t o
s u i t e a c h c a s e , a n d m a k e e v e r y t r a d e a n d w a l k i n l i f e s e r ve
in some way to the glory of God. Among the Brethren all
work was sacred. If a man was not able to show that his
t r a d e w a s ac c o r d i n g t o t h e l a w o f C h r i s t a n d o f d i r e c t s e r v i c e
t o H i s h o l y c a u s e , h e w a s n o t al l o w e d t o c a r r y i t o n a t a l l .
H e m u s t e i t h e r ch a n g e h i s c a l l i n g o r l e a ve t h e C h u r c h . I n t h e
B r e t h r e n’ s C h u r c h t h e r e w e r e no d i c e m a k e r s , n o a c t o r s , n o
p a i n t e r s , n o p r o f e s s i o n a l m u s i c i a n s , n o w i z a r d s o r s e e r s , no
a l c h e m i s t s , n o a s t r o l o g e r s , n o co u r t e z a n s o r p a n d e r e r s . T h e
w h o l e t o ne w a s s t e r n a n d p ur i t a n i c . F o r a r t , fo r m u s i c , f o r
l e t t e r s a n d f o r p l e a s u r e t he B r e th r e n h a d o n l y c o n t e m p t , a n d
t h e f a t h e r s w e r e w ar n e d a g a i n s t s t a y i n g o u t a t n i g h t a n d
frequenting the card-room and the liquor -saloon. And yet,
w i t h a l , t h e s e s t e r n B r e t h r e n w e r e k i n d a n d t e nd e r - h e ar t e d .
I f t h e a c c o u n t s h a n d e d d o w n a r e t o b e b e l i e ve d, t h e v i l l a g e s
w h e r e t h e B r e t hr e n se t t l e d w e r e t h e h o m e s o f ha p p i n e s s a n d
p e a c e . A s t h e B r e t h r e n h a d n o de f i n i t e s o c i a l p o l i c y , t h e y d i d
not,
of
c o u r se ,
distinctions
of
make
rank;
any
and
attempt
yet,
in
to
b r e ak
their
own
down
way,
the
they
e n d e a v o ur e d t o t e a c h a l l c l a s s e s t o r e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r . T he y
e n j o i n e d t h e b ar o n s to a l l o w t he i r se r v a n t s t o w o r s h i p w i t h
them round the family altar. They urged the rich to spend
their money on the poor instead of on dainties and fine
c l o t h e s . T he y f o r b a d e t h e p o o r t o w e ar s i l k , u r g e d t h e m to
be patient, cheerful and industrious, and reminded them that
in
the
better
la n d
their
t r o u bl e s
would
v a n is h
like
dew
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
before the rising sun. For the poorest of all, those in actual
need, they had special collections several times a year. The
f u n d w a s c a l l e d t h e K o r bo n a , a n d w a s m a n a ge d b y t h r e e
officials. The first kept the box, the second the key, the
t h i r d t h e a c c o u nt s . A n d t h e r i c h a n d p o o r h a d al l t o b o w to
the same system of discipline. There were three degrees of
p u n i s h m e n t . F o r t h e f i r s t o f f e nc e t h e s i n n e r w a s p r i v a t e l y
admonished.
Elders,
and
For
the
second
e x cl u d e d
from
he
the
was
Holy
r e b u ke d
before
Communion
until
the
he
r e pe n t e d . F o r t h e t h i r d h e w as d e n o u n c e d i n t h e C h u r c h
b e f o r e t h e w h o le c o n gr e g a t i o n , a n d t h e l o u d “A m e n ” o f t he
assembled
me mb e r s
pr o c l a i m e d
his
banishment
from
t he
B r e t h r e n’ s C h u r ch .
T h e s y s t e m o f g o v e r n m e n t w a s P r e s b y t e r i a n. A t t h e
h e a d o f t h e w h o l e B r e t h r e n ’ s C hu r c h w a s a b o ar d , c a l l e d t h e
“Inner
C o u n c i l ,”
e le c t e d
by
the
Synod.
N e xt
came
t he
B i s h o p s , e le c t e d a l s o b y t h e S y n o d . T h e s u p r e m e a u t h o r i t y
w a s t h i s G e ne r al S y n o d . I t c o n s i s t e d o f a l l t h e m i n i s t e r s . A s
l o n g a s t h e I n n e r C o u n c i l h e l d o f f i c e t h e y w e r e , o f c o u r se ,
empowered
to
e n f o r ce
their
will;
but
the
final
court
of
appeal was the Synod, and by the Synod all questions of
d o c t r i n e a n d p o li c y w e r e s e t t l e d .
The doctrine was simple and broad. As the Brethren
n e v e r h a d a f o r m a l c r e e d , a n d n e v e r u s e d t h e i r “ C o n f e s s io n s
o f F a i t h ” a s t e st s , i t m a y s e e m a r a t he r va i n e n d e a v o u r t o
i n q u i r e t o o c lo se l y i n t o t h e i r t he o l o g i c a l b e l i e fs. A n d y e t , o n
t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e k no w e n o u gh t o e n a b l e t h e h i s t o r i a n t o
paint a life-like picture. For us the important question is,
what did the Brethren teach their children? If we know what
the Brethren taught their children we know what they valued
m o s t ; a n d t h i s w e h a ve se t b e fo r e u s i n t h e C at e c h i s m d r a w n
u p b y L u k e o f Pr a g u e a n d u s e d a s a n a u t h o r i se d m a n u a l o f
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
instruction
in
the
private
homes
of
t he
Brethren.
It
c o n t a i n e d n o f e w e r t h a n se v e n ty - s i x q u e s t i o n s . T h e a n sw e r s
a r e r e m a r k a b l y f u l l , a n d t h e r e fo r e w e m a y s a fe l y c o n c l u de
that, though it was not an exhaustive treatise, it gives us a
w o n d e r f u l l y c l e a r i d e a o f t he do c t r i n e s w h i c h th e B r e t h r e n
p r i z e d m o s t h i g hl y . I t i s r e m a r k ab l e b o t h fo r w h at i t c o n t a i n s
and for what it does not contain. It has no dis tinct and
d e f i n i t e r e fe r e n c e t o S t . P a u l ’ s d o c t r i n e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n b y
f a i t h . I t i s J o h a n n i n e r a t h e r th a n P a u l i n e i n i t s t o n e . It
c o n t a i n s a g r e at d e a l o f t h e te a c h i n g o f C h r i s t a n d a v e r y
l i t t l e o f t h e te ac h i n g o f S t . P a ul . I t h a s m o r e to s a y a b o u t
t h e S e r mo n o n th e M o u n t t h a n ab o u t a n y s y s t e m o f d o g m a t i c
t h e o l o g y . F o r o n e s e n te n c e o u t o f S t . P a u l ’ s Ep i s t l e s i t h a s
ten
out
of
the
Gospel
of
St.
Matthew.
As
we
read
t he
answers in this popular treatise, we are able to see in what
way the Brethren differed from the Lutheran Protestants in
G e r m a n y . T h e y a p p r o a c h e d t he w h o le s u b j e c t o f C h r i s t i a n
life from a different point of view. They were less dogmatic,
l e s s t h e o l o g i c a l , l e s s co n c e r n e d a b o u t a c c u r a t e d e f i n i t i o n ,
and they used their theological terms in a broa der and freer
way. For example, take their definition of faith. We all know
the definition given by Luther. “There are,” said Luther, “two
kinds of believing: first, a believing about God which means
t h a t I b e l i e v e th a t w h a t i s s a i d o f G o d i s t r u e . T h i s f a i t h i s
rather a form of knowledge than a faith. There is, secondly,
a b e l i e v i n g i n G o d w h i c h me a n s t h a t I p u t m y tr u s t i n H i m ,
g i v e m y s e l f u p to t h i n k i n g t h a t I c a n h a v e d e a l i n g s w i t h H i m ,
and believe without any doubt that He will be and do to me
according to the things said of Him. Such faith, which throws
i t s e l f u p o n G o d , w h e t h e r i n l i f e o r i n d e a t h , a lo n e m a ke s a
Christian man.”
But the
Brethren gave
the
word faith a
richer meaning. They made it signify more than trust in God.
T h e y m a de i t i n c l u d e b o t h h o p e a n d l o v e . T h e y m a d e i t
i n c l u d e o b e d i e n ce t o t h e L a w o f C h r i s t .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“What is faith in the Lord God?” was one question in the
Catechism.
“ I t i s t o k n o w G o d , t o k n o w H i s w o r d ; a b o ve a l l , t o l o v e
Him, to do His commandments, and to submit to His will.”
“What is faith in Christ?”
“It is to listen to His word, to know Him, to honour Him,
t o l o v e H i m a n d t o j o i n t h e c o m pa n y o f H i s f o l l o w e r s . ”3 1
A n d t h i s i s t h e t o n e a l l t h r o u g h t h e C a t e c h i s m an d i n a l l
t h e e ar l y w r i t i n g s o f t h e B r e t h r e n . A s a s h i p , sa i d L u k e , i s
n o t m a d e o f o ne p l a n k , s o a C h r i s t i a n c a n n o t l i v e o n o ne
religious
d o c t r in e .
T he
Brethren
had
no
pe t
doctrines
w h a t e v e r . T he y h a d n o n e o f t h e d i s t i n c t i v e m a r k s o f a s e c t.
They
taught
their
children
t he
Apostles’
Creed,
the
Ten
C o m m a n d m e n t s , t h e L o r d’ s P r a ye r , t h e E i g h t B e a t i t u d e s , a n d
t h e “ S i x C o m m an d m e n t s ” o f t h e S e r m o n o n t h e M o u n t . T h e y
t a u g h t t h e o r t h o d o x C a t h o l i c do c t r i n e s o f t he H o l y T r i n i t y
a n d t h e V i r g i n B i r t h . T he y he l d , t h e y s a i d , t h e u n i v e r sa l
C h r i s t i a n f a i t h . T h e y e n jo i n e d t h e c h i l d r e n t o h o n o u r , b u t n o t
worship, the Virgin Mary and the Saints, and they warned
them against the adoration of pictures. If the Brethren had
a n y p e c u l i a r i t y at a l l , i t w a s n o t a n y d i s t i n c t i v e d o c t r i n e , b u t
rather
t he i r
insistence
on
t he
practical
duties
of
t he
believer. With Luther, St. Paul’s theology was foremost; with
t h e B r e t h r e n ( t h o u g h n o t d e n i e d) i t f e l l i n t o t h e b a c k g r o u n d .
W i t h L u t h e r t he f a v o ur i t e c o ur t o f a p p e a l w a s S t . P a u l ’ s
E p i s t l e t o t h e G a l a t i a n s ; w i t h t h e B r e t h r e n i t w as r a t h e r t h e
Sermon on the Mount and the tender Epistles of St. John.
Again
the
Brethren
differed
from
Luther
in
their
d o c t r i n e o f t h e L o r d’ s S u p p e r . A s t h i s s u b j e c t w a s t h e n t h e
fruitful
source
of
much
discussion
and
bloodshed,
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
B r e t h r e n a t f i r s t e n d e a v o ur e d t o a v o i d t h e i s s u e a t s t a k e b y
s i d i n g w i t h n e i t h e r o f t he t w o g r e a t p ar t i e s a nd f a l l i n g b a c k
o n t h e s i m p l e w o r d s o f S c r i p t u r e . “ S o me s a y , ” t h e y s a i d , “ i t
is only a memorial feast, that Christ simply gave the bread
a s a m e m o r i a l . O t h e r s s a y t h a t t h e b r e a d i s r e al l y t h e b o d y
o f C h r i s t , w h o is s e a t e d a t t h e r i g h t h a n d o f G o d . W e r e j e c t
b o t h t h e s e v i e w s ; t h e y w e r e no t t a u g h t b y C h r i s t H i m s e l f .
And if anyone asks us to say in what way Christ is present in
t h e s a c r a me n t , w e r e p l y t h a t w e h a ve n o t h i n g t o s a y o n t h e
subject. We simply believe what He Himself said, and enjoy
what He has given.”32
B u t t h i s a t t i t u d e c o u l d n o t l a s t fo r e v e r . A s t he s t o r m s
of persecution raged against them, the Brethren grew more
a n d m o r e r a d i c al i n t h e i r v i e w s . T h e y d e n i e d t he d o c tr i n e o f
T r a n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n ; t h e y d e n ie d a l s o t h e L u t h e r a n d o c t r i ne
of
Consubstantiation;
they
denied
that
the
words
in
St.
J o h n ’ s G o s p e l ab o u t e a t i n g t h e f l e s h a n d d r i n k i n g t h e b l o o d
o f C hr i s t h a d a ny r e f e r e n ce t o th e L o r d’ s S u p p e r . T he y t o o k
the
whole
p a s sa g e
in
a
p u r e ly
spiritual
sense.
If
t h o se
w o r d s , s a i d B i s ho p L u ke , r e f e r r e d t o t h e S a cr a me n t , t h e n a l l
C a t h o l i c s , e x c e pt t h e p r i e s t s , w o u l d b e l o s t ; f o r C a t h o l i c s
only ate the flesh and did not drink the blood, and could,
t h e r e fo r e , n o t po s s e s s e t e r n a l l i f e . T h e y d e n i e d , i n a w o r d ,
that the Holy Communion had any value apart from the faith
of the believer; they denounced the adoration of the host as
idolatry; and thus they adopted much the same position as
W y c l i f f e i n E n g l a n d n e a r l y t w o h u n d r e d y e a r s b e f o r e . T he
L o r d C h r i s t , t h e y s a i d , h a d t h r e e m o d e s o f e x i s te n c e . H e w a s
p r e se n t b o d i l y a t t h e r i g h t h a n d o f G o d ; He w a s p r e s e n t
s p i r i t u a l l y i n t h e h e a r t o f e v e r y b e l i e v e r ; He w a s p r e se n t
s a c r a m e n t a l l y , b u t n o t p e r s o n al l y , i n t h e b r e a d a n d w i n e ;
a n d , t h e r e fo r e , w h e n t h e be l i e ve r k ne l t i n p r a y e r , h e m u s t
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
kneel, not to the bread and wine, but only to the exalted
L o r d i n He a v e n .
Again,
doctrine
of
the
Brethren
I n fa n t
differed
Baptism.
If
a
from
child,
Luther
said
in
Luther,
their
was
p r a y e d f o r b y t h e C h u r c h , h e w as t h e r e b y c l e a n se d f r o m h i s
u n b e l i e f , d e l i v e r e d f r o m t h e po w e r o f t h e d e v i l , a n d e n d o w e d
with
faith;
and
t h e r e fo r e
the
child
was
baptised
as
a
b e l i e v e r . 3 3 T he B r e t h r e n r e j e c te d t h i s t e a c h i n g . T h e y c a l l e d
it Romish. They held that no child could be a believer until
h e h a d b e e n i ns t r u c t e d i n t h e f a i t h . T h e y h a d n o b e l i e f i n
b a p t i s m a l r e g e ne r a t i o n . W i t h t h e m I n f a n t B a p t i s m h a d q u i t e
a d i f f e r e n t m e an i n g . I t w a s s im p l y t h e o u t w ar d a n d v i s i b l e
s i g n o f a d m i s s i o n t o t h e C h u r ch . A s s o o n a s t h e c h i l d h a d
b e e n b a p t i s e d , h e b e lo n g e d t o t h e c l a s s o f t h e B e g i n n e r s,
a n d t h e n , w h e n h e w a s t w e l v e ye a r s o l d , h e w a s t a k e n b y h i s
g o d f a t h e r t o t he m i n i s t e r , e x a m i n e d i n h i s “ Q u e s t i o n s , ” a n d
a s k e d i f h e w o u l d h o l d t r u e to th e f a i t h h e h a d b e e n t a u g h t .
If he said “Yes!” the minister struck him in the face, to teach
him that he would have to suffer for Christ; and then, after
further
instruction,
he
was
co n f i r m e d
by
the
minister,
admitted to the communion, and entered the ranks of the
Proficient.
Such, then, was the life, and such were the views, of
the Bohemian Brethren. What sort of picture does all this
b r i n g b e f o r e u s? I t i s t h e p i c t u r e o f a bo d y o f e a r n e s t m e n ,
u n i t e d , n o t b y a c o m m o n cr e e d , b u t r a t h e r by a c o m m o n
d e v o t i o n t o C h r i s t , a c o m m o n r e v e r e n ce f o r H o l y S c r i p t u r e ,
a n d a c o m m o n d e s i r e t o r e v iv e t h e c u s t o m s o f t h e e a r l y
Christian
C h u r ch . 3 4
In
so m e
of
t h e ir
views
they
were
n a r r o w , i n o t h e r s r e m ar k a b l y b r o a d . I n s o me p o i n t s t h e y h a d
s t i l l m u c h t o l e a r n ; i n o t h e r s th e y w e r e f ar i n a d v a n c e o f
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
their times, and anticipated the charitable teaching of the
p r e se n t d a y .
Chapter 8
“ J o h n A u g u s t a A n d H i s P o l i c y , 1 5 3 1 -1 5 4 8 . ”
As the great Bishop Luke lay dying at Jungbunzlau,
there
was
r i s i ng
to
f a me
a mo n g
the
Brethren
the
most
b r i l l i a n t a n d p o w e r f u l l e a d e r t h e y h a d e ve r k no w n . A g a i n w e
turn
to
the
old
Thein
C h u r ch ;
again
t he
p r e a c he r
is
d e n o u n c i n g t h e p r i e s t s ; a n d ag a i n i n t h e p e w i s a n e a g e r
listener
with
so u l
aflame
w i th
zeal.
His
n am e
was
John
Augusta. He was born, in 1500, at Prague. His father was a
h a t t e r , a n d i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y h e l e a r n e d t he t r a d e h i m s e l f .
He
was
b r o u g ht
up
in
the
Utraquist
Faith;
he
took
the
sacrament every Sunday in the famous old Thein Church;
a n d t h e r e he h e a r d t h e p r e a c h e r d e c l a r e t h a t t h e p r i e s t s in
P r a g u e c a r e d f o r n o t h i n g b u t c o m f o r t , a n d t h a t t h e a v e r a ge
Christians
heathen
of
th e
s p r i n k le d
day
with
were
no
holy
better
water.
than crack-brained
The
yo un g
man
was
s t a g g e r e d ; he co n s u l t e d o t h e r p r i e s t s , a n d t h e o t h e r s t o l d
him the same dismal tale. One lent him a pamphlet, entitled
“The Antichrist”; another lent him a treatise by Hus; and a
third said solemnly: “My son, I see that God has more in
store for you than I can understand.” But the strangest
e v e n t o f a l l w a s s t i l l t o c o m e . A s h e r o d e o ne d a y i n a
covered
w a g go n
with
two
priests
of
high
rank,
it
so
happened that one of them turned to Augu sta and urged him
t o l e a v e t h e Ut r a q u i s t C h u r c h a n d j o i n t h e r a n k s o f t h e
Brethren at Jungbunzlau. Augusta was horrified.
Again
he
consulted
the
learned
priest;
again
he
r e ce i v e d t h e s am e s t r a n g e co u n s e l ; a n d o n e d a y t h e p r i e st
ran
after
him,
called
him
ba ck,
and
said:
“Listen,
d e ar
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
brother! I beseech you, leave us. You will
get no
good
a m o n g u s . G o to t h e B r e t h r e n a t B u n z l a u , a n d t h e r e y o ur
s o u l w i l l f i n d r e s t . ” A u g u s t a w a s s h o c k e d b e yo n d m e a s u r e .
H e h a t e d t h e B r e t h r e n , r e g a r de d t h e m a s b e as t s , a n d h a d
o f t e n w ar n e d o th e r s a g a i n s t t h e m . B u t n o w h e w e n t t o s e e
t h e m h i m s e l f , a n d f o u n d t o h i s j o y t h a t t h e y f o l l o w e d t he
Scriptures,
without
obeyed
respect
quandary.
His
of
the
G o s pe l
persons.
conscience
and
For
drew
enforced
a
while
him
to
their
he
the
rules
was
in
Brethren,
a
his
h o n o u r he l d h i m t o t h e U t r a q u i s ts , a n d f i n a l l y h i s o w n f a t h e r
c o n f e s so r se t t l e d t h e q u e s t i o n f o r h i m .
“ D e ar f r ie n d , ” sa i d t h e h o l y m an , “ e n t r u s t yo u r s o u l to
t h e B r e t hr e n . N e v e r m i n d i f s o m e o f t h e m a r e h y p o c r i t e s ,
w h o d o n o t o b e y t h e i r o w n r u l e s. I t i s y o u r b u s i n e s s t o o b e y
t h e r u l e s y o u r se l f . W h a t m o r e d o y o u w a n t ? I f y o u r e t u r n t o
us
in
Prague,
you
will
meet
with
none
but
sinners
and
sodomites.”
A n d s o , b y t h e a d v i c e o f U t r a qu i s t p r i e s t s , t h i s a r d e n t
young man joined the ranks of the Br ethren, was probably
t r a i n e d i n t h e B r e t h r e n’ s H o u se a t J u n g b u n z l a u , a n d w a s
s o o n o r d a i n e d as a m i n i s t e r . F o r t h w i t h h e r o se t o f a m e a n d
p o w e r i n t h e p u lp i t . H i s m a n n e r w a s d i g n i f i e d a n d n o b l e . H i s
brow was lofty, his eye flashing, his bearing the bearing o f a
commanding
king.
He
was
a
splendid
speaker,
a
ready
debater, a ruler of men, an inspirer of action; he was known
e r e l o n g a s t h e B o he m i a n L u t h e r ; a n d h e s p r e ad t h e f a m e o f
t h e B r e t h r e n ’ s C h u r c h t h r o u g h o u t t h e P r o t e s t a nt w o r l d . F u l l
soon, in truth, he began his great campaign. As he entered
o n h i s w o r k a s a p r e a c h e r o f t h e G o s pe l , h e f o u n d t h a t
among the younger Brethren there were quite a number who
did not feel at all disposed to be bound by the warning
words
of
Luke
of
Prague.
T he y
had
been
to
the
gre at
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Wittenberg
University;
they
had
mingled
with
Luther’s
s t u d e n t s ; t h e y h a d l i s t e n e d t o t h e t a l k o f M i c h a e l W e i s s , w ho
h a d b e e n a m o n k a t B r e s l a u , a n d h a d b r o ug h t L u t h e r a n
opinions
with
him;
they
admired
both
Luther
and
M e l a n c t h o n ; a n d t h e y n o w r e so l ve d , w i t h o ne co ns e n t , t h a t i f
the
candlestick
moved
from
of
o ut
the
its
Brethren’s
place,
they
C h ur c h
must
w as
step
not
to
be
shoulder
to
s h o u l d e r w i t h L u t h e r , b e co m e a r e g i m e n t i n t he c o n q u e r i n g
P r o t e s t a n t a r m y, a n d m a r c h w i t h h i m t o t h e g o o d l y l a n d
w h e r e t h e f l o w e r o f t h e g l a d f r e e G o s pe l b l o o m e d i n p u r i t y
a n d s w e e t p e r f um e . A t t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y A u g u s t a , t h e i r
l e a d e r , br o u g h t f o r w a r d t h e i r v i e w s . A t a S y n o d h e l d a t
B r a n de i s - o n - t h e - A d l e r , s u m m o n e d b y A u g u s t a ’ s f r i e n d , J o h n
H o r n , t h e s e n i o r B i s h o p o f t h e C h u r c h , f o r t h e p u r p o se o f
e l e c t i n g s o m e n e w B i s h o p s , Au g u s t a r o s e t o a d d r e s s t he
a s s e m b l y . H e s po k e i n t h e n a me o f t h e yo u n g e r c l e r g y , a n d
immediately commenced an attack upon the old Executive
Council. He accused them of listlessness and sloth; he said
t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e s p i r i t o f t h e a g e , a n d he
e n d e d h i s s pe e ch b y p r o p o s i n g h i m s e l f a n d f o u r o t h e r b r o a d m i n d e d m e n a s m e m b e r s o f t h e C o u n c i l . T h e o ld m e n w e r e
shocked;
the
young
were
e nt r a n c e d ;
and
Augusta
was
e l e c t e d a n d c o ns e c r a te d a B i s ho p , a n d t h u s , a t t h e a g e o f
thirty-two, became the leader of the Brethren’s Church. He
had three great schemes in view; first, friendly relations
w i t h P r o t e s t a n t s i n o t h e r c o u n t r ie s ; s e co n d , l e g a l r e c o g n i t i o n
o f t h e B r e t h r e n i n B o he m i a ; t h i r d , t h e u n i o n o f a l l B o he m i a n
Protestants.
F i r s t , t h e n , w i t h A u g u s t a t o l e a d t h e m o n , t he B r e t h r e n
e n l i s t e d i n t h e P r o t e s t a n t a r m y , a n d h e l d t h e b a n n e r o f t h e ir
f a i t h a l o f t t h a t al l t h e w o r l d m i g h t s e e . A s t h e Pr o t e s t a n t s i n
G e r m a n y h a d i s s u e d t h e C o n fe ss i o n o f A u g s b u r g , a n d h a d i t
r e a d i n so l e m n st y l e b e f o r e t he fa c e o f t h e E m p e r o r , C h a r le s
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
V., so now the Brethren issued a new and full “Confession of
F a i t h , ” t o b e se n t f i r s t t o G e o r ge , M a r gr a v e o f B r a n de n b u r g ,
a n d t h e n l a i d i n d u e t i m e b e f o r e F e r d i n a n d , K i n g o f B o he m i a .
It
was
a
c h ar a c t e r i s t i c
B r e th r e n ’ s
p r o d u c t io n . 3 5
It
is
p e r fe c t l y c l e a r fr o m t h i s C o n f e ss i o n t h a t t h e B r e t h r e n h a d
s e p a r a te d
from
R o me
fo r
p r ac t i c a l
rather
t ha n
dogmatic
r e a so n s . I t i s t r u e t h e B r e t h r e n r e a l i s e d t he v a l ue o f f a i t h ; i t
i s t r u e t h e C o nf e s s i o n co n t a i n e d t h e s e n te n c e , “ H e i s t h e
L a m b t h a t t a k e t h a w a y t h e s i n s o f t h e w o r l d ; a n d w h o s o e ve r
believeth in Him and calleth on His name shall be saved”;
but even now the Brethren did not, like Luther, lay stress on
the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And yet Luther
h a d n o f a u l t t o f i n d w i t h t h i s C o n f e s s i o n . I t w a s a d d r e s se d t o
him, was printed at Wittenberg, was issued with his consent
and approval, and was praised by him in a preface. It was
r e a d a n d a p p r o ve d b y J o h n C a l v i n , b y M a r t i n B u c e r , b y P h i l i p
M e l a n c t h o n , b y p i o u s o l d G e o r ge , M a r g r a v e o f B r a n de n b u r g ,
and by John Frederick, Elector of Saxony. Again and again
the
B r e t hr e n
se n t
deputies
to
see
the
great
Protestant
leaders. At Wittenberg, Augusta discussed good morals with
L u t h e r a n d M e la n c t h o n ; a n d a t S t r a s b u r g , C e r w e n k a , t he
B r e t h r e n’ s h i s t o r i a n , h e l d f r i e n dl y c o u n s e l w i t h M a r t i n B u c e r
a n d C a l v i n . N e v e r h a d t h e B r e t h r e n b e e n s o w id e l y k n o w n ,
a n d n e v e r h a d th e y r e ce i v e d so m a n y c o m p l i m e n t s . F o r m e r l y
Luther,
who
l i ke d
plain
s p e e ch ,
had
called
the
Br ethren
“ s o u r - l o o k i n g h y p o c r i t e s a n d s e lf - g r o w n s a i n t s , w h o b e l i e ve
i n n o t h i n g b u t w h a t t h e y t h e m s e l v e s t e a c h . ” B u t n o w h e w as
a l l g o o d h u m o u r . “ T h e r e ne v e r ha v e b e e n a n y C hr i s t i a n s , ” h e
s a i d , i n a l e c t ur e to h i s s t u d e n t s , “ s o l i k e t h e a p o s t le s i n
d o c t r i n e a n d c o ns t i t u t i o n a s t h e s e B o h e m i a n B r e th r e n . ”
“ T e l l yo u r B r e t hr e n , ” he s a i d t o t h e i r de p u t i e s , “ t o h o l d
fast what God has given them, and never give up their
constitution
and
discipline.
Let
them
take
no
heed
of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
r e v i l e me n t s .
T he
world
will
behave
foolishly .
If
you
in
B o he m i a w e r e to l i v e a s w e d o , w h a t i s s a i d o f u s w o u l d b e
said of you, and if we were to live as you do, what is said of
you would be said of us.” “We have never,” he added, in a
letter to the Brethren, “attained to such a discipline and holy
life as is found among you, but in the future we shall make
it our aim to attain it.”
The other great Reformers were just as enthusiastic.
“How shall I,” said Bucer, “instruct those whom God Himself
has
instructed!
You
a l o ne ,
in
all
the
world,
combine
a
w h o l e so m e d i s c ip l i n e w i t h a p u r e f a i t h . ” “ We , ” s a i d C a l v i n ,
“ h a v e l o n g s i n c e r e c o g n i se d t h e v a l u e o f s u c h a s y s t e m , b u t
cannot,
in
any
Melancthon,
way,
“with
attain
the
to
strict
it.”
“I
discipline
am
pleased,”
e n f o r ce d
in
said
your
c o n g r e g a t i o n s . I w i s h w e co u l d h a v e a s t r i c t e r d i s c i p l i n e i n
ours.” It is clear what all this means. It means that the
Brethren,
in
their
humble
w ay ,
had
taught
the
f a mo u s
P r o t e s t a n t l e a de r s t h e va l u e o f a s y s t e m o f C h u r c h d i s c i p l i n e
a n d t h e n e e d o f g o o d w o r k s a s th e p r o pe r fr u i t o f f a i t h .
Meanwhile Augusta pushed his second plan. The task
b e f o r e h i m w a s g i g a n t i c . A g r e a t e v e n t h a d t ak e n p l a c e i n
B o he m i a . A t t h e b a t t l e o f M o h ac z , i n a w ar w i th t h e T u r ks ,
L o u i s , K i n g o f B o h e m i a , f e l l f r o m h i s h o r s e w he n c r o s s i n g a
s t r e a m , a n d w a s d r o w ne d { 1 5 2 6 . } . T h e o l d l i n e o f B o h e m i a n
K i n g s h a d c o m e t o a n e n d . T he c r o w n f e l l i n t o t h e h a n d s o f
the Hapsburgs; the Hapsburgs were the mightiest supporters
of the Church of Rome; and the King of Bohemia, Ferdinand
I . , w a s l i k e w i se K i n g o f H u n g a r y , A r c h d u k e o f A u s t r i a , K i n g
o f t h e R o m a n s , a n d b r o t h e r o f th e E m p e r o r C h ar l e s V . , t h e
h e a d o f t h e Ho l y R o m a n E m p i r e .
For
the
B r e t hr e n
the
situation
was
mo m e n to u s .
As
Augusta scanned the widening view, he saw that the time
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
w a s c o m i n g f a s t w h e n t h e B r e t hr e n , w h e t h e r t h e y w o u l d o r
n o , w o u l d be ca l l e d t o p l a y t he i r p ar t l i k e me n i n a v a s t
European
conflict.
t h r e a t e ne d
to
Already
crush
the
the
Emperor
Reformation
by
C h ar l e s
force;
V.
h ad
a l r e a dy
( 1 5 3 0 ) t h e P r o t e s t a n t p r i n c e s i n G e r m a n y h a d f o r m e d t he
Smalkald
League;
and
Augusta,
scenting
the
battle
from
afar, resolved to build a fortress for the Brethren. His policy
w a s c l e a r a n d si m p l e . I f t h e K i n g o f B o h e m i a jo i n e d f o r ce s
w i t h t h e E m p e r o r , t h e d a y s o f t h e B r e t h r e n’ s C h u r c h w o u l d
s o o n b e o v e r . H e w o u l d m a k e t h e K i n g o f B o h e m i a t h e ir
f r i e n d , a n d t h u s s a v e t he B r e t h r e n f r o m t h e ho r r o r s o f w ar .
For this purpose Augusta now instructed the powerful Baron,
C o n r a d K r a je k , t h e r i c h e s t m e m be r o f t he B r e t h r e n ’ s C h u r c h,
to
present
the
Brethren’s
Confession
of
Faith
to
King
F e r d i n a n d . T h e B a r o n u n d e r t o o k t h e t a s k . He w a s t h e le a d e r
o f a g r o u p o f B ar o n s w h o h a d r e c e n t l y j o i n e d t h e C h u r c h ; he
had built the great Zbor of the Brethren in Jungbunzlau,
known as “Mount Carmel”; he had been the first to suggest a
C o n f e s s io n o f Fa i t h , a n d n o w , h a v i n g s i g n e d t h e C o n fe s s i o n
himself, he sought out the King at Vienna, and was admitted
t o a p r i v a te i n t e r v i e w { N o v . 1 1 t h , 1 5 3 5 . } . T he s ce n e w as
s t o r m y . “ We w o u l d l i k e t o k n o w , ” s a i d t h e K i n g , “ h o w yo u
B r e t h r e n c a m e to a d o p t t h i s f a i t h . T h e d e v i l h a s p e r s u a d e d
you.”
“ N o t t h e d e v i l , g r a c i o u s l i e g e , ” r e p l i e d t h e B ar o n , “ b u t
C h r i s t t h e L o r d t h r o u g h t h e H o ly S c r i p t u r e s . I f C h r i s t w a s a
Picard, then I am one too.”
The King was beside himself with rage.
“ W h a t b u s i n e s s ,” h e s h o u t e d , “ ha v e y o u t o me dd l e w i t h
s u c h t h i n g s ? Y o u a r e n e i t h e r Po p e , n o r E m p e r o r , n o r K i n g .
B e l i e ve w h a t y o u w i l l ! W e s h a l l n o t p r e v e n t y o u ! I f y o u r e a l l y
want to go to hell, go by all means!”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
T h e B a r o n w a s si l e n t . T h e K i n g p a u s e d .
“ Y e s , y e s , ” h e c o n t i n u e d , “ y o u m a y b e l i e ve w h a t y o u
like and we shall not prevent you; but all the same, I give
you warning that we shall put a stop to your meetings,
w h e r e y o u c ar r y o n y o u r ho c u s - p o c u s . ”
T h e B a r o n w a s al m o s t w e e p i n g .
“ Y o ur M a j e s t y , ” h e p r o t e s te d , “ s h o u l d n o t b e s o h a r d o n
m e a n d m y n o b l e f r i e n d s . We a r e t h e m o s t l o y a l s u b j e c t s i n
your kingdom.”
T h e K i n g s o f t e ne d , s p o k e m o r e g e n t l y , b u t s t i l l h e l d t o
his point.
“ I s w o r e , ” h e s ai d , “ a t m y c o r o n a t i o n t o g i v e j u s t i c e t o
t h e U t r a q u i s t s a n d C a t h o l i c s , a n d I k n o w w ha t t h e s t a t u t e
says.”
As
the
King
spoke
those
o mi n o u s
words,
he
was
r e fe r r i n g , a s t h e B a r o n k n e w f u l l w e l l , t o t h e t e r r i b l e E d i c t o f
S t . J a m e s . T h e i n t e r v i e w e n de d ; t h e B a r o n w i t h d r e w ; t h e
issue still hung doubtful.
A n d y e t t h e B ar o n h a d n o t s p o k e n i n v a i n . F o r t hr e e
days the King was left undis turbed; and then two other
Barons appeared and presented the Confession, signed by
t w e l v e no b l e s an d t h i r t y - t h r e e k n i g h t s , i n d u e f o r m { N o v .
14th}.
“Do you really think,” they humbly said, “that it helps
the unity of the kingdom when priests are allowed to say in
the pulpit that it is less sinful to kill a Picard than it is to kill
a dog.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
T h e K i n g w a s t o u c h e d ; h i s a n g e r w a s g o ne , a n d a w e e k
l a t e r h e p r o m i se d t h e B a r o n s t h a t a s l o n g a s t h e B r e t h r e n
w e r e l o ya l s u b j e c t s h e w o u l d a l l o w t h e m t o w o r s h i p a s t h e y
p l e a s e d . F o r s o m e y e a r s t h e ne w p o l i c y w o r ke d v e r y w e l l ,
and the King kept his promise. The Brethren were extending
o n e v e r y h a n d . T h e y h a d n o w a t l e a s t f o u r h u n d r e d c h u r c he s
and
two
hundred
thousand
members.
They
printed
and
p u b l i s h e d t r a n s l a t i o n s o f L u t h e r ’ s w o r k s . T he y h a d a c h u r c h
i n t h e c i t y o f P r a g u e i t s e l f . T h e y e n j o y e d t h e fa v o u r o f t he
leading
sermon,
Brethren
nobles
in
e x p r e ss e d
and
the
land;
the
Utraquists
hope
and
that
would
be
Augusta,
in
a
famous
before
ve r y
long
the
united
and
form
o ne
N a t i o n a l P r o t e s ta n t C h u r c h . 3 6
At
this
point
a
beautiful
incident
occurred.
As
the
B r e t h r e n w e r e n o w s o f r ie n d l y w i t h L u t h e r , t h e r e w a s a
d a n g e r t h a t t h e y w o u l d a b a n d o n t h e i r d i s c ip l i n e , b e c o me
a s h a m e d o f t h e ir o w n l i t t l e C h ur c h , a n d t r y t o i m i t a t e t h e
t e a c h i n g a n d p r a c t i c e o f t h e i r p o w e r f u l P r o t e st a n t f r i e n d s .
F o r s o m e y e ar s a f t e r L u k e ’ s d e at h t h e y a c t u a l l y g a v e w a y t o
t h i s t e m p t a t i o n , a n d L u k e ’ s l a st t r e a t i s e , “R e gu l a t i o n s f o r
P r i e s t s , ” w as s co r n f u l l y c a s t a si d e . B u t t h e B r e t h r e n s o o n
r e t u r ne d t o t h e i r s e n se s . A s Jo h n A u g u s t a a n d J o h n H o r n
travelled in Germany, they made the strange and startling
d i s c o v e r y t h a t , a f t e r a l l , t h e B r e t h r e n ’s C h u r c h w a s t h e b e s t
C h u r c h t h e y k n e w . F o r a w h i le t h e y w e r e d a z z le d b y t h e
brilliance of the Lutheran preachers; but in the end they
c a m e t o t h e co n c l u s i o n t h a t t h o u g h t h e s e p r e a c h e r s w e r e
clever men they had not so firm a grip on Divine truth as the
B r e t h r e n . A t l a st , i n 1 5 4 6 , t h e B r e t h r e n m e t i n a S y n o d at
J u n g b u n z l a u t o d i s c u s s t h e w h o le s i t u a t i o n . W i t h t e a r s i n h i s
eyes
John
Horn
a d d r e s se d
t he
a s se m b l y .
“I
have
ne v e r
u n d e r s t o o d t i l l n o w , ” h e s a i d , “ w h a t a co s t l y t r e a s u r e o u r
Church is. I have been blinded by the reading of German
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
b o o k s ! I h a v e ne v e r f o u n d a n y t h i n g s o g o o d i n t h o s e b o o ks
as we have in the books of the Brethren. You have no need,
b e l o v e d B r e t h r e n , t o s e e k f o r in s t r u c t i o n f r o m o t h e r s . Y o u
h a v e e no u g h a t h o m e . I e x h o r t y o u t o s t u d y w ha t y o u h a v e
already;
you
will
find
there
all
you
need.”
Again
the
discipline was revived in all its vigour; again, by Augusta’s
a d v i c e , t h e C a t e c h i s m o f L u k e w a s p u t i n t o c o m m o n u s e , a nd
the
B r e t hr e n
began
to
open
schools
and
teach
their
principles to others.
B u t n o w t h e i r fo n d e s t h o p e s w e r e d o o me d t o b e b l a s t e d .
For the last time Augusta went to Wittenberg to discuss the
value of discipline with Luther, and as his stay drew to a
close
he
w ar ne d
the
great
man
that
if
the
German
t h e o l o g i a n s s p e n t s o m u c h t i m e i n s p i n n i n g d o c t r i n e s a n d so
l i t t l e t i m e i n t e a c h i n g m o r a l s , t h e r e w a s d a ng e r b r e w i n g
a h e a d . T h e w a r ni n g s o o n c a m e t r u e . T h e R e fo r m e r d i e d . T he
g a t h e r i n g c l o u d s i n G e r m a n y bu r s t , a n d t h e S m a l k a l d W a r
b r o k e o u t . T he s t o r m s w e p t o n t o B o h e m i a . A s t h e E m p e r o r
gathered
his
forces
in
G e r m a ny
to
crush
the
Protestant
P r i n c e s t o p o w de r , so Fe r d i n a nd i n B o he m i a su m m o n e d h i s
s u b j e c t s t o r a l l y r o u n d h i s s t a n d a r d a t L e i t m e r i tz a n d d e fe n d
the kingdom and the throne against the Protestant rebels.
F o r t h e f ir s t t i m e i n t h e i r h i st o r y t h e B o h e mi a n B r e t h r e n
were ordered to take sides in a civil war. The situation was
d e l i c a t e . I f t h e y f o u g h t f o r F e r di n a n d t h e y w o u ld b e u n t r ue
t o t h e i r f a i t h ; i f t h e y f o u g h t a g a i n s t h i m t h e y w o u l d be
disloyal to their country. In this dilemma they did the best
they could.
As soon as they could possibly do so, the Elders issued
a f o r m o f p r a y e r t o be u s e d i n a l l t h e i r c h u r c h e s . I t w a s a
p r a y e r f o r t he k i n g d o m a n d t h e t h r o ne . 3 7 B ut m e a n w h i l e
o t h e r s w e r e t a k in g d e f i n i t e s i d e s. A t L e i t m e r i t z th e C a t h o l i c s
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
a n d o l d - f a s h i o n e d U t r a q u i s t s m u s t e r e d t o f i g h t fo r t he K i n g ;
and at Prague the Protestant nobles met to defend the cause
o f r e l i g i o u s l i b e r t y . T h e y me t i n s e c r e t a t a B r o th e r ’ s H o u se ;
t h e y f o r m e d a C o m m i t t e e o f Sa f e t y o f e i g h t , a n d o f t h o s e
e i g h t f o u r w e r e B r e t h r e n ; a n d t h e y p a s s e d a r e s o l u t i o n to
defy
the
King,
and
send
help
to
the
G e r ma n
Protestant
leader, John Frederick, Ele ctor of Saxony.
And then the retribution fell like a bolt from the blue.
T h e g r e a t b a t t l e o f M ü h l b e r g w as f o u g h t { A p r i l 2 4 t h , 1 5 4 7 . } ;
t h e P r o t e s t a n t t r o o p s w e r e r o u te d ; t h e E l e c t o r o f S a x o n y w a s
captured;
the
Emperor
was
master
of
Germany,
and
Ferdinand returned to Prague with vengeance written on his
b r o w . He c a l l e d a c o u n c i l a t P r a g u e C a s t l e , s u m m o n e d t h e
n o b l e s a n d k n i g h t s b e f o r e h i m , o r d e r e d t h e m to d e l i v e r u p
t h e i r t r e a so n a b l e p a p e r s , c a m e d o w n o n m a n y w i t h h e a v y
f i n e s , a n d c o n d e m n e d t h e r i n g l e a d e r s t o de a t h .
A t e i g h t i n t h e m o r n i n g , A u g u s t 2 2 n d , fo u r B a r o n s w e r e
l e d o u t t o e x e c ut i o n i n P r a g u e , a n d t h e s c a f f o l d w a s e r e c te d
i n a p u b l i c p l a c e t h a t a l l t h e p e o p l e m i g h t s e e a n d l e ar n a
l e s s o n . A m o n g th e B ar o n s w a s W e n z e l P e t i p e s ky , a m e m b e r
o f t h e B r e t h r e n ’ s C h u r c h . H e w as t o b e t h e f i r s t t o d i e . A s h e
w a s l e d f r o m h is c e l l b y t h e e xe c u t i o n e r , he c al l e d o u t i n a
l o u d v o i c e , w h i c h c o u l d b e h e a r d f a r a n d w i de : “ M y de ar
Brethren, we go happy in the name of the Lord, for we go in
t h e n a r r o w w a y .” H e w a l k e d t o t h e s c a f f o l d w i t h h i s h a n d s
b o u n d b e f o r e h im , a n d t w o b o ys p l a y e d h i s d e a d m a r c h o n
d r u m s . A s h e r e a c h e d t h e s c a f f o l d t h e d r u m s ce as e d , a n d t he
e x e c u t i o ne r a n no u n c e d t h a t t h e p r i s o n e r w a s d y i n g b e c a u s e
h e h a d t r i e d t o d e t h r o ne K i n g F e r d i n a n d a n d p u t a n o t h e r
King in his place.
“ T h a t , ” s a i d P e t i p e s k y , “ w a s n e ve r t h e c as e . ”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“ N e ve r m i n d , my L o r d , ” r o a r e d t h e e xe c u t i o n e r , “ i t w i l l
not help you now.”
“ M y G o d , ” s a i d P e t i p e s k y , “ I l e av e a l l t o T h e e ; ” a n d h i s
head rolled on the ground.
B u t t h e w o r s t w a s s t i l l t o c o m e . A s F e r d i n a n d ca m e o u t
o f t h e c a s t l e c hu r c h o n S u n d a y m o r n i n g , S e p t e m b e r 1 8 t h , h e
was met by a deputation of Utraquists and Catholics, who
besought him to protect them against the cruelties inflicted
o n t h e m b y t h e P i c a r d s . T h e K i ng s o o n e a s e d t he i r m i n d s . H e
h a d h e a r d a r u mo u r t h a t J o h n A u g u s t a w a s t h e r e a l l e a d e r o f
the
r e vo l t ;
longer
fe l t
he
r e g ar d e d
b o un d
by
the
his
Brethren
promise
to
as
t r a i to r s ;
s p ar e
he
them;
no
and,
t h e r e fo r e , r e v i vi n g t h e E d i c t o f S t . J a m e s , h e i s s u e d an
o r d e r t h a t a l l t h e i r m e e t i n g s s h o u l d b e s u p p r e ss e d , a l l t h e i r
p r o p e r t y b e c o nf i s c a t e d , a l l t h e i r c h u r c h e s b e p u r i f i e d a n d
t r a n s f o r me d i n t o R o m a n i s t C h ap e l s , a n d a l l t h e i r pr i e s t s be
captured and brought to the castle in Prague {Oct. 8th,
1547.}. The Brethren pleaded not guilty.38 T hey had not, as
a body, taken any part in the conspiracy against the King.
Instead of plotting against him, in fact, they had prayed and
f a s t e d i n e ve r y p a r i s h f o r t h e k in g d o m a n d t h e th r o n e . I f t h e
King,
they
protested,
desired
to
punish
the
few
guilty
Brethren, by all means let him do so; but let him not crush
t h e i n n o c e n t m a n y f o r t h e s a ke o f a g u i l t y f e w . “ M y w o r d ,”
replied
the
King,
“is
final.”
The
Brethren
co n t i n u e d
to
protest. And the King retorted by issuing an order that all
B r e t h r e n w ho l i v e d o n R o y a l e st a t e s m u s t e i t h e r a c c e p t t h e
C a t h o l i c F a i t h o r l e a ve t h e co un t r y b e f o r e s i x w e e k s w e r e
over {May, 1548.}.
A n d n e v e r w a s Ki n g m o r e a s t o u nd e d a n d s t a g g e r e d t h a n
Ferdinand at the result of this decree.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 9
“The Brethren In Poland, 1548 -1570.”
It is easy to see what Fer dinand expecte d. He had no desire to
shed more blood; he wishe d to see Bohemia at peace; he knew
that the Brethren, w ith all the ir skill, could never sell out in
six weeks; and therefore he hoped that, like sensible men,
they would a bandon their Satanic follies, conside r the comfort
of their wives and children, and nestle snugly in the bosom of
the C hurch of Rome. But the Br ethren had neve r learned the
art of dancing to Ferdinand’s piping. As the King would no t
extend the time, they t ook him at his word. The rich came to
the help of the poor,39 and before the six weeks had flow n
away a lar ge band of Brethren had bidden a sad farewell to
their o ld familiar haunts and homes, and started on their
journey north across the pine -clad hills. Fro m Leitomischl,
Chlumitz and Solnic, by way of Frankenstein and Breslau, and
from
Turnau
and
Brandeis -on-the-Adler
across
the
Giant
Mountains, they marched in two main bodies fro m Bohemia to
Poland. The time was the leafy month of June, and the fir st
part of the jo urney was pleasant. “We were borne,” says one,
“on eagles’ w ings.” As they tramped along the co untr y roads,
with wagons for the women, old men and children, they made
the air ring with the gladsome music of old Brethren’s hymns
and their mar ch w as more like a triumphal procession than the
flight of persecuted refugees. They were nearly two thousand
in number. T hey had hundreds with them, bo th Catho lic and
Protestant, to protect the m against the mountain br igands.
They had guar ds of infantry and c avalry. T hey were freed from
toll at the turn -pikes. They were supplie d with meat, bread,
milk and eggs by the simple countr y peasants. They were
publicly we lcome d and e ntertained by the Mayor and Council
of Glatz. As the news of the ir approach ran on befo re, the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
good fo lk in the vario us towns and villages would sweep the
streets and clear the road to le t them pass w ith speed and
safety to the ir desired have n far away. For two months they
enjoyed the mselves at Posen, and the Polish no bles welcomed
them as B rothers; but the Bisho p regarded them as wolves in
the
flock, and
had
them
ordered away. Fro m
Posen
they
marched to Polish Prussia, and w ere ordered away again; and
not till the autumn leaves had falle n and the dark long nights
had come did they find a ho m e in the town of Königsberg, in
the Lutheran Duchy of East Prussia.
And even there they were almost worried to death. As they
settled down as peaceful citizens in this Prote stant land of
light and liber ty, the y fo und, to their horror and dismay, that
Lutherans, whe n it suited their purpose , co uld be as bigoted
as Catho lics. They were forced to accept the C onfession of
Augsburg. They were forbidde n to ordain the ir own priests or
practise their own peculiar customs. They were treated, no t as
Protestant brothe rs, but as highly suspicious fore igners; and a
priest of the Brethren was no t allowed to visit a member of his
flock unless he took a Lutheran pastor with him. “If yo u stay
with
us,”
said
Speratus,
the
Superintendent
of
the
East
Prussian Lutheran Church, “ yo u must accommodate yourse lves
to our ways. N obody sent for you; no body asked you to
come.” If the Brethren, in a word, were to stay in East
Prussia, they must cease to be Brethren at all, and allow
themse lves to be absorbed by the conquer ing Lutherans of the
land.
Meanwhile, however, they had a Moses to lead them out o f the
desert. George Israel is a type of the ancient Brethren. He was
the son of a blacksmith, was a close fr iend o f Augusta, had
been with him at Wittenberg, and was now the second great
leader of the B rethren. When Ferdinand issued his decree,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Israel, like many of the Brethren’s Ministers, w as summo ned
to Prague to answer for his faith and conduct on pain of a fine
of one thousand ducats; and when some of his friends advise d
him to diso bey the summons, and e ven offered to pay the
money, he gave one of those sublime answers w hich light up
the
gloom
of
the
time.
“No,”
he
replied,
“I
have
been
purchased once and for all with the blood of C hr ist, and will
not co nsent to be ranso med w ith the gold and silver of my
people. Keep w hat yo u have, for you w ill need it in your flight,
and pray for me that I may be steadfast in suffer ing for
Jesus.”
He
went
to
Prague,
co nfessed
his
faith,
and
w as
thrown into the White Tower. But he was loosely guarde d, and
one day, disguised as a clerk, with a pe n behind his ear , and
paper and ink -ho rn in his hand, he walke d out of the Tower in
broad daylight through the midst of his guards, and joined the
Brethren
in
Prussia.
He
was
just
the
man
to
guide
the
wandering band , and the Council appointed him leader of the
emigrants. He w as energetic and brave. He co uld speak the
Polish to ngue. He had a clear he ad and strong limbs. For him
a cold lo dging in Prussia was not enough. He w ould lead his
Brethren to a better land, and give them nobler w ork to do.
As the Brethren had already been driven from Po land, the task
which Israe l no w undertoo k appeared an act of folly. B ut
George Israel knew better. For a hundred year s the people o f
Poland had sympathised to some extent w ith the reforming
movement in Bo hemia. There Jerome of Prague had taught.
There the teaching of Hus had spread. There the people hate d
the Church of Ro me. There the nobles se nt the ir sons to study
under Luther at Witte nberg. There the works of Luther and
Calvin ha d been printe d and spread in secre t. There, above
all, the Queen herself had been pr ivately taught the Protestant
faith by her own father -confesso r. And there, thought Israe l,
the Brethren in time would find a hearty we lcome. And so,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
while still retaining the oversight of a few parishes in East
Prussia, George Israel, by co mmission of the Council, set out
to
conduct
a
missio n
in
Po land
{1551.}.
Alone
and
on
horseback, by bad roads and sw ollen streams, he went on his
dangerous jo urney; and on the fourth Sund ay in Lent arrive d
at the town of Thorn, and reste d for the day. Here occurred
the
famous
incident
on
the
ice
which
made
his
name
remembered in Thorn for many a year to come. As he was
walking on the frozen river to try whether the ice was strong
enough to bear his horse, the ice bro ke up with a crash.
George Israel w as left on a so litary lump, and was swept
whir ling down the river; and then, as the ice blocks cracke d
and bange d and splintered into thousands of fragments, he
sprang like a deer from block to block, and sang with loud
exulting voice: “Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons
and all deeps; fire and hail, snow and vapour , stormy w ind
fulfilling his word.” There was a great crowd on the bank. The
people watched the thr illing sight with awe, an d when at last
he reached fir m ground they we lcomed him with shouts of joy.
We marvel no t that such a man was like the sword of Gideon
in the conflict. He rode on to Posen, the capital of Great
Poland, began holding secret meetings, and established the
first evangelical church in the country. The Roman Catholic
Bishop heard of his arr ival, and put forty assassins on his
track. But Israel was a man of many wiles as we ll as a man of
God. He assumed disguises, and changed his clo thes so as to
baffle
pursuit,
a ppear ing
now
as
an
o fficer,
now
as
a
coachman, now as a cook. He presented himself at the castle
of the noble family of the O stror ogs, w as w armly welcomed by
the Countess, and held a service in her rooms. The Count was
absent, heard the news, and came in a state of fury. He seized
a whip. “I will drag my w ife out of this co nventicle,” he
exclaimed; and burst into the r oom while the service was
proceeding, his eyes flashing fire and the whip swinging in his
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
hand. The preacher, Cerwenka, calmly we nt o n preach ing.
“Sir ,” said George Israel, pointing to an empty seat “sit down
there.” The Co unt of Ostrorog me ekly o beyed, listened quietly
to the discourse, became a convert that very day, turned o ut
his ow n Lutheran Court Chaplain, installe d George Israel in his
place, and made a present to the Brethren of his great estate
on the outskirts of the tow n.
For the Brethren the gain was e normous. As the news o f the
Count’ s conversion spread, other nobles quickly followed suit.
The town of Ostrorog became the centre of a swiftly growing
movement; the poor Brethren in Prussia retur ned to Poland,
and found chur ches ready for their use; and before seven
years
had
passed
away
the
Brethren
had
fo unde d
forty
congregations in this the ir first land of exile.
They had, however, an o ther gr eat mission to fulfil. As the
Brethren spread from town to town, the y discovered that the
other
Pro testant
bo dies – the
Lutherans,
Zwinglians
and
Calvinists–were almost as fond o f fighting w ith e ach o ther as
of denouncing the Church of Rome; and ther efore the people,
longing for peace, were disguste d more or less with them all.
But the Brethre n stood on a r ather different footing. They
were cousins to the Poles in blood; the y had no fixed and
definite creed; they thought far more of brotherly love tha n of
orthodoxy
in
broached
that
doctrine;
the
and
Chur ch
therefore
of
the
the
idea
Brethre n
was
early
should
be
established as the National Chur ch of Poland. The idea grew .
The Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists and Brethren drew closer
and clo ser toge ther. They exchanged confessio ns, discussed
each other’s do ctrine s, me t in learned consultations, and he ld
united synods again and again. For fifteen years the glorio us
vision o f a unio n of all the Protestants in Poland hung like
glittering fruit just out of re ach. There were many walls in the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
way. Each church wanted to be the leading chur ch in Poland;
each wanted its own confession to be the bo nd of union; each
wanted its own form of service , its own form o f government,
to be acce pted by all. But soon o ne and a ll began to see that
the time had co me for wranglings to cease. T he Jesuits were
gaining ground in Poland. The Protestant Kingdom must no
longer be divide d against itse lf.
At
last
the
persuaded
Brethren,
all
to
the
assemble
re al
in
th e
movers
great
of
the
Unite d
scheme ,
Synod
of
Sendo mir , and all Protestants in Poland fe lt that the fate of
the co untry depe nded on the issue of the mee ting {1570.}. It
was the greatest Synod that had ever been held in Poland. It
was an atte mpt to start a new movement in the hi story o f the
Reformatio n, an atte mpt to fling out the apple of discord and
unite all Protestants in one grand army which should carry the
enemy’s for ts by storm. At first the goal seeme d fur ther off
than ever. As the Calvinists were the strongest body, the y
confidently
de manded
that
their
Confessio n
should
be
accepted, and put forward the telling argument that it w as
already in use in the country. As the L utherans w ere the next
stronge st bo dy, they offered the Augsburg Confession, and
both parties tur ned ro und upon the Brethren, and accused
them of having so many Co nfessions that no one knew which
to take. And then young Tur novius, the representative of the
Brethren, rose to speak. The Brethren, he said, had o nly one
Confession in Poland. They had presented that Confession to
the King; they believed that it w as suited best to the special
needs
of
the
country,
and
yet
the y
would
accept
the
Calvinists’ Co nfe ssion as lo ng as they might keep their own as
well.
There was a deadlock. What was to be done? The Brethr en’s
work seemed about to come to nought. De bates and speeches
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
were in vain. Each par ty remained fir m as a rock. And then, in
wondrous mystic wise , the tone o f the gather ing softened.
“For
God’s
sake,
for
God’s
sake,”
said
the
Palatine
of
Sendo mir in his s peech, “reme mber what depe nds upon the
result of our de liberations, and incline yo ur he arts to that
harmony and love which the Lord has co mmanded us to follow
above all things.”
As the Palatine ended his speech he burst into tears. His
friend, the Palatine of Cracow, sobbed aloud. Forthwith the
angry clouds disparte d and revealed the bow of peace, the
obstacles to union vanishe d, and the members of the Synod
agreed
to
draw
up
a
new
Co nfession,
which
should
give
expressio n to the united faith of all. The Con fession was
prepared {Apr il 14th.}. It is ne edless to trouble about the
doctr inal details. For us the important point to notice is the
spir it of unio n displayed. For the first, but no t for the last,
time
in
the
history
of
Poland
the
Evangelical
Protestants
agreed to sink their differences o n points of dispute, and unite
their forces in common action against alike the po wer of Rome
and the Unitar ian40 sects of the day. T he jo y w as universal.
The scene in the hall at Sendo mir was inspiring. When the
Committee
members
laid
the
Confession
arose
and
sang
outstretched
hands
the
the
before
the
Ambrosian
Luther ans
Synod
Te
advanced
all
Deum.
to
meet
the
With
the
Brethren, and w ith outstretched hands the Brethr en advanced
to meet the Lutherans. The next step was to m ake the unio n
public. For this purpose the Brethren, a few weeks later,
formed a procession o ne Sunday morning and atte nded service
at
the
Lutheran
Church;
and
then,
in
the
afternoon,
the
Lutherans attended service in the Church of the Br ethren {May
28th, 1570.}. It is hard to believe that all this was empty
show. And yet the truth must be confessed that this “Union of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Sendo mir” was by no means the beautiful thing that so me
writers have imagined. It was the result, to a very large
extent, not of any true de sire for unity, but rather of an
atte mpt on the part of the Po lish nobles to undermine the
influe nce and power of the clergy. It led to no permanent
union of the Pro testants in Po land. Its interest is sentimental
rather than historic. For the time –but for a ve ry short time
only– the Brethren had succeede d in teaching others a little
charity of spirit, and had thus sho wn their desire to hasten the
day w hen the C hurches of C hrist, no longer asunder, shall
know “how good and how pleasant it is for Brethren to d we ll
together in unity.”
And all this–this attempt at unity, this second home for the
Brethren, this new Evange lical movement in Po land –was the
strange
result
of
the
edict
issued
by
Ferdinand,
King
of
Bohemia.
Chapter 10
“The Martyr -B ishop, 1548 -1560.”
Meanwhile, John Augusta, the great leader of the Brethren,
was passing thro ugh the furnace of affliction.
Of all the tools e mployed by Ferdinand, the most crafty, active
and
ambitio us
was
a
certain
officer
named
Sebastian
Schö neich, w ho, in the words of the g reat histor ian, Ginde ly,
was
one
of
those
men
fitted
by
nature
for
the
post
of
hangman.
For some months this man had distinguished himself by his
zeal in the cause of the King. He had seized sixteen heads of
families for singing hymns at a baker’s funeral, had thrown
them into the dr ain -vaults of the White Tower at Prague, and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
had left them there to mend their ways in the midst of filth
and horrible stenches. And now he occupied the proud position
of town-captain of Leitomischl. Never yet had he known such a
golde n chance o f covering himse lf with glory. Fo r some time
Augusta, who was now First Senior of the Chur ch, had been
hiding in the
neighbour ing woods, and only two or three
Brethren knew his exact abode. But already persecution had
done her work, and tr eachery no w did hers.
Among the inhabitants of Leito mischl were certain renegade
Brethren, and these now said to the Royal Commissioners: “If
the King could only capture and torture Augusta, he could
unearth the w hole conspiracy.”
“Where is Augusta?” asked the Co mmissioners.
“He is no t at ho me,” replie d the traitors, “but if you w ill ask
his frie nd, Jacob Bilek, he w ill te ll you all yo u want to know.”
The wily Schö neich laid his plot. If only he could capture
Augusta, he would w in the favour of the King and fill his ow n
pockets
streets
with
of
money.
Leito mischl
As
he
he
strolled
met
a
one
certain
day
through
inno cent
the
Brother
Henry, and there and then began his deadly work.
“If yo u know,” he said, “where Augusta is, tell him I desire an
interview w ith hi m. I will meet him w herever he likes. I have
something special to say to him, something goo d, not o nly for
him, but for the whole Brethren’s Church. But breathe not a
word of this to anyone e lse. Not a soul –not e ven yourse lf –
must know about the matter.”
The message to Augusta w as se nt. He replied that he would
grant
the
interview
on
conditio n
guarantee his pe rsonal safe ty.
that
Schö neich
would
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“That,” replie d Schöneich, “is quite impossible . I canno t give
any se curity whatever. The w hole business must be pe rfectly
secret. No t a so ul must be present but Augusta and myself. I
wouldn’t
have
the
King
know
about
this
for
a
thousand
groschen. Tell Augusta no t to be afraid of me. I have no
instructions concerning him. He can co me with an easy mind
to Leito mischl. I f he w ill no t trust me as far as that, let him
name the place himself, and I will go tho ugh it be a dozen
miles away.”
But Augusta still returne d the same answer, and Schöneich
had to strengthen his plea. Again he me t the guileless Brother
Henry, and again he stormed him with his eloquent tongue.
“Have yo u no better answer from Augusta?” he asked.
“No,” replied Brother Henr y.
“My dear, my o nly Henry,” pleaded Schö neich, “I do so lo ng
for a little chat with Augusta. My hear t bleeds w ith sympathy
for you. I am expecting the King’s Commissione rs. They may
be here any moment. It will go hard with you poor folk when
they co me. If only I could have a talk with Augusta, it would
be so much better for you all. B ut do tell him no t to be afraid
of me. I have no instru ctions co ncerning him. I w ill wager my
neck for that,” he said, putting his finger to his throat. “I am
willing to give my life for you poo r Brethren.”
The shot went home. As Augusta lay in his safe retreat he had
written stirring letters to the Brethren u rging the m to be true
to
the ir
colo urs;
and
now ,
he
heard
from
his
friends
in
Leitomischl that Schö neich was an evangelical saint, and that
if he would only confer with the saint he might render his
Brethren
signal
service,
and
deliver
them
from
the ir
distresses. He responded nobly to the appeal. Fo r the sake o f
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the Church he had led so long, he would risk his liberty and
his life . In vain the voice o f pr udence said “Stay!”; the vo ice
of love said “Go!”; and Augusta agreed to meet the Captain in
a wood thre e miles from the town. The Captain chuckled. The
time was fixed, and, the night before, the artful plo tter sent
three of his trusty frie nds to lie in wait. As the morning broke
of
the
fateful
day
{April
2 5th,
1548.},
Augusta,
still
suspecting a trap, sent his secre tary, Jaco b Bilek, in advance
to spy the land; and the three br ave men sprang out upon him
and carried him off to Schöne ich. And then, at the appo inted
hour, came John Augusta himself. He had dressed himself as a
country peasant, carried a hoe in is hand, and strolled in the
woodland
w histling
a
merry
tune.
For
the
moment
the
hirelings were baffle d. The y seiz ed him and le t him go; they
seized him again and let him go again; they seized him, for
the third time , searched him, and found a fine handker chie f in
his boso m.
“Ah,” said one of them, “a country peasant does not use a
handkerchief like this.”
The game was up. Augusta sto od revealed, and Schöneich,
hearing the glor ious news, came prancing up o n his horse.
“My lord,” said Augusta, “is this what you call faith?”
“Did yo u never hear,” said Schöneich, “that pro mises made in
the night are never binding? Did you never hear of a certain
Jew with his red beard and ye llo w bag? Did you never hear of
the mighty power of money? And where have you come from
this
morning?
I
hear
you
have
plenty
possession. Whe re is that money now?”
of
money
in
your
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As they rode next day in a covered waggon on their way to the
city
of
Prague ,
the
Captain
pestered
Augusta
with
many
questions.
“My dear Johannes,” said the jovial wag, “w here have you
been? With who m? Where are your le tters and your clothes?
Whose is this cap? Where did you get it? Who le nt it to you?
What do they call him? Where does he live? Where is yo ur
horse? Where is your mo ney? Where are your companions?”
“Why do yo u ask so many questio ns?” asked Augusta.
“Because,” replied Schöne ich, le tting out the murder, “I want
to be able to give information about yo u. I don’t want to be
called a do nkey or a calf.”
And now began for John Augusta a time of terrible testing . As
the Captain rapped his questions out he was playing his part
in a deadly game that involve d the fate, not only of the
Brethren’s Church, but of all e vangelicals in the land.
For mo nths King Ferdinand had longed to capture Augusta. He
regarded
him
as
t he
author
of
the
Smalkald
League;
he
regarded him as the deadliest foe of the Catholic faith in
Europe; he regarded the peaceful Brethren as rebels of the
vilest kind; and now that he had Augusta in his power he
determined to make him confess the plo t, and then, w ith the
proof
he
desired
in
his
hands,
he
would
stamp
out
the
Brethren’s Church for once and all.
For this purpose Augusta w as now impriso ned in the White
Tower at Prague . He was placed in the wine vaults below the
castle, had heavy fetters on his hands and feet, and sat for
days in a crunched position. The historic co ntest be gan. For
two hours at a stretch the King’s examiners riddled Augusta
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
with questio ns. “Who sent the letter to the King?”41 they
asked. “Where do the Brethren keep their papers a nd mo ney?
To whom did the Brethren turn for help when the King called
on
his
subjects
to
support
him?
Who
went
with
you
to
Wittenber g? For what and for w hom did the Brethren pray.”
“They prayed,” said Augusta, “that God wo uld incline the hear t
of the King to be gracious to us.”
“By what means did the Brethren defend themselves?”
“By patie nce,” replied Augusta.
“To whom did they apply for help?”
Augusta pointe d to heaven.
As
Augusta’s
answers
to
all
these
questions
were
not
considered satisfactory, they next endeavo ured to sharpen his
wits by tor tur ing a German coine r in his presence; and whe n
this mode of per suasion failed, they tortured Augusta himself.
They stripped him naked. They stretche d him face downwar ds
on a ladder. T hey smeared his hips with boilin g pitch. They se t
the splutter ing mess on fire, and drew it off, skin and all, with
a pair of to ngs. They screwed him tightly in the stocks. They
hung him up to the ceiling by a hoo k, with the po int run
through his flesh. They laid him flat upon his back a nd pressed
great stones o n his sto mach. It was all in vain. Again they
urged him to confess the par t that he and the Brethren had
played in the gr eat revolt, and again Augusta bravely replie d
that the Brethren had take n no such par t at all.
At this the Kin g himse lf interve ned. For some months he had
been busy enough at Augsburg, assisting the Emperor in his
work; but now he sent a le tter to Prague , with full instr uctio ns
how to deal w ith Augusta. If gentle measures did not succeed,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
then sterner me asures, sa id he, must be e mplo yed. He had
three new tortur es to suggest. First, he said, le t Augusta be
watched and de prive d of sleep for five or six days. Next, he
must be strappe d to a shutter , with his head hanging over one
end; he must have vinegar rubbed into h is nostrils; he must
have a beetle fastened o n to his stomach; and in this po sitio n,
with his neck aching, his nostr ils smar ting, and the beetle
working its way to his vitals, he must be ke pt for two days
and two nights. And, third, if these measures did n o t act, he
must be fed w ith highly seasone d food and allowe d no thing to
drink.
But
these
messenger
suggestions
hastened
were
with
the
never
carried
King’s
out.
billet -do ux,
As
the
and
the
Brethren on the northern frontier were setting out for Poland,
Augus ta and Bilek were on their way to the famo us old castle
of Pür glitz . For ages that castle, built on a rock, and hidde n
away in dar kling woods, had bee n renowned in Bohemian lore.
There the mother of Charles IV. had heard the nightingales
sing; there the fa ithful, ran the story, had held John Z iska at
bay; there had many a rebe l suffered in the ter rible “torture tower”; and there Augusta and his faithful friend were to lie
for many a lo ng and weary day.
They were taken to Pürglitz in two separate waggo ns. Th ey
travelled
placed
in
by
night
two
and
separate
arrived
cells,
about
and
mid -day;
for
sixte en
they
years
were
the
fortunes of the B rethren centred r ound Pürglitz Castle .
If the B isho p had been the vilest cr iminal, he co uld no t have
been more grossly insul ted. For two years he had to share his
cell w ith a vulgar German coiner ; and the co iner , in facetious
pastime, often smote him on the head.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
His ce ll was almost pitch -dark. The window w as shuttered
within and witho ut, and the merest glimmer from the ce ll ne xt
door struggle d in through a chink four inches br oad. At meals
alone he w as pe rmitted half a candle. For bedding he had a
leather bolster, a coverle t and what Germans call a “be d sack.” For food he was allowed two rations o f meat, two
hunches of bread, a nd two jugs of bar ley -beer a day. His shirt
was washed abo ut o nce a fortnight, his face and hands twice a
week, his head twice a year , and the rest of his body never.
He was not allo wed the use of a knife and fork. He was not
allowe d to speak to the priso n attendants. He had no books,
no papers, no ink, no news of the world witho ut; and there for
three years he sat in the dark, as lone ly as the famous
priso ner of C hillon. Again, by the King’s command, he was
tortured, with a gag in his mouth to stifle his s creams and a
threat
that
if
he
would
not
confess
he
sho uld
have
an
interview with the hangman; and again he refused to deny his
Brethren, and was flung back into his corner .
The
delivering
ange l
came
in
humble
guise.
Amo ng
the
warders who guarded his ce ll was a dar ing youth w ho had
lived at Leitomischl. He had been brought up among the
Brethren. He regarded the Bisho p as a martyr . His w ife lived
in a cottage near the castle; and now, drunken rascal tho ugh
he was, he risked his life for Augusta’s sake, used his cottage
as a secret post office, and handed in to the suffering B isho p
letters, books, ink, paper , pe ns, money and candles.
The Brethren statio ned a priest in Pürglitz village. The great
Bishop was soon as bright and active as ever. By day he
burie d hi s tools in the ground; by night he plugge d every
chink and cr anny, and applie d himse lf to his labours. No t ye t
was his spirit br oken; no t yet w as his mind unhinged. As his
candle burne d in that gloo my dungeon in the silent watches of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the night, so the fire of his genius shone anew in those
darksome days o f tr ial and perse cution; and still he urge d his
afflicted Brethren to be true to the faith of the ir fathers, to
hold fast the Apostles’ Creed, and to look onward to the
brighter day when once again their pa thw ay wo uld shine as
the wings of a dove that are covered with silver and her
feathers with yellow go ld. He co mforted Bilek in his afflictio n;
he publishe d a volume of sermons for the elders to read in
secret; he composed a numbe r of stirring and triumphan t
hymns; and ther e he penne d the noble words still sung in the
Brethren’s Church: –
Praise God for ever. Boundless is his favo ur, To his Church
and chose n flock, Founded o n Chr ist the Rock.
As he lay in his cell he pondered much on the sad fate of his
Brethren. At one time he hear d a rumo ur that the Church w as
almost extinct. Some, he knew, had fled to Po land. Some had
settled in Moravia. So me, robbe d of lands and houses, were
roaming the country as pedlars or earning a scanty living as
farm labourers. And s ome , alas! had lowered the flag and
joined the C hurch of Rome .
And yet Augusta had never abandoned hope. For ten years,
despite a few interruptions, he kept in almost co nstant to uch,
not only with his own Brethren, but also with the Protestant
world
at
lar ge .
He
was
still,
he
thought,
the
loved
and
honoured leader ; he was still the mightiest religious force in
the land; and no w, in his dungeo n, he sketched a plan to heal
his country’s wo es and form the true disciples o f Chr ist into
one grand natio nal Protes tant army against w hich both Po pe
and Emperor would for ever contend in vain.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 11
“The Last Days O f Augusta, 1560 -1572.”
To Augusta the prospect seemed hopeful. Great changes had
taken place in the Protestant world. The L utherans in Germany
had tr iumphe d. The religious peace of Augsburg had been
consummated,
The
German
Protestants
had
now
a
legal
standing. The great Emperor, Charles V., had resigne d his
throne. His successor was his br other Fer dinand, the late King
of Bohemia. T he new King of Bohemi a was Ferdinand’s e ldest
son,
Maximilian
I.
Maximilian
was
well
disposed
towar ds
Protestants, and persecution in B ohemia died away.
And now the Brethren plucked up hear t again. They rebuilt
their
chape l
at
the ir
headquarters,
Jungbunzlau.
They
presented a copy of the ir Hymn -book to the King. They divided
the C hurch into three provinces –B ohemia, Moravia and Po land.
They appo inted George Israel First Senior in Poland, John
Czerny First Senior in Bohemia and Moravia, and Cerwenka
secretary to the whole Church.
But the Brethren had gone fur ther still. As Augusta was the
sole surviving B isho p in the Church, the Brethr en were in a
difficulty. T hey must not be without Bishops. B ut w hat were
they to do? Were they to w ait till Augusta was set at liberty,
or were they to elect new Bishops witho ut his authority? They
chose the latter course, and Augusta was dee ply offende d.
They elected Czerny and Cerwenka to the office of Bishops;
they had them consecrated as Bishops by two Brethren in
priests’ orders; and the y actuall y allowed the tw o new Bishops
to
consecrate
two
further
Bishops,
Blahoslaw , the C hurch Historian.
George
Israel
and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
And even this w as not the worst of the story. As he lay in his
dungeon for ming plans for the Church he loved so well, it
slowly daw ned upon Augusta that his Brethren we re ceasing to
trust him, and that the sun o f his power, w hich had sho ne so
brightly, was no w sloping slowly to its setting. He heard of
one change after another taking place without his consent. He
heard that the Council had con demned his ser mons as too
learned and dr y for the commo n people , and that they had
altered them to suit the ir own opinions. He heard that his
hymns, which he had desired to see in the new Hymn -book,
had been mangled in a similar manner. His Brethren did no t
even tell him what they were doing. The y simply left him o ut
in the cold. What he himself heard he heard by chance, and
that was the “most unkind cut of all.” His authority was go ne;
his po sitio n was lost; his hopes were blasted; and his early
guidance, his entreaties, his ser vices, his sufferings were all,
he thought, forgotten by an ungr ateful C hurch.
As Augusta hear d of all these changes, a glorio us vision rose
before his mind. At first he was offended, quarrelled w ith the
Brethren, and de clared the ne w Bisho ps invalid. But at last his
better feelings gaine d the mastery. He would no t sulk like a
pette d
child;
he
would
render
his
Brethren
the
greatest
service in his power. He would fight his way to liberty; he
would resume his place on the bridge, and be fore long he
would make the Church the natio nal Church o f Bo hemia.
The door was o pened by a duke. The Archduke Ferdinand,
brother
Augusta
of
the
King,
appealed
for
came
to
liberty
reside
to
at
Pürglitz
Ferdinand;
the
{1560.}.
Archduke
referred the matter t o the King; the King referred the matter
to the clergy; and the clergy dr ew up for Augusta’s be nefit a
form of recantation. The issue before him was now perfectly
clear. There was one road to freedom and o ne o nly. He must
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
sign the form of recantatio n in fu ll. The form was drastic. He
must renounce all his previous religio us o pinio ns. He must
acknow ledge the Holy Catholic C hurch and submit to her in all
things. He must eschew the gatherings of Walde nses, Picards
and all other apostates, de nounce their teachi ng as depraved,
and reco gnise the Church of Rome as the one true Church of
Christ.
He
must
labour
for
the
unity
of
the
Church
and
endeavour to br ing his Brethren into the fold. He must never
again
interpre t
understanding,
the
but
Scriptur es
submit
according
rather
to
the
to
his
expositio n
own
and
authority of the Holy Roman Church, which alone was fit to
decide on questions of doctr ine. He must do his duty by the
King, obey him and serve him with zeal as a loyal subject. And
finally he must write out the w h ole recantation with his own
hand, take a public oath to keep it, and have it signed and
sealed by witnesses. Augusta refused po int blank. His hopes of
liberty vanished. His hear t sank in despair. “T hey might as
well,” said B ilek, his fr iend, “have aske d h im to walk o n his
head.”
But here Lord Sternberg, Gover nor of the C astle, suggested
another path. If Augusta, said he, would no t jo in the Chur ch
of Rome, perhaps he would at least join the Utraquists. He had
been a Utraquist in his youth; the Brethren were Utraquists
under another name; and all that Augusta had to do was to
give himse lf his proper name, and his dungeon door would fly
open. Of all the devices to entr ap Augusta, this well -meant
trick was the most enticing. T he argument was a shameless
logical juggle . The Utraquists celebrated the communio n in
both kinds; the Brethren celebr ated the communion in both
kinds;
therefore
the
Brethren
were
Augusta himself appeared to be caught.
Utraquists.42
At
fir st
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“I, John Augusta,” he wrote , “co nfess myse lf a me mber of the
whole Evangelical C hurch, which, wherever it may be, receives
the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Chr ist in both kinds. I
swear
that,
alo ng
with
the
Holy
Catholic
C hurch,
I
will
maintain true submission and obedience to he r chief Head,
Jesus C hrist. I w ill order my life according to God’s holy word
and the truth of his pure Gospel. I will be led by Him, obey
Him alone, and by no other human tho ughts and inventio ns. I
renounce all err oneous and wicked opinions against the ho ly
universal Christia n apostolic faith. I will never take any part in
the meetings of Picards or other heretics.”
If Augusta thought that by language like this he would catch
his examiners napping, he was falling into a very grievous
error. He had chosen his words with care. H e ne ver said what
he meant by the Utraquists. He never said w hether he would
include
the
Brethren
among
the
Utraquists
or
among
the
Picards and heretics. And he had never made any reference to
the Pope.
His examiners were far too clever to be deceive d. Ins tead of
recommending
that
Augusta
be
now
set
at
liberty,
they
contended that his recantation was no recantation at all. He
had show n no inclinatio n, they said, towards either Rome or
Utraquism. His principles were remarkably like those of Mar tin
Luther. He had not acknowledged the supremacy of the Po pe,
and
whe n
he
said
he
would
not
be
led
by
any
human
inve ntions he w as plainly repudiating the Chur ch of Rome .
What is the good, they aske d, of Augusta’s promising to resist
heretics when he does not acknowledg e the Brethren to be
heretics? “It is,” they said, “as clear as day that John Augusta
has no real inte ntion of renouncing his errors.” Let the man
say straight out to which party he belonged.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Again Augusta tried to fence , and again he me t his match.
Instead
of
saying
in
plain
language
to
which
party
he
belonged, he persisted in his fir st asser tion that he belonge d
to the Catho lic Evangelical C hur ch, which was now split into
various sects. But as the old man war med to his work he
threw caution aside.
“I have never,” he said, “had anything to do with Waldenses
or Picards. I belong to the gene ral Evange lical Church, which
enjoys the Communion in bo th kinds. I reno unce entire ly the
Popish sect kno wn as the Holy Roman Church. I deny that the
Pope is the Vicar of Christ. I de ny that the Church of Rome
alone has author ity to interpret the Scr iptures. If the C hurch
of Rome claims such author ity, she must fir st sho w that she is
free from the spirit of the world, and possesses the spirit of
charity, and until that is d o ne I re fuse to bow to her decrees.”
He defended the Church of the Brethren with all his might. It
was,
he
said,
truly
evangelical.
It
was
Catholic.
It
was
aposto lic. It w as recognised and praised by L uther, C alvin,
Melancthon, Bucer, Bullinger and other s aints. As long as the
moral life of the Church o f Rome remaine d at such a low ebb,
so long wo uld there be need for the Brethren’s Church.
“If the Church of Rome will mend her ways, the Brethren,”
said he, “w ill re turn to her fold; but till that ble ssed cha nge
takes place they will remain wher e they are.”
He denied being a traitor. “If any one says that I have been
disloyal to the Emperor, I de nounce that person as a liar. If
his Majesty kne w how loyal I have been, he w ould not keep
me here another hour. I k now why I am suffering. I am
suffer ing, not as an evil -doer, but as a Chr istian.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The first skirmish was over. T he clergy were fir m, and Augusta
sank back exhausted in his cell. But the kindly Governor was
still resolved to smooth the way for his priso ners . “I will not
rest,” he said, “till I see them at liberty.” He suggested that
Augusta should have an interview with the Jesuits!
“What wo uld be the good o f that?” said Augusta. “I should be
like a little dog in the midst of a pack of lio ns. I pray you, le t
these nego tiatio ns cease. I wo uld rather stay w here I am. It is
clear there is no escape for me unless I am false to my honour
and my conscie nce. I will neve r recant nor act against my
conscience . May God help me to keep true till death.”
At last, howeve r , Augusta gave way, attended Mass, w ith
Bilek, in the castle chape l, and co nsente d to an interview with
the Jesuits, on condition that Bilek should go with him, and
that he should also be allowed another interview with the
Utraquists {1561.}. T he day for t he due l arrive d. The cho sen
spot was the new Jesuit Co llege at Prague. As they drove to
the city bo th Augusta and Bilek were allowed to stretch the ir
limbs and e ven get out of sight of their guar ds. At Prague they
were allowed a dip in the Royal Bath. It w as the first bath
they had had for fourteen years, and the people came from far
and near to gaze upo n their scars.
And now , being fresh and clean in body, Augusta, the stubborn
heretical Picard, was to be made clean in soul. As the Jesuits
were determine d to do their wo rk well, they laid down the
strict condition that no one but themselves must be allowed to
speak w ith the priso ners. For the rest the prisoners were
treated kindly. T he bedroom was neat; the food w as good; the
large, bright dining -room had se ven windows. They had wine
to dinner, and w ere waited on by a discreet and silent butler.
Not a word did that solemn functionary utter. If the Brethren
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
made a remark to him, he laid his fingers on his lips like the
witches in Macbe th.
The great de bate bega n. The Jesuit spo kesman w as Dr. He nry
Blisse m. He o pened by making a clean breast of the who le
purpose o f the interview.
“It is well known to you both,” said he, “for w hat purpose you
have been handed over to our care, that we, if possible, may
help you to a right understanding of the Chr istian faith.”
If the Jesuits could have had their way, they wo uld have had
Augusta’s answe rs set down in w riting. But here Augusta stood
firm as a rock. He knew the game the Jesuits were playing.
The interview w as of natio nal importance . If his answers were
considered satisfactory, the Jesuits would have them printe d,
sow them broadcast, and bo ast of his conversio n; and if, on
the other hand, they were unsatisfactory, they would send
them to the Emperor as proo f that August a was a rebel,
demand his instant exe cution, and start ano ther persecution of
the Brethren.
Dr. Henr y, made the first pass.
“The Holy Unive rsal C hurch,” he said, “is the true bride of
Christ and the tr ue mother of all Christians.”
Augusta polite ly agreed.
“On this is que stio n,” he said, “our own party thinks and
belie ves exactly as yo u do .”
“No one,” continued the doctor suave ly, “can be lieve in God
who does not think correctly of the Ho ly C hurch, and regar d
her
as
his
salvation.”
mother;
and
w itho ut
the
C hurch
there
is
no
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Again Augusta politely agreed, and again the le arned Jesuit
beamed w ith pleasure. Now came the tug of war.
“This Holy C hristian C hurch,” said B lissem, “has never erred
and cannot err.”
Augusta met this with a flat denial. If he surrendered here he
surrendered all, and would be untr ue to his Brethren. If he
once agreed that the Church was infallible he was swallowing
the who le Roman pill. In vain the doctor ar gued. Augusta held
his gro und. The Jesuits reporte d him hard in the head, and
had h im sent back to his ce ll.
For two more years he waited in despair , and then he w as
brought
to
the
White
Tower
again,
and
visited
by
two
Utraquist Pr iests, Mystopol and Martin. His last chance, they
told him, had no w arrived. The y had come as messengers fro m
the Archduke Fer dinand and from the Emperor himself.
“I know ,” said o ne of them, “o n what you are relying and how
you co nsole your self, but I war n you it will avail you no thing.”
“You know no se crets,” said Augusta.
“What secrets?” queried Mysto pol.
“Neither divine nor mine . My dear administrators, your visit is
quite a surpr ise! With regard to the recantatio n, however, le t
me say at once, I shall not sign it! I have never been guilty o f
any errors, and have nothing to recant. I made my public
confession of faith before the lo rds and knights of Bohemia
twenty-e ight ye ars ago. It was shown
to
the
Emperor
at
Vienna, and no o ne has ever found anything wrong with it.”
“How is it,” said Mysto pol, “yo u cannot see yo ur error? You
know it says in our confessio n, ‘ I believe in the Holy Catholic
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Church.’ You Brethren have fallen away from that Church. You
are not true me mbers of the body. You are an ulcer. You are a
scab. You have no sacr aments. You have writte n bloodthirsty
pamphlets against us. We have a whole box
full of your
productions.”
“We never wrote any tr acts,” said Augusta, “except to show
why we separated from you, but you urged o n the Government
against us. You likened me to a bastard and to Goliath the
Philistine. Your petition read as if it had been wri tten in a
brothe l.”
And now the character of Jo hn Augusta shone forth in all its
grande ur. T he old man w as on his mettle.
“Of all Christians know n to me,” he said, “the B rethren stick
closest to Ho ly Writ. Next to them come the Lutherans; next
to the Luthe rans the Utraquists; and next to the Utraquists
the—!”
But there in co mmon ho nesty he had to stop. And then he
turne d the table s on Mystopo l, and came out boldly with his
scheme. It was no new idea of his. He had alre ady, in 1547,
advocated
a
Natio nal
Pro t estant
C hurch
composed
of
Utraquists and Brethren. Instead of the Brethre n jo ining the
Utraquists,
it
was,
said
Augusta,
the
plain
duty
of
the
Utraquists to br eak from the C hurch of Rome and jo in the
Brethren. For the last forty ye ars the Utraquists had be en
really Lutherans at heart. He wanted the m now to be true to
their own convictio ns. He wante d the m to carry o ut in practice
the teaching of most of the ir preachers. He wanted the m to
run the risk of offending the Emperor and the Pope. He wanted
them to a lly the mselves with the Brethren; and he believed
that if they wo uld only do so nearly every soul in Bohemia
would join the new Evange lical movement. De Schweinitz says
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that Augusta betrayed his Brethren, and that w hen he calle d
himself a Utraquist he was playing with words. I canno t accept
this
verdict.
He
explaine d
clearly
and
precisely
what
he
meant; he was a Utraquist in the same se nse as Luther; and
the castle he had built in the air was no thing less than a gr and
international union of all the Evangeli cal C hristians in Europe .
“My lords,” he pleaded in golden words, “let us cease this
mutual accusatio n of each other. Let us cease our destructive
quarrelling. Le t us join in seeking those higher o bjects w hich
we both have in common, and let us remember th at we are
both of one origin, one natio n, o ne blood and one spirit. Think
of it, dear lords, and try to find some way to union.”
The appeal was pathetic and sincere. It fell on adders’ ears.
His
scheme
fo und
favour
ne ither
with
Brethre n
nor
with
Utraquists. To the Brethren Augusta was a Jesuitical juggler.
To the Utraquists he was a supple athlete trying to dodge his
way out of pr iso n.
“You shift about,” wrote the Brethren, “in a most remarkable
manner. You make out the Utraquist C hurch to be different
from what it really is, in order to keep a door open through
which you may go.” In the ir judgme nt he was nothing less
than an ambitio us schemer. If his sche me were carried out,
they said, he would not only be First Elder of the Brethren’s
Church, but administr ator of the whole united Church.
At last, however , King Maximilian interce ded with the Emperor
in his favour , and Augusta was set free on the one condition
that he would not preach in public {1564.}. His hair was
white; his bear d was long; his brow was fur rowed; his health
was
shattered;
Brethren,
a
and
he
defeated
spent
and
his
last
days
broken -hearted
amongst
man.
He
the
was
restored to his old position as First Elder; he settled down
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
again at Jungbunzlau; and yet somehow the old confidence
was never comp letely restored. In vain he uphe ld his dar ing
scheme of union. Jo hn B laho slaw opposed him to the teeth.
For
the
Augusta
time ,
at
least,
throughout
had
John
Blahoslaw
made
one
fatal
was
in
the
blunder.
right.
As
the
Utraquists were now more Protestant in do ctr ine he thought
that they had begun to lo ve the Brethren. The very contrary
was the case . If two people agr ee in nine po ints out of ten,
and only differ in one, they will often quarrel more fiercely
with each other than if they disagreed in all the ten. And that
was just what happene d in Bohe mia. The more Protestant the
Utraquists became in doctr ine , the more jealous they were of
the Brethren. And thus Augusta was hono ured by neither
party. Despised by friend and fo e alike, the old white -haired
Bishop tot tered to the silent to mb. “He kept out of our way,”
says the sad old record, “as lo ng as he could; he had been
among us lo ng e nough.” As we think of the no ble life he lived,
and the bitter gall of his eventide, we may liken him to one o f
those majestic mou ntains w hich tower in grandeur under the
noontide sun, but round whose brows the vapours gather as
night settles do wn on the ear th. In the w hole gallery of
Bohemian por traits there is no ne, says Ginde ly, so no ble in
expressio n as his; and as we gaze on tho se grand features we
see dignity blended with sorrow, and pride w ith heroic fire.43
Chapter 12
“The Golden Age, 1572 -1603.”
As the Emperor Maximilian II. se t out from the R oyal Castle in
Prague for a dr ive he met a baron famous in all the land
{1575.}. The baron was John vo n Zerotin, the richest member
of the Brethren’s Church. He had come to Prague on very
important busine ss. His home lay at Namiest, in Moravia. He
lived
in
a
stately
castle,
built
on
two
huge
crags,
and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
surrounded by the houses of his reta iners and domestics. His
estate was twenty -five miles square. He had a lo vely park of
beeches, pines and old oaks. He held his co urt in kingly style.
He had gentleme n of the chamber of noble birth. He had pages
and secretar ies, equerries and masters of the chase. He had
vale ts,
lackeys,
grooms,
stable -boys,
huntsmen,
barbers,
watchmen, coo ks, tailors, shoe makers, and saddlers. He had
sat at the feet of Blahoslaw , the learned Church historian: he
kept a Co urt Chaplain, w ho was, of course , a pastor of the
Brethren’s Church; and now he had come to talk things over
with the head o f the Ho ly Roman Empire.
The Emperor offered the Baron a seat in his carriage . The
Brother and the Emperor drove on side by side.
“I hear,” said the Emperor, “that the Picards are givin g up
their religio n and go ing over to the Utr aquists.”
The Baron was astounde d. He had never, he said, heard the
slightest whisper that the Brethren intende d to abandon their
own Confessio ns.
“I have heard it,” said the Emperor, “as positive fact from
Baron Hassenstein himself.”
“It is not tr ue,” r eplie d Zerotin.
“What, then,” said the Emperor, “do the Utraquists mean when
they say that they are the true Hussites, and wish me to
protect them in their religion?”
“Your gracious Majesty,” replied Zerotin, “the Brethren, called
Picards, are the true Hussites: they have kept their faith
unsullie d, as yo u may see your self from the Co nfession they
presented to you.”44
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The Emperor loo ked puzzle d. He was waxing old and feeble,
and his memory was failing.
“What!” he said, “have the Picards go t a Co nfessio n?”
He was soon to hear the real truth of the matter. For some
months
there
had
sat
in
Prague
a
co mmittee
of
lear ned
divines, w ho had met for the pur pose of draw ing up a N ational
Protestant
Bohemian
Confessio n.
The
dre am
of
Augusta
seemed to be co ming true. The B rethren too k their part in the
proceedings. “We are striving,” said Slawata, one of their
deputies, “for peace, lo ve and unity. We have no desire to be
censors of do gmas. We
leave
such matters
to theological
experts.” The C onfession45 was prepared, read out at the
Diet, and prese nted to the Emperor. It was a compromise
between
the
te aching
of
Luthe r
and
the
teaching
of
the
Brethren. In its doctr ine of justificatio n by faith it followed the
teaching of Luther: in its doctrine of the Lord’s Supper it
inclined to the broader evangelical view of the Brethren. T he
Emperor atte nde d the Diet in person, and made a no table
speech.
“I promise ,” he said, “o n my hono ur as an Empero r, that I will
never oppress o r hinder you in the exercise of your religio n;
and I pledge my word in my own name and also in the name of
my successors.”
Let us try to gr asp the meaning of this performance. As the
Edict of St. James was still in fo rce, the Brethren, in the eyes
of the law , were still heretics and rebels; they had no le gal
standing in the country; and at any moment the King in his
fury might orde r them to quit the land once more. But the
truth is that the King o f Bohemia was now a me re figurehead.
The real power lay in the hands of the barons. The baro ns
were Protestant almost to a man.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As the Emperor lay dying a few months later in the castle of
Regensbur g, he was heard to murmur the words, “The happy
time is come .” For the Brethren the happy time had come
indeed. T hey knew that the so -called Utraquist Church was
Utraquist only in name; they knew that the Bible was read in
every
village;
they
knew
that
Lutheran
doctrine s
were
preached in hundreds of Utraquist Churches; the y knew that in
their ow n countr y the y had now more friends than fo es; and
thus, free from the terrors of the law they trod the primrose
path of peace and power. We have come to the golden age of
the Brethren’s C hurch.
It was the age of material prosperity. As the sun of freedom
shone upon their way, the Brethren dr ifted further still from
the
old
Puritan
ascetic
ideas
of
Peter
and
Gregory
the
Patr iarch. They had now all classes in their ranks. They had
seventeen rich and powerful barons, o f the stamp of John
Zerotin; they had over a hundre d and for ty knights; they had
capitalists, flo urishing tradesmen, mayors, and e ven generals
in the Ar my, and the Lord High Chamberlain now complaine d
that two-thirds o f the people in B ohemia were Brethren.46 Nor
was this all. For many years the Brethren had been renowned
as the most indus trio us and prosperous people in the country;
and were specially famo us for their manufactur e of knives.
They were noted for their integr ity of character, and were able
to obtain goo d situatio ns as managers o f estates, houses,
wine cellars and mills; and in many o f the lar ge settleme nts,
such
as
Jungbunzlau
and
Le itomischl,
the y
conducted
flour ishing business concerns for the benefit of the Church at
large.
They
made
their
se ttle ments
the
most
prosperous
places in the country; they built hospitals; they had a fund for
the poor called the Korbo na; and on many estate s they made
themse lves so useful that the barons, in their gratitude, set
them free from the usual tolls and taxes. To the Brethren
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
business was no w a sacred duty. They had seen the evils of
poverty , and the y did the ir best to end the m. They made no
hard and fast distinctio n betwee n secular and sacred; and the
cooks
and
appo inted
service
to
ho usemaids
by
the
in
Church,
another,
just
the
and
as
Brethren’s
called
much
from
as
the
Houses
o ne
were
sphere
presbyters
of
and
deacons. The clergy, though still do ing manual labour , were
now rather bette r off: the garde ns and fie lds attached to the
manses he lped to swell their income; and, therefore, we are
not surpr ised to hear that some o f them were married.
Again, the Brethren were champions of educatio n. They had
seen
the
evil
of
their
ways.
As
the
exile s
banishe d
by
Ferdinand I. came into contact w ith L utherans in Prussia the y
heard,
rather
to
their
disgust,
that
the y
were
commonly
regarded by the German Pro testants as a narro w -minded and
benighted se t of men; and, therefore, at the special invitation
of the Lutheran Bishop Speratus, they began the practice of
sending some of the ir stude nts to foreign unive rsities. It is
pathetic to read how the first two stu dents were sent {1549.}.
“We granted the m,” says the record, “their means of support.
We gave them £7 10s. a -pie ce, and sent them o ff to Basle .”
We are not info rmed how long the money was to last. For
some years the new po licy w as fiercely o pposed; and the
leader of the oppositio n was John Augusta. He regarded this
new policy with horror, condemned it as a falling away from
the o ld simplicity and pie ty, and predicte d that it would br ing
about the ruin of the Brethren’s Church. At the head of the
progressive party was John Blahoslaw , the histo rian. He had
been to Witte nberg and Basle himse lf; he was a master of
Greek
and
Latin;
and
now
he
wrote
a
br illiant
philippic,
pouring scor n on the fears of the conservative party. “For my
part,” he said, “I have no fear that learned and pious men will
ever ruin the C hurch. I am far more afraid of the action of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
those
high -minded
and
stupid
schemers,
who
think
more
highly of themse lves than they o ught to think.” It is clear to
whom these stinging words refer. They are a pl ain hit at
Augusta. “It is absur d,” he continued, “to be afraid of learning
and culture. As long as our leade rs are guided by the Spirit of
Christ, all will be well; but w hen craft and cunning, and
worldly pr udence creep in, then woe to the Brethren’s Chur ch!
Let us rather be careful who m we admit to the ministry, and
then the Lord will preserve us fr om destr uction.” As we read
these biting words, we can understand how it came to pass
that Augusta, during his last few years, was held in such little
honour. T he old man was behind the times. The progressive
party tr iumphed. Before lo ng there were forty students at
foreign
Universities.
The
w hole
attitude
of
the
Brethren
changed. As the Humanist move ment spread in Bohemia, the
Brethren began to take an interest in po pular education; and
now, aided by friendly no bles, they opened a number of free
elementary scho ols. At Eibenschütz, in Moravia, the y had a
school for the sons of the nobility, w ith Esrom Rüdinger as
headmaster ; both Hebrew and Greek were taught; and the
school became so famous that many of the pupils came fro m
Germany.
Bitesch,
At
Holleschau,
Auster litz,
Le itomischl,
Fulneck,
Meseretoch,
Landskron,
C hro pin,
Gross Leipnik,
Kaunic, Trebitzch, Paskau, Ungarisch -Brod, Jungbunz lau, and
Prerau, they had fr ee schools supported by Prote stant nobles
and manned with Brethren’s teachers. As there is no direct
evidence to the contrary, we may take it for gr anted that in
these schools the syllabus was much the same as in the o ther
schools of the co untr y. In mo st t he Latin language was taught,
and
in
some
dialectics,
rhe toric,
physics,
astronomy
and
geometry. The education was lar gely practical. At most of the
Bohemian schools in those days the children wer e taught, by
means of conver sation boo ks, ho w to look after a horse, how
to reckon with a landlor d, how to buy cloth, how to sell a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
garment, how to write a letter , how to make terms with a
pedlar, how , in a word, to ge t on in the wo rld. But the
Brethren
laid
the
chief
stress
on
religion.
Instead
of
separating the s ecular and the sacred, they combined the two
in a wonderful w ay, and taught both at the same time. For this
purpose , they publishe d, in the first place, a scho ol editio n of
their C atechism in three languages, Bohemian, G erman, and
Latin; and thus the Catec hism became the scholar’s chief
means of instructio n. He learned to read from his Catechism;
he learned Latin from his Catechism; he learned German from
his Catechism; and thus, while mastering foreign to ngues, he
was being grounded at the same time in the ar ticles of the
Christian faith. He live d, in a word, fro m morning to night in a
Christian atmosphere. For the same purpose a Br other name d
Matthias Martinus prepared a bo ok containing e xtracts from
the
Gospels
and
Epistles.
It
was
pr inted
in
six
parallel
columns. In the first were grammatical notes; in the second
the text in Greek; in the third a translation in B ohemian; in
the four th in German; in the fifth in Latin; and in the sixth a
brief exposition.
Second, the Brethren used another text -book called the “Book
of Morals.” It was based, appar ently, on Erasmus’s “Civilitas
Morum.” It was a simple , practical guide to daily conduct. It
was written in r hyme , and the children learned it by heart. It
was divided into three parts. In the first, the child was t aught
how to be have from morning to night; in the second, how to
treat his elders and masters; in the third, how to be polite at
table.
Third, the Brethren, in all the ir schools, made r egular use of
hymn-books; and the scho lar learnt to sing by singing hym ns.
Sometimes the hymns were in a separate vo lume; sometimes
a selectio n was bound up w ith the Catechism. But in e ither
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
case the grand result was the same. As we fo llow the later
fortunes of the Brethren we shall find ourse lves face to face
with a difficul t problem. How w as it, we ask, that in later
years, when their little Church w as crushe d to powder, these
Brethren held the faith for a hundred years? Ho w was it that
the “Hidden See d” had such vitality? How was it that, though
forbidden by law, they held the fort till the times of revival
came?
For
answer
we
turn
to
their
Catechism.
They
had
learned it fir st in their ow n ho mes; they had learned it later at
school; they had made it the ve ry marrow of their life; they
taught it in tur n to the ir childr en; and thus in the darkest
hours of trial they handed on the torch of faith from one
generation to another.
We come now to another secret of the ir strength. Of all the
Protestants in Europe the Bohemian Brethre n were the first to
publish a Hymn-book; and by this time they had publishe d te n
editions. The fir st three were in Bohemian, and we re edited by
Luke of Prague , 1501, 1505, 1519; the fourth in German,
edite d by Michael Weiss, 1531; the fifth in Bohe mian, e dited
by Jo hn Hor n, 1541; the sixth in German, edited by John
Horn, 1544; the seventh in Po lish, e dited by G eorge Israel,
1554; the eighth in Bohemian, edite d by John Blaho slaw ,
1561; the ninth in German, 1566; the te nth in Polish, 1569.
As they wished here to appeal to all classes, they published
hymns bo th ancient and mo dern, and tunes both grave and
gay. Among the hymn -wr iters were John Hus, Rockycana, Luke
of Prague, Augusta, and Mar tin Luther; and amo ng the tunes
were Gregorian Chants and po pular rondels of the day. The
hymns and tunes were publishe d in o ne vo lume. The chief
purpose of the hymns was clear religio us instruction. The
Brethren had nothing to co nce al. T hey had no mysterious
secret doctrines; and no myste rious secret pr actices. They
publishe d their hymn -books, not for themse lves only, but for
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
all the people in the co untry, and for Evangelical Christians in
other lands. “It has been our chief aim,” they said, “to let
everyone fully and clearly understand what our views are with
regard to the articles of the C hristian faith.” And here the
hymns were powerful preachers of the faith. T hey spread the
Brethren’s creed in all directions. They were clear, orderly,
syste matic, and Scriptural; and thus the y were sung in the
family circle , by bands of young men in the Brethren’s Houses,
by
shepherds
watchi ng
the ir
flocks
by
night,
by
stur dy
peasants as the y trudged to mar ket. And the n, o n Sunday, in
an age w hen congregatio nal singing was as yet but little
known, the Brethren made the r afters r ing w ith the so und of
united
praise .
“Your
churches,”
wrote
the
l earned
Esrom
Rüdinger, “surpass all others in singing. For where else are
songs o f praise, of thanksgiving, of prayer and instr uction so
often heard? Where is there be tter singing? T he newest editio n
of
the
Bohemian
Hymn -book,
with
its
seven
hundred
and
forty-three hymns, is an evide nce of the multitude of your
songs. Three hundred and forty -six have been translate d into
German. In your churches the people can all sing and take
part in the worship o f God.”
But of all the se rvices rendered by the Brethren to the cause
of the evangelical faith in Bohemia the noblest and the most
endur ing was their translatio n of the Bible into the Bohemian
tongue. In the archives of the Brethren’s C hurch at Herrnhut
are now to be seen six musty volumes known as the Kralitz
Bible (1579 -93). The idea was broached by Blahoslaw , the
Church historian. The expense was born by Baron John vo n
Zerotin. The actual printing was executed at Zerotin’s Castle
at Kralitz. T he tr anslation w as based, not on the Vulgate, but
on the original Hebr ew and Greek. The work of translating the
Old Testament w as entr uste d to six Hebrew scho lars, Ae neas,
Cepollo ,
Streic,
Ephraim,
Jessen,
and
C apito .
The
New
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Testament was translated by Blahoslaw himself (1565). The
work was of national interest. For the fir st time the Bohemian
people possesse d the Bible in a translatio n from the original
tongue, w ith the chapters subdivided into verses, and the
Apocrypha
separated
from
the
Canonical
Books.
The
work
appeared at first in cumbersome form. It was issued in six
bulky vo lumes, with only eight o r nine verses to a page, and a
running commentary in the margin. The paper was strong, the
binding dark bro wn, the page quarto, the type Latin, the style
chaste and idiomatic, and the co mmentary fairly rich in broad
practical theology. But all this was no use to the poor. For the
benefit,
therefo re,
of
the
common
people
the
Brethren
publishe d a small thin paper edition in a plain calf binding. It
containe d an index of quotations from the Old Testament in
the New, an index of p roper names with their meanings, a
lectionar y for the Christian Year, references in the mar gin,
and a vignette including the famous Brethren’s e piscopal seal,
“The Lamb and the Flag.” T he size of the page was only five
inches by seven and a half; the numbe r of page s was eleven
hundred and sixty; the paper was so remarkably thin that the
book was only an inch and a quarter thick;47 and thus it was
suited in every way to hold the same place in the affections of
the people that the Geneva Bible held in England in the days
of our Pur itan fathers. The Kralitz Bible was a masterpiece. It
helpe d to fix and pur ify the language, and thus co mpleted
what Stitny and Hus had be gun. It became the model of a
chaste and simple style; and its beauty o f language was
praise d
by
the
Jesuits.
It
is
a
relic
that
can
never
be
forgotten, a treasure that can ne ver lose its value. It is issued
now, word for w ord, by the British and Foreign Bible Socie ty;
it is read by the people in the ir o wn homes, and is used in the
Protestant Church es of the country; and thus, as the Catholic,
Ginde ly, says, it will pro bably e ndure as lo ng as the Bohemian
tongue is spoken.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
But even this w as not the end of the Brethren’s labours. We
come to the mo st amazing fact in their history. On the one
hand they were the greatest lite rary force in the countr y;48
on the other they took the smallest part in her theological
controversies. For example, take the case of Jo hn Blahoslaw.
He was one of the most br illiant scholar s of his day. He was
master of a beautiful l iterary style. He was a member of the
Brethren’s Inner Council. He wrote a “History of the Brethren.”
He translated the New Testament into Bohemian. He prepare d
a standar d Bohemian Grammar . He wrote also a treatise on
Music, and other works too many to men tion here. And yet,
learned Bishop though he was, he wrote only one theolo gical
treatise, “Electio n through Grace ,” and even here he handled
his subject from a practical rather than a theolo gical po int of
view.
Again, take the case of Jacob Bilek, Augusta’ s companion in
priso n. If ever a man had just cause to hate the C hurch of
Rome it was sur ely this humble friend of the gr eat Augusta;
and yet he wrote a full account o f the ir dreary ye ars in prison
without saying one bitter word against his persecutors and
tormentors.49 Fr om this point of view his book is delightful. It
is full of piety, of trust in God, of vivid dramatic description;
it has not a bitter word from co ver to cover; and thus it is a
beautiful and pr ecious example of the broad and charitable
spir it of the Brethren.
Again,
it
is
sur ely
instr uctive
to
note
what
subject
mo st
attracte d the Br ethren’s atte ntio n. For religious debate they
cared but little; for histor y they had a consuming passio n; and
now the ir leading scholars pro duced the greatest h istorical
works in the language. Brother Jaffe t wrote a work on the
Brethren’s Episcopal Orders, entitled, “The Swor d of Goliath.”
Wenzel Brezan wrote a history of the “House of Rosenberg,”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
containing much interesting infor mation about Bo hemian so cial
life.
Baron
Charles
von
Zerotin
wrote
several
volumes
of
memoirs. The whole interest of the Brethren no w was broad
and national in character. The more learned they grew the less
part they took in theo logical disputes. They re garded such
disputes as waste of ti me; they had no pe t doctr ines to
defend; they we re now in line with the other Protestants o f
the country; and they held that the soul was greater than the
mind and good conduct best of all. No longer did they issue
“Confessions of Faith” of their own; no l onger did they lay
much stress on their points of difference with Luther. We come
here to a po int of great importance. It has been asserted by
some histor ians that the Brethre n never taught the doctrine of
Justification
by
Faith.
For
answer
we
turn
to
thei r
later
Catechism prepared (1554) by Jir ek Gyrck.
“In what w ay,” ran one questio n, “can a sinful man obtain
salvation?”
“By the pure Grace of God alone, through Faith in Jesus C hrist
our
Lord
who
of
God
is
made
unto
us
wisdom
and
righteousness and sanctifi cation and rede mption.”
What sort of picture does all this bring before us? It is the
picture o f a bo dy of men who had made remarkable progress.
No longer did they despise education; they fostered it more
than any men in the country. No longer did they spe ak with
contempt of mar riage; they spoke of it as a symbol of ho lier
things. It was time, thought so me, for these broad -minded
men to have their due reward. It was time to amend the
insulting law, and tear the musty Edict of St. James to tatters.
Chapter 1 3
“The Letter of Majesty, 1603 -1609″
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Of
all
the
me mbers
of
the
Brethren’s
Chur ch,
the
most
powerful and the most disconte nted was Baron Wenzel von
Budowa. He was now fifty -six years of age. He had travelled in
Germany, De nmark, Ho lland, England, France and Italy. He
had studie d at several famo us universities. He had made the
acquaintance
of
many
learne d
men.
He
had
entered
the
Imperial service, and served as ambassador at Constantinople.
He
had
mastered
Turkish
and
Arabic,
had
studie d
the
Mohammedan religio n, had published the Alcoran in Bohemian,
and had written a treatise denouncing the creed and practice
of Islam as Satanic in origin and character. He belonged to the
Emperor’s Privy Council, and also to the Impe rial Court of
Appeal.
He
to ok
part
in
theolo gical
co ntro versies,
and
preached sermons to his tenants. He was the bosom fr iend of
Baron Charles vo n Zerotin, the le ading Brother of Moravia. He
corresponded,
from
time
to
time,
w ith
the
struggling
Protestants in Hungary, and had now beco me the recognise d
leader, not only of the Brethre n, but o f all evange licals in
Bohemia.
He had one great purpo se to attain. As the Brethren had
rendered such signal service to the moral we lfare of the land,
it seemed to him absur d and unfair that they should still be
under the ban of the law and still be de nounced in Catho lic
pulpits as childr en of the devil. He resolved to remedy the
evil. T he Emper or, Rudo lph II., pave d the way. He was just
the man that Budowa required. He was weak in body and in
mind. He had ruined his health, said popular scandal, by
indulging in dissolute pleasures. His face w as shrive lled, his
hair bleached, his back bent, his step to ttering. He was too
much interested in astrolo gy, gems, pictures, ho rses, antique
relics
and
government;
similar
he
cur iosities
suffered
from
to
tak e
religious
much
interest
mania,
and
in
was
constantly afraid of being murde red; and his daily ho pe and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
prayer was that he might be spar ed all needless trouble in this
vexatious wor ld and have absolutely nothing to do. And now
he committed an act of astounding fo lly. He first revived the
Edict of St. James, ordered the nobles througho ut the land to
turn out all Protestant pastors {1602 -3.}, and sent a body of
armed me n to close the Brethre n’s Ho uses at Jungbunzlau;
and then, hav ing disgusted two -thirds of his loyal subjects, he
summoned a Diet, and aske d for money for a crusade against
the Turks. But this was more than Wenzel could endure. He
atte nded
the
Diet,
and
made
a
brilliant
speech.
He
had
nothing, he said, to say against the Emperor. He would not
blame him for reviving the musty Edict. For that he blamed
some secret disturbers of the pe ace. If the Emperor needed
money and men, the loyal knights and nobles of Bohemia
would support him. But that support would be given on cer tain
conditions. If the Emperor wished his subjects to be loyal, he
must first o bey the law of the land himse lf. “We stand,” he
said, “o ne and all by the Confession o f 1575, and we do not
know
a
single
person
who
is
prepared
to
submit
to
the
Consistory at Pr ague.” He finished, wept, prepar ed a petitio n,
and se nt it in to the poor invisible Rudolph. And Rudolph
replie d as Empe rors sometimes do. He replied by closing the
Diet.
Again, however, six years later, Budowa retur ned to the attack
{1609.}. He w as acti ng, not merely on be half of the Brethren,
but on behalf of all Protestants in the country. And this fact is
the key to the situatio n. As we follow the dramatic story to its
sad and tragic close, we must r emember that fr om this time
onward the Brethren, for all inte nts and pur poses, had almost
abandoned the ir positio n as a separate Church, and had cast
in the ir lot, for good or evil, with the o ther Protestants in
Bohemia. They were striving no w for the recognitio n, not of
their ow n Confession of Faith, but o f the ge neral Bohemian
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Protestant Confe ssion presented to the Emperor, Maximilian
II. And thus Budowa became a national hero. He called a
meeting o f Lutherans and Brethren in the historic “Green
Saloo n,” prepare d a reso lutio n demanding that the Protestant
Confession be inscribe d in the Statute Book, and, followed by
a crowd of nobles and knights, was admitted to the sacred
presence of the Emperor.
Again the Die t was summoned. The hall was crammed, and
knights and nobles jostle d each other in the corridors a nd in
the square outside {Jan. 28th, 1609.}. For so me weeks the
Emperor, secluded in his cabinet, he ld to his point like a hero.
The debate was conducte d in somewhat marve llous fashion.
There, in the G reen Saloo n, sat the Pro testants, preparing
proposals a nd petitio ns. There, in the Ar chbishop’s palace, sat
the Catho lics, r ather few in number, and wondering w hat to
do.
And
there,
in
his
chamber,
sat
the
grizzly,
rickety,
imperial Lion, consulting with his councillors, Martinic and
Slaw ata, and dictating his replies. And then, w hen the king
had his answer ready, the Diet met in the Council Chamber to
hear it read alo ud. His first reply was now as sharp as ever.
He declared that the faith of the Church o f Rome was the only
lawful faith in B ohemia. “And as for these Brethr en,” he said,
“whose teaching has been so ofte n forbidden by r oyal decrees
and decisio ns of the Diet, I order them, like my predecessors,
to fall in with the Utraquists or Catho lics, and declare that
their
meetings
shall
no t
be
permitted
on
any
pretence
whatever .”
In vain the Pro testants, by way of reply, drew up a monster
petition,
and
set
forth
their
grievances
in
detail.
They
suffered, they said, no t from actual persecutio n, but from
nasty insults and petty anno yances. They were still descr ib e d
in C atholic pulpits as heretics and children of the devil. They
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
were still forbidden to honour the memory of Hus. They were
still
forbidden
to
print
books
without
the
co nsent
of
the
Archbishop. But the King snapped them shor t. He told the
estates to end their babble, and again clo sed the Diet {March
31st.}.
The bloo d of Budowa was up. The debate, thought he, w as fast
becoming a farce. The King was fooling his subje cts. The King
must be taught a lesson. As the Diet broke up, he stood at the
door, and shou ted out in ringing to nes: “Le t all who lo ve the
King and the land, le t all who care for unity and love, let all
who remember the zeal of our fathers, meet here at six to morrow morn.”
He spent the night with some trusty allies, prepared another
declaration, me t his fr iends in the morning, and informed the
King,
in
language
clear ,
that
the
Protestants
had
now
determined to win their rights by force. And Budo wa was soon
true to his word. He sent envoys asking for help to the King’s
brother Matthias, to the El ector of Saxony, to the Duke of
Brunswick,
and
to
other
Protestant
leaders.
He
called
a
meeting of nobles and knights in the cour tyar d of the castle,
and there, with heads bared and right hands upraise d, they
swore to be true to each other and to win their liberty at any
price,
even
at
the
price
of
blood.
He
arranged
for
an
independe nt meeting in the tow n hall of the Ne w Town. The
King for bade the meeting. What better place, replied B udowa,
would His Majesty like to sugge st? As he led his men across
the long Prague bridge, he was followed by thousands of
supporters. He arrived in due time at the squar e in front of
the hall. The Royal Captain appeared and ordered him off. The
crowd jeered and whistled the Captain away.
And yet Budowa was no vulgar rebel. He i nsiste d that every
session in the hall should be be gun and ended w ith prayer. He
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
infor med the King, again and again, that all he wishe d was
liberty of worship for Protestants. He did his be st to put an
end
to
the
street
rows,
the
drunken
br awls,
that
now
disgraced the city.
For the third time the King summoned the Die t {May 25th.}.
The last round in the terrible combat now began. He ordered
the estates to appear in civilian’s dress. They arrived armed to
the
teeth.
He
ordered
them
to
open
the
proceedings
by
atte nding Mass in the Cathedral. The Catho lics alone obeyed;
the Protestants held a service o f their ow n; and yet, despite
these danger signals, the King w as as stubborn as ever, and
again he sent a message to say that he he ld to his first
decision. The D ie t was thunderstruck, furio us, desperate.
“We have had enough of use less talk,” said Co unt Matthias
Thurn; “it is time to take to arms.” The long fight was draw ing
to a finish. As the King refused to liste n to reason, the
members of the Diet, one and all, Protestants and C atholics
alike, prepare d an ultimatum de manding that all evangelical
nobles, knights, citizens and peasants sho uld have full and
perfect liberty to worship God in the ir own way, and to build
schools and chur ches on all Royal estates; and, in order that
the King might realise the facts of the case, Budowa formed a
Board of thir ty directors, of whom fourteen were Brethren,
raised an army in Prague, and sent the no bles flying through
the land to levy money and troops. The co untry, in fact, wa s
now in open revolt. And thus, at le ngth compe lled by brute
force, the poor old King gave way, and made his name famo us
in history by signing the Letter of Majesty and granting full
religious liberty to all adherents of the Bohemian National
Protestant Co nfe ssion. All adher ents of the Confession could
worship
as
they
please d,
and
all
classes,
except
the
peasantry, could build schools and churches on Royal estates
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
{July 9th.}. “No decree of any kind,” ran one swe eping clause,
“shall be issued either by us o r by our heir s and succeeding
kings against the above established religio us peace.”
The delight in Prague was bo undless. The Lette r of Majesty
was carr ied thro ugh the streets in grand tr iumphal processio n.
The walls were adorned w ith flaming posters. The b ells o f the
churches were rung. The people met in the Church of the Ho ly
Cross, and ther e sang jubilant psalms of thanksgiving and
praise . The King’s cour iers poste d through the land to tell the
gladsome news; the letter was hailed as the heavenly herald
of peace and goodwill to men; and Budowa was adored as a
national hero, and the redresser o f his people’s wr ongs.
But
the
work
of
the
Diet
was
not
yet
co mplete.
As
the
Brethren, led by the brave Budow a, had bor ne the brunt of the
battle , we natur ally expect to find that now the victory was
won, they would have the lion’s share of the spo ils. But they
really o ccupie d a rather mo dest position. The next duty of the
Diet was to make quite sure that the Letter of Majesty would
not be broken. For this pur po se they
e lected a Board of
Twenty -four Defenders, and of these Defenders only e ight
were Brethren. Again, the Brethren had now to submit to the
rule
of
a
New
National
Protestant
Consisto ry.
Of
that
Consistory the Administr ator was a Utraquist Pr iest; the next
in rank was a Brethren’s Bishop; the to tal number of members
was twe lve; and of these twelve only three were Brethren. If
the Brethren, therefore, were fairly represented, the y must
have constituted at this time abo ut one -quar ter or one -third of
the Pro testants in Bohemia.50 They were now a part, in the
eyes of the law, of the N ational Protestant C hurch. They were
known as Utraquist C hristians. They accepte d the National
Confession as their own standard of faith, and though they
could still ordain their own pr iests, the ir candidates for the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
priesthood
had
first
to
be
examined
by
the
natio nal
Administrator.
And, further, the Brethren had no w weakened their unio n with
the Moravian and Polish branches. No longer did the three
parts of the Church stand upon the sam e foo ting. In Po land
the Brethren wer e still the leading body; in Moravia they were
still independe nt; in Bohemia alo ne they bowed to the r ule of
others. And ye t, in so me important respects, they were still as
independe nt as ever. They could still hold the ir own Synods
and practise the ir own ceremonies; they still re tained the ir
own Confession of faith; they could still conduct their own
schools and teach their Catechism; and they co uld still, above
all, e nforce as of old their system of moral discipline. A nd this
they guarded as the apple of their eye.
As
soon
as
the
above
arrangements
were
comple te
they
addresse d themselves to the important task of defining their
own position. And for this pur pose they me t at a General
Syno d at Zerawic, and prepared a comp rehensive descriptive
work, entitled “Ratio Disciplinæ” – i.e., Account of Discipline.51
It w as a thoro ugh, e xhaustive , orderly code of rules and
regulations. It was meant as a guide and a manifesto. It
proved to be an epitaph. In the second place, the Breth ren
now issued (1615) a new edition of their Catechism, w ith the
questions
and
answers
in
four
parallel
co lumns –Greek,
Bohemian, German and Latin;52 and thus, once more, they
shewed their desire to play the ir part in national educatio n.
Thus, at last, had the Brethren gaine d their freedom. T hey had
crossed
the
Red
Sea,
had
traversed
the
wilderness,
had
smitte n the Midianites hip and thigh, and could now settle
down in the land of freedom flowing w ith milk and honey.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 14
“The Downfall, 1616 -1621″
The
dream
of
bliss
became
a
nightmare .
As
the
tide
of
Protestantism ebbed and flowed in vario us parts of the Holy
Roman Empire , so the fortunes of the Brethren ebbed and
flowed in the o ld home o f their fathers. We have seen how th e
Brethren rose to prosperity and power. We have now to see
what brought about their r uin. It was nothing in the mora l
character
of
the
Brethren
the mselves.
It
was
purely
and
simply their geo graphical positio n. If Bohemia had only been
an island, as Shakes peare seems to have thought it was, it is
more than like ly that the Church of the Brethren would have
flour ishe d there down to the present day. But Bohemia lay in
the very heart of European politics; the King was always a
member of the House of Austria; th e Ho use of Austria w as the
champio n of the Catho lic faith, and the Brethren now were
crushe d to
powder
in
the
midst of
that mighty European
conflict known as the Thirty Years’ War. We note briefly the
main stages of the process.
The first cause was the ris ing power of the Jesuits. For the
last fifty years these zealous me n had been quietly extending
their influence in the countr y. They had built a magnificent
colle ge in Prague. They had established a number of schoo ls
for the common people. They had obtaine d positions as tutors
in noble familie s. They we nt about from village to village ,
preaching, some times in the village churches and sometimes
in the o pen air ; and o ne of the ir number, Wenzel Sturm, had
written an exhaustive treatise de nouncing the doctrine s of the
Brethren. B ut no w these Jesuits used more viole nt measures.
They attacked the Brethren in hot, abusive language. T hey
declared that the wives of Prote stant ministers were whores.
They denounced their children as bastards. They declared that
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
it was better to have the devil in the house than a Protestant
woman. And the more they pr eached, and the more they
wrote, the keene r the party fee ling in Bohemia gre w.
The next cause was the Letter of Majesty itself. As soon as
that Letter was closely examined, a flaw was found in the
crystal. We come to what has been called the “Church Building
Difficulty.” It was clearly provided in one clause of the Letter
of Majesty that the Protestants should have perfect liberty to
build churches on all Royal estates. But n ow arose the difficult
question,
what
were
Royal
estates?
What
about
Roman
Catho lic Church estates? What about estates held by Catho lic
officials as tenants of the King? Were these Royal estates or
were
they
According
no t?
to
the
There
were
Protestants
two
opinions
they were;
on
the
acco rding
subject.
to
the
Jesuits the y were not; and now the Jesuits used this ar gument
to influence the action o f Matthias, the next King of Bohemia.
The dispute soon came to blo ws. At Klo stergrab the land
belonged to the Catho lic Archbishop of Prague; at Brunau it
belonged to the Abbot of Brunau; and yet, on each of these
estates,
the
Pr otestants
had
churches.
T hey
belie ved,
of
course, that they were in the right. The y regarded those
estates as Royal estates. They had no desire to break the law
of the land. But now the Catho lics began to force the pace. At
Brunau the Abbo t interfered and turne d the Prote stants o ut of
the church. At Klostergrab the church was pulled down, and
the wood of which it was built was used as firewood; a nd in
each case the new King, Matthias, took the Catholic side. T he
truth is, Matthias openly broke the Letter. He broke it on
unquestione d Royal estates. He expelled Pro testant ministers
from their pulpits, and put Catho lics in their place. His o fficers
burst into Prote stant churches and interrupted the services;
and, in open defiance of the law of the land, the priests drove
Protestants with dogs and scour ges to the Mass, and thr ust
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the wafer down their mo uths. What right, said the Protestants,
had the Catho lics to do these things? The Je suits had an
amazing answer ready. For two r easons, they held, the Letter
of Majesty was invalid. It was invalid because it had been
obtained
by
for ce,
and
invalid
because
it
had
no t
been
sanctio ned by the Pope. What pe ace could there be with these
conflicting views? It is clear that a stor m was bre wing.
The third cause was the famous dispute about the Kingship. As
Matthias was gro wing old and fee ble, it w as time to choose his
successor; and Matthias, therefore, summoned a Diet, and
infor med the Estates, to the ir gr eat surprise, that all they had
to do now w as to accept as King his ado pte d son, Ferdinand
Archduke of Styr ia. At fir st the Diet was thunde rstruck. They
had met to choo se their own King. They intended to choose a
Protestant, and now they were commanded to choose this
Ferdinand, the most zealous Catho lic in Euro pe. And yet, for
some
mysterious
reason,
the
Diet
actually
yielded.
They
surrendered the ir elective r ights; they acce pted Ferdinand as
King, and thus, at the most critical and dangerous point in the
whole history of the countr y, they allowed a C atholic devotee
to beco me the ruler of a Prote stant people. For that fatal
mistake they had soon to pay in full. Some say the y were
frightene d by threats; some say that the Die t w as summone d
in a hurry, and that only a few atte nded. The tr uth is, they
were complete ly outw itted. At this point the Prote stant nobles
of Bohemia showed that fatal lack of prompt and united actio n
which was soon to fill the who le land w ith all the horrors of
war. In vain Budowa raised a vehement pro test. He found but
few to support him. If the Protestants de sired peace and good
order in Bohemia, they o ught to have insiste d upon their
rights and elected a Protestant King; and now, in Ferdinand,
they had accepted a man who was ple dged to fight for the
Church of Rome with every breath of his body. He was a man
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
of fervent pie ty. He was a pupil of the Jesuits. He regarded
himself as the divinely appointed champion of the Catholic
faith. He had already stamped out the Pro testants in Styr ia.
He
had a strong will and a clear
conception
of what
he
regarded as his duty. He would rather, he declared, beg his
bread fro m door to door, with his family clinging affectionate ly
around him, than allow a single Prot estant in his dominions. “I
would rather,” he said, “rule over a wilderne ss than o ver
heretics.” But w hat abo ut his o ath to observe the Letter of
Majesty? Should he take the oath or not? If he took it he
would be untr ue to his conscience; if he refused he could
never be crowned King of Bohemia. He consulted his frie nds
the Jesuits. The y soon eased his conscience. It was wicked,
they said, of Rudolph II. to sign such a monstro us document;
but it was no t wicked for the new King to take the oath to
keep it. An d, therefore, Ferdinand took the oath, and was
crowned King of Bohemia. “We shall now see,” said a lady at
the
ceremony,
“whether
the
Protestants
are
to
rule
the
Catho lics or the Catho lics the Pro testants.”
She
was
right.
Forthw ith
the
Protestants
r ealise d
the ir
blunder , and made desperate e fforts to reco ver the ground
they
had
lost.
Now
was
the
time
for
the
Twenty -fo ur
Defenders to arise and do the ir duty; now was the time, now
or never, to make the Letter no longer a gr inning mockery.
They began by acting strictly according to law. T hey had been
empowered
to
summon
representatives
of
the
Protestant
Estates. They summoned the ir assembly, prepare d a petition,
and se nt it off to Matthias. He replied that their assembly was
illegal. He refused to re medy their gr ievances. The Defenders
were goaded to fury. At their he ad was a viole nt man, He nry
Thurn. He resolved on open rebellio n. He would have the new
King
Ferdinand
dethroned
and
have
his
tw o
councillors,
Martinic and Slawata, put to death. It was the 23rd of May,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
1618. At an early hour on that fatal day, the Protestant
Convention me t in the Hradschin, and then, a little later, the
fiery T hurn sallied o ut with a body of arme d supporters,
arrived at the Royal Castle, and forced his way into the
Regent’s
C hamber,
where
the
King’s
Co uncillors
were
assembled. Ther e, in a corner, by the stove sat Martinic and
Slaw ata. There, in that Regent’s Chamber, began the cause of
all the woe that followe d. There was str uck the first blow of
the Thir ty Years’ War. As Thurn and h is henchme n stood in the
presence of the two men, who, in the ir opinio n, had done the
most
to
poiso n
the
mind
of
Matthias,
they
felt
that
the
decisive mome nt had come. The interview w as stormy. Vo ices
rang in w ild co nfusion. T he Pr otestant spo kesman was Pa ul
von Rican. He accused Martinic and Slawata of two great
crimes. The y had openly broken the Letter o f Maje sty, and had
dictated
King
Matthias’s
last
reply.
He
appealed
to
his
supporters crow ded into the corridor outside.
“Aye, aye,” shouted the crow d.
“Into the Black T ower with them,” said some.
“Nay, nay,” said Rupow, a member of the Brethren’s Church,
“out o f the w indow with them, in the good o ld Bohemian
fashion.”
At this signal, agreed upon befo re, Martinic was dragged to
the w indow. He begged for a f ather confessor.
“Commend thy soul to God,” said someone. “Are we to allow
any Jesuit scoundrels here?”
“Jesus! Mary!” he screamed.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
He was flung he adlo ng from the window. He clutche d at the
window-sill. A blow came down o n his hands. He had to leave
go, and dow n he fell, se venty feet, into the moat below.
“Let us see,” said someone , “w hether his Mary will he lp him.”
He fell on a heap of soft rubbish. He scrambled aw ay with only
a wound in the head.
“By God,” said one of the speakers, “his Mar y has helped
him.”
At this po int the conspirators appear to have lost the ir heads.
As Martinic had not been killed by his fall, it w as absur d to
treat Slawata in the same way; and yet they now flung him
out of the w indow, and his secre tary Fabr icius after him. No t
one of the three was killed, not one was even maimed for life,
and through the country the rumour spread that all three had
been de livered by the Virgin Mar y.
>From that mo ment war was ine vitable. As the details of the
struggle do not concern us, it will be enou gh to state here
that the Defenders now, in slipshod fashion, began to take a
variety of measures to maintain the Protestant cause . They
formed a national Board of Thir ty Directors. They assessed
new taxe s to maintain the war , but never took the trouble to
collect them. They relied more on outside help than o n their
own united actio n. The y depo sed Ferdinand II.; they e lecte d
Frederick, Elector Palatine , and son -in-law of James I. of
England, as King of Bohemia; and the y ordered the Jesuits out
of the kingdo m. There was a strange scene in Prague whe n
these
Jesuits
departed.
They
formed
in
proce ssion
in
the
streets, and, clad in black, marched off w ith bow ed heads and
loud wailings; and w hen the ir houses were examined the y
were found full of gunpowder and arms . For the moment the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Protestants
of
Prague
were
wild
w ith
joy.
In
the
great
Cathedr al they pulled off the ornaments and destroyed costly
pictures.
What
part
did
the
Brethren
play
in
these
abominations? We do not know. At this tragic point in their
fateful story our evidence is so lamentably scanty that it is
absolute ly impo ssible to say what part they played in the
revolution. But one thing at least we know without a doubt.
We
know
Protestants
Ferdinand
that
the
Catholics
quarrelling
was
prompt
w ith
and
were
e ach
now
united
other;
vigorous,
we
and
the
and
the
know
that
new
King
Frederick stupid and slack; and we know, finally, that the
Catho lic army, commanded by the famo us gene ral Tilly, was
far superior to the Protestant ar my under Chr istian of Anhalt.
At last the Catho lic army appeare d before the walls of Prague.
The battle of the White Hill was fought (Nove mbe r 8th, 1620).
The new King, in the city, was entertaining some ambassadors
to dinner. T he Protestant army was routed, the new King fled
from the co untry, and once again Bohemia lay crushed under
the heel of the conqueror.
At this time the heel o f the conqueror consisted in a certain
Prince Lichtenstein. He w as made regent of Prague, and was
entrusted with the duty of resto ring the co untry to or der. He
set about his work in a coo l and me thodical manner. He
cleared the rabble out of the str eets. He recalled the Jesuits.
He ordered the Brethren out of the kingdom. He put a Roman
Catho lic Priest into every church in Prague ; and then he made
the strange ann ouncement that all the rebels, as they were
called, would be freely pardoned, and invited the leading
Protestant
no bles
to
appear
before
him
at
Prague.
They
walked into the trap like flies into a cobweb. If the nobles had
only cared to do so, they might al l have escaped after the
battle of the White Hill; for Tilly, the victorio us general, had
purpose ly given them time to do so. But for some reason they
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
nearly all preferred to stay. And now Lichtenstein had them in
his grasp. He had for ty -seven leaders arre sted in o ne night.
He imprisoned them in the castle tower, had them tr ied and
condemned, o btaine d the appro val of Ferdinand, and then,
while some were pardoned, informed the remaining twenty seven that they had two days in which to prepar e for death.
They were to die on June 21st. Among those leaders about a
dozen were Brethren. We have arrived at the last act of the
tragedy. We have seen the grim drama deve lop, and when the
curtain falls the stage will be covered with cor pse s and blood.
Chapter 15
“The Day of Bloo d at Prague”
The City of Prague was divided into two par ts, the Old Town
and the New To wn. In the middle of the O ld Town was a large
open space , called the Great Square. On the west side of the
Great Square stood the Council House , o n the east the o ld
Thein Church. T he condemned prisoners, half of whom were
Brethren, were in the Council House: in front of their windo w
was the scaffold, draped in black cloth, twenty feet high, and
twenty-two yar ds square; from the window they steppe d out
on to a balco ny, and from the balcony to the scaffold ran a
short
flight
of
steps.
In
that
Great
Square ,
and
on
that
scaffo ld, we find the scene of o ur story.
When
early
in
the
morning
of
Monday,
June
21st,
the
assembled pr iso ners looked out of the windows of their ro oms
to take
their
last view
of ear th, they saw
a splendid, a
brilliant, a gorgeous, but to them a terrible scene {1621.}.
They saw God’s sun just rising in the east and r eddening the
sky and shining in each o ther’s faces; they saw the dark black
scaffo ld
bathed
in
light,
and
the
squares of
infantry and
cavalry range d around it; they saw the eager , excite d throng,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
surging and swaying in the Square below and crowding on the
house-tops to right and left; and they saw on the further side
of the square the lovel y twin to wers of the old Thein Church,
where Gregory had knelt and Ro ckycana had pre ached in the
brave days of o ld. As the church clocks chimed the hour of
five a gun was fired from the castle ; the prisoners were
infor med that their
hour
had
come, and were
ordered to
prepare for their doom; and L ichtenstein and the magistrates
stepped out on to the balco ny, an awning above them to
screen them fro m the r ising sun. The last act of the tragedy
opened.
As there was now a long morning’s work to be done, that wor k
was begun at o nce; and as the heads of the martyrs fe ll o ff
the block in quick succession the trumpets brayed and the
drums beat an accompaniment. Grim and ghastly was the
scene in that Great Square in Prague , on that bright June
morning well nigh three hundre d years ago. T here fell the
flower of the Bohemian no bility; and there was heard the swan
song of the Bohemian Brethren. As the sun rose higher in the
eastern sky and shone o n the w indows of the C ouncil House,
the sun of the Br ethren’s pride and powe r was setting in a sea
of blood; and clear athw art the lingering light stood out, for
all mankind to see, the figures of the last defe nders of their
freedom and the ir faith. Among the number no t one had shown
the w hite feather in prospect of death. Not a c heek w as
blanched, no t a voice faltered as the dread hour drew near.
One and all they had fortified themselves to look the waiting
ange l of death in the face. As they sat in their rooms the
evening before –a sabbath evening it was – they had all, in one
way or another, drawn nigh to G od in prayer. In one room the
priso ners had taken the Communion to gether , in another they
joined in singing psalms and hymns; in ano ther they had
feasted in a last feast of love. Among these were various
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
shades of faith –Lutherans, Calvinists, Utraquists, Brethren;
but now all diffe rences were laid aside, for all was nearly over
now. One laid the clo th, and another the plates; a third
brought water and a fourth said the simple grace . As the night
wore on they lay down on tables and benches to snatch a few
hours of that tro ubled sleep w hich gives no rest. At two they
were all broad awake again, and again the so und of psalms
and
hymns
was
heard;
and
as
the
first
gleams
of
light
appeared each dressed himself as tho ugh for a wedding, and
carefully turned down the r uffle of his collar so as to give the
executioner no extra trouble.
Swiftly, in order, and without much cruelty the gory work was
done.
The
mor ning’s
programme
had
all
be en
carefully
arranged. At each corner of the square was a squad of soldiers
to ho ld the people in awe, and to prevent an attempt at
rescue. One man, named Mydlar, was the executioner; and,
being a Protestant, he performed his duties w ith as much
decency and humanity as possible. He used fo ur different
swords, and w as paid abo ut £100 for his morning’s work. With
his first sword he beheaded eleven; with his seco nd, five; w ith
his two last, eight. The first of these swords is still to be seen
at Prague, and has the names o f its e leven victims engraven
upon it. Amo ng
these names is the name of Wenzel von
Budowa. In ever y instance Mydlar seems to have done his duty
at one blow . At his side stood an assistant, and six masked
men in black. As soon as Mydlar had severed the neck, the
assistant placed the dead man’s right h and on the block; the
sword fell again; the hand dropped at the wrist; and the men
in
black,
as
silent
as
night,
gathered
up
the
bleeding
members, wrapped them in clean black cloth, and swiftly bore
them away.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The name of Budowa was second on the list. As many of the
records of the time were destroyed by fire , we are not able to
tell in full what part Budowa had played in the gre at revolt. He
had, however, been a leader on the conquered side . He had
fought, as we know, for the Lette r of Majesty; he had bear ded
Rudolph II. in his den; he had openly opposed the electio n of
Ferdinand
II.;
he
had
welco med
Frederick,
the
Protestant
Winter King, at the city gates; and, therefore, he was justly
regarded
by
national
faith
Fe rdinand
an d
an
as
a
enemy
champio n
of
the
of
the
Catho lic
Protestant
Church
and
throne. As he w as now over seventy years of age it is hardly
likely that he had fo ught on the field of battle. After the battle
of the White Mo untain he had r etired with his family to his
country estate. He had then, s trange to say, been one of
those entrapped into Prague by Lichtenstein, and had been
impriso ned
in
the
White
Tower.
There
he
was
tried
and
condemned as a rebel, and there, as even Ginde ly admits, he
bore himself like a hero to the last. At first, along wit h some
other no bles, he signed a petition to the Electo r of Saxony,
imploring him to intercede with the Emperor on their be half.
The petition received no answer . He resigned himself to his
fate. He was asked why he had w alked into the lio n’s den. For
some reason that I fail to under stand G indely says that w hat
we are told abo ut the co nduct of the priso ners has o nly a
literary interest. To my mind the last words o f Wenzel of
Budowa are of the highest histo rical importance . They show
how the fate of the Breth ren’s C hurch was invo lve d in the fate
of Bohemia. He had come to Prague as a patr iot and as a
Brother. He w as dying bo th for his country and for his Church.
“My hear t impelled me to co me,” he said; “to forsake my
country and its cause would have been sinni ng against my
conscience . Here am I, my God, do unto Thy servant as
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
seemeth good unto T hee. I would rather die myself than see
my co untry die .”
As he sat in his room on the Saturday evening –two days
before the execution –he w as visited by two Capuchin monks .
He was amazed at their boldness. As they did no t understand
Bohemian,
the
conversatio n
was
conducted
in
Latin.
They
infor med him that their visit was one of pity.
“Of pity?” asked the w hite -haired old Baron, “How so?”
“We wish to show your lordship the w ay to
heaven.” He
assured them that he knew the w ay and stood on firm ground.
“My Lord only imagines,” they rejoined, “that he knows the
way of salvatio n. He is mistaken. Not be ing a member of the
Holy C hur ch, he has no share in the Chur ch’s salvatio n.”
But Budowa placed his trust in C hrist alone .
“I have this exce llent promise,” he said, “Whosoe ver believeth
in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Therefore,
until my last moment, w ill I abide by o ur tr ue Church.”
Thus
did
Budowa
declare
the
fait h
of
the
Brethren.
The
Capuchin mo nks were horrified. They smote their breasts,
declared that so hardened a heretic they had never seen,
crossed themselves repeatedly, and left him sadly to his fate.
For the last time, on the Mo nday morning, he was give n
another chance to deny his faith. Two Jesuits came to see
him.
“We have come to save my lord’s soul,” they said, “and to
perform a wor k o f mercy.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“Dear fathers,” r eplie d Budowa, “I thank my God that His Ho ly
Spirit has give n me the assurance that I w ill be saved through
the blood of the Lamb.” He appealed to the words of St. Paul:
“I know whom I have believed: henceforth there is laid up for
me a crown of righteousness, w hich the Lord, the righteous
judge, shall give me at that day.”
“But,” said the Jesuits , “Paul the re speaks of himself, not of
others.”
“You lie,” said Budowa, “for does he not expressly add: ‘and
not
to
me
only,
but
unto
all
them
also
that
lo ve
his
appear ing.’”
And after a little more argume ntatio n, the Jesuits left in
disgust.
The last moment in Budowa’s life now arrived. The messenger
came and to ld him it was his turn to die. He bade his fr iends
farewell.
“I go ,” he declared, “in the gar ment of righteo usness; thus
arrayed shall I appear before God.”
Alone ,
with
fir m
step
he
stro de
to
the
s caffold,
stroking
proudly his silve r hair and beard.
“Thou
old
grey
head
of
mine ,”
said
he,
“tho u
art
highly
honoured; thou shalt be ador ned with the Martyr -Crown.”
As he knelt and prayed he was w atched by the pitying e yes of
the two kind-he arted Jesuits w ho had come to see him that
morning. He prayed for his country, for his Church, for his
enemies, and committed his soul to C hrist; the sword flashe d
brightly in the sun; and one str ong blow closed the restless
life of Wenzel vo n Budow a, the “Last o f the Bo hemians.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
And w ith his death there came the death of the Ancie nt Church
of the Brethren. From the mome nt when Budowa’s hoary head
fell from the blo ck the destruction of the Church was only a
question o f time . As Budowa died, so died the others after
him. We have no space to tell here in de tail how his bright
example was followed; how nearly all depar ted with the words
upon their lips, “Into Thy hands I commend my spirit”; how
the drums beat louder each time before the sw ord fell, that
the
people
might
no t
h ear
the
last
words
of
triumphant
confidence in Go d; how Caspar Kaplir, an old man of e ighty six, staggered up to the scaffold arrayed in a white robe,
which he calle d his wedding gar ment, but was so weak that he
could not ho ld his head to the block; how Ot to von Los looked
up and said, “Behold I see the heavens opene d”; how Dr.
Jessen, the theo logian, had his tongue seized w ith a pair of
tongs, cut off at the roots w ith a knife , and died with the
blood gushing fr om his mo uth; how three others were hanged
on a gallows in the Square; how the fearful work went steadily
on till the last head had falle n, and the black scaffold sweated
blood; and how
the
bodies of the
chie fs were
flung into
unco nsecrate d ground, and their heads spitted on poles in the
city, there to gr in for full te n years as a warning to all who
held the Protestant faith. In all the story of the Brethren’s
Church there has been no other day like that. It was the day
when the fur ies seemed to r ide triumphant in the air , when
the God of their father s seemed to mock at the trial of the
innocent, and
when the little
Church that had battle d so
bravely and so long was at last stamped down by the heel of
the co nqueror, till the life -blood flowed no lo nger in her veins.
Not, indeed, till the last breath of Church life had gone did the
fearful stamping cease. The zeal of Ferdinand knew no bounds.
He was determined, not o nly to crush the Brethren, but to
wipe their memo ry from off the face of the earth. He regarded
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the Brethren as a no isome pest. Not a stone did he and his
servants leave untur ned to destr oy the m. T hey began w ith the
churches. Instead of razing them to the ground, which would,
of course , have been wanto n w aste, they tur ned them into
Roman
Catho lic
Chape ls
by
the
customar y
metho ds
of
purificatio n and rededication. They rubbed out the inscriptions
on the walls, and put new one s in the ir place s, lashed the
pulpits with w hips, beat the altars with sticks, sprinkled ho ly
water to cleanse the buildings o f heresy, o pene d the graves
and dishono ured the bo nes of the dead. Where once was the
cup for Communion was now the image of the Virgin. Where
once the Brethren had sung the ir hymns and read their B ibles
were now the Co nfessional and the Mass.
Meanwhile the Brethren had bee n expelled from Bohemia. It is
a str iking proof of the influence of the Brethren that Ferdinand
turne d his atte ntio n to them be fore he trouble d about the
other Protestants. They had been the first in moral power;
they had done the most to spread the know ledge of the Bible ;
they had pro duced the greatest literary men of the co untry;
and,
therefore,
now
they
must
be
the
first
to
go .
What
actually happened to many of the Brethren during the next
few years no to ngue can te ll. B ut we know e nough. We know
that Ferdinand cut the Letter
scissors.
We
know
that
of Maje sty in two with his
thirty -six
tho usand
families
left
Bohemia and Moravia, and that the population of Bohemia
dwindled from three millio ns to o ne. We know that abo ut o ne half of the property – lands, houses, castles, churches –passed
over into the hands of the King. We know that the University
of Prague was handed over to the Jesuits. We know that the
scandalous
order
was
issued
that
all
Protestant
marr ied
ministers who consente d to jo in the Church of Rome might
keep the ir wives by pass ing the m off as cooks. We know that
villages
were
sacked;
that
Kralitz
Bibles,
Hymn -books,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Confessions,
Catechisms,
and
historical
works
of
pr iceless
value– among o thers Blahoslaw’s “History of the Brethren” –
were burned in thousand; and that thus near ly ev ery trace of
the Brethren was swept out o f the land. We know that some of
the Brethren were hacke d in pieces, that some w ere tortured,
that some were burned alive, that some swung on gibbets at
the city gates and at the country cross -roads among the
carrion crows. For six years Bohemia was a field of blood, and
Spanish so ldiers, drunk and raging, slashed and pillaged on
every hand. “Oh, to what torments,” says a clergyman of that
day, “were the promoters of the Gospel expose d! How the y
were tortured and mas sacre d! How many virgins were violated
to death! How many respectable women abused! How many
children torn from their mo thers’ breasts and cut in pieces in
their presence! How many dragged from their be ds and thrown
naked from the window s! Good God! What c rie s of woe we
were forced to hear from tho se who lay upon the rack, and
what groans and terrible outcries from those who besought the
robbers to spare them for God’s sake.” It was thus that the
Brethren, at the point of the sword, were driven from hearth
and ho me: thus that they fled before the blast and took refuge
in
fore ign
lands;
thus,
amid
bloodshed,
and
crime ,
and
cruelty, and nameless tor ture, that the Ancie nt Church of the
Bohemian Brethr en bade a sad farewell to the land of its birth,
and disappeared from the eyes o f mankind.
Let us review the story of that wonderful Church. What a
marvellous change had co me upon it! It began in the quiet
little valley of Kunw ald: it ended in the no isy streets of
Prague . It be gan in peace and brotherly love : it end ed amid
the tramp of hor ses, the clank of armour , the sw ish of swords,
the growl o f ar tillery, the whistle of bullets, the blare of
trumpets, the ro ll of drums, and the moans of the wounded
and the dying. It began in the teaching of the Sermon on the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Mount: it ended amid the ghastly horrors of war. What w as it
that caused the destruction of that Chur ch? At this point some
historians, being short of facts, have tho ught fit to indulge in
philoso phical reflections; and, fo llow ing the stale philo sophy
of Bildad– that all suffering is the punishment of sin –have
infor med us that the Brethren we re now the victims of internal
moral decay. T hey had lost, we are told, their sense of unity;
they had relaxe d their discipline; they had become morally
weak; and the day of the ir exter nal prosper ity w as the day of
their internal decline. For this pio us and utterly unfo unded
opinion the evidence usually summoned is the fact that Bisho p
Amos Comenius, in a sermon entitled “Haggai Redivivus,” had
some rather severe remarks to ma ke abo ut the sins of his
Brethren.
But
Bishops’
sermo ns
are
dangero us
historical
evidence. It is not the business of a preacher to tell the who le
truth in one discourse. He is not a witness in the box; he is a
prophet aiming at some special moral reform. I f a Bisho p is
lecturing his Brethren for their failings he is sur e to indulge,
not exactly in exaggeration, but in one -sided statements of
the facts. He will talk at le ngth about the sins, and say
nothing abo ut the virtues. It is, of course, within the bou nds
of possibility that when the Brethren became mor e prosperous
they were no t so strict in some of the ir rules as they had been
in earlier days; and it is also true that whe n Wenzel von
Budowa
summo ned
his
fo llowers
to
arms,
the
deed
was
enough, as one wr iter remarks, to make Gregory the Patr iarch
groan in his grave. But of any serious moral decline there is
no solid proof. It is absurd to blame the Brethren for mixing in
politics, and absurd to say that this mixing was the cause of
their ruin. At that tim e in Bohemia religion and politics were
inse parable. If a man took a de finite stand in religion he took
thereby a definite stand in politics. To be a Prote stant w as to
be a rebe l. If B udowa had never lifted a finger, the destruction
of the Brethren would h ave been no le ss co mplete. The case of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Baron Charles von Zerotin proves the po int. He to ok no par t in
the
rebellion;
he
sided,
in
the
war,
w ith
the
House
of
Hapsbur g; he endeavoured, that is, to remain a Pr otestant and
yet at the same time a staunch suppor ter of Fe rdinand; and
yet, lo yal subject though he was, he was not allowed, except
for a few years, to shelter Prote stant ministers in his castle,
and had finally to sell his estates and to leave the country. At
heart, Comenius had a high opinion of his Br ethre n. For nearly
fifty weary year s –as we shall see in the next chapter –this
genius and scho lar lo nged and strove for the revival of the
Brethren’s Church, and in many of his books he described the
Brethren, not as men w ho had disgraced their pr ofession, but
as
heroes
holding
the
faith
in
pur ity.
He
described
his
Brethren as broad -minded me n, who took no par t in religious
quarrels, but looked towards heaven, and bor e themselves
affably to all; he said to the exiles in one of his letters, “You
have endured to the end”; he described them again, in a
touching appeal addressed to the Church of England, as a
model of Christian simplicity; and he attr ibuted their dow nfall
in Bohemia, not to any moral we akness, but to their neglect of
educatio n. If the Brethren, h e ar gued, had paid more attention
to learning, they would have gained the support of powerful
friends, w ho would not have allowed them to perish. I admit,
of course, that C omenius was naturally partial, and that whe n
he speaks in praise of the Br ethren we
must receive his
evidence with caution; but, on the other hand, I hold that the
theory of a serious moral decline, so po pular with certain
German
historians,
is
no t
supported
by
evidence.
If
the
Brethren had shown much sign o f corruptio n we should expect
to find full proof of the fact in the Catho lic writer s of the day.
But such proof is not to hand. Not even the Je suit historian,
Balbin, had anything ser ious to say against the B rethren. T he
only Catholic writer, as far as I know , w ho attacke d their
character was the famous Papal Nuncio, Carlo Caraffa. He says
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that the Brethre n in Moravia had become a little ambitious and
avaricious, “with some degree of luxury in their habits of
life”;53 but he has no remarks of a similar nature to make
about the Brethr en i n Bohemia. The real cause of the fall o f
the Brethre n was utterly different. They fell, no t because they
were morally we ak, but because they were killed by the sword
or forcibly robbe d of their pro perty. The y fell because Bohemia
fell; and Bohemia fell for a varie ty of reasons; partly because
her peasants we re serfs and had no fight left in them; partly
because her nobles blundered in the ir cho ice of a Protestan t
King; and partly because, w hen all is said, she was only a
little
co untry
in
the
grip
of
a
migh tier
pow er.
In
some
countries the Catho lic reaction was due to genuine religio us
fervour; in Bohe mia it w as brought abo ut by br ute force; and
even with all his money and his men King Ferdinand found the
destruction o f the Brethren no easy task. He had the w hole
house of Hapsburg on his side; he had thousands of mercenary
soldiers from Spain; he was restrained by no scruples of
conscience ; and yet it took him six full years to drive the
Brethren
from
the
country.
And
even
then
he
had
no t
completed his w ork. In spite of his e fforts, many thousands of
the people still remaine d Brethren at heart; and as late as
1781, when Joseph II. issue d his Edict of Toleration, 100,000
in Bohemia and Moravia declar ed themselves Brethren. We
have here a genuine proof of the Br ethren’s vigour. It had
been handed on from father to son through five generatio ns.
For
the
Brethren
there
was
still
no
legal
recognition
in
Bohemia and Moravia; the Edict applied to L utherans and
Calvinists o nly; and if the Brethren had been we ak me n they
might now have called the mselves Lutherans or C alvinists. But
this, of course , carries us beyo nd the limits of this chapter.
For the present King Fer dinand had triumphed; and word was
sent to the Po pe at Rome that the Church of the Brethren was
no more.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 16
“Comenius and the Hidde n Seed, 1627 -1672″
But the cause o f the Brethren’s Church was no t yet lost. As
the Brethren fle d before the blast, it befell, in the wonderful
providence of G od, that all their best and noblest qualities –
their
broadness
of
view,
thei r
care
for
the
young,
their
patience in suffering, the ir undaunted faith –shone forth in
undying sple ndo ur in the life and character of one great man;
and
that
pioneer
man
of
was
mo dern
the
famo us
educatio n
John
and
Amos
the
Co menius,
the
Bisho p
the
last
of
Bohemian Brethren. He was bo rn on March 18 th, 1592, at
Trivnitz , a little market town in Moravia. He was only six years
old w hen he lo st his parents thro ugh the plague. He was take n
in hand by his sister, and was educated at the Brethren’s
Schoo l at Ungar isch-Brod. As he soon resolved to become a
minister, he was sent by the Bre thren to study theology, first
at the Calvinist University of He rborn in N assau, and then at
the Calvinist University of He ide lberg. For two years (1614 1616) he then acted as maste r in the Brethre n’s Higher Schoo l
at Prerau, and then became minister of the congregation at
Fulneck. There, too, the Brethre n had a school; and there,
both as minister and teacher, C omenius, w ith his young wife
and
family,
w as
as
happy
as
the
live long
day .
But
his
happiness was speedily turned to misery. The Thirty Years’
War broke out. What par t he to ok in the Bohemian Revolutio n
we have no me ans of knowing. He certainly favoured the
election of Frederick, and helpe d his cause in some way. “ I
contr ibuted a nail or two,” he says,54 “to strengthen the new
throne.” What so rt of nail he means we do no t know. The new
throne
did
not
stand
very
lo ng.
The
troops
of
Ferdinand
appeared at Fulneck. The village was sacke d. Comenius reeled
with horror. He saw the weapo ns for stabbing, for chopping,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
for
cutting, for
pricking, for
hacking,
for
te aring and for
burning. He saw the savage hacking of limbs, the spurting of
blood, the flash of fire .
“Almighty
God,”
he
wrote
in
one
of
his
books,
“w hat
is
happening? Must the w ho le wor ld perish?”
His
ho use
was
pillaged
and
gutted;
his
bo oks
and
his
manuscr ipts wer e burned; and he himself, w ith his w ife and
children, had no w to flee in hot haste from Fulneck and to
take refuge for a while on the estate of Baron Char les vo n
Zerotin at Brandeis -on-the-Adler. To the Brethren Brandeis
had long been a sacred spot. The re Gregory the Patriar ch had
breathe d his last, and there his bones lay buried; there many
an
histor ic
Brethren’s
Synod
had
been
held;
and
there
Comenius took up his abode i n a little wood cottage outside
the
town
which
traditio n
said
had
been
built
by
Gregory
himself. He had lost his wife and o ne of his children on the
way
from
Fulneck;
he
had
lost
his
post
as
teacher
and
minister; and no w, for the sake of his suffering Bret hren, he
wrote his beautiful classical alle gory, “The Labyrinth of the
World
and
the
Paradise
of
the
Heart.”55
For
historical
purposes this bo ok is of sur passing value. It is a revelation. It
is a picture both of the horrors of the time and of the deep
religious life of the Brethren. As Comenius fled from Fulneck
to Brandeis he saw sights that harrowed his soul, and now in
his co ttage at the foot of the hills he descr ibed what he had
seen. The who le land, said Comenius, was now in a state of
disor der. The r eign of justice had ende d. T he reign of pillage
had begun. The plot of the book is simple. Fr om scene to
scene the pilgrim goes, and eve rything fills him with disgust.
The pilgrim, of course, is Comenius himself; the “Labyrinth” is
Bohemia; and the time is the early year s of the Thirty Years’
War. He had studied the social conditions of Bohemia; he had
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
seen men of all ranks and all o ccupations; and now, in w itty,
satirical language, he he ld the mirror up to natur e. What sor t
of men were employe d by Ferdinan d to administer justice in
Bohemia? Comenius gave the m fine sarcastic names. He called
the
judges
Nogod,
Lovestrife,
Hearsay,
Par tial,
Loveself,
Lovegold, Takegift, Ignorant, Knowlittle, Hasty and Slovenly;
he calle d the witnesses Calumny, Lie and Suspicio n; and, in
obvio us allusion to Ferdinand’s seizure of property, he named
the statute -book “The Rapacio us Defraudment of the Land.” He
saw the lords oppressing the po or, sitting long at table , and
discussing lewd and o bscene matters. He saw the rich idlers
with bloated faces, with blear y eyes, with swollen limbs, w ith
bodies co vered with sores. He saw the moral world tur ned
upside down. No longer, said Comenius, did men in Bohe mia
call things by their right name s. They calle d drunkenness,
merriment; greed, e cono my; usury, interest; lust, love ; pr ide,
dignity; cruelty, severity; and laziness, goo d nature. He saw
his Brethren maltreated in the vilest fashion. So me were cast
into the fire; so me were hanged, beheaded, crucified;56 some
were pierced, chopped, tort ured with pincers, and roasted to
death
on
grid-irons.
He
studied
the
lives
of
professing
Christians, and found that those who claimed the greatest
piety were the sorriest scoundrels in the land. “T hey drink and
vomit,”
he
said,
“quarrel
and
fight,
rob
and
pillage
one
another by cunning and by violence, ne igh and skip fro m
wanto nness, sho ut and whistle, and commit for nication and
adultery
worse
than
any
of
the
others.”
He
watched
the
priests, and found them no be tter than the people. Some
snored, wallow ing
in feather beds; some feasted till they
became speechless; some perfor med dances and leaps; so me
passed their time in love -making and wantonness.
For these evils Comenius saw one remedy only, and that
remedy was the cultivatio n of the simple and beautiful religion
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
of the Brethre n. The last part of his book, “The Paradise of the
Heart,” is de lightful. Comenius was a marvellous writer. He
combined
the
biting
satire
of
Swift
with
the
devotional
tenderness of Thomas à Kempis. As we linger ove r the closing
sectio ns of his book, we can see that he then regarded the
Brethren as almost ideal C hristians. Among the m he found no
priests
in
gaudy
attire,
no
flaunting
wealth,
no
gr inding
poverty; and passing their time in peace and quietness, they
cherished C hrist in the ir hearts. “All,” he says, “w ere in simple
attire, and their ways were gentle and kind. I approached one
of their preachers, wishing to speak to him. When, as is our
custom, I wishe d to address him according to his rank, he
permitted it no t, calling such t hings wor ldly foo ling.” To them
ceremonies were matters of little importance. “Thy religio n,”
said the Master to the Pilgrim –i.e., to the Brethr en’s Church –
”shall be to serve me in quie t, and not to bind thyself to any
ceremonies, for I do no t bind thee by them.”
But
Comenius
did
no t
stay
lo ng
at
Brandeis -on-the-Adler
{1628.}. As Zerotin had sided w ith the House of Hapsbur g, he
had been allowed, for a few ye ars, to give she lter to about
forty Brethren’s ministers; but now commissio ners appeared
at his C astle, and ordered him to send these ministers away.
The last band of exiles now set o ut for Po land. The leader was
Comenius himse lf. As they bade farewell to the ir native land
they did so in the firm conviction that they themselves should
see the day when the Church of the Brethren should stand
once more in he r ancient home ; and as they sto od on a spur
of the G iant Mountains, and saw the o ld loved hills and dales,
the
towns
and
hamle ts,
the
nestling
churches,
Come nius
raised his eyes to heaven and uttered that historic prayer
which was to have so marvellous an answer . He prayed that in
the old ho me God would preser ve a “Hidde n Seed,” which
would one day grow to a tree; and then the whole band struck
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
up a hymn and set out for Po land. Pathetic was the marching
song the y sang: –
Nought have we taken with us, All to destruction is hurled, We
have only our Kr alitz Bible s, And our Labyr inth of the World.
Comenius led the Brethren to Lissa, in Poland, and Lissa
became the metr opolis of the exiles.
What happened to many of the exiles no to ngue can tell. We
know that some Brethren went to Hungary and held together
for thirty or for ty years; that some were welcomed by the
Elector of Saxo ny and became Lutherans; that some found
their way to Holland and became Reformed Protes tants; that
some settled in Lusatia, Saxo ny; that a few, such as the
Cennicks, crossed the
silver
streak and found a home
in
England; and that, finally, a number remaine d in Bohemia and
Moravia, and gathered in the neighbourhoo d of Landskro n,
Leitomischl, Kunewalde and Fulneck. What became of these
last, the “Hidden Seed,” we shall see before very long. For the
present
they
buried
the ir
Bibles
in
their
gardens,
he ld
midnight meetings in garrets and stables, pre served their
records
in
do vecotes
and
in
the
th atched
r oofs
of
their
cottages, and, feasting on the glorious promises of the Book
of Revelation–a book which many of the m knew by hear t –
awaited the time when their troubles sho uld blow by and the
call to ar ise should sound.
Meanwhile Comenius had never ab andoned ho pe. He was sure
that the Brethren’s Church would revive , and equally sure of
the means of her revival. For so me years there had flour ished
in the town of Lissa a famo us Grammar School. It was founded
by Count Raphael IV. Leszczynski; it had recen tly become a
Higher Schoo l, o r what Germans call a gymnasium, and now it
was entire ly in the hands of the Brethren. The patron, Count
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Raphael V. Leszczynski, was a Brother;57 the director was
John
Rybinski,
a
Brethren’s
minister;
the
co -director
was
another Brethren’s minister, Michael Henrici; and Come nius
accepted the post of teacher, and entered on the greatest task
of his life. He had two objects before him. He designed to
revive the Chur ch of the Brethren and to uplift the w hole
human race; and for eac h of these purposes he employed the
very
same
me thod.
The
method
was
education.
If
the
Brethren, said C omenius, were to flour ish again, they must
pay more attention to the training of the yo ung than ever they
had done in days gone by. He issued de tailed in structions to
his
Brethren.
T hey
must
be gin,
he
said,
by
teaching
the
children the pure word of God in their homes. They must bring
their children up in habits o f piety. The y must maintain the
ancient discipline of the Brethr en. They must live in peace
with other Christians, and avoid theological bickerings. They
must publish good books in the Bohemian language. They
must build new schools whereve r possible, and endeavour to
obtain the assistance of godly no bles. We have he re the key to
the who le of Co meniu s’s career. It is the fashion now with
many scho lars to divide his life into two distinct parts. O n the
one hand, they say, he was a B ishop of the Brethren’s Church;
on
the
other
hand
he
was
an
educational
reformer.
The
distinctio n is false and artificial. His who le life w as of a piece.
He never distinguished between his work as a Bishop and his
work as an educatio nal reformer. He drew no line between the
secular and the sacred. He lo ved the Brethren’s Church to the
end
of
his
days;
he
regar ded
her
teaching
as
ideal;
he
labo ured and longed for her revival; and he be lieved with all
the sincerity of his noble and beautiful soul that God would
surely enable him to revive that Church by means of education
and uplift the wo rld by means of that regenerated Church.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
And now for thir teen years, in the Grammar School at L issa,
Comenius devo ted the powers of his mind to this tremendo us
task. W hat was it, he asked, that had cause d the downfall of
the Brethren in Bohemia and Mo ravia? It was their cruel and
senseless syste m of educatio n. He had been to a Brethren’s
Schoo l himse lf, and had co me to the conclusio n that in point
of metho d the schools of the Brethren were no better than the
other schoo ls of Europe. “T hey are,” he declare d, “the terror
of boys and the slaughter -houses of minds; places where a
hatred of literature and books is contracted, w here two or
more years are spent in learning what might be acquired in
one, where what ought to be poured in gently is vio lently
forced and beate n in, and w here what ought to be put clear ly
is presented in a confuse d and intricate way as if it were a
collection
of
puzzles.”
The
poor
boys,
he
declared,
were
almost frightene d to death. They needed skins of tin; the y
were beaten with fists, w ith canes and w ith birch -rods till the
blood streamed forth; they were covered w ith scars, str ipes,
spots and weals; and thus they had lear ned to hate the
schools and all that was taught therein.
He had already tried to introduce a reform. He had learne d his
new ideas about education, not from the Brethren, but at the
University of He rborn. He had studied there the theories of
Wolfgang Ratich; he had trie d to carry o ut these theories in
the Brethren’s schools at Prerau and Fulneck; and now at
Lissa, where he soon became dir ector, he introduced refo rms
which spread his fame throughout the civilized world. His
scheme was grand and comprehensive . He held that if only
right methods w ere employed all things might be taught to all
men. “T here is,” he said, “nothing in heaven or earth or in the
waters, no thing in the abyss under the earth, nothing in the
human body, no thing in the soul, nothing in Holy Writ, nothing
in the arts, no thing in politics, no thing in the C hur ch, o f which
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the little candidates for wisdom shall be wholly ignorant.” His
faith in the po wer of educatio n was enor mous. It was the
road, he said, to knowle dge, to character, to fe llowship w ith
God, to eternal life. He divide d the educational course into
four stages–the “mother school,” the po pular school, the Latin
school and the University; and on each of these stages he had
something or iginal to say.
For mothers Comenius wrote a book, entitled the “Schoo l of
Infancy.” In England this book is scarce ly known at all: in
Bohemia it is a household treasure. Comenius regarded it as a
work
of
first-rate
impor tance.
What
use,
he
asked,
were
schemes of educatio n if a good foundation were not first laid
by
the
mother?
For
the
first
six
years
of
his
life,
said
Comenius, the child must be taught by his mother. If she did
her
work
prope rly
she
could
teac h
him
many
marvellous
things. He would learn some physics by handling things; some
optics by naming colours, light and darkness; so me astronomy
by studying the twinkling stars; some geography by tr udging
the
neighbouring
streets
and
hills;
some
chronology
by
learning the ho urs, the days and the months; so me histor y by
a chat on local events; so me ge ometry by measuring things
for himself; some statics by trying to balance his top; some
mechanics by building his little toy -ho use; so me dialectics by
asking que stions; some eco nomics by observing his mother’s
skill as a ho usekeeper; and some music and poetr y by singing
psalms
and
hymns.
As
Comenius
penned
these
ideal
instructions, he must surely have known that nine mothers out
of ten had neither the patience nor the skill to follow his
metho d; and yet he insisted that, in some things, the mother
had a clear course before her. His advice was remarkably
sound. At what age, ask mothers, should the education of a
child be gin? It should begin, said Comenius, befor e th e child is
born. At that period in her life the expectant mo ther must be
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
busy and cheerful, be moderate in her food, avoid all worry,
and keep in constant to uch w ith God by prayer; and thus the
child w ill co me into the world w ell equipped for the battle of
life. She must, of course, nurse the child herse lf. She must
feed him, whe n weaned, o n plain and simple fo od. She must
provide him with picture books; and, above all, she must
teach him to be clean in his habits, to o bey his superiors, to
be truthful and polite, to bend the knee and fold his hands in
prayer, and to remember that the God revealed in Christ was
ever near at hand.
Again, Comenius has been justly called the “Father of the
Elementary
School.”
It
was
here
that
his
ideas
had
the
greatest practica l value . His fir st fundamental principle was
that in all ele mentary schoo ls the scholars must learn in their
native language only. He called these schoo ls “Mother tongue
schools.” For six or eight years, said Comenius, the scholar
must hear no language but his own; and his whole atte ntion
must be conce ntrated, no t on learning words like a parrot, but
on the direct study of nature. C omenius has be en called the
great Sense -Realist. He had no belief in learning second -hand.
He illustr ated his books with pictur es. He gave his scholars
object lesso ns. He taught them, not about words, but about
things. “T he foundatio n of all le arning co nsists,” he said, “in
representing
cle arly
to
the
se nses
sensible
objects.”
He
insisted that no boy or girl should ever have to le arn by heart
anything which he did not understand. He insiste d that nature
should be studied, no t out of boo ks, but by direct contact w ith
nature herself. “Do we not dwell in the gar den o f nature,” he
asked, “as well as the ancients? Why sho uld we not use our
eyes, ears and noses as well as they? Why sho uld we not lay
open the living book of nature?” He applied these ideas to the
teaching of re ligion and morals. In order to show his scholars
the meaning o f faith, he wrote a play entitled “Abraham the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Patr iarch,” and then taught the m to act it; and, in order to
warn them against shallow views of life, he wrote a comedy,
“Diogenes the C ynic, Revived.” He was no vulgar materialist.
His who le object was moral and religious. If C omenius had
lived in the twentieth century, he would certainly have been
disgusted and shocked by the modern demand for a purely
secular educatio n. He would have regarded the suggestion as
an insult to human nature . All men, he said, wer e made in the
image of God; all men had in them the r oots of eternal
wisdo m; all men were capable of understanding something of
the
nature
educatio n
of
was
God;
to
and,
therefore,
develop,
not
the
only
whole
the
object
physical
of
and
intellectual, but also the moral and spir itual pow ers, and thus
fit men and wo men to be, fir st, useful citizens in the State ,
and then saints in the Kingdo m of Heaven be yond the tomb.
From co urt to co urt he would lead the stude nts onward, from
the first cour t dealing w ith nature to the last court dealing
with God. “It is,” he sa id, “our bounden duty to consider the
means w hereby the who le bo dy of Chr istian youth may be
stirred to vigo ur of mind and the love of heavenly things.” He
belie ved in car ing for the body, because the body was the
temple of the Holy Ghost; and, in order to keep the body fit,
he laid down the rule that four hours o f study a day was as
much as any bo y or girl could stand. For the same reason he
objected to corporal punishme nt; it was a degr ading insult to
God’s fair abo de. For the same reason he he ld that at all
severe punishme nt should be reserved for moral offences only.
“The whole obje ct of discipline,” he said, “is to form in those
committed to our charge a disposition worthy of the children
of God.” He believed, in a word, in the teaching of religion in
day-schools;
he
believed
in
o pening
schoo l
with
morning
prayers, and he held that all scholars sho uld be taught to say
passages of Scr ipture by hear t, to sing psalms, to learn a
Catechism and to place their tr ust in the salvatio n offered
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
through Jesus C hris t. And yet C omenius did not insist on the
teaching of any definite religio us creed. He belo nged himself
to a Church that had no creed; he took a broader view of
religion
than
e ither
the
Luthe rans
or
the
C alvinists;
he
belie ved that C hristianity could be ta ught w ithout a formal
dogmatic statement; and thus, if I understand him aright, he
suggested a so lution of a difficult problem which baffles our
cleverest politicians to -day.
Again Comenius introduced a ne w way of learning languages.
His great work o n this subject w as entitled “Janua Linguar um
Reserata”–i.e ., The Gate of Languages Unlocked. Of all his
works this was the most popular . It spread his fame all over
Europe. It was translated into fifteen different languages. It
became, next to the Bible, the mos t w ide ly known book o n the
Continent. For one person who read his delightful “Labyr inth,”
there were tho usands w ho near ly knew the “Janua” by heart.
The reason was obvio us. The “Labyrinth” was a religious book,
and was suppressed as dangerous by Catho lic a uthorities; but
the “Janua” was only a har mless grammar, and could be
admitted with safety anywhere. It is no t the works of richest
genius that have the largest sale ; it is the books that enable
men to get on in life ; and the “Janua” was po pular because, i n
truth, “ it supplie d a long -fe lt want.” It was a Latin grammar of
a novel and original kind. For all boys desiring to enter a
professio n
a
thorough
knowledge
of
Latin
was
the n
an
absolute necessity. It was the language in which the learned
conversed,
language
of
the
language
diplomatists
spoken
and
at
all
statesmen,
Universities,
the
language
the
of
scientific treatises. If a man could make the lear ning of Latin
easier, he was adored as a public benefactor . Comenius’s
Grammar was hailed w ith delight, as a boon and a blessing to
men. For years all patient students of Latin had writhed in
agonies unto ld. They had learne d lo ng lists of Latin words,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
with their meanings; they had wrestled in their teens with
gerunds,
supine s,
ablative
absolutes
and
distracting
r ules
about the subjunctive mood, and they had tr ied in vain to take
an interest in stately authors far above their understanding.
Comenius reversed the whole pr ocess. What is the use, he
asked, of learning lists of words that have no connection with
each other? What is the use o f te aching a lad grammar before
he has a working knowle dge of the language? What is the use
of
expecting
a
boy
to
take
an
interest
in
the
po litical
argume nts of Cicero or the dinner table wisdom of Horace? His
metho d was the conversa tio nal. For beginners he prepared an
elementary
Latin
Grammar,
containing,
besides
a
few
necessary rules, a number of sentences dealing with events
and scenes of e veryday life. It was divided into seven par ts.
In the first were nouns and adjectives toge the r; in the second
nouns and verbs; in the third adverbs, prono uns, numerals
and prepositions; in the four th remarks about things in the
school; in the fifth abo ut things in the house ; in the sixth
about things in the town; in the seventh some moral maxims.
And the scho lar went through this book ten times before he
passed on to the “Janua” pro per. The result can be imagine d.
At the end of a year the bo y’s knowledge of Latin would be of
a peculiar kind. Of grammar he would know but little ; of words
and phrases he would have a goodly store; and thus he was
learning to talk the language before he had even heard of its
perplexing rules. One example must suffice to illustrate the
metho d. T he be ginner did not even learn the names o f the
cases. In a mo dern English La tin Grammar, the charming sight
that meets o ur gaze is as fo llow s: –
Nom. Me nsa.–A table . Voc. Me nsa. –Oh, table! Acc. Mensam. –A
table. Gen. Mensæ. –Of a table . Dat. Mensæ. –To o r for a table.
Abl. Mensa.–By, with or fro m a table.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The metho d of C omenius was di fferent. Instead of mentioning
the
names of
the
cases, he
showed how
the
cases were
actually use d, as follows: –
Ecce, tabula nigra. –Look there, a black board. O tu tabula
nigra.–Oh, you black board! Video tabulam nigr am. –I see a
black board. Par s tabulæ ni græ.–Part of a black board. Addo
partem tabulæ nigræ. –I add a part to a black board. Vides
aliquid in tabula nigra. –I see something on a black board.
With us the method is theory fir st, practice afterwards; w ith
Comenius the method was practice first, theo ry afterwards;
and the metho d of Comenius, w ith modificatio ns, is like ly to
be the method of the future.
But Comenius’s greatest educational work was undoubte dly his
“Great Didactic,” or the “Art o f Teaching All Things to All
Men.” It was a thorough and co mprehensive tre atise on the
whole
scie nce,
method,
scope
and
purpose
of
universal
educatio n. As this book has been recently tr anslate d into
English, I need not here atte mpt the task of giving an outline
of its contents. His ideas were far too grand and nob le to put
in summary form. For us the point of interest is the fact that
while the Thirty Years’ War was raging, and warriors like
Wallenstein and Gustavus Ado lphus were turning Europe into a
desert,
this
scholar ,
banished
from
his
native
land,
w as
devising sublime and broad -minded scheme s for the elevation
of the w hole human race. It is this that makes Comenius
great. He playe d no part in the disgraceful quarrels of the
age;
he
breathed
no
complaint
against
his
persecutors.
“Comenius,” said the Jesuit hist orian Balbin, “wrote many
works,
but
none
that
were
directed
against
the
Catholic
Church.” As he looked around upon the learned world he saw
the great mo nster Confusio n still unslain, and intende d to
found a Grand Universal College, which wo uld consist o f all
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the
learned
in
Europe,
would
devote
its
attention
to
the
pursuit of knowledge in every conceivable branch, and would
arrange
that
knowledge
in
beautiful
order
and
make
the
garden of w isdo m a trim parter re. He was so sure that his
syste m was right that he compar ed it to a great clock or mill,
which had only to be set go ing to bring abo ut the desired
result. If his scheme could only be carried out, what a change
there would be in this dreary e arth! What a speedy end to
wars
and
rumo urs
of
wars!
What
a
ble sse d
cessation
of
religious disputes! What a glorious unio n of all men of all
nations about the feet of God!
At last Comenius became so famous that his fr iend, Samue l
Hartlib, invite d him to England; and Comenius fo und upon his
arrival
that
o ur
English
Par liament
was
inter ested
in
his
scheme {1641.}. His hopes now r ose higher than ever. At last,
he thought, he had fo und a spo t where he could actually carry
out his grand de signs. He had a high opinion of English piety.
“The ardour,” he wrote, “w ith w hich the people crowd to the
Churches is incredible. Almost all bring a co py of the Bible
with the m. Of the youths and men a large numbe r take down
the sermons word by word w ith their pens. The ir thirst for the
word of God is so great that many of the no bles, citi zens also,
and matrons study Greek and Hebrew to be able more safely
and more sweetly to dr ink from the very spr ing o f life .” Of all
countries England seemed to
him the best suited for the
accomplishment of his designs. He discusse d the project with
John D ury, with Samue l Hartlib, with Jo hn Eve lyn, with the
Bishop o f Lincoln, and probably w ith Jo hn Milton. He wanted to
establish an “Academy of Pansophy” at Chelsea; and there all
the w isest me n in the world would meet, dr aw up a new
universal language, like the fr amers of Esperanto to -day, and
devise a scheme to keep all the nations at peace . His castle in
the
air
co llapse d.
At
the
very
time
whe n
Co menius
was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
resident in London this countr y was on the eve of a revolutio n.
The Irish Rebe llion broke o ut, the Ci vil War trod on its heels,
and Co menius left England for eve r.
>From this mo ment his life was a series of bitter and cruel
disappointme nts. As the Thirty Y ears’ War flickered out to its
close, Comenius began to look forward to the day w hen the
Brethren would be allowed to return to Bohemia and Moravia
{1648.}. B ut the Peace of Westphalia broke his heart. What
provision was made in that famous Peace for the poor exiled
Brethren?
Abso lutely
none.
Comenius
was
angry
and
disgusted. He had spent his life in the service of humanity; he
had spe nt six years preparing school books for the Swedish
Government; and now he complaine d – perhaps unjustly –that
Oxenstierna, the Swedish Chance llor, had never lifted a finger
on behalf of the Brethren.
And ye t Comenius continued to hope against ho pe. The more
basely the Brethren were deserted by me n, the more certain
he was that they would be de fended by God. He wrote to
Oxenstierna on the subject. “If there is no help from man,” he
said, “ there will be from God, whose aid is won t to commence
when that of man ceases.”
For eight years the Brethren, undaunted still, held on together
as best they co uld at L issa; and Comenius, now their cho sen
leader,
made
a
brave
attempt
to
revive
their
schools
in
Hungary. And then came the final, aw ful crash. T he flames o f
war
burst
out
afresh.
When
C harles
X.
became
King
of
Sweden, John C asimir , King o f Poland, set up a claim to the
Swedish throne. The two monarchs went to war. Charles X.
invaded
occupied
Poland;
the
John
Casimir
to wn. What
par t,
fled
it
from
L issa;
may be
Charles
asked,
did
X.
the
Brethren play in this war? We do not know. As Charles X. was,
of course, a Pr otestant, it is natural to assume that the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren sympathise d with his cause and haile d him as a
deliverer sent by God; but it is one of the strangest features
of their history that we never can tell what par t they took in
these po litical co nflicts. Comenius was now in L issa. It is said
that he openly sided with Charle s X., and ur ged the Brethren
to ho ld o ut to the bitter end. I doubt it. For a while the
Swedish army tr iumphe d. In that army was an old Bohemian
general, who sw ore to avenge the “Day of Bloo d”; and the
churches and co nvents were plundered, and monks and pr iests
were murdered. For a mome nt the Day of Blood was avenged ,
but for a mome nt only. As the arm of flesh had faile d the
Brethren in the days of B udow a, so the arm o f flesh failed
them now.
The Polish army surrounde d the walls of L issa {1656.}. A
panic broke out among the citizens. The Swedish garriso n
gave way. The Polish so ldiers pressed in. Again Comenius’s
library was bur ned, and the grammar school w here he had
taught was reduced to ashes. The whole town was soon in
flames. T he fire spread for mile s in the surrounding co untry.
As the Brethren fled from the ir last fo nd ho me, w ith the
women and children huddle d in waggo ns, they saw barns and
windmills flaring around them, and hear d the tramp of the
Polish army in hot pursuit. As Pastor John Jacobides and two
Acoluths were on the ir way to Karmin, they were seized, cu t
down w ith spade s and thrown into a pit to perish. For Samuel
Kardus, the last martyr of the fluttering fragment, a more
ingenio us tortur e was reserved. He was placed with his head
between a door and the door -post, and as the door was gently
but firmly close d, his head was slowly cr ushe d to pieces.
And so the hopes of Comenius were blasted. As the age d
Bishop drew near to his end, he witnessed the failure of all his
schemes. Where now was his beloved Church of the Brethren?
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
It was scattered like autumn lea ves before the blast. And yet
Comenius
hoped
on
to
the
bitter
end.
T he
news
of
his
suffer ings reached the ears of Oliver Cromwell. He offered to
find a ho me for the Brethren in Ireland. If Co menius had o nly
accepted that o ffer it is certain that O liver wou ld have been as
good as his wo rd. He longed to make Ire land a Pro testant
country; and the whole modern histor y of Ireland might have
been altered. But Comenius had now become an unpractical
dreamer. For all his learning he was very simple -minded; and
for all his piety he had a weak side to his character. He had
listened in his youth to the prophecies of C hristo pher Ko tter;
he had listened also to the ravings of Chr istina Poniatowski;
and now he fe ll complete ly under the influence of the vile
impostor , Drabi k, who pretended to have a revelation from
heaven, and pr edicted that be fore very long the House of
Austria would be destroyed and the Brethren be enabled to
return to their native home. Instead, therefore, of acce pting
Cromwell’s
o ffe r,
Comenius
spent
his
last
fe w
years
in
collecting money for the Brethren; and pleasant it is to record
the fact that much of that mone y came from England. Some
was sent by Pr ince Rupert, and some by officials of the C hurch
of England; and Comenius was able to spend the money in
printing helpful, devotional works for the Brethre n. His loyalty
now to the Brethren was beautiful. It is easy to be faithful to
a prosperous C hurch; Comenius was faithful whe n the whirl
was at the worst. Faster than e ver the ship was sinking, but
still the brave old white -haired C aptain held to his post on the
bridge. Few things are more pathetic in history than the way
in which Comenius commended the Brethren to the care of the
Church of England. “To you, dear friends,” he wrote in hope,
“we commit our dear mo ther, the Church herself. Even in her
death,
which
seems
approaching,
yo u
ought
to
love
her,
because in her life she has gone before you for more than two
centur ies w ith examples of faith and patience.” Of all the links
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
between
the
old
Church
of
th e
Brethren
and
the
new,
Comenius w as the strongest. He handed on the Brethren’s
Episcopal
Order s.
He
consecr ated
his
son -in-law,
Peter
Jablonsky; this Peter consecrate d his own so n, Daniel Er nest;
and
this
Daniel
Ernest
Jablonsky
consecr ated
David
Nitschmann, the first B ishop o f the Renewed C hurch of the
Brethren.
He hande d on, secondly, the Brethren’s syste m of discipline .
He published an edition o f the “Ratio Disciplinæ,” and this it
was that fired Zinzendorf’s soul with lo ve for the Brethren’s
Church.
But, thirdly, and most important of all, Comenius kept the old
faith burning in the hear ts of the “Hidden Se ed.” For the
benefit of tho se still worshipping in secret in Bohemia and
Moravia, he pre pared a C atechism, entitled “The Old C atholic
Christian Religi o n in Short Q uestio ns and Answe rs”; and by
this Catholic Religion he meant the broad and simple faith of
the Bohemian Brethren. “Perish sects,” said Come nius; “perish
the founders of sects. I have consecrated myself to Christ
alone.” But the purpose of the Catechism had to be kept a
secret. “It is me ant,” said Come nius, in the preface, “for all
the pious and scattered sheep of Christ, especially those at F.,
G., G., K., K., S., S. and Z .” These letters can be easily
explaine d. T hey stood for the villages of Fulneck, Gersdorf,
Gestersdorf, Kunewalde, Klandorf, Stechw alde, Seitendorf and
Zauchtenthal; and these are the places fro m w hich the first
exiles came to re new the Brethren’s Church at Herrnhut.
Fifty years befo re his prayers were answered, Comenius lay
sile nt in the grave (1672). Yet never did bread cast upon the
waters more r ichly return.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE.
THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN AND THE CHURCH O F ENGLAND.
As the re lations of the Brethre n with England w ere only o f a
very occasional nature, it is not ea sy to weave them into the
narrative.
interest;
B ut
the
they
following
show
the
particulars
opinion
held
will
of
be
the
of
special
Brethren
by
officials o f the C hurch of England: –
1. The case of John Bernard. – At some period in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth a number of scholar ships were founded at
Oxford for the benefit o f Bohemian stude nts; and in 1583 John
Bernard, a Moravian stude nt, to ok his B .D. degr ee at Oxford.
The
record
in
the
University
Register
is
as
follows:
“Bernardus, John, a Moravian, was allowe d to supply B.D. He
had studied theology for ten year s at German Universities, and
was now going to the Universities of Scotland.” This proves
that the University o f Oxford recognised Bernar d as a man in
holy orders; for none but men in ho ly orders co uld t ake the
B.D. degree.
2. The case of Paul Hartmann. – In 1652 (Octobe r 15th) Paul
Hartmann was o rdained a Deaco n at a Synod of the Moravian
Church at L issa. In 1657 he came to England, along w ith his
brother, Adam Samuel Har tmann, to raise funds for the exile s.
In
1660
he
w as
ordained
a
Presbyter
by
Bishop
Robert
Skinner , of Oxford, in Christ Church; in 1671 he was admitted
Chaplain or Pe tty Canon o f Oxfo rd Cathedral; and in 1676 he
became Rector of Shillingfor d, Berkshire. This proves that
Bishop Skinner, of Oxford, recognise d Paul Hartmann’s status
as a Deacon; and that recognition, so far as we know, was
never questio ned by any Anglican author ities. B ut that is not
the end of the story. At this per iod a considerable number of
Brethren
had
found
a
ho me
in
Eng land;
the
Continental
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren wished to provide for their spir itual needs, and,
therefore, in 167 5 they wro te a letter to the Anglican Bishops
requesting them to consecrate Hartmann a Bishop. Of that
letter a copy has been preserved in the Jo hannis -Kirche at
Lissa. “It is no superstitio n,” they wrote, “that fills us w ith
this desire. It is simply our love of order and piety; and the
Church of England is the only Protestant Church beside our
own that possesses this treasure , and can, therefore, come to
our help.” For some reason, ho wever, this pathetic request
was no t carried out. What answer did the Anglican B ishops
give? We do not know; no answ er has been discovered; and
Hartmann remained a Presbyter to the end.
3.
The
case
of
Adam
Samuel
Hartmann. –He
was
first
a
minister of the Moravian C hurch at L issa (1652 -56). In 1657
he
came
to
consecrated
England
a
to
Moravian
collect
Bishop
mo ney;
at
Lissa;
in
1 673
and
in
he
1680
was
he
received the degree of D.D. at O xford. His diplo ma refers to
him as a Bisho p. Thi s suggests, if it does no t actually prove,
that the University of Oxfor d reco gnised him as a valid Bishop.
4. The case of Bishop Amos Co menius. –Of all the Bishops of
the Bohemian Brethren Comenius did most to stir up sympathy
on the ir behalf in England. In 16 57 he sent the two Hartmanns
and Paul Cyrill to the Ar chbishop of Canter bur y with a MS.
entitled,
“Ultimus
in
Protestantes
Bohemiæ
confessio nis
ecclesias Antichr isti furor”; in 1 660 he dedicate d his “Ratio
Disciplinæ”
to
the
C hurch
of
England;
and
in
16 61
he
publishe d his “Exhortation of the Churches of B ohemia to the
Church of England.” In this boo k Comenius took a remarkable
stand. He declared that the Slavonian Churche s had been
plante d by the Apostles; that the se Churches had “run up to a
head and r ipene d” in the Unity of the Brethren; and that he
himself was now the only surviving B isho p of the remnants of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
these C hurches. In o ther words, he represente d himse lf as the
Bishop o f a Chur ch of Apostolic o rigin. In w hat w ay, it may be
asked, was this claim received by Anglican authorities? The
next case w ill supply the answer.
5. The case of Archbisho p Sancr oft. – ln 1683 King Char les II.
issued a C abinet Order on behalf of the Brethre n; the order
was
accompanie d
account
was
Sancro ft,
by
an
account
“r ecommende d
Archbishop
of
of
under
their
the
Canterbury,
distresses;
hands”
and
of
He nry
the
William
Compto n,
Bishop of Londo n; and in that account the statement was
deliberate ly made that the Brethren deserved the assistance
of
Anglicans,
growing
not
errors
“preserved
the
of
only
because
Popery,”
Succession
they
but
of
had
also
Episco pal
“re nounced
because
Orders.”
the
they
had
The
last
words can only bear one meaning; and that meaning o bviously
is that both the Primate and the Bishop of London regarded
Moravian Ep isco pal Or ders as valid. The ne xt case te lls a
similar story.
6. The case of Archbisho p Wake. –We have now to step over a
period of thirty -three years. As soon as James II. came to the
throne, the inte rest of English Churchmen in the Brethren
appears to hav e waned, and ne ither William III. nor Queen
Anne took any steps on their behalf. And yet the connectio n of
the Brethren with England was not entirely broke n. The bond
of
unio n
was
Danie l
Ernest
Jablonsky.
He
was
Amos
Comenius’s grandson. In 1680 he came to England; he studied
three years at O xford, and finally received the degree of D.D.
In 1693 he w as appo inted Co urt Preacher at Berlin; in 1699 he
was consecrate d a Moravian B ishop; and in 1 709 he was
elected correspo nding secretary of the S.P.C .K. Meanwhil e ,
however, fresh disasters had overtaken the Brethren. As the
sun was rising on July 29th, 1707, a troop of Russians rode
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
into the town o f Lissa, and threw around them balls of burning
pitch. The town went up in flames; the last home of the
Brethren was d estroyed, and the Brethren were in greater
distress than ever. At this po int Jablonsky no bly came to the ir
aid. He began by publishing an account of their distresses; he
tried to raise a fund on their behalf; and finally (1715) he
sent his fr iend, Bishop S itkovius, to England, to lay the ir case
before Archbishop Wake. Again, as in the case of Archbishop
Sancro ft, this appeal to the Chur ch of England was successful.
The Archbishop brought the case before George I., the King
consulted the Pr ivy Council, the P rivy Council gave conse nt;
the King issued Letters Patent to all the Archbisho ps and
Bishops of England and Wales, and Wake and Jo hn Robinson,
Bishop of Londo n, issued a special appeal, which was read in
all the London churches. The result was twofold. On the one
hand mo ney was collecte d for the Brethren; o n the other,
some person or persons unknown denounced them as Hussites,
declared that their Bishops could no t be distinguished from
Presbyters, and contende d that, being follower s of Wycliffe ,
they must s urely, like Wycliffe, be enemies of all e piscopal
government. Again Jablonsky came to the Brethren’s rescue.
He believed, himself, in the Brethren’s Episcopal Orders; he
prepared a treatise o n the subject, entitle d, “De Ordine et
Successio ne
Episcopali
in
Unitate
Fratrum
Bohemorum
conservato”; he sent a copy of that treatise to Wake, and
Wake, in reply, declared himself perfectly satisfied.
To
what
co nclusion
do
the
fo regoing
details
point?
It
is
needful here to speak with caution and precision. As the
claims of the Brethren were never brought before Convocatio n,
we cannot say that the Anglican Church as a bo dy officially
recognised the Brethren as a sister Episcopal Church. But, o n
the other hand, we can also say that the Brethren’s orders
were never doubte d by any Anglican author itie s. They were
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
recognised
by
two
Archbishops
of
Canterbury;
they
were
recognised by B ishop Skinner, o f Oxford; they wer e recognised
by the University of O xford. The y were recognise d, in a word,
by
every
Anglican
authority
before
w hose
notice
they
happened to be brought.
End Book I
Book II–The Revival Under Zinzendorf
Chapter 1
“The Youth of Co unt Zinzendorf, 1700 -1722″
If the kindly reader will take the trouble to consult a map of
Europe he will see that that par t of the Kingdo m of Saxony
known as Upper Lusatia runs do wn to the Bohe mian fro ntier.
About ten miles from the frontier line there stand to -day the
mouldering re mains of the old castle of Gross -Hennersdorf.
The grey o ld walls are streaked with slime. The wooden floors
are rotten, shaky and unsafe. The rafters are worm -eaten. The
windows are broken. T he damp wall -papers are running to a
sickly green. Of roof there is almost none. For the lover of
beauty or the landscape painter these ruins have little charm.
But to us these to ttering walls are of matchless interest, for
within
these
w alls
Count
Z inz endorf,
the
Re newer
of
the
Brethren’s Church, spent the years of his childhood.
He was born at six o’clock in the evening, We dnesday, May
26th, 1700, in the picturesque city of Dresd en {1700.}; the
house is pointed out to the visitor; and “Zinzendorf Street”
reminds us still of the noble family that has now died out. He
was only six weeks old when his father bur st a blood -vessel
and died; he was only four ye ars when his mother married
again;
and
the
young
Count –Nicho las
Lewis,
Count
of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Zinzendorf and Pottendorf –was handed over to the tender care
of his grandmo ther, Catherine von Gersdorf, who lived at
Gross-Hennersdo rf Castle . And now, even in childhood’s days,
little Lutz, as his gran dmo ther loved to call him, began to
show signs of his coming greatness. As his father lay on his
dying bed, he had taken the child in his fee ble arm, and
consecrated him to the service of Christ; and now in his
grandmother’s noble home he sat at the feet o f the learned,
the pio us, and the refined. Never was a child less petted and
pampered; never was a child more strictly tr ained; never was
a child made more familiar with the person and teaching of
Jesus Chr ist. Dr . Spener,58 the famous Pietist leader, watc hed
his growth with fatherly interest. The old lady was a leader in
Pietist circle s, w as a writer of beautiful religious poetry, and
guarde d him as the apple of her eye. He read the Bible every
day. He dote d o n Luther’s Catechism. He had the Gospel story
at his finger -e nds. His aunt Henrietta, who w as rather an
oddity, praye d with him morning and night. His tutor, Ede ling,
was an earnest young Pietist from Franke’s school at Halle;
and the story of Zinzendorf’s ear ly days reads like a mediaeval
tale . “Already in my childhood,” he says, {1704.} “I loved the
Saviour, and had abundant communion with Him. In my four th
year
I
began
to
seek
God
earnestly,
and
de termined
to
become a true servant o f Jesus Christ.” At the age of six he
regarded C hrist as his Brother, would talk w ith Him for hours
together as w ith a familiar fr iend and was often found rapt in
thought {1706.}, like Socrates in the mar ket -place at Athens.
As other children love and trust their parents, so this br ight
lad w ith the go lden hair lo ved and tr usted Chr ist. “A thousand
times,” he said, “I hear d Him speak in my hear t, and saw Him
with the eye o f faith.” Already the keyno te of his life was
struck; already the fire of zeal burned in his bosom. “Of all
the qualities of Christ,” said He, “the greates t is His no bility;
and of all the no ble ideas in the world, the noble st is the idea
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that the Creator should die for His children. If the Lord were
forsaken by all the world, I still would cling to Him and love
Him.” He held prayer -meetings in his private r o om. He was
sure
that
sermons
C hrist
to
Himse lf
co mpanies
was
of
present
fr iends.
If
there.
He
heare rs
preached
failed,
he
arranged the chairs as an audience; and still is shown the
little window from which he threw letters addressed to Chr ist,
not do ubting that Chr ist wo uld receive them. As the child was
engage d one day in prayer, the rude soldiers of Charles XII.
burst into his r oom. Forthw ith the lad began to speak of
Christ; and away the soldiers fled in awe and terror. At the
age of eight he lay awake at night tormente d with atheistic
doubts {1708.}. But the doubts did no t last lo ng. However
much he doubte d with the head he never doubted with the
heart; and the charm that drove the doubts away was the
figure of the living C hrist.
And here we touch the s pr ings of the bo y’s religio n. It is easy
to call all this a hot -house proce ss; it is easy to dub the child
a precocious prig. But at bottom his religion w as healthy and
sound. It w as not morbid; it was joyful. It w as not based on
dreamy imagination; it was based on the histo ric perso n of
Christ. It was not the result of mystic exaltatio n; it was the
result of a study of the Gospels. It was not, above all, self centred; it led him to seek for fellowship with o thers. As the
boy devoured the Gospel story, he w as impresse d first by the
drama of the Cr ucifixio n; and often pondered on the words of
Gerhardt’s hymn: –
O Head so full of bruises, So full of pain and scorn, ‘Midst
other sore abuse s, Mocked with a crown of thorn.
For this his tutor, Edeling, was partly r espo nsible. “He spoke
to me ,” says Z inzendorf, “o f Jesus and His wounds.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
But the bo y did not linger in Ho ly Week for ever. He began by
laying stress on the suffering C hr ist; he went o n to lay stress
on the who le life of Christ; and o n that life , from the cradle to
the grave, his own stro ng faith was based. “I w as,” he said,
“as certain that the Son of God was my Lord as of the
existence of my five fingers.” T o him the existe nce of Jesus
was a proof of the existence of God; and he fe lt all his limbs
ablaze, to use his own expressio n, with the desire to preach
the eternal Godhead of Christ. “If it were possible,” he said,
“that there should be another G od than Christ I would rather
be damned with Christ than happy with another . I have,” he
exclaimed, “but one passio n–’tis He, ’tis only He.”
But the next stage in his jo urney was not so pleasing {1710.}.
At the age of ten he was take n by his mother to Professor
Franke’s school at Halle; and by mistake he overheard a
conversatio n
between
her
and
the
pious
pr ofess or.
She
described him as a lad of parts, but full of pride, and in need
of the curbing rein. He was so on to find how much these
words implied. If a boy has been trained by gentle ladies he is
hardly well equipped, as a rule, to stand the rough horse play
of a boarding-school; and if, in addition, he boasts blue blood,
he is sure to co me in for blows. And the Count was a de licate
aristocrat, with weak legs and a cough. He was proud of his
noble bir th; he was rather officious in his manner; he had his
meals at Franke’s private table; he had pr ivate lodgings a few
minutes’ walk fr om the school; he had plenty of money in his
purse; and, ther efore, on the whole, he was as well de teste d
as the so n of a lord can be . “With a few exceptions,” he sadly
says, “ my schoo l fellows hated me thro ugho ut.”
But this was not the bitterest par t of the pill. If there was any
wholesome feeling missing in his heart hitherto , it was what
theolo gians call the sense of sin. He had no sense of sin
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
whatever , and no sense of any need of par don. His masters
soon proceeded to humble his pride. He was introduced as a
smug little Pharisee, and they tr eated him as a viper . Of all
syste ms of scho ol discipline, the most revo lting is the system
of employing spies; and that w as the system used by the staff
at Halle. They placed the young Count under boyish police
supervision,
encouraged
the
lads
to
te ll
tales
about
him,
rebuked him for his misconduct in the measles, lectured him
before the whole school on his rank disgusting offences, and
treated him as half a rogue and half an idiot. If he pleaded no t
guilty,
they
called
him
a
liar ,
and
gave
him
an
extra
thrashing. The thrashing was a public school entertainme nt,
and w as advertised on the scho ol no tice -boar d. “Next week,”
ran the notice on one occasio n, “the Count is to have the
stick.” For two years he lived in a moral purgatory. The
masters gave him the fire of their wrath, and the boys the
cold shoulder of contempt. The masters called him a malicious
rebel, and the boys called him a snob. As the lit tle fellow set
off for morning school, with his pile of books upon his arm,
the others waylaid him, jostled him to and fro, knocke d him
into the gutter, scattered his books on the street, and then
officiously reported him late for school. He was clever, an d,
therefore, the masters called him idle; and when he did no t
know his lesson they made him stand in the street, w ith a pair
of
ass’ s
ears
on
his
head,
and
a
placard
on
his
back
proclaiming to the public that the culpr it was a “lazy donkey.”
His pr ivate tutor , Daniel Crise nius, was a bully, who had made
his w ay into Franke’s schoo l by varnishing himself with a shiny
coating of pie ty. If the Count’s relations came to see him,
Crisenius made him beg for mo ney, and then too k the money
himself.
If
his
grandmo t her
sent
him
a
ducat
Cr isenius
pockete d a florin. If he wrote a letter home , Crisenius read it.
If he drank a cup of coffee, Crise nius would say, “You have me
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
to
thank
for
that,
let
me
hear
you
sing
a
song
of
thanksgiving.” If he trie d to pour out his soul
in prayer,
Crisenius
introduced
disgusting
mocked
topics
him,
of
interrupted
conversation.
him,
He
and
even
made
the
lad
appear a sneak. “My tutor,” says Zinzendorf, “ofte n persuaded
me to write letters to my guar dian complaining of my hard
treatme nt, and then showed the letters to the inspector.”
In vain little Lutz laid his case before his mo ther. Crisenius
thrashed him to such good purpose that he ne ver dared to
complain again; and his mo the r still he ld that he needed
drastic medicine . “I beseech yo u,” she wrote to Franke , “be
severe with the lad; if talking w ill no t cure him o f lying, then
let him fee l it.”
At last the muddy lane broadened into a highw ay. One day
Crisenius pester ed Franke with one of his w hining complaints.
The headmaster snapped him sh o rt.
“I am sick,” he said, “of your growlings; you must manage the
matter your self.”
As the months rolled o n, the C ount breathed purer air. He
became more manly and bold. He astonishe d the masters by
his progress. He was learning Greek, could speak in Fren ch
and dash off letters in Latin. He was confirme d, atte nded the
Communio n,
and
wrote
a
beautiful
hymn59
recording
his
feelings; and alr eady in his modest way he launched o ut on
that ocean of e vange lical to il o n which he was to sail all the
days of his lif e .
As the child gre w up in Hennersdorf Castle he saw and heard a
good deal of those draw ing -ro om meetings60
which Philip
Spener, the Pietist leader, had established in the houses of
several no ble Lutheran families, and w hich came in time to be
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
known in Ger many as “C hurches within the C hurch.”61 He
knew that Spe ner had been his father’s friend. He had met the
great leader at the Castle. He sympathised w ith the purpose of
his meetings. He had often longe d for fellowship himself, and
had chatted freely on reli gious topics w ith his Aunt Henrie tta.
He
had
alw ays
communion
with
maintained
Christ;
his
and
private
now
he
habit
wishe d
of
to
personal
share
his
religion with others. T he time was ripe. The moral state of
Franke’s
schoo l
was
low;
the
boys
were
given
to
v icio us
habits, and tried to corrupt his soul; and the Count, who was
a healthy minded boy, and shrank with disgust from fleshly
sins, retorte d by forming a number of religio us clubs for
mutual
encouragement
and
help.
“I
established
little
societies,” he sa ys, “in which we spoke of the grace of Christ,
and e ncouraged each other in diligence and goo d works.” He
became a healthy moral force in the school. He rescued his
friend, Count Fr ederick de Watteville, fro m the hands of fifty
seducers; he pe rsuade d three others to jo in in the work of
rescue; and the five lads establishe d a club which became a
“Church within the Church” for boys. They calle d themse lves
first “The Slave s of Virtue ,” next the “Confessors of Christ,”
and finally the “Honourable Orde r of the M ustar d Seed”; and
they took a ple dge to be true to Chr ist, to be upr ight and
moral, and to do good to their fellow -men. Of all the school
clubs establishe d by Z inzendorf this “Order of the Mustard
Seed” was the most famous and the most enduring. As the
boys grew up to man’s estate they invited others to join their
ranks; the doctrinal basis was br oad; and among the members
in later years were John Potte r, Archbishop of Canterbury,
Thomas Wilson, Bishop of So dor and Man, Car dinal Noailles,
the broad-minde d C atholic, and General Oglethor pe, Governor
of Georgia. For an emblem they had a small shield, w ith an
“Ecce Ho mo,” and the mo tto , “His wounds our healing”; and
each me mber of the Order wore a gold r ing, inscribed w ith the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
words, “No man liveth unto himself. ” T he Grand Master of the
Order was Zinzendorf himse lf. He wore a golden cross; the
cross had an oval green front; and on that front was painted a
mustard tree, with the words be neath, “Quo d fuit ante nihil,”
i.e., w hat was fo rmerly nothing.62
But already the boy had wider conceptions still. As he sat at
Franke’s dinner table , he listened one day to the conversatio n
of the Danish missionary, Z iegenbalg, w ho was now home on
furlo ugh, and he even saw so me dusky co nve rts w hom the
missio nary had brought from Ma labar {1715.}. His missionary
zeal was aroused. As his guardian had already settled that
Zinzendorf sho uld enter the service of the State , he had, of
course, no idea of becoming a missio nary himself;63 but, as
that was out o f the questio n, he formed a so le mn league and
covenant
w ith
his
young
frie nd
Watteville
that
w hen
God
would show the m suitable men they would send them out to
heathe n tribes for whom no one else seemed to care. Nor was
this mere playing at religion. As the Count looked back on his
Halle days he saw in these ear ly clubs and co venants the
germs of his later work; and when he left for the University
the de lighted Pr ofessor Franke said, “This yo uth will some day
become a great light in the world.”
As the Count, however, in his uncle’s opinion was growing
rather too Pietistic, he was no w sent to the University at
Wittenber g, to study the science of jur ispr udence, and prepare
for high service in the State {April, 1716.}. His father had
been a Secretar y of State, and the son was to follow in his
footste ps. His uncle had a co ntempt for Pie tist religio n; and
sent the lad to Wittenber g “to drive the nonsense out of him.”
He had certainly chosen the right place. For two hundred
years
the
great
University
had
been
regarded
as
the
stronghold of the orth odox Lutheran faith; the bi -centenary
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Luther
Jubilee
was
fast
approaching;
the
theolo gical
professors were models o f ortho dox belief; and the Count was
enjoined to be regular at church, and to listen with due
atte ntion and reverence to the sermons of those infallible
divines. It was like sending a bo y to Oxford to cure him o f a
taste for disse nt. His tutor, Crise nius, went w ith him, to guard
his morals, read his letters, and rob him of money at cards.
He had also to master the useful ar ts of r iding, fencing , and
dancing. The car ds gave him tw inges of co nscience. If he took
a hand, he laid down the condition that any money he might
win should be given to the poo r. He praye d fo r skill in his
dancing lesso ns, because he wanted to have more time for
more serious studies. He was more devout in his daily life
than ever, prayed to Chr ist w ith the foil in his hand, studie d
the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, spent who le nights in prayer ,
faste d the live long day o n Sundays, and was, in a word, so
Metho distic in his habits that he could truly describe himse lf
as a “rigid Pie tist.” He interfered in many a duel, and rebuked
his fellow students for dr inking hard; and for this he was no t
beloved. As he had come to Wittenberg to study law , he was
not,
of
co urse,
allowed
to
attend
the
regular
theological
lectures; but, all the same, he spent his leisure in studying
the works of Luther and Spener, and cultivate d the perso nal
friendship o f many of the theolo gical professors. And here he
made a most de lightful discover y. As he came to know these
professors better, he found that a man co uld be ortho dox
without be ing narrow -minde d; and they, for their par t, also
found that a man could be a rigid Pietist w ithout be ing a
sectar ian pr ig. It was time, he thought, to put an end to the
quarrel . He would make peace between Wittenbe rg and Halle.
He would reconcile the Lutherans and Pie tists. He consulte d
with leading professors on bo th sides; he co nvinced them o f
the need for peace; and the rival teachers actually agreed to
accept this student of nineteen summers as the agent of the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
longe d-for
truce.
intervened.
“Yo u
But
must
here
no t
Count
meddle ,”
Z inzendo rf’s
she
wr ote,
mother
“in
such
weighty matters; they are above your understanding and your
powers.”
And
Zinzendorf,
be ing
a
dutiful
son,
obey ed.
“I
think,” he said, “a visit to Halle might have been of use, but,
of course , I must obey the fourth commandment.”64
And now, as befitted a noble man born, he was sent on the
grand tour , to give the final polish to his education {1719.}.
He regarded the prospect with horror. He had heard of more
than one fine lor d whose vir tues had been polished away. For
him the dazzling sights of Utrecht and Paris had no bewitching
charm. He feared the glitter , the glamo ur, and the glare. The
one passion, lo ve to Chris t, still rule d his he art. “Ah!” he
wrote
to
grande ur
a
fr iend,
of
the
“What
great
a
ones
poor,
of
miserable
the
ear th!
thing
What
is
the
splendid
misery!” As John Milton, o n his continental to ur, had sought
the company of musicians and men of le tters, so t his yo ung
budding Chr istian poet, with the figure of the Divine Redeemer
ever present to his mind, sought out the company of men and
women
who,
communion
whatever
with
the
their
living
sect
So n
of
or
God.
creed,
He
maintained
w ent
first
to
Frankfur t-o n-the -Main, where Spener had toiled so long, came
down the Rhine to Düsse ldorf, spent half a year at Utrecht,
was intro duce d to William, Prince of Orange, paid flying calls
at Brusse ls, Antwerp, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and ended
the to ur by a six months’ stay amid the gaieties of Paris. At
Düsse ldorf a famous incident o ccurred. There, in the picture
gallery,
he
saw
and
admired
the
beautiful
Ecce
Homo
of
Domenico Feti; there, beneath the picture he read the thr illing
appeal: “All this I did for thee; what doest tho u for Me?”; and
there, in response to that appeal, he resolved ane w to live for
Him who had wor n the crue l crow n of thor ns for all.65
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At Paris he atte nded the Cour t levée, and was presented to
the Duke of Orleans, the Regent, and his mo ther, the Dowager
Duchess.
“Sir Count,” said the Duchess, “have you been to the opera to day?”
“Your Highness,” he replied, “I have no time fo r the o pera.”
He would not spend a go lden moment e xcept fo r the golden
crown.
“I hear,” said the Duchess, “that yo u know the Bible
by
heart.”
“Ah,” said he , “I only wish I did.”
At
Par is,
too,
he
made
the
acquaintance
of
the
Catho lic
Archbishop, Cardinal Noailles. It is marve llo us how broad in
his views the yo ung man was. As he discusse d the nature of
true religion w ith the Cardinal, who trie d in vain to w in him
for the Church of Rome, he came to the conclusio n that the
true Church of Jesus C hrist consisted o f many sects and many
forms of belief. He held that the Church was still an invisible
body;
he
held
denominatio ns;
that
he
it
had
transcended
fo und
good
the
bo und s
C hristians
of
all
among
Protestants and Catho lics alike ; and he be lieved, with all his
heart and soul, that God had called him to the holy task o f
enlisting the faithful in all the sects in one gr and Christian
army, and thus r ealiz ing, in visible form, the promise of C hrist
that
all
His
disciples
sho uld
be
one.
He
was
no
bigote d
Lutheran. For him the cloak o f cr eed or sect w as only of minor
moment. He desired to break down all sectarian barriers. He
desired to draw men fro m all the churches into one grand
fellowship with Christ. He saw , and lamented, the bigotry of
all the sects. “We Protestants,” he said, “are very fond of the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
word liberty; but in practice we often try to thro ttle the
conscience .” He was aske d if he though t a Catholic could be
saved. “Yes,” he replied, “and the man who doubts that,
canno t have looked far beyond his own small cottage.”
“What,
then,”
asked
the
Duche ss
of
Luynes,
“is
the
real
difference be tween a Lutheran and a C atholic?”
“It is,” he replied, “the false ide a that the Bible is so hard to
understand that only the Church can explain it.” He had, in a
word, discovered his vocation.
His religion pur ified his love. As he made his way home , at the
close of the tour, he called to see his aunt, the Coun tess of
Castell, and her daughter Theo dora {1720.}; and during his
stay he fe ll ill of a fever , and so remaine d much lo nger than
he had at fir st intende d. He he lped the Co untess to put in
order the affairs of her estate , took a leading part in the
religious service s of the castle, and was soon regarded as
almost one of the family. At first, according to his usual
custom,
he
gradually
wo uld
his
talk
manner
about
changed.
nothing
He
but
opened
religion.
out,
grew
But
less
reserved, and w ould gossip and chat l ike a woman. He aske d
himself the reason of this alteration. He discovered it. He was
in love with his young cousin, The odora. For a while the gentle
stream of love ran smooth. His mo ther and the Countess
Castell
smiled
approval;
Theo dora,
tho ugh
rather
ic y
in
manner, presented him w ith her portrait; and the Count, w ho
accepted the dainty gift as a ple dge of blossoming love, w as
rejoicing at finding so sweet a w ife and so char ming a helper
in his work, w hen an unforeseen event turned the current of
the stre am. Being belated one evening on a jour ney, he paid a
visit to his frie nd Count Reuss, and dur ing conversatio n made
the
disquie ting
discovery
that
his
fr iend
w ished
to
marry
Theodora. A beautiful co ntest fo llowed. Each of the claimants
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
to the hand of Theod ora expr essed his desire to retire in
favour of the other; and, not be ing able to settle the dispute,
the two yo ung men set out for Castell to see what Theo dora
herself would say. Young Zinzendorf’s mode of reasoning was
certainly original. If his own love for Theodora was pure –i.e.,
if it was a pure desire to do her good, and not a vulgar
sensual passion like that w ith which many love -sick swains
were afflicted–he could, he said, fulfil his purpose just as we ll
by handing her over to the care of his C hrist ian friend. “Even
if it cost me my life to surrender her,” he said, “if it is more
acceptable to my Savio ur, I ought to sacr ifice the dearest
object in the w orld.” T he two friends arrived at Castell and
soon saw which way the wind was blowing; and Zinzendo rf
found,
to
his
great
relief,
that
what
had
been
a
painful
struggle to him was as easy as changing a dress to Theodora.
The young lady gave Count Reuss her heart and hand. The
rejected suitor bore the blow like a stoic. He would conquer,
he said, such dis turbing ear thly emotio ns; w hy should they be
a thicke t in the way of his work for Christ? The betrothal was
sealed in a religious ceremony. Young Zinzendorf compo sed a
cantata for the occasion {March 9th, 1721.}; the cantata was
sung, with orche stral accom paniment, in the pre sence of the
whole ho use of Castell; and at the co nclusion o f the festive
scene the young composer offered up on behalf of the happy
couple a prayer so tender that all were moved to tears. His
self -denial
was
well
rewarded.
If
the
Count
had
marr ied
Theodora, he w ould o nly have had a graceful drawing -room
queen. About eighteen months later he married Count Reuss’s
sister, Erdmuth Dorothea {Sept. 7th, 1722.}; and in her he
found a friend so true that the good fo lk at Herrnhut called
her
a
princess
of
God,
and
the
“fo ster -mother
Brethren’s Church in the e ighteenth century.”66
of
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
If the Count co uld now have had his w ay he would have
entered the service of the State Church; but in those days the
clerical calling w as considered to be beneat h the dignity of a
noble , and his grandmother, pious tho ugh she was, insiste d
that he sho uld stick to jurisprudence. He yie lded, and took a
post as King’s C ouncillor at Dresden, at the Cour t of Augustus
the Strong, King of Saxo ny. B ut no man can fly from h is
shadow ,
and
Zinzendorf
could
not
fly
from
his
hopes
of
becoming a preacher of the Gospel. If he could not preach in
the orthodox pulpit, he wo uld teach in some o ther way; and,
therefore, he invited the public to a weekly meeting in his own
rooms on Sunday afternoons fro m three to seven. He had no
desire to found a sect, and no desire to interfere with the
regular work of the Church. He was acting, he said, in strict
accordance with ecclesiastical law; and he justified his bo ld
conduct
by
appealing
to
a
c lause
in
L uther’s
Smalkald
Articles.67 He contended that there provision was made for
the kind of meeting that he was conducting; and, therefore,
he
invited
men
of
all
classes
to
meet
him
on
Sunday
afternoons, read a passage of Scripture toge ther, and talk in a
free-and-easy fashio n on spir itual topics. He be came known as
rather
a
curio sity;
and
Vale ntine
Löscher,
the
po pular
Lutheran preacher, mentio ned him by name in his sermons,
and held him up before the people as an example they would
all do we ll to fo llow.
But Zinzendorf had not yet re ached his go al. He was not
content with the work accomplished by Spener, Franke, and
other leading Pietists. He was not conte nt w ith drawing -room
meetings for peo ple of rank and money. If fellow ship, said he,
was good for lo rds, it must also be good for peasants. He
wishe d to apply the ideas of Spener to fo lk in humbler life. For
this purpose he now bought fro m his grandmother the little
estate
of
Berthelsdorf,
which
lay
about
three
miles
fro m
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Hennersdorf {April, 1722.}; i nstalle d his frie nd, John Andrew
Rothe, as pastor of the village church; and resolved that he
and
the
pastor
toge ther
would
endeavour
to
convert
the
village into a pleasant garde n of God. “I bought this estate,”
he said, “because I wanted to spend my life amo ng peasants,
and win their so uls for Chr ist.”
“Go, Rothe,” he said, “to the vineyard of the L ord. You will
find in me a brother and he lper r ather than a patr on.”
And here let us note precisely the aim this pio us Count had in
view. He was a loyal and dev o ted me mber of the national
Lutheran Church; he was well ve rsed in Luther’s theolo gy and
in L uther’s practical schemes; and now at Berthe lsdorf he was
making an effor t to carry into practical effect the fo ndest
dreams o f Luther himself. For this, the fello wship of tr ue
belie vers, the great Reformer had sighed in vain;68 and to
this great pur pose the Co unt wo uld now devote his money and
his life .
He introduced the new pastor to the people ; the induction
sermon was preached by Schäfer , the Pietist pastor at G örlitz;
and the preache r used the prophetic words, “God will light a
candle on these hills which w ill illuminate the who le land.”
We have now to see how far these words came true. We have
now to see how the Lutheran C ount applied his ideas to the
needs of exiles from a foreign land, and lear ned to take a vital
interest in a C hurch of w hich as yet he had never heard.
Chapter 2
“Christian David, 1690 -1722″
It is recorded in John Wesley’s “Journal,”69 that when he paid
his memorable visit to Herrnhut he was much impressed by
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the powerful sermons of a cer tain godly carpenter, who had
preached in his day to the Eskimos in Greenland, and w ho
showed a remarkable knowle dge of divinity. It was Christian
David, known to his frie nds as the “Servant of the Lord.”
He
was
born
on
December
31st,
1690,
at
Senftleben,
in
Moravia; he was brought up in that old home of the Brethren;
and yet, as fa r as records te ll, he never heard in his youthful
days of the Brethren who still held the fort in the old home of
their fathers. He came of a Roman Catholic family, and was
brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. He sat at the feet of
the par ish pr iest, wa s devo ut at Mass, invoke d his patron
saint, St. Anthony, knelt down in awe before ever y image and
picture of the Virgin, regarded Protestants as children o f the
devil, and grew up to man’s estate burning w ith Romish zeal,
as he says, “like a baking oven.” He began life as a shepherd;
and his religion was te nder and deep. As he tended his sheep
in the lo nesome fie lds, and rescued one from the jaws of a
wolf, he thought how Christ, the Good Shepherd, had given
His life for men; and as he so ught his wandering sheep in the
woods by night he thought how Christ sought sinners till he
found them. And yet somehow he was not quite easy in his
mind. For all his zeal and all his piety he was no t sure that he
himself had escaped the snare of the fowler. He turned first
for guidance to some quiet Pro testants, and was told by them,
to his horror, that the Pope was Antichrist, that the worship of
saints was a delusio n, and that only through faith in Christ
could
his
sins
be
forgiven.
He
was
puzzled.
As
these
Protestants wer e ready to suffer for the ir faith, he felt they
must be sincere ; and w hen some of them were cast into
priso n, he crept to the w indow of their ce ll and heard the m
sing in the glo aming. He read Lutheran books against the
Papists, and Papist books against the Lutherans. He was now
dissatisfied w ith both. He could see, he said, that the Papists
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
were wrong, but that did no t pr ove that the Lutherans were
right; he could not understand what the Lutherans meant
when they said that a man was justified by faith alone ; and at
last he lost his way so far in this famous theolo gical fog that
he hated and loathed the very name of Christ. He turned next
for
instruction
confirmed
his
to
some
doubts,
Jews;
threw
and
scorn
the
upon
Jews,
the
of
co urse,
whole
New
Testament, and endeavoured to convince him that they alone
were the tr ue Isr ael of God.
He tur ned next to the Bible , and the fo g lifted a little {1710.}.
He read the O ld Testame nt care fully through, to see if the
prophecies there had been fulfilled; and, thereby, he arr ived
at the fir m belief that Jesus w as the promised Messiah. He
then mastered the New Testament, and came to the equally
firm conclusio n that the Bible was the Word of God.
And even ye t he was no t conte nt. As lo ng as he stayed in
Catho lic Moravia he would have to keep his new convictions a
secret; and, longing to renounce the Church of Ro me in public,
he left Moravia, passed thro ugh Hungar y and Silesia, and
finally became a member of a Lutheran co ngregation at Berlin.
But the Lutherans seemed to him very st iff and cold. He was
seeking for a pe arl of great price, and so far he had failed to
find it. He had failed to find it in the C hurch of Rome, failed to
find it in the Scriptures, and failed to find it in the ortho dox
Protestants of Berlin. He had hoped to find himself in a goo dly
land, where men were godly and true; and he found that even
the ortho dox Pro testants made mock of his pio us endeavours.
He left Berlin in disgust, and enlisted in the Prussian Army. He
did not find much pie ty there. He served in th e war against
Charles XII. of Sweden {1715.}, was present at the siege of
Stralsund, tho ught so ldiers no better than civilians, accepted
his dischar ge with jo y, and wandered around fr om town to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
town, like the o ld philo sopher se eking an ho nest man. At last,
however, he made his way to the tow n of Görlitz, in Silesia
{1717.}; and there he came into personal contact with two
Pietist clergyme n, Schäfer and Schwedler. For the first time in
his weary pilgrimage he met a pastor who was also a man. He
fell ill of a dangerous disease; he could not stir hand or foo t
for twenty weeks; he was visited by Schwedler every day; and
thus, through the gateway o f human sympathy, he entered the
kingdo m of peace, and felt assured that all his sins were
forgive n. He married a mem ber of Schwedler’s Church, was
admitted to the Church himse lf, and thus found, in Pie tist
circles,
that
Zinzendorf
very
himself
spir it
of
regar ded
fellowship
as
the
and
greatest
help
need
which
of
the
Church.
But now C hristian David must show to others the treasure he
had fo und for himse lf. For the next five years he made his
home at Görlitz; but, every now and then, at the risk of his
life, he wo uld take a trip to Moravia, and ther e tell his o ld
Protestant friends the story of his new -found joy. He preache d
in a homely style; he had a great command of Scriptural
language; he w as addressing men who for many years had
conned their B ibles in secret; and thus his preaching w as like
unto oil on a smouldering fire, and stirred to vigorous life
once more what had slumbered for a hundred years since the
fatal Day of B lood. He tr ampe d the valleys of Mo ravia; he was
known as the Bush Preacher, and was talked of in every
market -place ; the shepherds sang old Brethren’s hymns o n the
mountains; a ne w spirit breathe d upon the o ld dead bones;
and thus, through the message of this simple man, there
began in Moravia a hot revival o f Protestant zeal and hope . It
was soon to lead to marvellous results.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
For the last thr ee hundred and forty years the re had been
established in the neighbourhoo d of Fulneck, in Moravia, a
colony of Germans.70 They still spoke the German language ;
they lived in places bearing German names and bore German
names themse lves; they had used a German version of the
Bible and a German edition of the Brethren’ s Hymns; and
thus, w hen David’s trumpe t sounded, the y were able to quit
their lo ng -lo ved homes and se ttle down in comfo rt on German
soil. At Kunewalde71 dwelt the Schneiders and Nitschmanns;
at Zauchtenthal the Stachs and Zeisbergers; at Sehlen the
Jaeschkes and N eissers; and at Senftlebe n, David’s o ld home,
the Grassmanns. For such men there was now no peace in
their ancient ho me. So me were imprisoned; so me were loaded
with chains; so me were yoked to the plough and made to work
like horses; and some had to stand in wells of water until
nearly frozen to death. And yet the star of hope still shone
upon them. As the grand old patriarch, George Jaeschke , saw
the
ange l
of
death
draw
near ,
he
gathered
his
son
and
grandsons round his bed, and spoke in thrilling, p rophetic
words of the remnant that should yet be save d.
“It is true ,” said he, “that our liberties are gone, and that our
descendants are giving way to a worldly spirit, so that the
Papacy is devouring them. It may seem as tho ugh the final
end of the Breth ren’s Church had come . But, my be loved
children, you w ill see a great deliverance. T he remnant w ill be
saved. How, I canno t say; but something te lls me that an
exodus w ill take place; and that a refuge will be offered in a
country and on a spot where you w ill be able, without fear , to
serve the Lord according to His holy Word.”
The time of de liverance had co me. As Chr istian David heard of
the sufferings w hich these men had now to endure, his bloo d
boiled with ange r. He resolved to go to their rescue. The pa th
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
lay open. He had made many friends in Saxony. His frie nd
Schäfer introduced him to Rothe; Rothe intro duced him to
Zinzendorf;
and
Christian
David
aske d
the
Count
for
permissio n to bring some persecuted Protestants from Moravia
to
find
a
refuge
in
Berthe lsdorf.
T he
conversatio n
was
momentous. The heart of the C ount w as touched. If these
men, said he , were genuine mar tyrs, he would do his best to
help them; and he promised David that if they came he would
find them a place of abode. The joyful carpenter re turned to
Moravia, and to ld the news to the Neisser family at Sehlen.
“This,” said they, “is God’s do ing; this is a call fr om the Lord.”
And so, at ten o’clock o ne night, there me t at the ho use of
Jacob Neisser, in Sehle n, a small band of emigrants {May
27th, 1722.}. At the head of the band was C hristian David;
and the rest of the little gro up consisted of Augustin and
Jacob Neisser, their w ives and children, Martha Neisser, and
Michael Jaeschke , a cousin of the family.72 We know but little
about these humb le folk; and we cannot be sure that they
were all desce ndants of the old C hurch of the Brethren. Across
the mo untains they came , by winding and unknow n paths. For
the sake of the ir faith they left their goods and chatte ls
behind; lo ng and weary was the mar ch; and at length, worn
out and footsore , they arrived, with Christian David at their
head,
at
Zinzendorf’s
estate
at
Berthelsdorf
{June
8th,
1722.}.
The streams had met: the new river was formed; and thus the
course of Renew ed Brethren’s History had begun .
Chapter 3
“The Founding of Herrnhut, 1722 -1727″
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As these wander ers from a foreign land had not been able to
bring in their pockets certificates of orthodoxy, and might,
after all, be dangerous heretics, it o ccurred to Zinzendorf’s
canny steward, Heitz , that o n the w hole it wo uld be more
fitting if the y se ttled, no t in the village itself, but at a safe
and co nvenient distance. The C ount was away; the steward
was in charge ; and the or thodo x par ish must not be exposed
to infection. As the Neissers, further, were cutlers by trade,
there was no need for them in the quiet village. If they wished
to earn an honest living they could do it better upon the broad
high road.
For these reaso ns, therefore, he led the exiles to a dismal,
swampy stretch of ground abo ut a mile from th e village; and
told
them
for
the
present
to
rest
their
bo nes
in
an
old
unfinished farmhouse {June 8th, 1722.}. The spot itself was
dreary and bleak, but the neighbour ing woods of pines and
beeches relieved the bareness o f the scene . It was part of
Zinzendorf’s estate, and lay at the to p of a ge ntle slo pe, up
which a long avenue now leads. It was a piece of commo n
pasture ground, and was therefore known as the Hutberg,73
or Watch -Hill. It was on the high road from Löbau to Zittau; it
was often used as a camp ing ground by gypsies and other
pedlars; and the road was in such a disgusting state that
wagons so metimes sank axle deep in the mud. Fo r the moment
the refugees wer e sick at hear t.
“Where,” said Mrs. Augustin Neisser, “shall we find bread in
this w ilderne ss?”
“If you believe,” said Godfrey Mar che, tutor to Lady Gersdorf’s
granddaughters, “you shall see the glory of God.”
The steward was quite concerned for the refugees. As he
strolled around inspecting the land he no ticed o ne par ticular
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
spot w here a thick mist was rising; and co ncluding that there
a spr ing w as sure to be found, he offered a prayer on the ir
behalf, and registered the solemn vow, “Upon this spot, in T hy
name, I w ill build for the m the first house.” He laid their
needs before Lady Gersdorf, an d the good old poetess kindly
sent them a cow; he inspecte d the site with Chr istian David,
and marked the trees he might fell; and thus encourage d,
Christian David seized his axe , struck it into a tre e, and, as he
did so, exclaime d, “Yea, the sparrow hath fo und a house , and
the sw allow a ne st for herself.”74 {June 17th, 1722.}
The first step in the building o f Herrnhut had been taken. For
some
weeks
the
settlers
had
still
to
eat
the
bread
of
bitterness and scorn. It was lo ng before they could find a
spring o f water. The food was poor, the childre n fell ill; the
folk in the neighbour hood laughed; and even w hen the first
house was built they remarked that it would no t be standing
long.
But already Christian David had wider plans. Alr eady in vivid
imaginatio n he saw a goodly city rise, mapped o ut the courts
and streets in his mind, and explaine d his glow ing schemes to
the frie ndly He itz. The steward himse lf was carrie d away w ith
zeal. The very name of the hill was hailed as a promising
omen. “May God grant,” wro te Heitz to the Count, “that your
excelle ncy may be able to build on the hill called the Hutberg
a town w hich may not o nly itself abide under the Lord’s Watch
(Herrnhut), but all the inhabitants of which may also continue
on the Lord’s Watch, so that no si lence may be there by day
or night.” It was thus that Herrnhut receive d the name w hich
was soon to be famous in the land; and thus that the exiles,
cheered anew , re solved to build a glor ious City of God.
“We fear,” they wrote to the Count himself, “that ou r settling
here may be a burden to you; and therefore we most humbly
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
entreat yo u to gr ant us your protectio n, to continue to help us
further
still,
and
to
show
kindness
and
lo ve
to
us
poor
distressed and simple -minded petitioners.”
As the building of the f irst house proceeded the pious He itz
grew more and more excited. He drove in the first nail; he
helpe d to fix the first pillar; and, finally, w hen the house was
ready, he opene d it in solemn religio us style, and preache d a
sort
of
prophetic
sermon
abo ut
th e
holy
city,
the
new
Jerusalem co ming down from God out o f heave n. The Count
himself soon ble ssed the undertaking. As he drove along, one
winter night, on the road from Strahwalde to Hennersdorf, he
saw a strange light shining thro ugh the trees {Dec. 2nd.} . He
asked what the light could me an. There, he was told, the
Moravian refuge es had built the first house on his estate. He
stopped the carr iage , entered the house, assured the inmates
of his hearty goo dwill, fell dow n on his knees, and commended
the enter prise to the care of God.
Again the restless David was on the move. As he knelt one day
to fix a plank in the new manor -house which Zinzendorf was
building in the village, it sudde nly flashed o n his busy brain
that he ought to do some thing o ut of the commo n to show his
gratitude to God {1723.}. His wife had just passed through a
dangerous illness; he had vowed to God that if she recovered
he would go to Moravia again; and, throw ing down his tools on
the spo t, he dar ted off in his w orking clo thes, and withou t a
hat o n his head, and made his w ay once more to Sehle n, the
old
home
of
the
Neissers.
He
brought
a
letter
from
the
Neissers in his pocket; he ur ged the rest of the family to cross
the border; and the result was that before many days were
gone a band of e ighteen more emigrants were on their way to
Herrnhut.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
His next step had still more mo mento us results. As he made
his way from to wn to town, and urged his fr iends to come to
“David’s C ity,” he had no fur ther aim than to find a home
where Protestants could live in peace and comfort. He knew
but little , if anything at all, of the old Church of the Brethren;
he had never been a member of that Church himself; he had
no special interest in her welfare ; and the emigrants w hom he
had brought to Herrnhut were mo stl y evangelical folk who had
been
awakened
Steinme tz,
of
by
the
Teschen.
preaching
But
of
now,
the
in
Zauchtenthal, he found a band of five
Pietist
the
pastor,
village
of
young men w hose
bosoms glowed with zeal for the ancient Church. T hey were
David N itschmann I., the Martyr ; David N itschmann II., the
first Bishop of the Renewed Church; David Nitschmann III.,
the Syndic; Melchior Zeisberger, the father of the apostle to
the Indians; and John Toeltschig, one of the first Moravian
preachers
in
Yorkshire .
They
were
genuine
sons
of
the
Brethren; the y used the Catechism of Comenius; they sang the
Brethren’s hymns in their ho mes; and now they were looking
wistfully forward to the time whe n the Church would renew her
strength like the eagle’s. For some months the y h ad made
their native village the centre of an evangelical revival. At last
events in the village came to a crisis; the yo ung men were
summoned be fore the village judge; and the judge, no other
than
Toeltschig’s
father ,
commanded
them
to
close
their
meetings, and to take the ir share, like dece nt fellows, in the
drunken jollifications at the public -ho use. For the brave “Five
Churchmen” the re was now no way but one. Forthwith they
resolved to quit Moravia, and seek for o ther Brethren at Lissa,
in Poland {May 2 nd, 1724.}; and the very next night they set
out o n their jour ney, singing the Moravian Emigrants’ song: –
Blessed be the day w hen I must roam, Far fro m my countr y,
friends and home, An exile poor and mean; My father’s God
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
will be my guide , Will ange l guard s for me provide, My soul in
dangers screen. Himself will lead me to a spot Where, all my
cares and gr iefs forgot, I shall enjoy sweet rest. As pants for
cooling streams the hart, I languish for my heavenly par t, For
God, my refuge blest.
For them the chos en haven of re st was L issa. There the great
Comenius had taught; and there, they imagine d, Brethren
lingered still. As they had, howe ver, heard a go od deal from
David of the “to wn” being built at Herrnhut, the y resolved to
pay a passing call on the ir way. At Lower Wiese they called o n
Pastor Schwe dle r. He renewed their zeal for the Church in
glow ing terms.
“My children,” he said, “do you know w hose descendants yo u
are?
It
is
a
hundred
years
since
the
persecutions
began
against your fathers. You are now to e njoy among us that
liberty of co nscience for the sake of which they shed their
blood. We shall see you blosso m and flo urish in o ur midst.”
It was a memor able day when they arrived at Herrnhut {May
12th, 1724.}. T he first sight of the holy city did not impr ess
them. The excited David had painted a rosy picture. T hey
expected to find a flourishing tow n, and all they saw was three
small houses, o f which only one w as finished.
“If three houses make a city,” said David Nitschmann, “there
are worse places than He rrnhut.”
And yet there w as something to look at after all. At a little
distance
from
the
three
small
ho uses,
sat
Friedr ich
de
Watte ville on a log of wood; Chr istian David was working away
at ano ther building; in the afternoon the Count and Countess
appeared; and the Count then laid the foundation sto ne of a
colle ge for noble men’s sons. The y stayed to see the ceremony.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
They heard the Count deliver an impressive speech. They
heard de Watte ville o ffer a to uching prayer. T hey saw him
place his jewe ls under the sto ne. They were touched; they
staye d; and became the firmest pillars of the r ising te mple.
And now the stream from Moravia increase d in force and
volume. Again and again, te n times in all, did the roving David
journey to the Moravian dales; and again and again did the
loud blast of the trombones in the square anno unce that ye t
another band of refugees had arr ived. Full many a stirring and
thrilling tale had the refugees to tell; how another David
Nitschmann,
impriso ned
in
a
castle,
fo und
a
rope
at
his
window and escaped; how David Schneider and another David
Nitschmann fo und their pr iso n doors open; how David Hickel,
who
had
been
nearly
starved
in
a
dungeon,
walked
out
between his guards in broad daylight, when their backs were
turne d; how Andrew Beier and David Fr itsch had stumbled
against the ir prison door and fo und that the bo lt was loose;
how
Hans
N itschmann,
concealed
in
a
ditch,
heard
his
pursuers, a foot off, say, “This is the place, here he must be,”
and
yet
was
not
disco vered
after
all.
No
wonder
th ese
wanderers fe lt that angels had screened them on their w ay.
For the sake of their faith they had been impr isoned, beaten,
thrust into filthy dungeons. For the sake of their faith they
had
left
behind
the ir
goods,
their
frie nds,
their
worldly
prospects, had tramped the unknown mo untain paths, had
slept under hedges, had been attacked by robbers. And now ,
for the sake of this same faith, these men, though sons of
well -to -do people, settled down to lives of manual toil in
Herrnhut. And the numbers sw elled; the houses rose; and
Herrnhut assumed the shape o f a hollow square.
At this po int, however, a difficulty arose. As the rumo ur
spread in the surrounding countr y that the Co unt had o ffered
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
his estate as an asylum for persecute d Protestants all sorts of
relig ious malcontents came to
make Herrnhut their ho me.
Some had a to uch of C alvinism, and were fond of discussing
free
will
sixteenth
some
and
predestination;
ce ntury
were
vague
Anabaptist
some
were
mystic,
evangelicals
disciples
Casper
fro m
of
the
Schwenkfeld;
Sw abia;
some
were
Lutheran Pietists from near at hand; and some, such as the
“Five Churchmen,” were descendants of the Brethr en’s Church,
and w ishe d to se e her revived on German soil. The result was
dissension in the camp. As the settlement grew larger t hings
grew worse. As the settlers lear ned to know each other better
they learne d to love each o ther less. As poverty crept in at
the door love fle w out of the window. Instead of trying to help
each
other,
me n
actually
tr ied
to
cut
each
other
out
in
busines s, just like the rest of the world. As the first flush of
joy die d away, men pointed out each o ther’s mo tes, and
sarcasm pushe d charity from her throne ; and, wo rse than all,
there
now
appeared
that
de mon
of
discor d,
theological
dispute. The chie f leader wa s a religio us crank, named Krüger .
He was, of course, no descendant of the Brethren’s Church. He
had quarrelled with a Lutheran minister at Ebersdorf, had
been promptly excluded fro m the Holy Communion, and now
came whimper ing to Herrnhut, and lifted up hi s voice against
the
Lutheran
C hurch.
he
did
not
posse ss
the
garment
of
righteousness, he decked himself out with sham excitement
and rhe toric; and, as these are cheap ribbo ns and make a fine
show, he soon gaine d a reputation as a saint. He announced
that he had been commissioned by God with the special task
of reforming Count Zinzendorf; described Rothe as the “False
Prophet” and Zinzendorf as “The Beast”; deno unced the whole
Lutheran Church as a Babylo n, and summo ned all in Herrnhut
to leave it; and alto ge ther made such a show of piety and holy
devotion to God that his freaks and crotchets and fancies and
vagar ies were welcomed by the best of men, and poisoned the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
purest
blood.
His
success
was
marve llo us.
As
the
simple
settlers listened to his rapt oratio ns they became convince d
that the L utheran Church was no better than a den of thieves;
and the greater number now refused to attend the Par ish
Church, and prepared to for m a new sect. Christian David
himself w as le d away. He walke d about like a shadow; he wa s
sure that Kr üge r had a special Divine revelation; he dug a
private well for himself, and built himse lf a new house a few
yards from the settlement, so that he might no t be smirche d
by the pitch o f Lutheran Chr istianity. Worse and ever worse
waxed
the
confusio n.
More
“horrible”75
became
the
new
notions. The eloquent Krüger went out of his mind; and was
removed to the lunatic asylum at Berlin. But the evil that he
had done live d after him. The whole city o n the hill was now a
nest o f fanatics. It was time f or the Count himself to interfere.
For the last five years, w hile Herrnhut was grow ing, the Count
had almost ignor ed the refugees; and had quie tly devoted his
leisure time to his dar ling sche me of establishing a village
“Church within the Church” at Berthe lsdorf. He had still his
official State duties to perfor m. He was still a King’s Councillor
at Dresden. He spent the w inter months in the city and the
summer
at
his
country -seat;
and
as
lo ng
as
the
settlers
behaved the mselves as loyal so ns of the Lutheran Church he
saw no reason to meddle in their affair s. He had, moreover,
taken two wise precautions. He had first issued a public no tice
that no refugee should settle at Herrnhut unless compelled by
persecution; and secondly, he had called a meeting of the
refugees themse lves, and persuaded them to promise that in
all their gatherings they would remain lo yal to the Augsburg
Confession.
Meanwhile, in the village itself, he had pushed his scheme
with vigour. He named his house Bethel; his estate was his
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
parish; and his tenants were his congregation. He had never
forgotten his boyish vow to do all in his power to extend the
Kingdo m of Christ; and now he fo rmed another society like the
old Order o f the Mustar d Seed. It was called the “League of
the Four Brethr en”; it consiste d of Zinzendorf, Friedrich de
Watte ville , and Pastors Rothe and Schäfer; and its object was
to proclaim to the world, by means of a league of men devoted
to Christ, “that mystery and charm of the Incar nation which
was not ye t sufficiently recogn ized in the Chur ch.” He had
several metho ds of work. As he w ishe d to reach the young fo lk
of noble rank, he had a schoo l for nobleme n’s sons built on
the Hutberg, and a schoo l for noblemen’s daughters dow n in
the village; and the members of the League all signed an
agreement to subscribe the needful funds for the undertaking.
As he wished, further, to appeal to men in var ious parts of the
country, he established a printing -office at Ebersdorf, and
from that office sent books, pamphlets, letters, and cheap
editions of the Bible in all directio ns. As he lo nged, thirdly, for
personal contact with leading me n in the Church, he instituted
a system of jo urneys to Halle and other centre s of learning
and piety. But his best work w as do ne in Berthelsdorf. His
steward , Heitz, gave the rustics Bible lessons; Pastor Rothe
preached awakening sermons in the parish church, and his
preaching was, as the Count de clared, “as though it rained
flames from heaven”; and he himself, in the summer season,
held daily singing meetings and prayer meetings in his own
house. Hand in hand did he and Rothe work har d for the flock
at Berthelsdorf. On a Sunday mo rning the pastor would preach
a telling sermo n in a crow ded church; in the afternoon the
squire would gather his te nants in his hous e and expound to
them the morning’s disco urse. T he whole village was stirred;
the Church w as enlarge d; and the Count himself was so in
earnest that if the slightest hitch occurred in a service he
would bur st into tears. W hile things in Herrnhut were growin g
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
worse
things
in
Berthelsdorf
were
growing
better ;
while
stormy w inds blew on the hill there was peace and fellowship
down in the valley. How closely the Count and the pastor were
linked may be se en from the follo wing fact. The C ount’s family
pew in the C hur ch was a small gallery or raised box over the
vestry; the box had a trap -do or in the floor; the pastor,
according to Lutheran custom, r etired to the vestry at certain
points in the ser vice ; and the Count, by opening the aforesaid
door, co uld co mmunicate his wishes to the pastor .
He had now to apply his pr inciple s to Herrnhut. As lo ng as the
settlers had behaved themselves well, and ke pt their promise
to be loyal to the National C hurch, he had left them alo ne to
follow their own devices; and even if they sang old Brethren’s
hymns at the ir meetings, he had no insuperable objection. But
now the time had come to take stern measures. He had take n
them in out of charity; he had invited the m to the meetings in
his house ; and now they had turned the place into a nest of
scheming dissenters. There was war in the camp. On the one
hand,
C hristian
David
called
Rothe
a
narrow -minded
churchman. On the other hand, Rothe thunder ed from his
pulpit against the “mad fanatics” on the hill. As Jew and
Samar itan
in
days
of
old,
so
now
were
Berthelsdorf
and
Herrnhut.
At this critical point the Count intervened, and changed the
duel into a duet {1727.}. He wo uld have no makers of sects
on his estate . With all their faults, he
believed that the
settlers were at botto m broad -minded people . Only clear aw ay
the rubbish and the gold wo uld be found underneath.
“Altho ugh our de ar Christian David,” he said, “was calling me
the Beast and Mr. Rothe the False Prophe t, we could see his
honest heart nevertheless, and knew we could le ad him righ t.
It is no t a bad maxim,” he added, “when ho nest men are going
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
wrong
to
put
them
into
office,
and
they
w ill
learn
from
experience w hat they w ill never learn from speculatio n.”
He acted on that maxim now. He would teach the exiles to
obey the law of the la nd, to bow to his authority as lord of the
manor, and to live in C hristian fellowship with each o ther. For
this purpose , he summoned the m all to a mass meeting in the
Great House on the Hutberg {May 12th.}, lectured them for
over three hours on the sin of schism, read out the “Manorial
Injunctions
and
Prohibitio ns,”7 6
which
all
inhabitants
of
Herrnhut must promise to obey, and then submitted a number
of “Statutes” as the basis of a vo luntar y religious society. T he
effect
w as
changed
sudden
from
a
and
group
sw ift.
of
At
one
quarrelling
bound
t he
schismatics
settlers
to
an
organized body of orderly Chr istian tenants; and forthw ith the
assembled settlers shook hands, and promised to obey the
Injunctions and Prohibitions.
As soon as the Count had secured good la w and order he
obtained leave o f absence from Dresden, too k up his residence
at Herrnhut, and proceeded to or ganize all w ho w ishe d into a
syste matic Chur ch within the Church. For this purpose he
prepared
another
agreement
{July
4 th.},
entitled
the
“Brotherly Union and Compact,” signed the agr eement first
himself,
persuaded
Christian
David,
Pastor
Schäfer
and
another neighbo uring clergyman to do the same, and then
invited all the r est to follow suit. Again, the goodwill was
practically unive rsal. As the sett lers had promised on May
12th to obe y the Manor ial Injunctio ns and Pr ohibitio ns, so
now, of their ow n free w ill, they signed a promise to end the ir
sectar ian quarrels, to o bey the “Statutes,” and to live in
fellowship with Christians of all beliefs and de n ominatio ns.
Thus had the Co unt accomplished a double purpo se. As lord of
the manor he had crushed the de sign to form a separate sect;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and as Spe ner’s disciple he had persuaded the descendants of
the Bohemian B rethren to form another “Church within the
Church.”
Nor was this all. As the Brethren looked back in later years to
those me morable days in Herrnhut, they came to regard the
summer months of 1727 as a holy, calm, sabbatic seaso n,
when one and all were quicke ned and stirred by the power of
the Spir it Di vine. “The who le place,” said Zinzendorf himse lf,
“represented a visible tabernacle of God among men.” For the
next four mo nths the city on the hill was the home of ineffable
joy; and the ve ry men w ho had lately quarrelled with each
other now forme d little groups for prayer and praise. As the
evening
shadow s
lengthene d
across
the
squar e
the
whole
settlement met to pray and praise, and talk with each other,
like
brothers
and
sisters
of
one
home.
The
fancies
and
vagar ies fle d. The Count held meetings every da y. The Church
at
Berthelsdorf
was
crowded
out.
T he
goo d
David,
now
appo inted Chief Elder , persuaded all to study the art of love
Divine by go ing through the First Epistle of St. John. The very
children were stirred and awakened. The whole movement was
calm, strong, deep and abiding. Of vulgar excitement there
was
none;
religious
no
tr icks
noisy
to
meetings,
work
on
no
the
extravagant
emo tio ns.
babble,
For
no
maw kish,
sentimental religion the Count had an ho nest contempt. “It
is,” he said, “as easy to create religious excitement as it is to
stir up the sensual passio ns; and the former often leads to the
latter.” As the Brethren met in e ach other’s homes, or on the
Hutberg whe n the
reverence
and
holy
stars
awe,
were
to
shining,
the
still
they
vo ice
listened, w ith
of
that
Good
Shepherd who w as leading them gently, step by step, to the
green pastures o f peace .
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Amid the fervour the Count made an announcement which
caused every cheek to flush with new delight. He had made a
strange disco very. At Z ittau, not far awa y, was a reference
library; and there, one day, he found a co py o f Comenius’s
Latin version of the old Brethr en’s “Acco unt of Discipline.”
{July.} His eyes were opened at last. For the fir st time in his
busy life he read authe ntic information about the old Church
of the Brethren; and discovered, to his amazement and joy,
that
so
far
fro m
being
distur bers
of
the
peace,
with
a
Unitar ian taint in their blood, they were pure upholders of the
very faith so dear to his own hear t.
His soul was stir red to its depth s. “I could no t,” he said, “read
the lamentatio ns of old Co menius, addressed to the Church of
England, lamentatio ns called forth by the idea that the Church
of the Brethren had come to an end, and that he was locking
its door–I could not read his mournful prayer, ‘Turn Thou us
unto Thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned; rene w our days as
of old,’ w ithout resolving there and then: I, as far as I can,
will help to br ing about this renewal. And tho ugh I have to
sacrifice my ear thly possessio ns, my honours and m y life, as
long as I live I will do my utmo st to see to it that this little
flock of the Lord shall be preserved for Him until He come.”
And even this w as not the strangest part of the story. As the
Count devoured the ancient treatise, he no ticed that the rule s
laid down therein were almost the same as the rules which he
had just draw n up for the refugees at Herrnhut. He retur ned
to Herrnhut, re ported his find, and read the good people
extracts
from
the
book
{Aug.
4th.}.
T he
sensation
w as
profound. If this was like new milk to the Count it was like ol d
wine to the Br ethren; and again the fire of the ir fathers
burned in the ir veins.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
And now the coping stone was set on the temple {Aug. 13th.}.
As the Brethren were learning, ste p by step, to love each
other in true sincerity, Pastor R othe now invited them all to
set the seal to the work by coming in a body to Berthelsdorf
Church, and there joining, with one accord, in the celebration
of the Holy Communion. The Brethren accepte d the invitation
with joy. The date fixed w as Monday, August 13 th. The se nse
of awe was ove rpowering. As the Brethren w alked dow n the
slope to the church all fe lt that the supreme occasion had
arrived; and all who had quarrelled in the days gone by made
a covenant of lo yalty and love. At the door of the church the
strange sense of awe was thrilling. They entered the building;
the service began; the “Confession” was offered by the Count;
and then, at one and the same moment, all pr esent, rapt in
deep devotion, were stirred by the mystic wondro us touch of a
power
which
none
could
define
or
understand.
There,
in
Berthelsdorf Par ish Chur ch, they attained at last the firm
conviction that they were one in Christ; and ther e, above all,
they believed and felt that on them, as o n the tw elve disciples
on the Day of Pentecost, had re sted the purifying fire of the
Holy G host.
“We learned,” said the Brethren, “to love.” “From that time
onward,”
said
David
Nitschmann,
“Herrnhut
was
a
living
Church of Jesus Christ. We thank the Lord that w e ever came
to
Herrnhut,
instead
of
pressing
on,
as
we
intende d,
to
Poland.”
And there the humble Brother spo ke the tr uth. As the Brethren
returned that evening to Herrnhut, they felt within the m a
strength and jo y they had never known before. They had
realise d their calling in C hrist. They had wo n the Divine gift of
Christian unio n. They had wo n that spirit of brotherly lo ve
which only the great Good Spir it co uld give . They had won
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that se nse of fe llowship w ith C hrist, and fellowship with one
another, w hich had been the co stl iest gem in the days of the ir
fathers; and the refore, in future, they ho noured the day as
the true spir itual birthday of the Renewed Church of the
Brethren. It is useless trying to express their feelings in
prose. Let us listen to the moving words of the M oravian poet,
James Montgo me ry: –
They walked w ith God in peace and love , But failed with one
another; While sternly for the faith they strove, Brother fell
out w ith brother ; But He in Who m they put their trust, Who
knew their frames, that the y were dust, P itied and healed
their weakness.
He
found
them
in
His
house
of
prayer,
With
one
accord
assembled, And so revealed His presence there, They wept for
joy and tremble d; One cup they drank, one bread they brake,
One
baptism
shared,
one
language
spake,
Forgivin g
and
forgive n.
Then forth they went, w ith tongues o f flame, In one blest
theme delighting, The love of Jesus and His Name, God’s
children all uniting! That love, o ur theme and watchwor d still;
That law of love may we fulfil, And lo ve as we are loved.
The next ste p w as to see that the blessing was not lost {Aug.
27th.}.
For
this
purpose
the
B rethren,
a
few
days
later,
arranged a system of Hour ly Intercessio n. As the fire on the
altar in the Jewish Temple was never allowe d to go out, so the
Brethren resolve d that in this new temple of the Lord the
ince nse of intercessory prayer should r ise continually day and
night. Henceforth, Herrnhut in very truth sho uld be the “Watch
of the Lord.” The whole day was carefully mapped out, and
each Brother or Sister took his o r her turn. Of all the prayer
unions
ever
organized
surely
this
was
one
of
the
most
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
remarkable. It is said to have lasted w ithout interruption for
over a hundred years.
Chapter 4
“Life at Herrnhut”
As
we
study
the
social
and
religious
syste m
which
now
developed at Herrnhut, it is well to bear in mind the fact that
when
the
Count,
as
lord
of
the
manor,
first
issued
his
“Injunctions and Prohibitions,” he was not aw are that, in so
doing, he was calling back to life once more the discipline of
the old Bohemia n Brethren. He had not yet read the history of
the Brethren, and he had not yet studied Comenius’s “Account
of Discipline.” He knew but little of the Brethren’s past, and
the little that he knew was wrong; and, having no other plan
to guide him, he took as his mode l the constitution lying ready
to hand in the average German village of the day, and adapted
that simple co nstitutio n to the special needs of the exiles.77
He had no desire to make Herrnhut indepe ndent. It was still to
be a par t of his estate , and conform to the laws of the land;
and still to be the home of a “Church w ithin the Church,” as
planned by Luthe r long ago in his famous German Mass.
First, then the C ount laid down the rule that all male adults in
Herrnhut, no matter to what sect the y migh t be long, should
have
a
vo ice
in
henceforward
these
neighbo uring
estates
department
of
life,
the
election
twelve
of
and
of
Elders,
Silesia,
had
enforced
twelve
like
those
control
the
Elders;
in
over
Injunctio ns
and
the
every
and
Prohibitions with an iron h and. T hey levie d the usual rate s and
taxes to keep the streets and w ells in order . They under took
the care of w ido ws and or phans. They watche d the relations of
single young men and wome n. T hey kept a sharp eye on the
doings at the inn. They calle d to order the tellers of evil tales;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and they banished from Herrnhut all who diso beyed the laws,
or
conducte d
themselves
in
an
unbecoming,
frivo lous
or
offensive manner.
The power of the Elders was enormous. If a new refugee
desired to se ttle in Herrnhut, he must f irst obtain permission
from the Elders. If a settler desired to go o n a journe y, he
must first obtain permissio n from the Elders. If a man desired
to build a house ; if a trader desired to change his calling; if
an apprentice de sired to leave his master; if a visitor desired
to stay the night, he must first obtain permission from the
Elders. If a man fell in lo ve and desired to mar ry, he must
first obtain the approval of the Elders; and until that approval
had been o btained, he was no t allowed to pr opose to the
choice of his he art. Let us see the reason for this remarkable
strictness.
As the Brethre n settled down in Herrnhut, they e ndeavo ured,
under the Count’s direction, to realize the dignity of labour .
For rich and po or, for Catholic and Protestant, for al l able bodie d me n and women, the same stern rule held good. If a
man de sired to settle at Herrnhut, the one supre me condition
was that he earned his bread by honest to il, and lived a godly,
righteous and sober life. For industrio us Catho lics there was a
hearty welco me; for vagabonds, tramps and w hining beggars
there was not a bed to spare. If a man would w ork he might
stay, and worship God according to his co nscience; but if he
was lazy, he was ordered off the premises. As the Brethren
met on Sunday morning for early worship in the public hall,
they jo ined with one accor d in the prayer, “Bless the sweat of
the brow and faithfulness in business”; and the only business
they allowed was business w hich they co uld ask the Lord to
bless. To them work was a sacred duty, a delight and a means
for the commo n good. If a man is blesse d who has found his
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
work, then blessed were the folk at Herrnhut. “We do not work
to live,” said the Count; “we live to work.” The whole aim was
the good of each and the good of all. As the grocer stood
behind his counter, or the weaver plied his flying shuttle, he
was toiling, not for himse lf alone , but for all his Brethren and
Sisters. If a man desired to se t up in business, he had fir st to
obtain the permission of the Elders; and the Elde rs refused to
grant the permission unless they tho ught that the business in
question was ne eded by the rest of the people. “No brother,”
ran the law at Herrnhut, “shall compete w ith his bro ther in
trade.” No man was allowed to lend mone y on interest witho u t
the conse nt of the Elders. If two men had any dispute in
business, they must co me to ter ms within a wee k; and if they
did no t, or went to law, they w ere expelled. If a man co uld
buy an article in Herrnhut, he was not allow ed to buy it
anyw here else.
It is easy to see the purpose of these regulations. They were
an attempt to so lve the social pr oblem, to banish competition,
and to put co -operatio n in its place. For so me years the
scheme was cro wned with glorious success. The settleme nt
grew;
the
trade
flour ished;
the
great
firm
of
Dür ninger
obtained a world -wide reputation; the women we re skilled in
weaving and spinning; and the whole system w orked so well
that in 1747 the Saxon Government beso ught the Count to
establish a similar settlement at Barby. At Her rnhut, in a
word, if now here else, the social problem w as solved. There,
at least, the aged and ill could live in peace and comfor t;
there grim po verty was unknow n; there the widow and orphan
were free from carking care; and there men and women of
humble r ank had learned the truth that when men toil for the
common good there is a perennial no ble ness in work.78
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
For pleasure the Brethren had neither time nor taste. The y
worked, on the average, sixteen hours a day, allo wed only five
hours for sleep, and spent the r emaining three at meals and
meetings. The
Count was as Puritanic as Oliver
Cromwell
himself. For so me reason he had come to the co nclusion that
the
less
the
therefore
he
settlers
laid
knew
dow n
the
of
pleasure
law
that
all
the
better ,
strolling
and
po pular
entertainers sho uld be forbidde n to e nter the holy city. No
public buffoon e ver cracked his jokes at Herrnhut. No tight rope dancer po ised on giddy he ight. No barrel -dancer rolle d
his e mpty barrel. No tout for lotteries swindled the simple . No
juggler
mystifie d
the
children.
No
cheap -jack
cheated
the
innocent maidens. No quack -doctor sold his nasty pills. No
melancho ly bear made his feeble attempt to dance. For the
social jo ys of
private
life
the
laws were
stricter
still. At
Herrnhut, ran o ne comprehe nsive clause, there were to be no
dances
whateve r,
no
we dding
breakfasts,
no
christening
bumpers, no drinking parties, no funeral feasts, and no games
like those played in the surrounding villages. No bride at
Herrnhut ever carried a bouque t. No sponsor ev er gave the
new arrival a mug or a silver spo on.
For sins of the coarse and vulgar kind there was no mercy. If
a man got drunk, or cursed, or sto le, or use d his fists, or
committed adultery or fornicatio n, he was expe lled, and no t
permitted to return till he had give n infallible proofs of tr ue
repentance.
No
guilty
co uple
were
allowed
to
“cheat
the
parson.” No man was allowed to strike his w ife, and no w ife
was allowed to henpeck her husband; and any woman found
guilty of the latter crime was summoned befor e the boar d of
Elders and repr imanded in public.
Again,
the
Count
insisted
on
civil
or der.
He
appo inted
a
number of other officials. Some , called servants, had to clean
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the wells, to sw eep the streets, to repair the houses, and to
trim the gardens. For the sick there was a board of sick
waiters; for the poor a board of almoners; for the w icke d a
board o f mo nitor s; for the ignorant a board o f schoolmasters;
and each board held a co nference every week. O nce a week,
on Saturday nights, the Elders met in Counci l; once a week,
on Monday mornings, they anno unced any new decrees; and
all inhabitants vowed obedience to them as Elders, to the
Count as War den, and finally to the law of the land. Thus had
the Count, as lord of the manor , drawn up a co de of civil law s
to be binding on all. We have finished the Manor ial Injunctions
and Prohibitions. We co me to the free religious life of the
community.
Let us first clear a difficulty o ut of the w ay. As the Count was
a
loyal
son
of
the
Lutheran
Church,
and
regarded
the
Augsburg Confession as inspired,79 it seems, at first sight, a
marvellous fact that here at Herrnhut he allowed the Brethren
to take steps which le d ere long to the renewal of their
Church. He allowed them to sing Brethren’s Hymns; he allowe d
them to revive ol d Brethren’s custo ms; he allowed them to
hold independent meetings; and he even resolved to do his
best to revive the old Church himse lf. His conduct certainly
looked very inconsistent. If a man in England were to call
himself a loyal member of the Anglica n Church, and ye t at the
same
time
do
his
very
best
to
found
an
inde pendent
denominatio n, he would soo n be denounced as a traitor to the
Church and a br eeder of schism and dissent. But the Count’s
conduct
can
ignorance
of
be
easily
history.
explained.
He
had
no
It
idea
w as
that
all
due
the
to
his
Bohemian
Brethren had ever been an inde pendent Church. He regarded
them as a branch of the Reformed persuasion. He regarde d
them as a “C hur ch within the Church,” of the kind for which
Luther had longe d, and w hich S pener had already established.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
He held his de lusio n down to
the end of his days; and,
therefore, as Lutheran and Pietist alike, he fe lt at liberty to
help the Brethre n in all their religious endeavour s.
For this purpose , therefore, he asked the settlers at Herrnhut
to sign the ir names to a voluntary “Brotherly Union”; and the
chief conditio n o f the “Union” was that all the me mbers agreed
to live in fr iendship with C hristians of o ther de nominatio ns,
and also to regard the mselves as members of the Lutheran
Church.
They
attended
the
regular
service
at
the
Parish
Church. There they took the Holy Communio n; there they had
their children baptized; and there the young people were
confirmed.
Meanwhile the movement at He rrnhut was grow ing fast. The
great po int was to guard against re ligio us po ison. As the
Count had a healthy horror of w orks of darkness, he insisted
that no meetings should be held without a light; and the
Brethren set their faces against superstition. They forbade
ghost-stories; they condemne d the po pu lar old-w ives’ tales
about tokens, o mens and death -birds; they insisted that, in
case of illness, no meddling busybody should interfere with
the do ctor; and thus, as homely, practical folk, they aimed at
health o f bo dy and of mind.
But the chief o bject of their ambitio n was health of soul. As
the revival deepened, the number of meetings increased. Not
a
day
passed
without
three
meetings
for
the
w hole
congregation. At five in the morning they me t in the hall, and
joined in a cho rus of praise. At the dinner h o ur they met
again, and then, about nine o’clock, after suppe r, the y sang
themse lves to re st. At an early period the who le congregation
was divided into nine ty unio ns for prayer, and e ach band met
two or three times a week. The night was as sacred as the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
day. As the night -watchman went his rounds, he sang a verse
at the hour, as follows: –
The clock is eight! to Herrnhut all is told, How Noah and his
seven were saved of o ld, Hear, Brethren, hear ! the hour of
nine is come ! Ke ep pure each he art, and chasten ev ery home!
Hear, Brethren, hear! now ten the hour -hand sho ws; They only
rest who long fo r night’s repose . The clock’s ele ven, and ye
have heard it all, How in that hour the mighty God did call.
It’s midnight no w, and at that hour yo u know, With lamp to
meet the br idegroom we must go. The ho ur is one; through
darkness steals the day; Shines in your hearts the mor ning
star’s first ray? The clock is two! who co mes to meet the day,
And to the Lord of days his ho mage pay? The clock is three!
the Three in One abov e Let body, so ul and spir it tr uly lo ve.
The clock is four! where’er on e arth are three, The Lord has
promised He the fourth will be. The clock is five! while five
away were sent, Five other virgins to the marriage went! The
clock is six, and from the watch I’m free, And every one may
his own w atchman be !
At this task all male inhabitants, over sixteen and under sixty,
took their turn. The watchman, in the intervals between the
hours, sang o ther snatches of sacred song; and thus anyone
who happened to be lyi ng awake was continually reminded of
the presence of God.
On Sunday nearly every hour o f the day w as occupied by
services. At five there was a short meeting, known as the
“morning blessing.” > From six to nine there were meetings for
the several “cho irs.” A t te n there was a special service for
children. At eleven there was morning worship in the Par ish
Church. At o ne the Chie f Elder gave a ge neral exhortation. At
three,
or
there abouts,
there
was
a
meeting,
called
the
“strangers’ service,” for those w ho had n ot been able to go to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Church; and the n the Count or some other layman repeated
the morning ser mon. At fo ur there was anothe r service at
Berthelsdorf; at eight another service at Herrnhut; at nine the
young me n marched round the settlement singing hymns; an d
on Monday mor ning these wonderful fo lk returned to their
labo ur like giants refreshed with new w ine . The ir powers of
endurance were miraculo us. The more meetings they had the
more they seemed able to stand. Some times the good Pastor
Schwedler, o f Görlitz , would give them a sermo n three hours
long; and sometimes, commencing at six in the morning, he
held his congregatio n enthralled till three in the afternoon.
Again, the Brethren liste ned day by day to a special message
from God. We come now to the origin of the Moravian Text book. As the Co unt was a great believer in variety, he very
soon
star ted
meeting,
of
the
practice,
giving
the
at
the
people
regular
a
short
evening
address
singing
on
some
Scriptural te xt o r some verse from a hymn. As soon as the
singi ng meeting was o ver he r ead out to the company the
chosen passage, recommende d it as a suitable subject for
meditatio n the follow ing day, and next morning had the text
passed round by the Elders to e very house in Herrnhut. Next
year (1728) the practice was better organized. Instead of
waiting
for
the
Count
to
choose,
the
Elders
selected
in
advance a number of texts and verses, and put them all
together into a box; and then, each evening, one of the Elders
put his hand into the box and drew the text for the following
day. The idea w as that of a special Pro vidence. If Chr ist, said
the Count, took a special interest in every one of His children,
He would also take the same kindly interest in e very company
of believers; and, therefore, He might be safely trusted to
guide
the
hand
of
the
Elde r
aright
and
provide
the
“watchword” needed for the day. Again and again he exhorte d
the Brethren to regard the text for the day as God’s special
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
message to the m; and finally, in 1731, he had the texts for
the w hole year print ed, and thus began that Brethren’s Text book which now appear s regularly every year, is issued in
several tongues, and cir culates, in every quarter of the glo be,
among Chr istians of all deno minations.80
In order , ne xt, to keep in touch w ith their fellow -Christians
the Brethren instituted a monthly Saturday meeting, and that
Saturday came to be known as “Congregation Day.” {Feb.
10th, 1728.} At this meeting the Brethren listene d to reports
of evange lical w ork in o ther districts. Sometimes there would
be a letter from a travelling Brother; sometimes a visitor from
some far-distant strand. The me eting was a genuine sign of
moral health. It fostered broadne ss of mind, and put an end to
spir itual pride. Instead of regar ding themselves as Pietists,
superior to the average professing Christians, the Brethren
now rejoiced to hear of the good done by others. They prayed
not for their ow n narrow circle alone, but for all rulers, all
churches, and all people that o n earth do dwe ll; and delighted
to sing old Brethren’s h ymns, treating of the Chur ch Universal,
such
as
John
Augusta’s
“Praise
God
for
ever”
and
“How
amiable Thy tabernacles are.” At this monthly meeting the
Count
w as
in
his
e lement.
He
would
keep
his
audience
enthralled for hours to gether . He would read them f ir st a
piece of news in vivid, dramatic style; then he wo uld suddenly
strike up a missionary hymn; the n he would give them a little
more infor mation; and thus he taught them to take an interest
in lands beyo nd the sea.
Another sign of moral health was the “Love-feast.” As the
Brethren met in each other’s ho uses, they attempted, in quite
an unofficial w ay, to revive the Agape o f Apostolic times; and
to this end the y provided a simple meal of r ye -bread and
water, w ished e ach o ther the w ish, “Long live the Lor d Jesus
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
in our hear ts,” and talked in a fr ee -and-easy fashion about the
Kingdo m of God. And here the B rethren were on their guard.
In the days of the Apostles ther e had been scandals. The rich
had brought the ir costly food, and the poor had been left to
pine. At Herrnhut this scandal w as avoided. For rich and poor
the diet was the same, and came from a common fund; in
later years it w as white bread and tea; and in due time the
Love-feast
took
the
form
of
a
meeting
for
the
who le
congregation.
Again, the Bret hren were wonderfully simple -minded. As we
read abo ut the ir various mee tings, it is clear that in their
childlike way they were trying to revive the institutions o f
Apostolic times. For this purpo se they even practised the
ceremony of foo t -washing, as desc ribed in the Gospel of St.
John. To the Count the clear co mmand o f Chr ist was decisive.
“If I the n, your Lord and Maste r,” said Jesus, “have washed
your feet, ye also ought to w ash one ano ther’s feet.” What
words, said the Count, could be more binding than these? “No
man,”
he
declared,
“can
read
John
xiii.
w ithout
being
convince d that this sho uld be do ne.” He revived the custom,
and made
generally
it both popular
performed
by
and useful. The
the
young,
be fore
ceremony was
some
special
festival. It spread in time to England and Ireland, and was no t
abandoned till the early years of the nineteenth century81
(1818).
We come now to the origin of the “cho irs.” As Zinzendorf
studie d the Gospel story, he came to the co nclusio n that in
the life of Jesus Christ there was something specially suitable
to each estate in life. For the married people there was Christ,
the
Bridegroom
of
His
Bride ,
the
Church;
for
the
single
Brethren, the “man abo ut thirty years of age”; for the single
Sisters, the Vir gin Mary; for the child ren, the boy in the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
temple asking questio ns. The idea took root. The more rapidly
the settlement grew, the more need there was fo r division and
organization. For each class the Master had a special message,
and, therefore, each class must have its special meetings and
study its special duties. For this pur pose a band of single
men–led by the ascetic Mar tin Linner, w ho slept on bare
boards–agreed to live in one house, spe nt the evenings in
united study, and thus laid the basis of the Single Brethren’s
Choir {Aug. 29th, 1728.}. For the same purpo se the single
young wome n, led by Anna N itschmann, agreed to live in a
“Single
Sisters’
House ,”
and
made
a
co venant
w ith
one
another that he nceforward they would not make matrimony
the highest aim in life, but would ra ther, like Mary of Bethany,
sit at the feet of Christ and lear n of Him {May 4th, 1730.}.
For the same purpose the marrie d people met at a love -feast,
formed the “married choir,” and promised to lead a pure and
holy life {Se pt. 7th, 1733.}, “so that the ir c hildren might be
plants of righteo usness.” For the same purpose the children,
in due time, were formed into a “childre n’s cho ir.” The whole
aim
was
efficie ncy
and
order.
At
first
the
unions
were
congr egation
was
voluntary; in time they became official.
As
the
years
syste matically
rolled
divided
on
the
whole
into
te n
“cho irs,”
as
follows: –The
married cho ir, the widowers, the widows, the Single Brethren,
the Single Sisters, the yo uths, the great gir ls, the little bo ys,
the little girls, the infants in arms. E ach choir had its own
preside nt, its o wn special services, its ow n festival day, its
own lo ve -feasts. Of these choir s the most important were
those
of
the
Single
Brethre n
and
Single
Sisters.
As
the
Brethren at Herrnhut were soon to be busy in evangelistic
labo urs, they fo und it convenient to have in their ranks a
number of men and women w ho were not bound down by
family ties; and though the yo ung people took no celibate
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
vows, the y often kept single thr ough life for the sake o f the
growing cause .
The system invaded the sanctity of family life. As the Count
was a family man himself, he ve ry properly took the deepest
interest in the training of little children; and, in season and
out
of
season,
he
insisted
that
the
children
of
Christian
parents should be screen ed from the seductions of the world,
the flesh and the devil. “It is no thing less than a scandal,” he
said, “ that people think so little of the fact that their children
are dedicated to the Lord. C hildren are little kings; their
baptism is their anointing; and as kings the y ought to be
treated from the first.” For this purpose he laid down the rule
that all infants should be baptized in the hall, in the presence
of the who le co ngregatio n; and as soon as the children were
old enough to le arn, he had the m tak e n from their homes, and
put the little boys in one school and the little girls in ano ther.
And thus the bur den of the ir educatio n fell not o n the parents,
but on the congr egation.
Again, the Count carr ied out his ideas in the “vasty halls of
death.” O f all the sacred spots in Herrnhut there were none
more sacred and more awe -inspir ing than the “God’s Acre”
which the Brethren laid out on the Hutberg. T here, in the
bosom of Mo the r Earth, the same divisio n into cho irs was
preserved. To the Count the tomb was a holy place. If a visitor
ever came to He rrnhut, he was sure to take him to the God’s
Acre, and tell him the story of those whose bone s awaited the
resurrectio n of the just. The God’s Acre became the sce ne of
an impressive service {1733.}. At an early ho u r on Easter
Sunday the Brethren assembled in the sacred presence of the
dead, and waited for the sun to rise. As the golden r im
appeared o n the horizon, the minister spo ke the first words o f
the service. “The Lord is risen,” said the minister . “He is rise n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
indeed!”
responded
beautiful
language
solemn
the
of
waiting
Scripture,
confession of faith. The
throng.
the
And
Brethren
trombones
then,
in
joined
that woke
the
in
a
the
morning echoes led the anthem of praise, and o ne and all, in
simple faith, loo ked onw ar d to the glor ious time when those
who lay in the silent tomb should hear the voice of the Son of
God, and be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air. To the Brethren the tomb was no abode o f dread. In a
tomb the Lord Himself had lain; in a to mb His humble disciples
lay “ asleep”; and therefore, when a bro ther departed this life,
the mourners ne ver spoke of him as dead. “He is gone ho me,”
they said; and so death lost his sting.
Again, the Brethren had a strong belief in direct answers to
prayer. It was this that led them to make such use of the
“Lot.” As soo n as the first twe lve Elders were elected, the
Brethren cho se from among the twelve a committee of four by
Lot; and in course of time the Lot was used for a great varie ty
of pur poses. By the L ot, as we shall see later on, the mos t
serious ecclesiastical problems were settled. By the Lot a
sister determine d her answer to an offer of mar riage. By the
Lot a call to service was given, and by the Lot it was accepted
or rejected. If o nce the Lot had been consulted, the decisio n
was absolute and binding. The prayer had been answered, the
Lord had spoken, and the servant must now obey.82
We have now to mention but one more custom, dating from
those great days. It is o ne peculiar to the Brethr en’s Church ,
and is known as the “Cup of Co venant.” It was e stablished by
the Single Brethren, {1729.} and was base d on the act of
Christ Himself, as recorded in the Gospel o f St. Luke. As the
Master sat with His twe lve disciples in the Upper Room at
Jerusalem, we ar e told that just before the institutio n of the
Lord’s Supper,83 “He took the Cup and gave thanks, and said,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
‘Take this and divide it among yourselves’”; and now, in
obedience
to
this
command,
this
ar dent
band
of
young
disciples made a covenant to be true t o Chr ist, and passed the
Cup from hand to hand. Whenever a young brother was called
out to the mission fie ld, the w hole choir would meet and
entrust him to C hrist in this simple and scriptural way. It w as
the pledge at once of unite d service and united tr u st. It
spread, in co urse of time, to the other choirs; it is practised
still at the annual cho ir festivals; and its me aning is best
expressed in the words of the Brethren’s Co venant Hymn: –
Assembling here, a humble band, O ur co venantal ple dge to
take, We p ass the cup from hand to hand, Fr om heart to
heart, for His de ar sake .
It remains to answer two important questions. As we study the
life of the Herrnhut Brethren, we cannot possibly fail to notice
how clo sely their institutions resembled the o ld instituti ons of
the Bohemian Brethren. We have the same care for the poor ,
the same ascetic ideal of life, the same adherence to the word
of Scripture, the same endeavour to revive Apostolic pr actice ,
the same semi -socialistic te ndency, the same aspiratio n after
brotherly
officials,
unity,
and
the
the
same
same ,
title,
or
“Elder,”
almost
the
for
the
same ,
leading
me thod
of
electing so me of these officials by Lot. And, therefore, we
naturally
ask
the
question,
how
far
were
these
Brethren
guided by the e xample of the i r fathers? The reply is, not at
all. At this early stage in their histor y the Moravian refugees
at Herrnhut kne w abso lutely no thing o f the institutio ns of the
Bohemian Brethren.84 They had no historical records in their
possession; they had not preserved a ny copies of the ancie nt
laws;
the y
bro ught
border;
and
they
society
before
no
books
framed
they
had
the ir
eve n
but
hymn -boo ks
rules
heard
and
of
across
or ganized
the
the
their
existence
of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Comenius’s “Account of Discipline.” The w hole movement at
Herrnhut
was
free,
spontaneous,
original.
It
was
not
an
imitation of the past. It was not an attempt to revive the
Church
of
the
Brethren.
It
was
simply
the
result
of
Zinzendorf’s attempt to apply the ideals of the Pietist Spe ner
to the needs of the settlers o n hi s estate.
The second questio n is, what was the ecclesiastical standing of
the Brethren at this time? They were not a new church or sect.
They
had
no
separate
ministr y
of
their
own.
They
were
members o f the Lutheran Church, regar ded Rothe still as the ir
Pas tor, atte nded the Parish C hur ch on Sundays, and took the
Communio n there once a month; and w hat distinguished them
from the average orthodox Lutheran of the day was, no t any
peculiar ity of do ctrine, but rathe r their vivid per ception of a
doctr ine co mmo n to all the C hurches. As the Metho dists in
England a few ye ars later exalte d the doctr ine of “conversio n,”
so these Brethr en at Herrnhut exalted the do ctrine of the
spir itual presence of Chr ist. To them the ascended Chr ist was
all in all. He had preserved the “Hidden Seed.” He had led
them o ut from Moravia. He had brought them to a watch tower. He had delivered them from the secret foe. He had
banished the devouring demon o f discord, had poured out His
Holy Spir it upon them at their me morable service in the Pa rish
Church, and had taught them to maintain the unity of the
spir it in the bo nd of peace . He was the “Bridegroom of the
Soul,” the “B lood Relation of His Peo ple,” the “King’s Son
seeking for His Bride, the Church,” the “Chief Elder pleading
for the Church before God.” And this thought of the living and
reigning Christ was, therefore, the ruling thought among the
Brethren. He had done three mar vello us things fo r the sons of
men. He had given His life as a “ranso m” for sin, and had
thereby
reconciled
them
to
God;
He
had
se t
the
perfect
example for the m to fo llow ; He was present with them now as
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Head of the Church; and thus, when the Brethren went out to
preach, they made His Sacr ificial Death, His Holy Life , and His
abiding presence the main substance of the i r Gospel message.
Chapter 5
“The Edict of Banishment, 1729 -1736″
But Zinzendorf was not long allowed to tread the primrose
path of peace. As the news o f his proceedings spread in
Germany, many orthodox Luther ans began to regard him as a
nuisance, a her etic, and a disturber of the pe a ce; and one
critic made the elegant remark: “When Count Zinzendorf flies
up into the air, anyone who pulls him down by the legs w ill do
him a great service.” He w as accused of many cr imes, and had
many charges to answer. He was accused o f founding a new
sect, a society for laziness; he was accused of holding strange
opinions, opposed to the teaching of the Lutheran Church; he
was accused of being a sham Christian, a sort of religious
freak; and now he undertook the task of proving that these
accusations wer e false , and of showing all fair -minded me n in
Germany that the Brethren at Herrnhut were as orthodox as
Luther, as respe cted as the King, and as pious as good o ld Dr.
Spener himself. His methods were bold and straightforwar d.
He began by issuing a manifes to {Aug. 12th, 17 29.}, e ntitled
the “Notariats -Instr ument.” As this document w as signed by
all
the
Herrnhut
Brethren,
the y
must
have
agreed
to
its
statements; but, on the other hand, it is fair ly certain that it
was draw n up by Zinzendor f himself. It throw s a flood of light
on his state of mind. He had be gun to think more highly of the
Moravian Church. He regarded the Moravians as the kernel of
the Herrnhut co lony, and now he deliberately infor med the
public that, so far from being a new sect, the se Moravia ns
were
descendants
of
an
ancie nt
Church.
The y
were,
he
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
declared, true heirs of the Chur ch of the Brethr en; and that
Church, in days gone by, had been recognized by Luther,
Calvin and o ther s as a true C hur ch of Chr ist. In doctr ine that
Church was as o rthod ox as the L utheran; in discipline it was
far superior . As long, therefore, as the Brethren were allowed
to
do
so,
they
would
maintain
the ir
old
constitution
and
discipline ; and yet, o n the o ther hand, they would no t be
Disse nters. They were not Hussites; t hey were no t Waldenses;
they
were
not
Fraticelli;
the y
honoured
the
Augsburg
Confession; the y would still attend the Berthe lsdorf Parish
Church; and, de sirous of cultivating fe llow ship with all true
Christians,
they
anno unce d
their
broad
position
in
the
sentence: “We acknow ledge no public C hurch of God except
where the pure Word of God is preache d, and where the
members live as holy children of God.” Thus Zinzendorf made
his po licy fairly clear. He wanted to preserve the Moravian
Church inside the Lutheran Church!85
His next move was still more daring. He was a man of fine
missio nary zeal. As the woman who found the lost piece of
silver invited he r friends and ne ighbours to shar e in her joy,
so Zinzendorf w ishe d all Chr istians to share in the treasure
which he had discovered at Her rnhut. He believed that the
Brethren there were calle d to a w orld -w ide missio n. He wanted
Herrnhut to be a city set o n a hill. “I have no sympathy,” he
said,
“with
those
comfortable
people
who
sit
warming
themse lves befo re the fire of the future life.” He did not sit
long before the fire himself. He visited the Univer sity of Jena,
founded a society amo ng the students, and so impressed the
learned Spangenberg that that great theo logical scholar soon
became
a
Brother
at
Herrnhut
himsel f.
He
visited
the
University o f Halle , and fo unded another socie ty of students
there. He visited Elmsdorf in Vogtland, and founded a society
consisting o f me mbers of the family of Count Reuss. He visited
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Berleburg
in
Westphalia,
made
the
acquaintance
of
Jo hn
Conrad Dippel, and trie d to lead that straying sheep back to
the Lutheran fo ld. He visited Budingen in Hesse, discoursed on
Christian fellowship to the “French Pro phets,” or “Inspired
Ones,” and trie d to teach their hysterical leader, Rock, a little
wisdo m, so briety and charity. He attended the coronation of
Christian VI., King of De nmark, at Copenhagen, was warmly
welcomed by His Majesty, receive d the Order o f the Danebro g,
saw Eskimos fro m Greenland and a negro from St. Thomas,
and thus opened the door , as w e shall see later on, for the
great work of foreign missions. Meanwhile , he was sending
messengers
in
all
directions.
He
sent
two
Brethren
to
Copenhagen, w ith a shor t historical acco unt of Herrnhut. He
sent two others to London to se e the Queen, and to ope n up
negotiations
with
the
So cie ty
for
Promo ting
Chr istian
Knowle dge. He sent another to Sweden; others to Hungary and
Austria; others to Switzerland; others to Moravia; others to
the Baltic Provinces, Livo nia and Esthonia. And everywhere his
object was the same –the formation of socie ties for Christian
fellowship w ithin the N ational C hurch.
At this point, ho wever, he acted like a fanatic, and manifested
the first sympto ms of that weak trait in his character which
nearly wrecked his career. As he ponde red one day on the
state of affairs at Herrnhut, it suddenly flashed upon his mind
that the Brethren would do far better without their ancient
constitutio n. He first consulte d the Elders and Helpers {Jan.
7th, 1731.}; he then summoned the who le congr egatio n; and
there and then he deliberately proposed that the Brethren
should abo lish their regulations, abando n the ir constitutio n,
cease to be Moravians and beco me pure Luther ans. At that
moment
Zinzendorf
was
calmly
attempting
to
destroy
the
Moravian Church. He did no t want to see that Church revive.
For some reason of his ow n, w hich he never explained in print,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
he had come to the conclusion that the Brethren would serve
Christ far better witho ut any spe cial regulations of their own.
But the Brethren were no t disposed to meek surrender. T he
question was ke enly debated. At length, howeve r, both sides
agreed to appeal to a strange tribunal. For the first time in
the history of He rrnhut a critical question of C hur ch po licy w as
submitte d to the Lot.86 The Brethren took two slips of paper
and put them into a box. On the first were the words, “To
them that are without law , as without law , that I might gain
them that are without law ,” 1 Cor. ix. 21; on the second the
words,
“Therefo re,
Brethren,
stand
fast,
and
hold
th e
traditions which ye have been taught,” 2 Thess. ii. 15. At that
moment the fate of the C hur ch hung in the balance ; the
question at issue was one of life and death; and the Brethren
spent a long time in anxious prayer. If the first slip of paper
was drawn , the Church wo uld ce ase to exist; if the second,
she might still live by the blessing of God. Young Chr iste l,
Zinzendorf’s so n, now entered the room. He drew the second
slip
of
paper,
and
the
Moravian
Chur ch
was
saved.
To
Zinzendorf this was an event of m omento us importance. As
soon as that second slip of paper was drawn, he felt convinced
that God had sanctio ned the rene wal of the Moravian Church.
Next year an event occurred to strengthe n his convictions. A
body o f co mmissioners from Dr esden appeared at H errnhut
{Jan. 19 -22, 1732.}. They attended all the Sunday services,
had pr ivate interviews w ith the Brethren, and sent in their
report to the Saxon Governme nt. The Count’s conduct had
excited public alarm. He had welcomed not only Moravians at
Herrnhut, bu t Schwenkfe lders at Berthelsdorf; and, therefore,
he was now suspected of har bour ing dangerous fanatics. For a
long time the issue hung do ubtful; but finally the Government
issued a decree that w hile the Schwenkfelders must quit the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
land, the Moravians sho uld be allowed to stay as long as they
behaved themse lves quie tly {April 4th, 1733.}.
But Zinzendorf was not ye t satisfied. He regarded the edict as
an insult. The words about “be having quietly” looked like a
threat. As long as the Brethren w ere merely “to lerated,” the ir
peace was in co nstant danger; and a King who had driven out
the Schwenkfelders might soon drive out the He rrnhuters. He
was disgusted. At the time when the e dict w as issued, he
himself was returning from a visit to Tübingen. He had laid the
whole case of the Brethren before the Tübinge n Theolo gical
Faculty.
He
had
asked
these
theo logical
experts
to
say
whether the Bre thren could keep their discipline and yet be
considered good Lutherans; and the experts, in reply, had
declared their o pinion that the Herrnhut Brethren were as
loyal Lutherans as any in the land. Thus the Br ethren were
standing now on a shaky floor . According to the Tübingen
Theological Faculty they were good members of the Natio nal
Church; according to the Government the y were a “sect” to be
tolerate d!
Next
year
he
adopte d
three
defensive
measures
{1734.}.
First, he divided the congregatio n at Herrnhut into two parts,
the Moravian and the purely Lutheran; next, he had himself
ordaine d as a Lutheran clergyman; and third, he despa tched a
few Moravians to found a co lony in Georgia. He was now, he
imagined, prepar ed for the worst. If the King commanded the
Moravians to go, the Count had his answer ready. As he
himself was a Lutheran clergyman, he would stay at Herrnhut
and minister to the Herrnhut L utherans; and the Moravians
could all sail aw ay to Georgia, and live in perfect peace in the
land of the free.
Next year he made his positio n stronger still {17 35.}. As the
Moravians in Georgia would require the ir own ministers, he
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
now had David Nitschmann co nsecrated a Bishop by Bishop
Daniel Ernest Jablonsky (March 1 3th). T he new B ishop w as not
to exercise his functio ns in Germany. He was a Bishop for the
foreign fie ld o nly; he sailed w ith the seco nd batch of colo nists
for Georgia; and thu s Zinzendorf maintaine d the Moravian
Episcopal Succession, no t from any sectarian motives, but
because he wished to help the Brethren when the storm burst
over the ir heads.
For
what
really
happe ned,
however,
Zinzendorf
was
unprepared {1736.}. As he made th ese various arrangements
for the Brethren, he entirely overlooked the
fact that he
himself was in greater danger than they. He was far more
widely hated than he imagined. He was co nde mned by the
Pietists because he had never experienced the ir sudde n and
spasmodic
method
of
conversion.
He
o ffended
his
ow n
relatives w hen he became a clergyman; he was accused of
having disgr aced his rank as a C ount; he disgusted a number
of other noblemen at Dresden; and the result of this strong
feeling w as that Augustus III. , King o f Saxony, issued an e dict
banishing Zinzendorf from his kingdom. He was accused in this
Royal edict of three great crimes. He had introduced religious
novelties; he had founded conventicles; and he had taught
false doctrine . T hus Z inzendorf was ban ished fr om Saxony as
a heretic. As so on, however, as the Government had dealt
with Zinzendorf, they sent a second Commission to Herrnhut;
and the seco nd Commission came to the co nclusion that the
Brethren were most desirable Lutherans, and might be allowed
to stay. Dr. Lö scher, one of the commissioner s, burst into
tears. “Your doctrine,” he said, “is as pure as our s, but we do
not possess yo ur discipline.” At first sight this ce rtainly looks
like a contradiction, but the explanation is not far to seek. We
find it in the report issued by the Commissio n. It was a
shame less confession of mercenary motives. In that report the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
commissioners deliberately state d that if goo d workmen like
the Brethren we re banished fro m Herrnhut the Government
would lose so much in taxes; and, therefore, the Brethre n
were allowed to stay because the y brought grist to the mill. At
the same time , they were forbidden to make any proselytes;
and thus it was hoped that the Herrnhut heresy would die a
natural death.
When Zinzendorf heard o f his banishment, he was not amazed.
“What matter!” he said. “Even had I been allo wed by law, I
could no t have remaine d in Herr nhut at all dur ing the next ten
years.” He had plans further afie ld. “We must now ,” he adde d,
“gather toge ther the Pilgr im Co ngre gatio n and proclaim the
Saviour to the World.” It is true that the e dict of banishment
was repeale d {1737.}; it is true that he was allo wed to return
to Herrnhut; but a year later a new edict w as issued, and the
Count was sternly expe lled from his native l and {1738.}.
Chapter 6
“The Foreign Missions and T heir Influence”
As young Leonard Dober lay to ssing on his couch, his soul was
disquieted w ithin him {1731.}. He had heard strange news
that
afternoo n,
and
sleep
fo rsook
his
eyes.
As
Count
Zinzendorf w as o n a visit to the court of C hristian VI., King of
Denmark, he me t a West Indian negro slave, by name Antony
Ulrich. And Antony was an interesting man. He had been
baptized; he had been taught the rudiments of the Christian
faith; he had me t two o ther Brethren at the cour t; his to ngue
was glib and his imagination lively; and now he poured into
Zinzendorf’s
ears
a
heartrending
tale
of
the
benighted
condition of the slaves on the Danish island of St. Thomas. He
spoke pathetically of his sister Anna, of his brothe r Abraham,
and o f their fervent desire to hear the Gospel.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“If only some missionaries would come,” said he, “they would
certainly be hear tily welcomed. Many an evening have I sat on
the shore and sighed my so ul to ward Chr istian Europe; and I
have a brother and sister in bo ndage who long to know the
living Go d.”
The effect on Zinzendorf was electr ic. His mind was full of
missio nary visio ns. The story o f Antony fired his zeal. The
door to the heathen wor ld stoo d open. The golden day had
dawned. He returned to the Brethren at Herrnhut, arr ived at
two o’clock in the morning, and found that the Single Brethren
were still on their knees in prayer. Nothing co uld be more
encouraging. At the first oppor tunity he told the Brethren
Antony’ s to uching tale .
Again the effect was electric. As the Brethren met for the ir
monthly service on “Congregatio n Day” they had often listene d
to reports of wo rk in various parts of the Continent; already
the Count had suggested foreign work; and already a band of
Single Brethren (Feb. 11 th, 172 8) had made a covenant with
each other to respond to the first clear sound of the trumpet
call. As soon as their daily work was over, these men plunged
deep into the study o f medicine , geography, and languages.
They
wished
to
be
ready
“w hen
the
bles se d
time
sho uld
come”; they were on the tiptoe of expectation; and now they
were
looking
forward
to
the
day
w hen
they
should
be
summoned to cr oss the seas to heathe n lands. The summo ns
had sounde d at last. To Leonard Dober the crisis of his life
had come. As he tossed to and fr o that summer night he could
think
about
no thing
but
the
poor
neglected
negroes,
and
seemed to hear a voice Divine urging him to arise and preach
deliverance to the captives. Whence came, he asked, that still,
small voice? Was it his own excited fancy, or was it the vo ice
of God? As the morning broke, he was still unsettled in his
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
mind. But already the Count had taught the Brethren to regard
the daily Watch -Word as a spe cial message from God. He
consulted his text -book. The very answer he sought was there.
“It is not a vain thing for you,” ran the message , “because it
is your life ; and through this thing ye shall prolong your
days.”
And yet Dober was not quite convinced. If God desired him to
go abroad He would give a still clearer call . He determine d to
consult his friend Tobias Leupold, and abide the issue of the
collo quy; and in the evening the two young me n took their
usual stroll toge ther among the brushwoo d clustering round
the settle ment. And the n Leonard Dober laid bar e his hear t ,
and learned to his amazement that all the while Tobias had
been in the same perplexing pass. What Dober had been
longing to tell him, he had been longing to tell Dober. Each
had heard the same still small voice; each had fo ught the
same doubts; each had feared to speak his mind; and now , in
the
summer
glo aming,
they
knelt
dow n
side
by
side
and
prayed to be guided ar ight. Forthwith the answer was ready.
As they joined the other Single Brethren, and marched in
solemn procession past Zinzendorf’s ho use, they hear d the
Count remark to a fr iend, “Sir, among these yo ung men there
are missionaries to St. Tho mas, Greenland, Lapland, and many
other countr ies.”
The words were inspiring. Forthwith the young fellows wrote
to the Count and offered to serve in St. Thoma s. The Count
read the le tter to the congregatio n, but kept their names a
secret. The Brethren were critical and co ld. As the settlers
were mostly simple people , with little know ledge of the world
beyond the seas, it was natural that the y should shrink from a
task which the powerful Protestant C hurches o f Europe had not
yet dared to attempt. Some he ld the offer reckless; some
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
dubbed it a youthful bid for fame and the pretty imagination
of young officio us minds. Anto ny Ulrich came to Herrnhut,
addresse d the c ongregatio n in Dutch, and to ld them that no
one
could
be
a
missio nary
in
St.
Thomas
without
fir st
becoming a slave. As the people knew no better they be lieve d
him. For a year the issue hung in the scales o f doubt. T he
young men were resolute , confident and undismayed. If they
had to be slaves to preach the G ospel, then slave s they would
willingly
be!87
At
last
Dobe r
wrote
in
pe rson
to
the
congregation and repeated his r esolve. T he Brethren yielde d.
The Count still doubted. For the second time a momentous
issue was submitted to the decision of the Lo t.
“Are you willing,” he asked Do ber, “to consult the Savio ur by
means o f the Lot?”
“For myself,” replied Dober, “I am already sure e nough; but I
will do so for the sake of the Brethren.”
A meeting was held; a box of mottoes was br ought in; and
Dober drew a slip of paper bearing the words: “L et the lad go ,
for the Lord is with him.” The vo ice of the Lot was decisive . Of
all the meetings held in Herrnhut, this meeting to hear the
voice of the Lot was the most moment ous in its world -w ide
importance. T he young men wer e all on fire. If the Lo t had
only given the w ord they wo uld now have gone to the foreign
field in dozens. For the first time in the history of Protestant
Europe a co ngre gation of or thodox Chr istians had d e liberate ly
resolved to unde rtake the task of preaching the G ospel to the
heathe n. As the Lot which decided that Do ber should go had
also decide d that his fr iend Leupo ld should stay, he now chose
as his trave lling companion the carpenter, David Nitschmann.
The bir thday o f Moravian Missions now drew near. At three
o’clock o n the morning of August 21st, 1732, the two men
stood waiting in front of Zinzendorf’s house. The Count had
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
spent the w hole night in prayer. He drove the m in his carr iage
as far as Bautzen . They alighte d outside the little town, knelt
down on the quiet roadside, engaged in prayer, received the
Count’ s blessing by imposition of hands, bade him farewell,
and set o ut Westward Ho !
As they tr udged on foot on their way to Copenhagen, they had
no idea that in so doing they w ere clearing the way for the
great modern missionary movement; and, on the whole, they
looked more like pedlars than pioneers of a new campaign.
They wore brown coats and quaint three -cornered hats. They
carried bundles on their backs. They had only abo ut thir ty
shillings
in
their
pockets.
T hey
had
received
no
clear
instructions from the Count, exce pt “to do all in the Spirit of
Jesus C hrist.” T hey knew but little of the social condition of
St. Thomas. They had no example to foll ow; they had no
“Socie ty” to supply the ir needs; and now they were going to a
part of the world where, as yet, a missio nary’s fo ot had never
trod.
At Copenhagen, where they calle d at the court, they created
quite a sensatio n. For some years there had exist ed there a
Natio nal
Missionary
College.
It
was
the
fir st
Reformed
Missio nary Colle ge in Europe. Fo unde d by King Frederick IV.,
it was regarde d as a regular department of the State . It had
already
sent
Hans Egede
to
Gr eenland and
Ziegenbalg
to
Tranquebar, o n the Coromande l Coast; and it se nt its men as
State officials, to under take the work of evange lisation as a
useful par t of the national co lonial po licy. But Dober and
Nitschmann were on a different footing. If they had been the
paid age nts of the State th ey w ould have been regarded with
favour ; but as they were only the heralds of a Church they
were laughed at as a brace of fools. For a while they met with
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
viole nt oppositio n. Vo n Ple sz, the King’s Chamberlain, asked
them how they w ould live .
“We shall work ,” replied N itschmann, “as slave s amo ng the
slaves.”
“But,” said Vo n Plesz, “that is impossible. It will no t be
allowe d. No white man ever works as a slave .”
“Very well,” replied Nitschmann, “I am a car penter, and will
ply my tr ade.”
“But w hat will the pot ter do?”
“He will help me in my work.”
“If yo u go o n like that,” exclaimed the C hamberlain, “yo u w ill
stand your ground the w ide world over.”
The first thing was to stand their ground at Copenhagen. As
the directors of the Danish West Indian Company refuse d to
grant the m a passage out they had now to wait for any vessel
that might be sailing. The whole Court was soon on their side.
The Queen expressed her good wishes. The Princess Amalie
gave them some money and a Dutch Bible . The Chamberlain
slippe d
some
c oins
into
Nitschmann’s
pocket.
The
Court
Physician gave them a spring lancet, and showed them how to
open a ve in. The Court Chaplain espoused the ir cause, and the
Royal Cupbearer found them a ship on the point of sailing for
St. Tho mas.
As the ship cast an chor in St. T homas Harbour the Brethren
realized for the first time the gr eatness of their task. There
lay the quaint little town o f Tappus, its scar let ro ofs agleam in
the noontide sun; there, along the silver beach, they saw the
yellow ing rocks; and ther e, beyo nd, the soft gre en hills were
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
limned
against
the
azure
sky.
There,
in
a
w ord,
lay
the
favoured isle, the “First Love of Moravian Missions.” Again the
text for the day was prophe tic: “The Lord of Ho sts,” ran the
gladdening watchword, “mustereth the h ost of the battle .” As
the Brethren stepped ashore next day they o pened a new
chapter in the histor y of modern Christianity. They were the
founders of Christian work among the slaves. Fo r fifty years
the Moravian Brethren laboured in the West Indie s witho u t any
aid from any o ther religio us de nominatio n. The y established
churches in St. T homas, in St. Croix, in St. John’s, in Jamaica,
in Antigua, in B arbados, and in St. Kitts. The y had 13,000
baptized converts before a missionary fro m any other Church
arrived o n the scene.
We pass to another field. As the Count was on his visit to the
Court in Copenhagen, he saw two little Greenland boys who
had been baptized by the Danish missio nary, Hans Egede; and
as the story of Antony Ulrich fired the zeal of Leonard Dob er,
so the story of Egede’s patient labo urs aroused the zeal of
Matthew Stach and the redoubtable Christian David {1733.}.
In Greenland Egede had failed. In Greenland the Brethren
succeeded.
As
they
settled
do wn
amo ng
the
people
they
resolved at first to b e very systematic in the ir method of
preaching the Gospel; and to this end, like Egede before them,
they expounded to the simple Eskimo folk the whole sche me of
dogmatic theo lo gy, from the fall of man to the glorification o f
the saint. The r esult was disma l failure. At last the Brethren
struck the golde n tr ail. The stor y is a classic in the history of
missio ns. As Jo hn Beck, one balmy evening in June, was
discoursing
on
things
Divine
to
a
group
of
Eskimos,
it
suddenly flashe d upon his mind that, instead of preaching
dogmatic theolo gy he wo uld read them an extract from the
translatio n of the Gospels he w as now prepar ing. He se ized his
manuscr ipt. “And being in an agony,” read John Beck, “He
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
prayed more earnestly, and His sweat was as it were great
drops of blood falling dow n to the ground.” At this Kajarnak,
the brightest in the group, sprang forward to the table and
exclaimed, “How was that? Tell me that again, for I, too,
would be saved.” The first Eskimo was touched. The power
was the story of the Cross. Fr om that mo ment the Brethren
altered
the
expounding
w hole
style
do gmatic
of
their
theology,
preaching.
they
to ld
the
Instead
vivid
of
human
story of the Via Dolorosa, the Cr own of Thorns, the Scour ging,
and the Wounde d Side. The result was br illiant success . The
more the Brethre n spoke of Chr ist the more eager the Eskimos
were to listen.
In this good w ork the leader was Matthew Stach. He was
ordaine d
a
Presbyter
of
the
Brethren’s
Chur ch.
He
was
officially appo inted leader of the Greenland Mission. He was
recognized
by
the
Danish
College
of
Missions.
He
was
authorized by the King of Denmark to baptize and perfor m all
sacerdotal functions. His work w as me thodical and thorough.
In order to teach the roving Eskimos the virtues of a settled
life, he actually took a number of the m on a Continental tour ,
brought them to London, presented them, at Leicester House ,
to King George II., the Pr ince o f Wales, and the rest of the
Royal Family, and thus imbued them with a love o f civilisatio n.
At New Herrnhut, in Greenland, he founde d a settlement, as
thoroughly
church,
organise d
adorned
with
as
Herrnhut
pictures
in
Saxony.
depicting
the
He
built
sufferings
a
of
Christ. He taught the people to play the violin. He divided the
congregation into “choir s.” He showed the m how to c ultivate a
garden of cabbages, leeks, lettuces, radishes and turnips. He
taught them to care for all w idow s and or phans. He erected a
“Brethren’s House” for the “Single Brethren” and a “Sisters’
House” for the “Single Sisters.” He taught them to join in
worship every day. At six o’clock every morning there was a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
meeting for the baptized; at eight a public service for all the
settlers; at nine the children r epeated their catechism and
then proceeded to morning scho ol; and then, in the evening,
when the men h ad retur ned with their bag o f seals, there was
a public preaching service in the church. And at Lichtenfels
and L ichtenau the same sor t of w ork was done.
We pass o n to o ther sce nes, to Dutch Guinea or Sur inam. As
the Dutch were still a great co lonial power , they had plenty of
opportunity to spread the Gospe l; and yet, exce pt in India,
they had hitherto not lifted a finger in the cause of foreign
missio ns. For the most part the Dutch clergy took not the
slightest interest in the
subject. T hey he ld bigoted vi ews
about predestinatio n. They tho ught that Chr ist had die d for
them, but not
for
Indians and
negroes. As the
Brethren,
however, were good workmen, it was thought that they might
prove use ful in the Colonies; and so B isho p Spangenberg
found it easy to make an arrange ment w ith the Dutch Trading
Company, whereby the Brethren were granted a free passage,
full
liberty
in r eligion, and exemption
from the
oath
and
military service {1734.}. But all this was little more than
pious talk. As soon as the Brethren set to wor k the Dutch
pastors opposed them to the teeth. At home and abroad it was
just the same. At Amsterdam the clergy me t in Syno d, and
prepared
a
cutting
“Pastoral
Letter,”
condemning
the
Brethren’s theology; and at Paramaribo the Br ethren were
forbidden to ho ld any meetings at all. But the Brethren did not
stay very long in Paramar ibo. Through three hundred miles of
jungle and swamp they pressed their way, and came to the
homes of the Indian tribes; to the Accawois, who earned their
living
as
profe ssional
assassins;
to
the
Warrows,
w ho
wallowe d in the marshes; to the Arawaks, or “Flour People,”
who prepared tapioca; to the C aribs, w ho sought the m that
had familiar spirits and w izards that peep and mutter . “It
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
seems very dark,” they wro te to the Count, “but w e will testify
of the grace of the Saviour till He lets the light shine in this
dark waste.” Fo r twenty years they laboured among these
Indian tribes; and Salo mo Schumann, the leader of the band,
prepared an Indian dictionary and gr ammar. One story flash es
light upo n the ir labo urs. As Christopher Dähne , who had built
himself a hut in the forest, w as retiring to rest a snake
suddenly glide d down upon him from the roof, bit him twice or
thrice, and co ile d itse lf round his body. At that moment, the
gallant herald of the Cross, w ith death staring him in the face,
thought, no t of himself, but o f the people who m he had come
to serve. If he died as he lay the rumour might spread that
some of the natives had killed him; and, therefore, he seized
a piece of chalk a nd wro te on the table, “A serpent has kille d
me.” But lo! the text flashed suddenly upo n him: “They shall
take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall
not hurt them.” He seized the serpent, flung it fr om him, lay
down to sleep in perfect p eace, and next morning went abo ut
his labours.
We pass now to South Afr ica, the land o f the B oers. For the
last hundred years South Afr ica had been under the rule of the
Dutch
East
India
Company;
and
the
result
w as
that
the
Hotte nto ts and Kaffir s were stil l as heathen as ever. For the ir
spir itual welfare the Boers cared absolute ly nothing. They
were strong believers in predestination; they believed that
they were elected to grace and the Hottentots elected to
damnation; and, therefore, they held it to be th eir duty to
wipe
the
Ho ttentots
off
the
face
of
the
earth.
“The
Hotte nto ts,” the y said, “have no souls; they belo ng to the race
of baboons.” They called them children of the devil; they
called them “black wares,” “black beasts,” and “black cattle”;
and o ver one church door they painte d the no tice “Dogs and
Hotte nto ts not admitted.” They ruined the m, bo dy and soul,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
with rum and br andy; the y first made them merr y with dr ink,
and then cajole d them into unjust bargains; they shot the m
down in hundre ds, and then boasted o ver the ir liquor how
many Ho tte nto ts they had “potted.” “With one hundred and
fifty me n,” wrote the Governor, Van Ruibeck, in his journal,
“11,000 head of black cattle might be obtained without danger
of losing one man; and many savages might be taken w ithout
resistance to be sent as slaves to India, as the y will alw ays
come to us unar med. If no further trade is to be expected with
them,
w hat
should
it
matter
much
to
take
six
or
eight
thousand beasts from them.” But the most de lightful of all
Boer
customs
was
the
custom
of
flo gging
by
pipes.
If
a
Hotte nto t prove d a trifle unruly, he was thrashed, while his
master, looking on w ith a gluttonous eye, smoked a fixed
number of pipes; and the wreathing smoke and the writhing
Hotte nto t bro ught balm unto h is soul.
And now to this hell of hypocrisy and villainy came the first
apostle
to
the
natives.
As
the
famo us
Halle
missio nary,
Ziegenbalg, w as on his way to the Malabar Coast he to uched
at Cape Town, heard some thing of the abo minations practised,
was stirr ed to pity, and wrote laying the case before two
pastors in Holland. The two pastors wrote to Herrnhut; the
Herrnhut Brethr en chose the ir man; and in less than a week
the
man
was
on
his
way.
George
Schmidt
w as
a
typical
Herrnhut bro ther . He had come from K unewalde, in Moravia,
had lain six ye ars in pr ison, had seen his fr iend, Melchior
Nitschmann, die in his arms, and watched his own flesh fall
away in flakes fr om his bo nes. For twelve mo nths he had now
to stay in Amste rdam, first to le arn the Dutch languag e, and
secondly to pass an examinatio n in orthodox theology. He
passed
the
examination
w ith
flying
colo urs.
He
received
permissio n from the “Chamber of Seventeen” to sail in one of
the Dutch East India Company’s ships. He landed at Cape
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Town. His arr ival c reated a sensatio n. As he sat in the public
room
of
an
inn
he
listened
to
the
conversatio n
of
the
assembled farme rs {1737.}.
“I hear,” said one, “that a par son has come he re to convert
the Ho tte nto ts.”
“What! a parson!” quoth anothe r. “Why, the po or fool m ust
have lost his head.”
They argued the case; they mocked; they laughe d; they found
the subject inte nsely amusing.
“And what, sir, do you think?” said a w aiter to Schmidt, who
was sitting quie tly in the cor ner.
“I am the very man,” replied Schmidt; and th e farmers began
to talk about the ir crops.
For six years G eorge Schmidt laboured all alo ne among the
benighted
Ho tte ntots.
He
began
his
labours
at
a
military
outpo st in the Sweet -Milk Valle y, abo ut fifty miles east of
Cape Town; but finding the company of soldiers dangerous to
the morals of his congregatio n, he moved to a place called
Bavian’s Kloof, where the town of Genadendal stands to -day.
He planted the pear -tree so famous in missionary annals,
taught the Hotte ntots the art o f gardening, he ld public se rvice
every evening, had fifty pupils in his day -school, and began to
baptize his converts. As he and William, one of his scho lars,
were returning o ne day from a visit to Cape Town, they came
upon a brook, and Schmidt asked William if he had a mind to
be baptized ther e and then. He answered “Yes.” And there, by
the stream in a quiet spot, the first fruit of Afr ican Missio ns
made his confession of faith in Christ.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“Dost thou believe,” aske d Schmidt solemnly, “that the Son of
God died on the cross for the sin s of all mankind? Dost tho u
belie ve that tho u art by nature a lost and undone creature?
Wilt tho u renounce the devil and all his works? Art thou
willing, in dependence on God’s grace, to endure reproach and
persecution, to confess C hrist before all men, an d to remain
faithful to him unto death?”
As soo n, however, as Schmidt began to baptiz e his converts
the
Cape
Town
summoned
him
clergy
to
de nounced
answer
for
his
him
as
sins.
a
heretic,
The
great
and
charge
against him was that he had no t been proper ly ord aine d. He
had been ordained, not by actual impositio n of hands, but by a
certificate of ordinatio n, se nt out to him by Zinze ndorf. To the
Dutch clergy this was no ordinatio n at all. What right, said
they, had a man to baptize who had been ordaine d in this
irregular manner ? He returned to Holland to fight his battle
there. And he never set foot on African soil again! The whole
argume nt about the irregular ordination turned out to be a
mere excuse . If that argument had been genuine the Dutch
clergy could now have had Schimdt or dained in the usual way.
But the tr uth is they had no faith in his missio n; they had
begun to regar d the Brethren as dangerous heretics; and,
therefore, for another fifty years they forbade all fur ther
missio n work in the Dutch Colo ny of South Africa.
We pass o n to o ther scenes. We go to the Gold Coast in the
Dutch
Co lony
Moravian,
of
and
Guinea,
Protten,
wher e
a
Hucko ff,
mulatto
another
theo logical
German
scholar ,
atte mpted to fo und a schoo l for slaves {1737.}, and w here,
again, the work was opposed by the Governor. We pass to
another
Dutch
Nitschmann
III.
Colony
and
in
Dr .
Ceylon;
Eller
and
ther e
establishing
a
find
David
society
in
Colombo , and labouring further inland for the conversion of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the
Cingalese;
and
again
we
find
that
the
Dutc h
clergy,
inflamed by the “Pastoral Letter ,” were bitterly o pposed to the
Brethren and compelled them to return to Herrnhut. We take
our journey to Constantino ple , and find Arvid Gradin, the
learned Swede , engage d in an attempt to come to terms w ith
the Greek C hurch {1740.}, and thus open the way for the
Brethren’s Gospel to Asia. We step north to Wallachia, and
find two Brethre n consulting abo ut a se ttlement there with the
Haspo dar of Bucharest. We arrive at St. Petersburg, and find
three Brethren there be fore us, commissioned to preach the
Gospel to the heathen Calmucks. We pass on to Persia and
find
two
robbers
doctor s,
on
the
Hocker
highway,
and
and
Rüffer,
then
str ipped
starting
a
nake d
by
practice
at
Ispahan (1747). We cross the sandy plains to the cit y of
Bagdad, and find two Brethren in its narrow str eets; we find
Hocker expo unding the Gospel to the Co pts in C airo!
And eve n this was not the end of the Brethren’s missio nary
labo urs {1738 -4 2.}. For some ye ars the Brethren conducted a
missio n to the Je ws . For Jews the Count had special sympathy.
He
had
vowed
in
his
youth
to
do
all
he
co uld
for
the ir
conversio n; he had met a goo d many Jews at Herrnhut and at
Frankfur t-o n-the -Main; he made a practice of speaking about
them in public on the Great Day of Aton ement; and in their
Sunday
morning
litany
the
Brethren
uttered
the
prayer,
“Deliver Thy peo ple Israe l from their blindness; bring many of
them to know Thee, till the fulness of the Gentiles is co me and
all
Israe l
is
saved.”
The
chief
seat
of
this
work
was
Amsterdam, and the chief workers Leonard Dobe r and Samuel
Leiberkühn. The last man w as a model missio nary. He had
studie d theology at Je na and Halle ; he was a master of the
Hebrew tongue ; he was expert in all custo ms of the Jews; he
was offered a professor ship at Königsberg; and yet, instead of
winning his laur els as an Or iental scho lar, he preferred to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
settle
down
in
humble
style
in
the
Jewish
quar ter
of
Amsterdam, and there talk to his fr iends the Je ws abo ut the
Christ he love d so deeply. His me thod of wo rk was instr uctive .
He never dazed his Jewish friends with dogmatic theolo gy. He
never
tried
to
prove
that
Christ
was
the
Messiah
of
the
prophecies. He simply to ld them, in a kindly way, how Jesus
had risen from the dead, and ho w much this rise n Jesus had
done
in
the
w orld;
he
share d
the ir
hope
of
a
national
gathering in Palestine; and, tho ugh he could never boast of
making conver ts, he was so beloved by his Jew ish friends that
they called him “Rabbi Schmuel.”
Let us try to estimate the value of all this wo rk. Of all the
enterprises unde rtaken by the Br ethren this heroic advance on
heathe n so il had the greatest influence o n other Protestant
Churches; and some writers have called the Moravians the
pioneers of Pro testant Foreign Missions. But this statement is
only true in a special sense . The y were not the first to preach
the Gospel to the heathen. If the reader consults any history
of Christian Missions88 he will see that long before Leonard
Dober set out for St. Thomas other men had preached the
Gospel in he athe n lands.
But in all these efforts there is one feature missing. There is
no sign of any united C hurch action. At the time when Leonard
Dober set out from Herrnhut not a single other Protestant
Church in the wo rld had attacked the task of foreign missio ns,
or even regarded that task as a Divinely appo inted duty. In
England the work was undertaken, no t by the Church as such,
but
by
two
vo luntary
associations,
the
S.P.C .K.
and
the
S.P.G.; in Germany, no t by the Lutheran Church, but by a few
earnest Pietists; in Denmark, no t by the Church, but by the
State; in Holland, no t by the Church, but by one or two pious
Colonial Governors; and in Sco tland, ne ither by the Church
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
nor by anyo ne else. At that time the w hole w ork of foreign
missio ns was re garded as the du ty, no t of the Churches, but
of
“Kings,
Princes,
and
State s.”
In
England,
Anglicans,
Indepe ndents and Baptists were all more or less indifferent. In
Scotland the subject was never mentioned; and even sixty
years later a resolution to inquir e into the matte r was re jected
by the General Assembly {1796.}. In Germany the Lutherans
were either indifferent or hostile. In Denmark and Holland the
whole
subject
Protestant
was
Chur ch
treated
to
with
recogniz e
contempt.
the
duty
And
was
the
this
only
little,
struggling Renewed Church of the Brethren. In this sense,
therefore, and in this sense o nly, can we call the Moravians
the
pioneers
of
modern
missions.
They
wer e
the
fir st
Protestant Church in Chr istendo m to undertake the conversio n
of the heathen. They sent out th eir missionar ies as author ised
agents of the C hurch. They praye d for the cause o f missions in
their Sunday Litany. They had several missionary hymns in
their Hymn -Book. They had regular meetings to listen to the
reading of missionaries’ diaries and letters . The y discussed
missio nary problems at their Synods. T hey appointed a C hurch
Financial Co mmittee to see to w ays and means. T hey sent out
officially appointed “visitors” to inspect the work in var ious
countries.
They
were,
in
a
word,
the
first
Protestant
Missio nary Chur ch in history; and thus they se t an inspiring
example to all their stro nger sisters.
Again, this work of the Brethren was important because it was
thorough
and
systematic.
At
first
the
missio naries
were
compelled to go out with very vague ide as of their duties. B ut
in 1734 the Brethren published “Instructio ns for the Co lony in
Georgia”; in 1737 “Instructions for Missio nar ies to the East” ;
in 1738 “Instr uctio ns for all Missionar ies”; and in 1740 “The
Right Way to Convert the Heathen.” Thus even during those
early
years
the
Moravian
missionaries
were
trained
in
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
missio nary work. They were told what Gospe l to preach and
how
to
preach
“Instructio ns,”
it.
“You
are
not,”
said
“to
allow
yourse lves
to
Zinz endorf,
be
blinded
in
his
by
the
notion that the heathen must be taught first to be lieve in God,
and then afterw ards in Jesus C hrist. It is false . They know
already that the re is a God. You must preach to them about
the So n. You must be like Paul, who knew nothing but Jesus
and Him crucified. You must s pe ak constantly, in season, and
out of season, of Jesus, the Lamb, the Savio ur; and you must
tell them that the way to salvation is belief in this Jesus, the
Eternal So n of God.” Instead of discussing doctr inal questio ns
the missionaries laid the who le str ess on the person and
sacrifice of Chr ist. They avoided dogmatic language. They
used the language, no t of the theological world, but of the
Gospels. They preached, no t a theory of the Ato nement, but
the story of the Cross. “We must,” said Spangenberg, “ho l d to
the fact that the bloo d and death of Jesus are the diamond in
the golden r ing o f the Gospel.”
But alongside this Gospel message the Brethren introduced as
far as possible the stern syste m of moral discipline which
already existe d at Herrnhut. T hey liv ed in daily personal touch
with the people . They taught them to be ho nest, o bedient,
industrio us,
and
loyal
to
the
Government.
They
opened
schools, taught reading and writing, and instr ucte d the girls in
sewing and needlework. They divided the ir congr egati ons, no t
only into
“Cho ir s,” but also
into
“Classes.” They laid the
stress, not on public preaching, but on the individual “cure of
souls.” For this purpose they pr actised what was calle d “The
Speaking.” At certain fixed seasons, i.e., the missio nary, or
one of his he lpe rs, had a private interview with each member
of the congregation. The old system of the Bohemian Brethren
was here revive d.89 At these pr ivate interviews there was no
possibility of any moral danger. At the head of the men was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the missionar y , at the head of the women his wife; for the
men
there
“Helpers”;
were
and
male
thus
“Helper s,”
all
for
“spe akings”
the
wo men
took
place
female
between
persons of the same sex only. There were three degrees of
discipline . For the first offe nce the punishme nt was reproof;
for the second, suspensio n from the Communion; for the third,
expulsion
from
the
congregation.
And
thus
the
Brethren
proved up to the hilt that Christian work among the heathen
was no t mere waste of time.
Again, this work was important beca use it was public. It was
not done in a corner. It was acted on the o pen stage of
history. As these Brethren laboured among the heathen, they
were constantly coming into close contact w ith Governors,
with
tr ading
co mpanies,
and
with
Boards
of
Control.
In
Greenland they were under Danish r ule ; in Surinam, under
Dutch; in North America, under English; in the West Indies,
under
English,
French,
Danish,
Dutch,
Swedish,
Spanish,
Portuguese; and thus they were teaching a moral lesson to the
whole Western European wor ld. At that time the West Indian
Islands were the gathering ground for all the powers on the
Atlantic seabo ard of Europe . There, and there alone in the
world, they all had possessio ns; and there, in the midst of all
these
natio nalities,
the
Brethre n
ac complished
their
most
successful work. And the striking fact is that in each of these
islands they gained the approval of the Governor. They were
the age nts of an inter national Church; the y were free from all
political
co mplicatio ns;
treachery;
they
were
they
co uld
law -abiding
never
citizens
be
su spected
the mselves,
of
and
taught their converts to be the same; and thus they enjoyed
the esteem and suppor t of every great Power in Europe.
And this in turn had another grand result. It pre pared the way
for
Negro
Emancipation.
We
must
no t,
however,
give
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
missio naries too much credit. As Zinzendorf himself was a fir m
belie ver in slave ry, we need no t be sur prise d to find that the
Brethren never came forwar d as champions of liberty. They
never pleaded fo r emancipa tion. They never enco uraged their
converts to expe ct it. T hey ne ver talked abo ut the horrors of
slavery. They ne ver appealed, like Wilberforce, to Parliament.
And ye t it was just these modest Brethren who did the most to
make emancipation possible. Instead of deliver ing inflamator y
speeches,
and
stirring
up
the
hot -bloode d
negroes
to
rebellion, they taught them rather to be industrious, orderly,
and loyal, and thus show that they were fit for liberty. If a
slave disobeye d his master the y punished him. They acte d
wisely. If the Brethren had preached emancipatio n they would
simply have made their converts restive ; and these converts,
by rebelling, wo uld only have cut their own throats. Again and
again, in Jamaica and Antigua, the negroes rose in revolt; and
again and again the Governor s noticed that the Moravian
converts took no part in the rebe llio n.
At last the news of these triumphs arrive d in England; and the
Privy Council appointed a Co mmittee to inquire into the state
of the slave trade in our West Indian possessio ns {1787.}.
The Committee appealed to the Brethren for info rmation. The
reply was drafte d by Chr istian Ignatius La Trobe. As La Trobe
was then the English Secretary for the Brethren’s missions, he
was
well
qualified
to
give
the
required
informati on.
He
described the Brethren’s me tho ds of work, pointed o ut its
results in the co nduct of the negroes, and declar ed that all the
Brethren
desired
was
liberty
to
preach
the
Gospel.
“T he
Brethren,” he said, “never wish to interfere between masters
and slave s.” The ball w as now se t fairly rolling. Dr. Por teous,
Bishop of Londo n, replied on be half of the Co mmittee. He was
an ardent champion of emancipation. He thanked the Brethren
for
their
informatio n.
He
infor med
them
how
pleased
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Committee were with the Brethr en’s methods o f work. At this
very time Wilber force formed his resolution to de vote his life
to the emancipation of the slaves. He opene d his campaign in
Parliame nt two years later. He was a personal friend of La
Trobe; he read his report; and he bac ke d up his arguments in
Parliame nt by describing the good results of Moravian work
among the slaves. And thus the part playe d by the Brethren
was alike modest and effective. They taught the slaves to be
good; they taught them to be genuine lovers of law an d order;
they made them fit for the great gift of liberty; and thus, by
destroying
the
stale
old
argument
that
emancipatio n
was
dangerous they r emoved the greatest o bstacle in Wilberforce’s
way.90
Again, this work of the Brethren was important in its influ ence
on several great English missionary pio neers. At missionary
gatherings he ld in England the statement is often made to -day
that the first Englishman to go out as a foreign missio nary
was William Car ey, the leader of the immor tal “Serampore
Three.” It is time to explo de that fiction. For some years
before
William
Carey
was
heard
of
a
number
of
English
Moravian Brethren had go ne out from these shores as foreign
missio naries.
In
Antigua
labo ured
Samuel
Isles,
Joseph
Newby, and Samuel Watso n; in Jamaica, Ge orge Caries and
John Bowen; in St. Kitts and St. Croix, Jame s Birkby; in
Barbados, Benjamin Brookshaw ; in Labrador , William Turner,
James Rho des, and Lister; and in Tobago , Jo hn Montgomery,
the father of James Mo ntgome ry, the well -kno wn Moravian
hymn-wr iter and poet. With the single exceptio n of George
Caries, w ho see ms to have had some Irish bloo d in his ve ins,
these early missionaries were as English as C arey himself; and
the greater number, as we can see from the names, were
natives of Yorkshire. Moreove r, William Carey knew of their
work. He owed his inspiration partly to them; he referred to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
their
work
in
his
famo us
pamphlet,
“Enquiry
into
the
Obligatio ns o f C hristians to use Means for the Conversion of
the Heathens”; and finally, at the house of Mr s. B eely Wallis,
in Kettering, he threw down upon the table some numbers of
the first English missionary magazine,91 “Periodical Accounts
relating to the Missions of the C hurch o f the Unite d Brethren,”
and, addressing his fellow Baptist ministers, exclaime d: “ See
what
the
Moravians
have
do ne!
Can
we
not
follow
their
example, and in obedience to o ur heavenly Master go out into
the wor ld and preach the Gospe l to the heathen.” The result
was the fo undation of the Baptist Missionary Society.
His companio n, Marshman , also confessed his o bligations to
the Brethren {17 92.}.
“Thank you! Moravians,” he said, “you have done me good. If
I am ever a missionar y worth a straw I shall, under our
Saviour, owe it to you.”
We have next the case of the L ondon Missionar y Society. O f
that So ciety one of the fo unders was Rowland Hill. He was well
infor med abo ut the labours of the Moravians; he corresponded
with Pe ter Braun, the Moravian missio nary in Antigua; and to
that corresponde nce he owed in part his interest in missionary
work. But that w as no t the end o f the Brethren’s influe nce. At
all
meetings
addressed
by
the
founders
of
the
propose d
Socie ty, the speaker repeatedly enforced his argume nts by
quotations from the Perio dical Accounts; and finally, when the
Socie ty w as establishe d , the founders submitted to La Trobe,
the editor, the follow ing series o f questions: –”1. How do yo u
obtain your missionar ies? 2. What is the tr ue calling of a
missio nary?
3.
What
missio nary?
4.
Do
qualificatio ns
you
demand
do
yo u
scientific
demand
and
in
a
theological
learning? 5 . Do you co nsider previous instr uction in Divine
things an essential? 6. How do you employ yo ur missio naries
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
from the time w hen they are first called to the time when they
set out? 7. Have you found by experience that the cleverest
and best educated men make the best missionar ies? 8. What
do you do when you establish a missionary station? Do you
send men w ith their w ives, or single people, or both? 9 . What
have you found the most effective way of acco mplishing the
conversio n of the h eathe n? 10. C an yo u te ll us the easiest way
of learning a language? 11. Ho w much does yo ur missio nary
ship92 cost you?” In reply, La Trobe answered in detail, and
gave a full description of the Brethren’s me thods; and the first
heralds
of
Moravian
the
London
instr uctions
Missio nary
in
their
Society
pockets
went
out
w ith
and
Moravian
experience to guide them on the ir way.
We have next the case of Robert Moffatt, the missio nary to
Bechuanaland. What w as it that fir st aro used his missionary
zeal? It was, he te lls us, the stories told him by his mother
about the explo its of the Moravians!
In Germany the influence of the Brethren was equally great.
At the present time the greatest missio nary force s in Germany
are the Basel and Leipzig Socie ties; and the inte resti ng po int
to notice is that if we only go far enough back in the story we
find that each o f these societies owed its origin to Moravian
influe nce.93
Fro m
what
did
the
Basel
Missionary
Society
spring? (1819). It sprang from an earlier “Society for Christian
Fellowship (1780),” and o ne object of that ear lier society was
the suppor t of Moravian Missio ns. But the influence did no t
end here. At the meeting whe n the Basel Missionary Society
was formed, thre e Moravians –Bur ghardt, Götze, and Lörschke –
were present, t he influe nce of the Brethren was specially
mentioned, the work of the Brethren was descr ibed, and the
text for the day from the Moravian textbook was read. In a
similar
way the
Leipzig
Missio nary
Socie ty
sprang
from a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
series of meetings held in Dresden, an d in tho se meetings
several Moravians took a pro minent par t. By w hom was the
first
missionary
college
in
history
establishe d?
It
was
established at B erlin by Jänicke {1800.}, and Jänicke had first
been a teacher in the Moravian Pædagogium at Niesky. By
whom was the first Norwegian Missionary Magazine –the Norsk
Missio nsblad–edited? By the Mo ravian minister, Holm. Fro m
such facts as these we may draw one broad co nclusion; and
that broad co nclusio n is that the Brethren’s labo urs paved the
way for some of the g reatest missionar y institutio ns of modern
times.
Chapter 8
“The Sifting T ime, 1743 -1750″
As the Co unt advanced towards middle age, he grew more
domineering in tone, more noble in his dreams, and more
foolish in much o f his conduct. He was soon to shine in each of
these three lights. He returne d from America in a f ury. For
two years he had been busy in Pennsylvania in a brave, but
not
very
successful,
attempt
to
establish
a
grand
“Congregatio n of God in the Spir it”; and now he heard, to his
deep disgust, that his Brethre n in Euro pe had lowered the
ideal of the Churc h, and made vulgar business bargains w ith
worldly powers. What right, he asked, had the Brethren to
make terms with an Atheist King? What right had they to
obtain these degrading “co ncessions?” The whole business, he
argued, smacked of simony. If the Breth ren made terms with
kings at all, the y should take their stand, not, forsooth, as
good workme n w ho would help to fatten the soil, but rather as
loyal adherents of the Augsburg Confessio n. At Herrnhaag
they had turned the C hurch into a business concern! Ins tead
of paying rent to the Counts of Isenburg, they now had the
Counts in their power. They had le nt the m large sums of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
money; they he ld the ir estates as security; and now, in retur n
for these financial favours, the Counts had kindly recognized
the Brethre n as “the ortho dox Episcopal Moravian Chur ch.”
The more Zinzendorf heard of the se business transactions, the
more disgusted he was. He stor med and rated like an abso lute
monarch, and an absolute monarch he soon became. He forgot
that before he went away he had entrusted the manage ment
of
home
affairs
to
a
Board
of
Twelve.
He
now
promptly
dissolve d the B oard, summoned the Brethren to a Synod at
Hirschberg, lectured them angr ily for their sins, r educed them
to a state of meek submission, and was ere long offi cially
appo inted to the office of “Advocate and Stew ard of all the
Brethren’s Churches.” He had no w the re ins of government in
his hands {174 3.}. “Without your foreknowledge,” ran this
document, “no thing new respecting the foundatio n shall co me
up in our co ngre gations, nor any conclusion of importance to
the whole shall be valid; and no further story shall be built
upon your fundamental plan of the Protestant do ctrine of the
Augsburg Confe ssion, and that truthing it in love with all
Christians, w itho ut cons ulting you.”
He proceeded no w to use these kingly powers. He accused the
Brethren
of
two
fundamental
errors.
Instead
of
trying
to
gather Christians into one ideal “Community of Jesus,” they
had aimed at the recognition of the indepe ndent Moravian
Church; and instead o f fo llow ing the guidance of God, they
had followed the dictates of vulgar worldly w isdo m. He would
cure them of each of these co mplaints. He wo uld cure them of
their narrow sectarian views, and cure the m of their reliance
on worldly wisdo m.
For the first co mplaint he offer ed the remedy known as his
“Tropus Idea.” The whole policy of Zinzendorf lie s in those two
words. He expo unde d it fully at a Synod in Mar ienborn. The
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
more he studie d Church history in general, the mo re convince d
he became that over and above all the Chr istian Churche s
there was o ne ideal universal Chr istian C hurch; that that ideal
Church represented the or iginal religio n of Chr ist; and that
now the true mission of the Brethren was to make that ideal
Church a reality on God’s fai r ear th. He did not re gard any of
the Churches of Christ as C hurches in this higher sense of the
term. He regarded the m rather as religio us training grounds.
He called them, not Churches, but tro puses. He called the
Lutheran Church a tro pus; he called the Calvinistic Church a
tropus; he called the Moravian C hurch a tro pus; he called the
Pilgr im Band a tr opus; he called the Memnonites a tropus; and
by this word “tr opus” he meant a religio us school in which
Christians were trained for membership in the one tr ue Church
of Christ. He would not have one of these tropuses destroyed.
He regarded the m all as essential. He ho noured them all as
means to a higher end. He would never try to draw a man
from his tropus. And now he set a grand task before the
Brethren. As the Brethren had no distinctive creed, and taught
the original religion of Christ, they must now, he said, regard
it as their Divine mission to find room w ithin the ir broad
bosom for men from all the tropuses. They were not merely to
restore
the
Moravian
C hurch;
they
were
to
establish
a
broader, comprehensive Church, to be known as the “Church
of the Brethren”; and that C hurch would be composed of men
from every tropus under heave n. So me would be Lutherans,
some
Reformed,
Memnonites,
some
so me
Anglicans,
Pilgrims
in
the
so me
Moravians,
foreign
field.
For
som e
this
purpose , and fo r this pur pose o nly, he now revived the old
Brethren’s
ministerial
orders
of
Presbyter,
Deacon
and
Acoluth; and w hen these men entered on their duties he
infor med them that they were the servants, not merely of the
Moravian C hurch, but of the wide r “Church of the Brethren.” If
the Count could now have carried out his sche me, he would
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
have had men from var ious Churches at the head of each
tropus in the Church of the Brethren. For the p r esent he did
the best he could, and divided the Brethren into three leading
tropuse s. At the head of the Moravian tropus was Bishop
Polycarp Müller; at the head of the Lutheran, first he himself,
and the n, later, Dr. Hermann, Co urt Preacher at Dresden; an d
finally, at the he ad of the Reformed, first his o ld friend Bishop
Friedr ich
de
Watteville ,
and
then,
later,
Tho mas
Wilso n,
Bishop o f So dor and Man.98 His scheme was now fair ly clear.
“In future,” he said, “we are all to be Brethr en, and o ur
Bishops must be Brethren’s Bishops; and, ther efore, in this
Church of the Brethren there will henceforth be, not o nly
Moravians, but also Lutherans and Calvinists, who cannot find
peace in the ir ow n Churches on account of brutal theologians.”
His second remedy was wors e than the disease. The great
fault in Zinzendo rf’s character was lack of ballast. For the last
few years he had given way to the habit of despising his own
common sense ; and instead of using his own judgment he now
used the Lo t. He had probably learned th is habit from the
Halle Pie tists. He carried his Lot apparatus in his pocket;99 he
consulted it on all sorts o f to pics; he regarded it as the
infallible
voice
of
God.
“To
me,”
said
he,
in
a
letter
to
Spangenberg, “the Lot and the Will of God are simply one and
the same thing. I am no t w ise e nough to seek Go d’s w ill by my
own mental effo rts. I would rather trust an inno cent piece of
paper than my own feelings.” He now endeavoured to teach
this faith to his Brethren. He founded a society called “T he
Order of the Little Fools,” {June 2nd, 1743.} and before very
long they were nearly all “little fools.” His argument here was
astounding. He appealed to the well -know n words of Chr ist
Himself.100 As God, he contended, had revealed His w ill, no t
to wise men, but to babes, it followed that the more like
babes
the
Brethren
became,
the
more
clearly
they
would
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
understand the mysteries of grace. They were not to use their
own brains; they were to w ish that they had no brains; they
were
to
be
like
children
in
arms;
and
thu s
they
would
overcome all their doubts and banish all their cares. The
result was disastrous. It le d to the perio d known as the
“Sifting Time .” It is the saddest period in the histor y of the
Brethren’s Church. For seven years these Brethren took leave
of their senses, and allowed their feelings to lead them on in
the paths of insensate fo lly. T hey began by taking Zinzendorf
at his word. The y used diminutives for nearly everything. They
addresse d the C ount as “Papa” and “Little Papa”; they spo ke
of
Chr ist
themse lves
as
“Brother
as
little
Lambkin”;101
and
wound -parso ns,
they
descr ibed
cross -wood
little
splinters, a blessed troop of cross -air102 birds, cr oss -air little
atoms, cross-air little sponges, and cross -air little pigeons.
The chief sinner was the Co unt himself. Having thrown his
common se nse overboard, he gave free rein to his fancy, and
came out with an exposition of the Holy Trinity which offended
the rules of good taste. He compared the Holy Trinity to a
family. The fathe r, said he, was God; the mo th er was the Holy
Ghost; the ir so n was Jesus; and the Church of Christ, the
Son’s fair bride, was born in the Savio ur’s Side -wound, w as
betrothed to Chr ist on the Cross, was married to Christ in the
Holy Communio n, and was thus the daughter -in-law of the
Father and the Holy Ghost. We can all see the dangers of this.
As soon as human images of spir itual tr uths are pressed
beyond dece nt limits, they lead to frivolity and fo lly; and that
was just the effe ct at Herrnhaag. The more freely the Brethren
used these phr ases, the more childish they became. They
called the Communion the “Embracing of the Man”; and thus
they lost their reverence for things Divine.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
But the next mo ve of the Count was even worse. For its origin
we must go back a few years in his story. As th e Count one
day was burning a pile of papers he saw one slip flutter down
to the ground untouched by the fire {1734.}. He picked it up,
looked at it, and found that it co ntaine d the words: –
“Oh, let us in Thy nail -pr ints see Our pardon and election
free.”
At first the effect on Zinzendorf was healthy enough. He
regarded the wo rds as a direct message from G od. He began
to think more of the value of the death of Chr ist. He altered
the
style
of
his
preaching;
he
became
mo re
definitely
evange lical; and hencefor th he taught the doctrine that all
happiness and all virtue must centre in the atoning death of
Christ. “Since the year 1734,” he said, “the ato ning sacrifice
of Jesus became our only testimony and our o ne means of
salvation.” But now he carried this doctr ine to e xcess. Again
the cause was his use of the Lot. As long as Zinz endorf used
his ow n mental powers, he was able to make his “Blood and
Wounds Theology” a power for good; but as soo n as he bade
good-bye to his intellect he made his do ctr ine a laughing stock and a scandal. Instead o f concentrating his atte ntion o n
the moral and spiritual value of the cross, he now began to lay
all the stress o n the mere physical de tails. He composed a
“Litany of the Wounds”; and the Brethren could now talk and
sing of no thing else {1743.}. “We stick,” they said, “to the
Blood and Wounds Theology. We will preach nothing but Jesus
the Crucified. We will look for no thing else in the Bible but the
Lamb and His Wounds, and again Wo unds, and Blood and
Blood.” Abo ve all they beg an to worship the Side -wound. “We
stick,” they declared, “to the L ambkin and His little Side wound. It is use less to call this folly. We do te upon it. We are
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
in love w ith it. We shall stay fo r ever in the little side -hole,
where we are so unspeakably bless ed.”
Still worse, these men now forgo t the main moral principle of
the Chr istian religion. Instead of living for other s they lived
for themselves. Instead of working hard for their living the y
were now enjoying themselves at the Co unt’s expense; instead
of plain living and high thinking they had high living and low
thinking; and instead o f spe nding their money on the poor
they spent it no w on grand illuminatio ns, transparent pictures,
and gorgeous musical festivals. No longer was their religion a
discipline . It was a luxury, an orgy, a pastime. At Herrnhut
the ruling pr inciple was law ; at Herrnhaag the r uling pr inciple
was liberty. At Herrnhut the ir religion w as legal; at Herrnhaag
it was suppo sed to be evangelical. The walls of their meeting house were daub ed with flaming pictures. In the centre of the
ceiling was a picture of the Ascension; in one corner, Mary
Magdale ne meeting Je sus on the Resurrection morning; in
another, our Lor d making himse lf know n to the two disciples
at Emmaus; in a third Tho mas thr u sting his hand in the
Saviour’s side ; in a fourth, Pe ter leaping from a boat to greet
the Risen Master on the shores of the Lake o f Tiberias. T he
four walls were equally gorgeous. At one end of the hall was a
picture of the Jew’s Passover, so me Hebrews spr inkling blood
on the door -po sts, and the destroying angel passing. At the
opposite end was a picture of the Last Supper; on another wall
Moses
lifting
up
the
brazen
serpent;
on
the
fourth
the
Crucifixion. We can easily see the purpose of these pictures.
They were all meant to teach the same great lesson. They
were appeals thr ough the eye to the hear t. The y were sermons
in paint. If the Brethren had halted here they had done well.
But again they rode their horse to death. For them pictures
and hymns were not enough. At Marienbor n Castle they now
held a series o f birthday festivals in honour of Zinzendorf,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Anna Nitschmann and other Moravian worthie s; and these
festivals must have cost tho usands of pounds. At such times
the old castle gleamed with a thousand li ghts. At night, says a
visitor , the building seemed on fire. The walls we re hung w ith
festoons. T he hall was ornamented w ith boughs. The pillars
were decked with lights, spirally disposed, and the seats were
covered with fine linen, se t off with sightly r i bbons.
But
the
worst
feature
of
this
riotous
life
is
still
to
be
mentioned. If there is any topic requir ing delicate treatment,
it is surely the question of sexual morality; and now the Count
made
the
great
mistake
of
throwing
aside
the
clo ak
of
modesty and spe aking o ut o n sins of the flesh in the plainest
possible language. He delivered a series of discourses on
moral purity; and in those discourses he used expressions
which would hardly be permitted now except in a medical
treatise. His pur pose was certai nly good. He contended that he
had the Bible o n his side; that the morals o f the age were
bad; and that the time for plain speaking had come. “At that
time,” he said, “when the Brethren’s congregations appeared
afresh o n the horizon of the C hurch, he fo und , on the one
hand, the lust o f concupisce nce carried to the utmo st pitch
possible, and the youth almost to tally ruine d; and on the
other
hand
some
few
tho ughtful
persons
who
proposed
a
spir ituality like the angels.” B ut again the Brethr en rode their
horse to death. They were not immoral, they were only silly.
They talked too freely abo ut the se delicate topics; they sang
about them in their hymns; they had these hymns published in
a volume know n as the “Twelfth Appendix” to their Hymn book; and thus they inn ocently gave the public the impression
that the y revelled, for its own sake, in coar se and filthy
language.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
What judgme nt are we to pass on all these follies? For the
Brethren we may fairly enter the plea that most o f them were
humble and simple -minde d men ; that, on the whole, they
meant well; and that, in their z eal for the Gospel of Chr ist,
they allowed the ir feelings to carry them away. And further,
let us bear in mind that, despite their foolish style of speech,
they were still heroes of the Cro ss. T hey had still a burning
love for Christ; they were still willing to serve abroad; and
they still went o ut to foreign lands, and laid dow n their lives
for the sake of Him who had laid down His for them. As John
Cennick was on his visit to Herrnhaag (1746), he was amazed
by the splendid spir it of devotio n shown. He found himself at
the
hub
of
the
missionary
world.
He
saw
portraits
of
missio naries on every hand. He heard a hymn sung in twe nty two
different
Esthonian,
languages.
French,
He
Spanish,
heard
sermo ns
Swedish,
Lettish,
in
German,
Bohemian,
Dutch, Hebrew, Danish, and Eskimo. He heard letters read
from missionarie s in every quarte r of the globe .
“Are you ready,” said Z inzendorf to Jo hn Soerensen, “to serve
the Saviour in Greenland?”
“Here am I, send me,” s aid Soerensen. He had never thought
of such a thing before.
“But the matter is pressing; we w ant someone to go at once .”
“Well!” replied Soerensen, “that’s no difficulty. If you will only
get me a new pair of boots I will set off this very day. My old
ones are quite worn out, and I have not another pair to call
my own.”
And the next day the man w as off, and served in Greenland
forty -six year s.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
But the grandest case is that of Bishop Cammerhof. He was a
fanatic
of
the
fanatics.
He
revelle d
in
sickly
sentimen tal
language. He called himself a “Little Fool” and a “Little Cross air Bird.” He addressed the Count as his “hear t’s Papa,” and
Anna N itschmann as his “Mothe rkin.” He said he would kiss
them a tho usand times, and vowe d he could never fondle the m
enough! And yet this man had the soul of a hero, and killed
himself by o verwork among the N orth American Indians!103 It
is easy to sneer at saints like this as fools; but if foo ls they
were, they were fools for their Master’s sake.
But for Zinzendorf it is har d to find any excuse. He had
received
a
sple ndid
educatio n,
had
moved
in
refined
and
cultured circles, and had enjoyed the fr iendship of lear ned
bishops, of eloquent preachers, of university professors, of
philoso phers, of men of letters. He had read the histor y of the
Christian Church, knew the dangers of excess, and had spoke n
against excess in his earlier years.104 He knew that the
Wetterau swarmed with mad fanatics; had read the works of
Dippel, of Rock, and o f other unhealthy wr iters; and had,
therefore, every reason to be on his guard. He knew the weak
points in his own character. “I have,” he said, “a genius for
extravagance.”
accepted
the
He
had
office
of
deliber ately,
of
“Advocate
and
his
o wn
free
Steward”
of
w ill,
the
Brethren’s Church. He was the head of an ancient episcopal
Church, w ith a high reputation to sustain. He had set the
Brethren a high and ho ly task. He was a public and well -know n
character. As he trave lled about from co untry to country he
spread the fame of the Brethren’s labours in every g reat city
in Germany, in England, in Switz erland, in North America, and
in the West Indies; and by this time he was known personally
to the King of Denmark, to Potte r, Archbishop of Canterbur y,
to
John
and
commentator,
Charles
and to
Wesley,
many other
to
Benge l,
leaders in
the
the
famous
Lutheran
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Church. And, therefore, by all the laws of ho nour, he was
bound to lead the Brethren upward and keep their record
clean. But his co nduct now was unworthy of a tr usted leader.
It is the dar kest blo t on his saintly character, and the chief
reason why his brilliant schemes met with so little favour . At
the very time w hen he placed before the Brethr en the noblest
and loftiest ideals, he himse lf had do ne the most to cause the
enemy to blaspheme. No wonder his Tropus ide a was laughe d
to scorn. What sort of home was this, said his cr itics, that he
had prepared fo r all the Tropuses? What grand ideal “Church
of the Brethren” was this, w ith its childish nonsense, its
blasphemous
language,
its
o bjectionable
hymns?
As
the
rumours of the Brethren’s excesses spread, all sorts of wild
tales were told about them. Some said they were worshippers
of the devil; so me said the y were conspirators against the
State; some accused the m false ly of immorality, of gluttony,
of robbing the poor; and the chief cause of all the trouble was
this
beautiful
poet,
this
original
thinker,
this
elo quent
preacher, this noble descendant of a noble line , this learne d
Bishop of the Brethren’s Church. There is only one explanation
of his conduct. He had co mmit te d mental suicide , and he paid
the penalty.105
He had now to r etrieve his fallen hono ur, and to make amends
for his guilt. At last he awoke to the ster n facts of the case.
His position now was terrible. What right had he to lecture the
Brethren
for
sins
w hich
he
himse lf
had
taught
them
to
commit? He shr ank from the dr eadful task. But the vo ice of
duty w as not to be silenced. He had not alto gether neglecte d
the Brethren’s cause. At the very time when the e xcesses were
at their height he had been e ndeavour in g to o btain for the
Brethren full legal recognitio n in Germany, England, and North
America. He won his first victor y in Germany. He was allowe d
(Oct., 1747) to r eturn to Saxo ny, summo ned the Brethren to a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Syno d at Gross -Krausche in Silesia (1748), and pers uade d
them to promise fidelity to the Augsburg Co nfession. He had
the Brethren’s doctr ine and pr actice examined by a Saxo n
Royal Commissio n, and the King of Saxo ny issued a decree
(1749) by which the Brethren were granted religio us liberty in
his kingdom. Thus the Brethren were now fully r ecognized by
law in Pr ussia, Silesia, and Saxony. He had o btained these
legal pr ivileges just in time, and could now deal with the poor
fanatics at Herrnhaag. The situatio n there had come to a
crisis. The old C ount of Isen berg died. His successor, Gustavus
Friedr ich,
was
a
weak -minded
man;
the
agent,
Brauer,
deteste d the Bre thren; and now Brauer laid down the condition
that the settlers at Herrnhaag must e ither break off the ir
connectio n w ith Zinzendorf or else abandon the
They
chose
the
latter
course.
At
one
blow
the
premises.
gorgeous
settlement was shivered to atoms. It had cost many thousands
of pounds to build, and now the money was gone for ever. As
the Brethren scattered in all dire ctio ns, the Count saw at last
the da mage he had done {Fe b., 1750.}. He had led the m on in
reckless expense , and now he must rush to their rescue. He
addresse d the m all in a so lemn circular letter . He visited the
various congregatio ns, and urge d them to tr ue repentance. He
suppressed the disg raceful “Twelfth Appendix,” and cut o ut
the
offe nsive
treatise
after
passages
treatise
in
his
own
defending
the
discour ses.
Brethren
He
issued
against
the
coarse libels o f their enemies. And, best of all, and noblest o f
all, he no t only took upo n his own s houlders the burde n of
their financial troubles, but co nfessed like a man that he
himself had stee red the m on to the rocks. He summoned his
Brethren to a Synod. He rose to address the assembly. His
eyes were red, his cheeks stained with tears.
“Ah! my belo ved Brethren,” he said, “I am guilty! I am the
cause of all these troubles!”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
And thus at length this “Sifting -Time” came to a happy end.
The whole episode was like an attack of pneumonia. T he
attack was sudden; the crisis dangerous; the recovery swift;
and the lesso n wholesome. Fo r some years after this the
Brethren continued to show some signs of weakne ss; and even
in the next edition of the ir Hymn -book they still made use of
some rather crude expressions. But o n the whole the y had
learned some useful less ons. O n this subject the historians
have mostly bee n in the wrong. Some have suppressed the
facts. This is dishonest. Others have exaggerated, and spoken
as if the excesse s lasted for two or three generations. This is
wicked.106 The sober truth is e xactly as descr ibed in these
pages. The best judgme nt was passed by the godly Bishop
Spangenherg. “At that time,” he said, “the spir it of Christ did
not rule in o ur hearts; and that was the real cause of all o ur
foolery.” Full w ell the Brethren realized their mis take , and
honestly they to ok its lesso ns to heart. The y learned to place
more
trust
in
the
Bible,
and
less
in
the ir
ow n
unbridle d
feelings. They le arned afresh the value of discipline, and of an
organised syste m of government. They became more guarded
in the ir language, more Scr iptur al in the ir doctrine, and more
practical in their preaching. Nor was this all. Meanwhile the
same battle had been fought and won in England and North
America.
Chapter 9
“Moravians and Metho dists, 1735 -1742″
For the origin of the Moravian Church in England we turn our
eyes to a bookseller’s shop in London. It was known as “The
Bible and Sun”; it stood a few yards west of Te mple Bar; and
James Hutto n, the man behind the cou nter , became in time
the first English member of the Brethren’s Church. But James
Hutton was a man of high impor tance for the whole course of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
English history. He was the connecting link betwe en Moravians
and Methodists; and thus he played a vital part, ent irely
ignored
by
our
great
histor ians,
in
the
w hole
Evangelical
Revival.
He was bor n on September 14th, 1715. He was the so n of a
High-C hurch cler gyman. His father was a non -juror. He had
refused, that is, to take the oath of loyalty to the Hanoverian
succession, had been compelled to resign his living, and now
kept a boarding -house in College Street, Westminster, for
boys attending the famous Westminster School. At that school
little James himself was educate d; and o ne of his teachers was
Samuel Wesley, th e elder brother of Jo hn and Charles. He had
no idea to w hat this would lead. As the lad gre w up in his
father’s home he had, of co urse, not the least suspicion that
such a bo dy as the Moravian C hurch existed. He had never
heard of Zinzendorf or of Herrnhut . He was brought up a son
of the Church of England; he lo ved her services and doctrine;
and all that he desired to see was a revival w ithin her borders
of true spiritual life.
The revival w as close at hand. For some years a number of
pious
people –so me
cler gy,
and
others
laymen –had
been
endeavour ing to rouse the Church to new and vigorous life;
and
to
this
end
they
established
a
number
of
“Religio us
Socie ties.” Ther e were thir ty o r forty of these Societies in
London. They co nsisted of members of the C hurch o f England.
They met, o nce a week, in pr ivate houses to pray, to read the
Scriptures, and to edify each o ther. They drew up rules for
their
spiritual
guidance,
had
special
days
for
prayer, and attended early Communio n once
church
the y
kept
a
sharp
look -out
for
fasting
a month.
o ther s
and
At
“religio usly
disposed,” and invited such to join the ir Societies. In the
morning they w ould go to the ir own parish church; in the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
afternoon the y would go where they co uld hear a “spiritual
sermon.” Of these Socie ties one met at the house of Hutto n’s
father. If James, however, is to be believed, the Societies had
now lost a good deal of the ir moral power. He was not content
with the o ne in his own home . He was not pleased w ith the
members of it. They were, he tells us, slum bering or dead
souls; they cared for nothing but their own co mfort in this
world; and all they did w hen they met on Sunday evenings
was
to
enjoy
themse lves
at
small
expense ,
and
fancy
themse lves more holy than other people. He was soon to meet
with me n of greater zeal.
As James was now apprenticed to a bookseller he thought he
could do a good stroke of busine ss by visiting so me of his old
school -mates at the University of Oxford. He went to Oxford to
see them; they introduced him to John and Charles Wesley;
and thus he formed an acquaintance that was soon to change
the current of his life. What had happened at Oxford is famous
in English histor y. For the last six years bo th John and C har les
had been conducting a noble work. T hey me t, with others, on
Sunday
e venings,
to
read
the
classics
and
the
Greek
Testament; they attended Communion at St. Mary’s ever y
Sunday. They visite d the poor and the prisoners in the gao l.
They fasted at r egular intervals. For all this they were openly
laughed to scor n, and were co nsi dered mad fanatics. They
were called the Reforming C lub, the Holy Club, the Godly Club,
the
Sacramentarians,
the
Bible
Moths,
the
Supererogatio n
Men, the Enthusiasts, and, finally, the Me tho dists.
But Hutton was stirred to the very depths of his soul. He w as
still living in Co llege Street with his father; ne xt door lived
Samuel Wesley, his old schoolmaster; and Hutton, therefore,
asked John and Charles to call and see him when next they
came up to tow n. T he invitation led to great re sults. At this
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
time John Wesley received a request from General Ogle thorpe ,
Governor of Georgia, to go o ut to that co lony as a missionary.
He
accepted
the
offer
with
jo y;
his
brother
Charles
w as
appo inted the Governor’s Secretary; and the tw o young men
came up to London and spent a couple of days at Hutton’s
house. The plot was thicke ning. Young James was more in love
with the Wesleys than ever. If he had not been a bound
apprentice he w ould have sailed with the m to Georgia himself
{1735.}. He went dow n with them to Gravesend; he spent
some time with them o n board the ship; and there, on that
sailing vessel, the Simmonds, he saw, for the first time in his
life, a number of Moravian Brethr en. They, too, w ere on their
way to Georgia. For the future history o f religio n in England
that meeting on the Simmonds was momentous. Among the
passengers
were
Nitschmann,
and
Moravians
and
General
Oglethorpe,
twenty -three
Metho dists
were
other
Bishop
Brethren,
brought
toge ther
David
and
thus
by
the ir
common interest in missionar y w ork.
James Hutto n w as thrilled. As soon as his appre nticeship was
over he set up in business for himself at the “Bible and Sun,”
founded a new Society in his own back parlo ur, and made that
parlour the ce ntre of the Evangelical Revival {1 736.}. There
he conducte d weekly m eetings; there he establishe d a Poor box Society, the members paying in a pe nny a week; there
met the men w ho before long were to turn England upside
down; and there he and others were to hear still more of the
life and work of the Brethren.
For this he ha d to thank his friend John Wesley. As John
Wesley set out o n his voyage to Georgia he began to keep that
delightful Jo urnal which has now become an English classic;
and be fore having his Jour nal printed he sent pr ivate copies to
Hutton, and Hutton read the m out at his weekly meetings.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
John
Wesley
had
a
stirring
tale
to
tell.
He
admired
the
Brethren from the first. They were, he wrote, the gentlest,
bravest folk he had ever met. T hey helped without pay in the
working of the ship; they co uld take a blow w itho ut losing
their tempers; and when the ship was tossed in the storm the y
were braver than the sailors themselves. One Sunday the gale
was terrific. The sea poured in between the decks. The main
sail was torn to tatters. The English passengers screamed with
terror. The Brethren calmly sang a hymn.
“Was no t you afr aid?” said Wesle y.
“I thank God, no ,” replied the Brother.
“But were no t yo ur women and children afraid?”
“No; our wo men and children are not afraid to die.”
John Wesley was deeply stirred. For all h is piety he still lacked
something w hich these Brethren possessed. He lacke d the ir
triumphant confidence in God. He was still afraid to die. “How
is it thou hast no faith?” he said to himself.
For the present his questio n remaine d unanswered; but before
he had been very long in Georgia he laid his spir itual troubles
before the learned Moravian teacher, Spangenbe rg. He could
hardly
have
go ne
to
a
better
spir itual
guide .
Of
all
the
Brethren this mo dest Spangenberg was in many w ays the best.
He was the son of a Lutheran minister. He was Wesley’s equal
in learning and practical piety. He had been assistant lecturer
in theo logy at Halle University. He was a man o f deep spiritual
experience ;
he
was
only
one
year
younger
than
Wesley
himself; and, therefore, he was thoroughly qualified to help
the yo ung English pilgrim over the stile.107
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“My brother ,” he said, “I must first ask you one or two
questions. Have you the witness within yo urself? Does the
Spirit of Go d bear witness w ith your spirit that yo u are a child
of God?”
John Wesle y was so staggered that he could no t answer.
“Do you know Je sus C hrist?” co ntinued Spangenbe rg.
“I know he is the Saviour of the w orld.”
“True; but do yo u know he has saved yo u?”
“I hope ,” replie d Wesley, “he has die d to save me .”
“Do you know yo urself?”
“I do ,” said Wesley; but he o nly half meant w hat he said.
Again, three weeks later, Wesley was present at a Moravian
ordination service. For the mo ment he forgot the seventeen
centur ies that had rolled by since
the
great
days of
the
apostles ; and almost thought that Paul the te ntmaker or Peter
the fisherman w as presiding at the ceremony. “G od,” he said,
“has o pened me a door into a w hole Chur ch.”
As
James
Hutto n
read
these
glowing
reports
to
his
little
Socie ty at the “Bible and Sun” he began to take a still deeper
interest in the B rethren. He had made the acquaintance, no t
only o f the Wesleys, but of B enjamin Ingham, of William
Delamo tte , and of George Whitefie ld. He was the first to
welcome Whitefield to London. He found him openings in the
churches.
He
publishe d
his
Aldersgate
supplied
him
sermons.
Stre et.
He
He
was
w ith
money
founded
now
to
for
the
ano ther
meet
with
poor.
He
Society
in
Zinzendorf
himself. Once more the connecting link was foreign missionar y
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
work. For some years the Count had been making attempts to
obtain the goodwill of English C hurchmen for the Brethren’s
labo urs in North America. He had first sent thre e Brethren –
Wenzel Neisser, John Toeltschig, and David Nitschmann, the
Syndic–to o pen up negotiatio ns with the Socie ty for P romo ting
Christian
these
Know ledge;
nego tiations
and
came
very
to
disappointed
nothing.
He
he
had
was
when
the n
sent
Spangenberg to London to make arrangements for the first
batch o f co lonists for Georgia. He had then se nt the second
batch under Bishop Dav id N itschmann. And no w he came to
London
himse lf,
took
rooms
at
Lindsey
Ho use
{1737.},
Chelsea, and stayed about six weeks. He had two pur poses to
serve. He wishe d first to talk with Archbisho p Potter abo ut
Moravian Episcopal Or ders. He was just thinking o f becoming a
Bishop himse lf. He wanted Po tter’s opinion on the subject.
What position, he asked, would a Moravian Bishop occupy in
an English co lony? Would it be right for a Moravian Bishop to
exercise his functio ns in Georgia? At the same time, however,
he wished to co nsult with the B oard of Tr ustees for Georgia.
He had se veral talks with the Secretary. The Secretary was
Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley was lodging now at old John
Hutton’ s
in
College
Street.
He
atte nded
a
service
in
Zinzendorf’s rooms; he th ought himself in a cho ir of ange ls;
he introduced James Hutto n to the Count; and thus ano ther
link in the chain was forge d.
And now there arrived in England a man who was destined to
give a new to ne to the r ising re vival {Jan. 27 th, 1738.}. His
name
was
Pe te r
Boehler;
he
had
just
been
ordaine d
by
Zinzendorf; he was on his way to So uth Carolina; and he
happened to arr ive in London five days before John Wesley
landed from his visit to America. We have come to a critical
point in English history. At the house of Weinantz, a Dutch
merchant, John Wesley and Peter Boehler met (Fe b. 7th); John
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Wesley then found Boehler lo dgings, and introduced him to
Hutton;
and
together
for
te n
days
Oxford
later
{Feb.
Wesley
17th.}.
and
The
Bo ehler
immortal
set
o ut
disco urse
began .
As John Wesley r eturned to England from his three years’ stay
in America, he found himself in a sorrowful state of mind. He
had gone w ith all the ardo ur of youth; he returne d a spir itual
bankrupt.
On
this
subject
the
historians
have
differed.
According to High-Church Anglican writers, John Wesley was a
Christian saint before he ever set eyes on Boehle r’s face;108
according to Methodists he had only a le gal religion and was
lacking in genuine, saving faith in Christ. His own evidence on
the questions seems conflicting. At the time he was sure he
was not ye t converted; in later years he incline d to think he
was. At the time he sadly wro te in his Journal, “I who went to
America to convert others was never myself converted to
God”; and then, years later, he ad ded the footno te, “I am not
sure
of
this.”
It
is
easy,
however,
to
explain
this
contradiction. The question turns on the meaning of the word
“converted.” If a man is truly converted to God w hen his hear t
throbs w ith love for his fellows, w ith a zeal for so uls, and with
a desire to do God’s holy will, then John Wesley, when he
returned fro m America, was just as truly a “converted” man as
ever he was in later life . He was devout in prayer; he loved
the Scriptures; he longe d to be holy; he was pure in thought,
in deed, and in speech; he was self -denying; he had fed his
soul on the noble teaching of Law’s “Serio us C all”; and thus,
in many ways, he was a beautiful mo del of what a Christian
should be. And yet, after all, he lacke d one thing which Peter
Boehler possessed. If Jo hn Wesley was converte d then he did
not know it himself. He had no firm, unflinching trust in God.
He was not sure that his sins were forgiven. He lacke d what
Metho dists call “assurance,” and what St. Paul calle d “peace
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
with God.” He had the f aith, to use his own distinction, not of
a son, but only of a servant. He was good but he was not
happy; he feared God, but he did not dare to lo ve Him; he had
not ye t attaine d the co nvictio n that he himself had been
redeemed by Christ; and if this convict ion is essential to
conversio n, then John Wesley, before he met Boehler, was not
yet a converted man. For practical purposes the matter was of
first importance. As long as Wesley was racked by doubts he
could never be a persuasive preacher of the Gospel. H e was so
distracted about himself that he could no t ye t, with an easy
mind, rush out to the rescue of others. He had no t “a heart at
leisure from itse lf to soothe and sympathize.” The influe nce of
Boehler was enormous. He saw where Wesley’s trouble lay,
and led him into the calm waters of rest.
“My brother, my brother,” he said, “that philoso phy of yo urs
must be purged away.”109
John Wesley did not understand. For three weeks the two men
discussed the fateful question; and the more Wesley examined
himself t he more sure he was he did no t possess “the faith
whereby
we
are
saved.”
One
day
he
felt
certain
of
his
salvation; the next the doubts be sieged his door again.
“If what stands in the Bible is true,” he said, “then I am
saved” ; but that was as far as he cou ld go .
“He knew,” said Boehler in a letter to Zinzendorf, “that he did
not properly be lieve in the Savio ur.”
At last Boehler made a fine practical suggestion {March 5 th.}.
He urged Wesle y to preach the Gospel to o thers. John Wesle y
was thunderstruck. He th o ught it rather his duty to leave off
preaching. What right had he to preach to others a faith he
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
did not yet possess himself? Sho uld he leave off preaching or
not?
“By no means,” r eplie d Boehler .
“But w hat can I preach?” asked Wesley.
“Preach faith till y ou have it,” was the classic answer, “and
then, because yo u have it, yo u w ill preach faith.”
Again he consulted Boehler on the point; and again Boehler,
broad-minde d man, gave the same wholeso me advice.
“No,” he insisted, “do not hide in the earth the tale nt God has
give n yo u.”
The advice was sound. If Jo hn Wesley had left off preaching
now, he might never have preached again; and if Boehler had
been a narrow -minded bigot, he would certainly have informed
his pupil that unless he possessed full assur ance of faith he
was unfit to remain in ho ly order s. But Boehler w as a scholar
and a gentleman, and acte d throughout with tact. For some
weeks
John
We sley
doctr ine of the
continued
to
be
puzzle d
by
Boehler’s
holiness and happiness which spring from
living faith; but at last he came to the firm conclusion that
what Boehler said on the subject was precisely w hat was
taught in the Church of England. He had read already in his
own Church homilies that faith “is a sure trust and confide nce
which a man hath in God that thr ough the merits of Christ his
sins are forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God”; and
yet, clergyman though he was, he had no t ye t that trust and
confidence himself. Instead, there fore, of teaching Wesley new
doctr ine, Peter Boehler simply infor med him that some men,
though of co urse not all, were sudde nly converted, that faith
might be give n in a mo ment, and that thus a man might pass
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
at once from darkness to light and from sin and misery to
righteousness and jo y in the Holy Ghost. He had had th at very
experience himself at Jena; he had known it as a solid fact in
the case of o thers; and, therefore, speaking fr om his own
personal know le dge, he informe d Wesley that when a man
obtained true faith he acquired forthw ith “do minion over sin
and constant peace from a sense of forgiveness.”
At this Wesley was staggered. He calle d it a new Gospel. He
would not believe that the sense of forgiveness co uld be given
in a mo ment.
For
answer
Boehler
appealed
to
the
New
Testament;
and
Wesley, looking to see for h imse lf, found that nearly all the
cases of conversion mentioned there were instantaneous. He
contended, howe ver, that such miracles did not happen in the
eighteenth century. Boehler brought fo ur fr iends to prove that
they did. Four examples, said Wesley, w ere not enough to
prove a principle. Boehler promised to bring eight more. For
some
days
Wesley
co ntinued
to
wander
in
the
valley
of
indecision, and consulted Boehle r at every turn of the road.
He persuade d Boehler to pray with him; he jo ined him in
singing R ichter’s hymn, “My so ul before Thee prostrate lies” ;
and finally, he preached a sermo n to four tho usand hearers in
London, enforcing that very faith in C hrist which he himse lf
did no t yet possess. But Boehler had now to leave for South
Carolina. From So uthampton he wrote a farew ell letter to
Wesley. “Beware of the sin of unbelie f,” he wrote , “and if yo u
have not co nque red it yet, see that yo u conquer it this very
day, through the bloo d of Jesus C hrist.”
The
letter
produced
its
effect.
The
turning -point
in
John
Wesley’s career arrived. He was able to give, no t only the day,
but the ho ur, and almost the minute. As he was still under the
influe nce
of
Boehler’s
teaching,
many
writers
have
here
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
assumed
that
his
conversio n
took
place
in
a
Moravian
society.110 T he assumption is false . “In the e vening,” says
Wesley, “I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate
Street {May 24th.}, w here one was reading Luther’s preface
to the Epistle to the Ro mans.” At that time the society in
Aldersgate Street had no more c onnection w ith the Moravian
Church than any other religious socie ty in England. It was
founded by Jame s Hutton; it was an ordinary re ligious so cie ty;
it consisted e ntirely of members of the Anglican Church; and
there, in an Anglican religio us society, Wesl ey’s conversion
took place. “Abo ut a quarter to nine,” he says, “while he was
describing the change which God works in the heart through
faith in Chr ist, I felt my heart strangely war med. I felt I did
trust in Christ, Christ alo ne, for salvation; and an as surance
was give n me that He had take n away my sins, even mine, and
saved me from the law of sin and death.”
>From that mo ment, despite some recurring doubts, John
Wesley was a changed man. If he had not exactly learned any
new
doctr ine ,
he
had
certainly
p assed
thro ugh
a
new
experience . He had peace in his heart; he w as sure of his
salvation; and henceforth, as all readers know , he was able to
forget himse lf, to leave his soul in the hands of God, and to
spend his life in the salvation of his fellow -men.
Meanwhile Peter Boehler had done another good work. If his
influe nce
over
John
Wesley
w as
great,
his
influence
over
Charles Wesley was almost greater. For so me weeks the two
men appear to have been in daily communication; Charles
Wesley taught B oehler Englis h; and w hen Wesley was taken ill
Boehler on several occasions, both at Oxford and at James
Hutton’ s house in London, sat up with him dur ing the night,
prayed for his recovery, and impr essed upon him the value of
faith and pr ayer. The faith of Boehler was a mazing. As soon as
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
he had prayed fo r Wesley’s recovery, he turne d to the sufferer
and calmly said, “You will no t die now.” T he patient fe lt he
could no t endure the pain much longer.
“Do you hope to be save d?” said Boehler.
“Yes.”
“For what reaso n do yo u ho pe it?”
“Because I have used my best endeavours to serve God.”
Boehler shook his head, and said no more. As soon as Charles
was
restored
experience
as
to
health,
he
passed
his
brother
John;
and
through
gladly
the
ascribe d
same
both
recovery and conversion to the faith and prayer of Boehler.
But this was not the end of Boehler’s influence. As soon as he
was
able
to
speak
English
intelligibly,
he
be gan
to
give
addresses o n saving faith to the good folk who met at James
Hutton’ s
house ;
and
before
lo ng
he
chang ed
the
whole
character of the Society. It had been a society of seekers; it
became a socie ty of believers. It had been a gr oup of High
Churchmen; it became a group o f Evangelicals. It had been a
free-and-easy gathering; it became a society with definite
regulations. For two years the Society was nothing less than
the headquarter s of the grow ing evange lical revival; and the
rules dr awn up by Pe ter Boehler (May 1st, 1738), just before
he left for Ame rica, were the means o f making it a vital
power. In these ru les the members were introducing, tho ugh
they knew it not, a new pr inciple into English C hurch life. It
was the principle of democratic government. The Socie ty was
now a se lf -gove rning body; and all the membe rs, lay and
clerical, stoo d upon the same fo otin g. They met once a week
to confess the ir faults to each other and to pray for each
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
other; they divided the So ciety into “bands,” w ith a leader at
the head of each; and they laid down the definite r ule that
“every one, w ithout distinction, submit to the de t ermination of
his Brethre n.”11 1 The Society increased; the room at Hutton’s
house became too small; and Hutton therefore hired first a
large room, and the n a Baptist Hall, known as the Great
Meeting House , in Fe tter Lane.11 2
>From this time the Society was known as the Fetter Lane
Socie ty,
Charles
and
the
Wesley.
happiness
and
leading
For
a
peace.
spir its
while
As
the
the
were
James
hall
months
w as
Hutton
the
rolled
and
home
on,
of
var ious
Moravians paid passing calls on their w ay to America; and
Hutton, the Wesleys, De lamo tte and o thers became still more
impressed w ith the Brethre n’s teaching. C harles Wesley w as
delighted. As he walked across the fields from his ho use at
Islingto n to the Sunday evening love -feast in Fetter Lane, he
would sing for very joy. John We sley was equally charmed. He
had visited the Brethren at Marienborn and Herr nhut (August,
1738).
He
had
liste ned
w ith
delight
to
the
preaching
of
Christian David. He had had long chats abo ut spiritual matters
with Mar tin Linner, the C hief Elder, wit h David Nitschmann,
with Albin Feder , w ith Augustin Neisser, w ith Wenzel Neisser,
with
Hans
Ne isser,
with
David
Schneider,
and
with
Arvid
Gradin, the histo rian; he felt he would like to spend his life at
Herrnhut; and in his Journal he wrote the words, “Oh , whe n
shall this Christianity cover the earth as the waters cover the
sea.” At a Watch -N ight service in Fetter Lane (Dec. 31st,
1738) the fervour reached its height. At that service both the
Wesleys, George Whitefie ld, Benjamin Ingham, Kinchin and
other Oxford Methodists were pre sent, and the meeting lasted
till
the
small
hours
of
the
morning.
“Abo ut
three
in
the
morning,” says John Wesley, “as we were continuing instant in
prayer, the pow er of God came mightily upon us, inso much
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that many cr ied out for ex ceeding joy, and many fell to the
ground.”
And yet all the while there was a worm within the bud. John
Wesley
soon
fo und
ser ious
faults
in
the
Brethren.
As
he
journeye d to Her rnhut, he had called at Mar ienbor n, and there
they had given him w hat seemed to h im an unnecessary snub.
For some reaso n which has neve r been fully explained, they
refused to admit him to the Holy Communion; and the only
reason they gave him w as that he was a “homo pertur batus,”
i.e., a restless man.113 For the life of him Wesley could not
understand why a “restless man” of good Christian character
should not kneel at the Lord’s Table w ith the Brethren; and to
make the insult more stinging still, they actually admitted his
companio n, Benjamin Ingham. But the real tr ouble lay at
Fetter Lane. It is easy to put our finger on the cause. As lo ng
as people hold true to the faith and practice of their fathers
they find it easy to live at peace with each other ; but as soon
as the y begin to think for themselves they are sure to differ
sooner or later. And that was exactly w hat happened at Fetter
Lane. The members came from various stations in life . So me,
like the Wesleys, were university men; so me, like Hutton,
were middle -class tradesmen, of moderate educatio n; so me,
like Bray, the brazier, were artizans; and all stood on the
same footing, and discussed theology w ith the zeal of novices
and the co nfidence of experts. Jo hn Wesley found himse lf in a
strange country. He had been brought up in the realm of
authority; he fo und himse lf in the realm of f ree discussion.
Some said that saying faith was one thing, and some said that
it w as another. Some said that a man could receive the
forgive ness of his sins witho ut knowing it, and some argued
that if a man had any doubts he was not a true Christian at
all . As Wesley listened to these discussio ns he grew impatient
and disgusted. The whole tone o f the Society was distasteful
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
to his mind. If e ver a man was born to rule it w as Wesle y; and
here, at Fetter Lane, instead o f being captain, he was merely
one of the crew, and could not even undertake a journe y
without the consent of the Society. The fetters were beginning
to gall.
At this point the re arrived from Germany a strange young man
on his way to America, who soon added fuel to the fire {Oct.
18th, 1739.}. Hi s name was Philip Henr y Molther. He was only
twenty-five
years old; he
had
belonged to
the
Brethren’s
Church abo ut a year; he had spent some months as tutor in
Zinzendorf’s family; he had picked up only the weak side of
the Brethren’s teaching; and no w, w i th all the z eal of youth,
he set forth his views in extravagant language , which soon
filled
Wesley
imme nse,
and
with
four
horror.
times
His
a
power
w eek,
in
in
the
broken
Society
English,
was
he
preached to gro wing crowds. At first he was utterly shocked
by what he saw . “The first time I entered the meeting,” he
says, “I was alarmed and almo st terror -str icke n at hear ing
their sighing and groaning, their whining and howling, which
strange proceeding they call the demonstratio n of the Spirit
and of power.” Fo r these fo llies Molther had a cure of his ow n.
He called it “stillness.” As lo ng as men were sinners, he said,
they were not to try to obtain saving faith by any effor ts of
their ow n. They were not to go to church. The y were not to
communicate. They were n ot to fast. They were not to use so
much private pr ayer. They were not to read the Scriptures.
They were not to do either te mpo ral or spir itual good. Instead
of seeking Chr ist in these ways, said Molther, the sinner
should rather sit still and wait for Chr ist to give him the
Divine reve lation. If this doctr ine had no other merit it had at
least the char m of novelty. The dispute at Fetter Lane grew
keener than eve r. On the one hand Hutto n, James Bell, Jo hn
Bray, and other simple -minded men regarded Molther a s a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
preacher of the pure Gospel. He had, said Hutto n, draw n men
away from many a false foundation, and had led them to the
only tr ue foundatio n, C hrist. “No soul,” said ano ther, “can be
washed in the blood of C hrist unless it first be brought to o ne
in who m Chr ist is fully for med. But there are only two such
men in Lo ndon, Bell and Mo lther.” Jo hn Bray, the brazier,
went further.
“It is impo ssible,” he said, “for anyone to be a true Christian
outside the Moravian Church.”
As the man was outside that C hurch h imself, and remained
outside it all his life, his state ment is rather bewildering.114
John Wesley was disguste d. He regarded Molther as a teacher
of dangerous errors. The two men were poles asunder. The
one was a quie tist evangelical; the other a staunch H igh
Churchman.
According
to
Molther
the
correct
order
was,
through Chr ist to the ordinances of the Church; according to
Wesley,
through
the
ordinances
to
Christ.
According
to
Molther, a man ought to be a believer in C hr ist before he
reads the Bible, or att ends Co mmunio n, or even does good
works; according to Wesley, a man should read his B ible, go
to Communion, and do good w orks in order to become a
belie ver. Accor ding to Mo lther the Sacrament was a privile ge,
meant for be lievers only; according to Wesley i t was a duty,
and a means of grace for all men. According to Molther, the
only means of grace was Christ; according to Wesley, there
were many means of gr ace, all leading the so ul to Christ.
According to Mo lther there were no degrees in faith; according
to Wesley there were. No longer was the Fe tter L ane Society a
calm abode of peace. Instead of trying to he lp e ach other the
members would sometimes sit fo r an ho ur witho ut speaking a
word; and some times they only reported themselves witho ut
having a proper m eeting at all. John Wesley spo ke his mind.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
He declared that Satan was beginning to rule in the Society.
He heard that Molther was taken ill, and regarde d the illness
as a judgment from heaven. At last the wranglings came to an
open rupture. At an evening m eeting in Fe tter Lane {July
16th, 1740.}, Jo hn Wesle y, resolved to clear the air, read o ut
from
a
book
follow ing
prayer
is
suppo sed
asto unding
good;
to
be
doctr ine:
prized
“The
communicating
is
by
the
Brethren
Scriptures
good;
are
the
goo d;
relieving
our
neighbo ur is goo d; but to one who is not born of God, none of
these is goo d, but all very evil. For him to read the Scriptures,
or to pray, or to communicate, or to do any outward work is
deadly poison. First, le t him be born of God. T ill then, le t him
not do
any of
these
things. For
if he
does, he
destroys
himself.”
He read the passage aloud two or three times. “My bre thren,”
he aske d, “is this right, or is this wrong?”
“It is right,” said Richard Bell, the watchcase maker, “it is all
right. It is the truth . To this we must all come , or we never
can come to Chr ist.”
“I believe,” broke in Bray, the brazier, “our brother Bell did
not hear what yo u read, or did no t rightly understand.”
“Yes! I heard every word,” said Bell, “and I unde rstand it well.
I say it is the truth; it is the very truth; it is the inward
truth.”
“I used the ordinances twenty ye ars,” said George Bowers, the
Disse nter, of George Yard, Little Britain, “yet I found no t
Christ. But I left them off for o nly a few weeks and I fo und
Him then. And I am now as close united to Him as my arm is
to my bo dy.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The dispute was coming to a crisis. The discussion lasted till
eleven o’clo ck. Some said that Wesley might pr each in Fe tter
Lane.
“No,” said others, “this place is taken for the Germans.”
Some argue d that Wesley had o ften put an end to confusio ns
in the Society.
“Confusion!” snapped others, “What do you mean? We ne ver
were in any confusio n at all.”
Next
Sunday
e vening
Wesley
appeared
again
{July
20th,
1740.}. He w as r esolved w hat to do.
“I find you,” he said, “more and more confirmed in the error
of your ways. No thing now remains but that I should give you
up to God. You that are of the same opinion follow me.”
As so me wicked joker had hidden his hat, he was not able to
leave the room with the dignity befitting the o ccasion; but
eighteen supporters answered to his call; and the face of John
Wesley was seen in the Fe tter Lane Society no more. The
breach was final; the wound remained open; and Moravians
and Me thodists went the ir several ways. For so me ye ars the
dispute continue d to rage w ith unabated fury. The causes were
various. The damage done by Molther was imme nse. The more
Wesley
studie d
the
wr itings
of
the
Brethren
the
more
convince d he became that in many ways they were dangerous
teachers. The y
th ought,
he
said,
too
highly
o f their
own
Church. They w ould never acknowledge themselves to be in
the
wrong.
The y
submitted
to o
much
to
the
authority
of
Zinzendorf, and actually addressed him as Rabbi. They were
dark and secret in the ir behaviour, and pract ised guile and
dissimulation. They taught the do ctrine of universal salvatio n.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Above all, howe ver, Jo hn We sle y held that the Brethren, like
Molther, laid a o ne -sided stress o n the doctr ine of justification
by faith alone. They were, he contended, Antinomia ns; they
followe d too closely the teaching of Luther; they despised the
law, the commandme nts, good works, and all forms of self denial.
“You have lost your first joy,” said one, “therefor e you pray:
that is the devil. You read the Bible : that is the devil . You
communicate: that is the devil.”
In vain Count Z inzendorf, longing for peace, endeavoured to
pour oil on the raging waters. The two leaders met in Gray’s
Inn Gar dens and made an atte mpt to co me to a commo n
understanding {Sept. 3rd, 1741.}. The atte mp t was useless.
The more keenly the y ar gued the question o ut the fur ther they
drifted from each other. For Zinzendorf Wesle y had never
much respect, and he certainly never managed to understand
him. If a poe t and a botanist talk about roses they are hardly
likely to understand each o ther; and that was just how the
matter stood between Zinzendorf and Wesley. The Count was a
poet, and used poetic, language . John Wesle y was a leve l headed Br ito n, w ith a mind as exact as a calculating machine.
“Why have you left the Church of England?”1 15 began the
Count.
“I was not aw are that I had left the Church of England,”
replie d Wesley.
And then the two men began to discuss theology.
“I acknowle dge no inherent perfectio n in this life,” said the
Count. “T his is the error of err ors. I pursue it thro ugh the
world
with
fire
and
sword.
I
trample
it
under
foot.
I
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
exterminate it. Christ is our o nly perfection. Whoever follows
after inherent perfectio n denies C hrist.”
“But I believe,” r eplie d Wesley, “that the Spirit of Christ work s
perfection in tr ue Christians.”
“Not at all,” replied Zinzendorf, “All our perfectio n is in Chr ist.
The whole of Chr istian perfection is imputed, no t inherent. We
are perfect in Christ – in o urselves, never .”
“What,” asked Wesley, in blank amazement, after Zinzendorf
had hammered out his point. “Does not a believer, while he
increases in love , increase e qually in holiness?”
“By no means,” said the Count; “the moment he is justified he
is sanctified wholly. From that time, even unto death, he is
neither more nor less holy. A babe in C hrist is as pure in heart
as a father in C hrist. There is no difference.”
At the close of the discussion the Count spo ke a sente nce
which seeme d to Wesley as bad as the teaching of Molther.
“We spur n all self -denial,” he said, “w e trample it under foo t.
Being be lievers, we do whatever we will and nothing more. We
ridicule
all
mor tification.
No
purification
precedes
perfect
love.”
And thus the Co unt, by extravagant language, drove Wesley
further away fro m the Brethren than e ver.
Meanwhile, at Fe tter Lane events were moving fast. As soo n as
Wesley was out of the w ay, Jame s Hutto n came to the front; a
good many Moravians –Bishop N itschmann, Anna Nitschmann,
John Toeltschig, Gussenbauer, and o thers –be gan to arrive o n
the
scene;
and
step
by
step
the
Society
became
more
Moravian in character. For this Hutton himself was chiefly
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
responsible. He maintained a cor respondence with Zinzendorf,
and was the first to introduce Moravian literatur e to English
readers.
He
publishe d
a
collectio n
of
Mor avian
hymns,
a
Moravian Manual of Doctr ine , and a vo lume in English of
Zinzendorf’s Berlin disco urses. He was fond of the Moravian
type of teaching, and asked for Moravian teachers. His w ish
was
speedily
gr atifie d.
The
foo lish
Mo lther
departed.
The
sober Spange nberg arrived. The whole movement now was
raised to a higher level. As soon as Spange nber g had ho ld of
the reins the members, instead of quarrelling with each other,
began to apply themselves to the spread of the Gospel; and to
this end they no w estab lishe d the “Socie ty for the Furtherance
of the Gospel.” Its object was the support of for eign missions
{1741.}. At its head was a co mmittee of four, o f whom James
Hutton was one. For many year s the “Society” suppor ted the
foreign work of the Brethren in En glish co lonies; and in later
years it supplied the funds for the work in Labrador. The next
step was to lice nse the Chapel in Fetter Lane. T he need was
pressing. As long as the membe rs met witho ut a lice nce the y
might be accuse d, at any time , of breaking t he Conventicle
Act. They w ishe d now to have the law on the ir side . Already
the w indows had been broken by a mo b. T he services now
were
open
to
the
public.
The
chape l
was
becoming
an
evange listic hall. The licence w as take n (Sept.). The members
took upo n the mselves the name “Moravian Brethr en, formerly
of the Anglican Communio n.” But the members at Fetter Lane
were not yet satisfie d. For all their loyalty to the Church of
England, they lo nged for closer communio n w ith the Chur ch o f
the Brethren; and William Holland openly aske d the question,
“Can
a
man
join
the
Moravian
Church
and
yet
remain
member of the Anglican C hurch?”
“Yes,” was the answer, “for they are sister Churches.”
a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
For this reason, therefore, and w ithout any desir e to become
Disse nters, a number
of the members of the Fetter Lane
Socie ty applie d to Spangenberg to establish a co ngregatio n of
the Moravian Church in England. The cautious Spangenberg
pause d. For the fourth time a mo mento us questio n was put to
the decision o f the Lot. The Lo t sanctione d the move. The
London co ngregatio n was established (Nove mber 10th, 1742).
It
consisted
Socie ty.
Of
of
seventy -two
those
members
members
the
of
the
greater
Fetter
number
Lane
were
Anglicans, and considered themselves Anglicans still. And yet
they were Brethren in the fullest sense and at least half o f
them took office. The
congregatio n was organized o n the
Herrnhut model. It was divided into “Choirs.” At the head of
each
cho ir
Congregatio n
was
an
Elders,
Elder;
two
and
fur ther
War dens,
two
there
were
two
Ad monitors,
two
Censors, five Se rvants, and e ight Sick -Waiters. Thus was the
first Moravian congregatio n establishe d in England. For many
years this Church in Fetter Lane was the headquarters of
Moravian work in Great Britain. Already a new campaign had
been star ted in Yorkshire; and a few years later Boehler
declared that this one congregatio n alone had sent out two
hundred preache rs of the Gospe l.116
Chapter 10
“Yorkshire and the Settlement System”
As we follow the strange and eventful story of the renewal of
the Brethren’s C hurch, we can hardly fail to be struck by the
fact that w herever new congregatio ns were planted the way
was first prepared by a man who did not or iginally be long to
that Chur ch himself. At Herrnhut the leader was the Lutheran,
Christian David; at Fetter Lane , James Hutton, the Anglican
clergyman’s son; and in Yorkshire, the clergyman, Benjamin
Ingham, who ne ver joined the Moravian Church at all. He had,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
like the Wesleys and Whitefield, taken par t in the Evangelical
Revival.
He
was
one
of
the
Oxford
Methodists,
and
had
belonged to the Holy C lub. He had sailed w ith John Wesle y on
his voyage to America, had met the Brethren o n boar d the
Simmonds, and had learne d to know them more thoroughly in
Georgia. He had been with Jo hn Wesley to Mar ienbo rn, had
been admitte d to the Communio n there, had the n travelled o n
to Herrnhut, and had been “exceedingly strengthened and
comforted by the Christian conversatio n of the Brethren.” He
had
o ften
been
at
James
Hutton’s
house ,
had
attended
services in Fetter Lane, w as pr esent at the famous Watch Night Love -feast, and had thus learned to know the Brethren
as thoro ughly as Wesley himself. Fro m first to last he he ld
them in high esteem. “They are,” he wrote, “more like the
Primitive Christians than any other Chu rch now in the world,
for they retain both the faith, pr actice and discipline delivered
by the Apostles. They live toge ther in perfect love and peace.
They
are
mor e
ready
themse lves.
In
their
industrio us,
in
all
conscientious.
In
to
serve
business
their
everything
their
they
dealings
they
neighbo urs
are
dilige nt
strictly
behave
just
the mselves
than
and
and
w ith
great meekness, sweetness and simplicity.”
His good opinio n stood the
te st of time . He
contradicted
Wesley’s evide nce flatly. “I cannot but o bserve, ” he wrote to
his friend Jaco b Rogers, curate at St. Paul’s, Bedford, “w hat a
slur yo u cast upon the Moravians abo ut stillness. Do you
think, my brothe r, that they don’t pr ay? I wish you prayed as
much, and as well. They do not neglect prayers, either in
public or in private; but they do not perform the m merely as
things that must be done; they are inwar dly moved to pray by
the Spirit. What they have said about stillness has either been
strangely misunderstood or str ange ly misrepre sented. They
mean by it th at we should endeavour to keep our minds calm,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
composed and collected, free from hurry and dissipation. And
is no t this right? They are neithe r despisers nor neglecters of
ordinances.”
The positio n of Ingham was peculiar. He was a clergyman
without a charg e; he resided at Aberford, in Y orkshire ; he
appears to have been a man of considerable me ans; and now
he devoted all his powers to the moral and spir itual upliftment
of the working -classes in the West Riding of Yorkshire. His
sphere
was
ignorance
the
and
district
brutality
betwe e n
these
Leeds
Yorkshire
and
Halifax.
people
were
For
then
supposed to be unmatched in England. The parish churches
were few and far between. The people were sunk in heathen
darkness.
Young
Ingham
began
pure
missionary
work.
He
visite d the people in their ho mes; he for med societies for
Bible Reading and Prayer; he preached the doctrine of saving
faith in Chr ist; and before long he was able to say that he had
fifty societies under his care, two tho usand he arers, three
hundred
inquire rs ,
and
a
hundred
ge nuine
converts.
For
numbers, however, Ingham cared but little. His object was to
bring men into personal touch with Christ. “I had rather,” he
said, “see ten souls truly converted than ten thousand only
stirred up to fo llow.” His work was opposed both by clergy and
by laymen. At Colne, in Lancashire, he was attacked by a
raging mob. At the head of the mob was the Vicar o f Co lne
himself. T he Vicar took Ingham into a house and asked him to
sign a paper promising no t to pr each again. Ingham t ore the
paper in pieces.
“Bring him o ut and we’ll make him,” yelled the mob.
The Vicar went out; the mob pressed in; and clubs were
flour ishe d in the air “as thick as a man’s leg.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Some wanted to kill him o n the spot; others w ished to throw
him into the ri ver.
“Nay, nay,” said others, “we w ill heave him into the bog, then
he will be glad to go into the river and wash and sweete n
himself.”
A sto ne “as big as a man’s fist,” hit him in the hollow of the
neck. His coat -tails were bespatte red with mud.
“See,” sa id a
wit, “he
has got wings.” At last
the
Vicar
relented, too k him into the Vicar age, and thus saved him from
an early death.
But Ingham had soon more irons in the fire than he could
conveniently manage. If these Yorkshire folk whom he had
formed
into
soci eties
were
to
make
tr ue
progress
in
the
spir itual life the y must, he held, be placed unde r the care of
evange lical teachers. He co uld not look after the m himse lf; he
was beginning new work further north, in the neighbourhoo d
of Settle; and the best men he knew for his purpose were the
Moravians who m he had lear ned to admire in Georgia, London
and Herrnhut. Fo r one Brother, Jo hn Toeltschig, Ingham had a
special affection, and while he was on his visit to Herrnhut he
begged that Toeltschig might be allowe d to come with him to
England. “B. Ingham,” he wro te, “sends greeting, and bids
grace and peace to the most Reverend Bishops, Lord Count
Zinzendorf and David Nitschmann, and to the other esteemed
Brethren in Chr ist. I shall be greatly pleased if, with your
consent, my be lo ved brother, John Toeltschig, be permitted to
stay with me in England as long as our Lord and Saviour shall
so approve. I am heartily unite d with you all in the bonds of
love. Farewell. Herrnhut, Sept. 29, 1738.”117 For our purpose
this letter is sur ely of the deepest interest. It pr oves beyond
all
reaso nable
doubt
that
the
Moravians
star ted
their
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
evange listic campaign in England, not from sectarian mo tives,
but because they were invite d by English Churchme n who
valued the Gospel message they h ad to de liver. As Hutton had
begged for Boehler, so Ingham begged for Toeltschig; and
Toeltschig paid a brief visit to Yorkshire (Nove mber, 1739),
helpe d Ingham in his work, and so delighte d the simple people
that they begge d that he might come to them aga in. For a
while the request was refused. At last Ingham took resolute
action himself, called a mass meeting o f Society me mbers,
and put to the m the cr itical question: “Will you have the
Moravians to wo rk among yo u?” Loud shouts of approval rang
out from e very part of the building. As Spangenberg was now
in London the request was forwarded to him; he laid it before
the
Fe tter
Lane
Society;
the
members
organized
the
“Yorkshire Congregatio n”; and the “Yorkshire Congregatio n”
set out to commence evangelistic wo rk in earnest {May 26th,
1742.}. At the head of the band was Spangenber g himse lf. As
soon as he arrived in Yorkshire he had a busine ss interview
with Ingham. Fo r Spangenberg shouts of appro val were not
enough. He wanted everything down in black and white. A
document was prepared; the Societies were summoned again;
the
document
was
laid
before
them;
and
tw elve
hundred
Yorkshire Brito ns signed their names to a request that the
Brethren
sho uld
work
amo ng
the m.
From
that
moment
Moravian work in Yorkshire began. At one stroke –by a written
agreement– the Socie ties founde d by Benjamin Ingham were
handed over to the care of the Moravian Church. The Brethren
entered
upo n
Spangenberg
the
as
task
w ith
general
zeal.
manager,
For
they
some
months,
made
their
with
head -
quar ters at Smith Ho use, a farm building near Halifax {July,
1742.}; and
there, on Saturday afternoons, they met for
united prayer, and had their meals toge ther in o ne large roo m.
At first they had a mixe d reception. On the one hand a mob
smashed the windows
of Smith House; o n the other, the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
serious Society members “flocke d to Smith House like hungry
bees.” The w hole neighbo urhood was soo n mapped out, and
the
workers
statio ned
at
the ir
posts.
At
Pudsey
were
Gussenbauer and his wife ; at Great Horton, near Bradf ord,
Toeltschig and Piesch; at Ho lbe ck, near Leeds, the Browns;
and
other
Halifax,
wor kers
Mirfield,
were
busy
Hightown,
soon
at
Dewsbury,
L ightcliffe,
Wyke,
Wakefield,
Leeds,
Wortley, Farnley, C leckheaton, Great Gomersal, and Baildon.
The Moravian system o f discipline was introduced. At the head
of the men were John Toeltschig and Richard Viney; at the
head of the wo men Mrs. Pietch and Mrs. Gussenbauer ; and
Monitors, Servants, and Sick Waiters were appointed just as in
Herrnhut. Here was a glor ious field o f labour; here was a
chance of Church extension; and the interesting question w as,
what use the Bre thren wo uld make of it.
At this po int C ount Z inzendorf arrived in Yorkshire {Fe b.,
1743.}, went to see Ingham at Aberford, and so on organized
the work in a w ay of his own w hich effectually prevented it
from spreading. His method was centralizatio n. At that time he
held firmly to
his pe t idea that the Brethren, instead of
forming new co ngregatio ns, should rather be content w ith
“diaspora” work, and at the same time, whene ver possible,
build a settle ment on the Herrnhut or Herrnhaag model, for
the
cultivatio n
of
social
re ligio us
life .
At
this
time
it
so
happened that the Gussenbauers, stationed at Pudsey, were in
trouble; their child was seriously ill; the Count rode over to
see them; and while there he noticed the sple ndid site on
which Fulneck stands to -day. If the visitor goes to Fulneck
now he can hardly fail to be str uck by its beauty. He is sure to
admire its long gravel terrace, its neat parterres, its orch ards
and gardens, and, above all, its lo ng line of plain stately
buildings facing the southern sun. But then the slope was wild
and unkempt, covered over with briars and br ambles. Along
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the crown were a few small cottages. At one end, called
Bankho use, res ided the Gusse nbauers. >From there the view
across the valle y was splendid. The estate w as know n as
Falneck. The idea of a settlement rose before Zinzendorf’s
mind. The spirit of pro phecy came upon him, and he named
the place “Lamb’s Hill.” For the next fe w days the Count and
his friends enjoyed the hospitality of Ingham at Aberford; and
a few months later Ingham heard that the land and houses at
Falneck were on the market. He showed himself a true friend
of the Brethren. He bought the estate , gave them par t of it for
building, let out the co ttages to them as tenants, and thus
paved the w ay for the intro duction of the Moravian settlement
syste m into England.
For good or for evil that settlement system was soon the
leading feature of the English w ork. The bui lding of Fulneck
began. Fir st the Brethren called the place Lamb’s Hill, the n
Gracehall, and then Fulneck, in memory of Fulneck in Moravia.
From fr iends in Germany they r eceived gifts in money, from
friends in Norway a load o f timber. The Single B rethren w ere
all aglow w ith zeal; and on one o ccasion they spe nt the w hole
night in saying prayers and singing hymns upo n the cho sen
sites. First rose the Chapel (1746), then the Minister’s House
and the rooms beneath and just to the east of the Chapel
(1748), the n the Brethren’s and Sisters’ Houses (1752), the n
the W idows’ Ho use (1763), then the Shop and Inn (1771),
then the C upola (1779), and then the Boys’ Bo arding Schoo l
(1784-5). T hus, step by ste p, the long line of buildings arose,
a sight unlike any other in the United Kingdo m.
As the Brethren settled down in that rough Yorkshire co untry,
they had a no ble purpose, w hich was a rebuke to the go dless
and
cynical
spirit
of
the
age .
“Is
a
Christian
republic
possible?” asked the French philosopher, Bayle. According to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the world it was not; accor ding to the Brethren it w as; and
here at Fulneck they bravely reso lved to put the matter to the
proof. As lo ng as that settlement existed, said they, there
would be a kingdom where the law of Christ would reign
supreme , where Single Brethren, Single Sisters, and Widows,
would be screened from the temptatio ns of the wicked wor ld,
where candidate s would be trained for the ser vice of the
Church and her Master, w here missio naries, o n the ir way to
British
Co lonies,
could
rest
aw hile ,
and
learn
the
English
language, w here children, in an age when schools were scarce,
could be brought up in the fear of God, and where trade would
be conducted, not for private pr ofit, but for the benefit o f all.
At Fulneck, in a word, the principles of C hr ist would be applied
to the who le round of Moravian life . There dishonesty would
be unknown; cruel oppression would be impossible; do ubtful
amuse ments would be forbidden; and thus, like their German
Brethren in Her rnhut, these ke en and har dy Yorkshire fo lk
were to learn by practical experience that it is mo re blessed to
give
than
to
r eceive,
and
more
delightful
to
work
for
a
common cause than for a private balance at the bank.
For this purpo se the Brethren established w hat were then
known as diaconies; an d a diacony was simply an ordinary
business conducted, no t by a private individual for his own
personal profit, but by some official of the congregatio n for
the bene fit of the congregation as a who le. For example,
James C harleswo rth, a Single Brother, was appo inted manager
of
a
cloth-weaving
sple ndid
Brethren
trade
in
factory,
with
re gular
Portugal
w hich
and
emplo yme nt,
for
some
R ussia,
and
years
kept
supplied
the
did
a
Single
funds
for
general C hurch objects. As the years rolle d on, the Brethren
establishe d
a
whole
series
of
congregatio n -diaconies:
a
congregation ge neral dealer’s shop, a congregatio n farm, a
congregation
bakery,
a
congregation
glove
factory,
and ,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
finally, a congre gation bo arding -house or inn. At each diacony
the manager and his assistants r eceived a fixe d salar y, and
the profits of the business helped to swell the congregation
funds. The ideal was as noble as possible. At Fulneck daily
labo ur was sanctified, and men toiled in the sweat of the ir
brows, no t because they wante d to line the ir po ckets, but
because they wanted to he lp the cause of C hrist. For the sake
of the Church the baker kneade d, the weaver plie d his shuttle,
the Single Siste rs did needlework of marve llo us beauty and
manufacture d their famous mar ble -paper. For many years,
too,
these
Brethren
at
Fulneck
employe d
a
congregation
doctor; and the object of this ge ntleman’s existe nce was no t
to build up a flourishing practice, but to preser ve the good
health o f his beloved Brethren and Sisters.
We must not, however, regard the Brethre n as communists.
James Hutton was questioned on this by the Ear l of Shelburne.
“Does everything which is earne d amo ng you,” said the Ear l,
“belong to the co mmunity?”
“No,” replied Hutton, “but people contribute occasionally out
of what they earn.”
And yet this system, so beautiful to look at, w as bese t by
serious dangers. It required more skill than the Brethren
possessed, and more supervisio n than was humanly possible.
As long as a business flour ishe d and paid the congregation
reaped the bene fit; but if, o n the other hand, the business
failed, the co ngregatio n suffered, not only in money, but in
reputation. At o ne time James Charlesworth, in an excess of
zeal, mortgaged the manufacturing business, spe culated w ith
the money, and lost it; and thus caused othe rs to accuse the
Brethren of wholesale robbery and fraud. Again, the system
was oppo sed in a measure to the English spirit of self -he lp
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and
inde pendence.
As
lo ng
as
a
man
was
engaged
in
a
diacony, he was in the service of the Church; he did not
receive a s ufficient salary to e nable him to pr ovide for old
age; he looked to the C hurch to provide his pe nsio n and to
take care of him when he was ill; and thus he lo st that self reliance which is said to be the backbo ne of English character.
But the most disastro u s effect o f these diaconie s was on the
settlement as a whole. The y inte rfered with voluntary giving;
they came to be regarded as Church e ndowments; and the
people,
instead
of
opening
their
pur ses,
re lied
on
the
diaconies to supply a lar ge pro portio n of the funds for the
current expenses of congregation life . And he re we cannot
help but no tice the difference between the Moravian diaco ny
syste m
and
the
well -known
system
of
free -will
offerings
enforced by John Wesley in his Methodist socie ties. At first
sight, the Moravian system might look more Christian; at
botto m, Wesley’s system proved the so under; and thus, w hile
Metho dism
spre ad,
the
Moravian
river
was
choked
at
the
fountain head.
Another
feature
of
settleme nt
life
was
its
tendency
to
encourage iso lation. For many years the rule w as enforced at
Fulneck that none but Moravians should be allow ed to live in
that sacred spo t; and the law s w ere so str ict that the wonder
is
that
Britons
submitted
at
all.
For
example,
there
was
actually a rule that no member shou ld spe nd a night outside
the se ttlement w ithout the co nse nt o f the Elders’ Conference.
If this r ule had been confined to young men and maidens,
there would no t have been very much to say against it; but
when it was enforced on business men, w ho might often want
to travel at a moment’s no tice, it became an absurdity, and
occasioned some vehement kicking against the pricks. The
Choir-houses, to o, were homes of the str ictest discipline . At
the west end stood the Single Brethren’s House, where the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
young
me n
liv ed
toge ther.
They
all
slept
in
one
large
dormitory; they all rose at the same hour , and met for prayers
before breakfast; they were all expected to attend certain
services, designe d for the ir special be nefit; and they had all to
turn in at a comparatively ear ly hour. At the east end –two
hundred yar ds
away –stoo d the
Single
Sisters’
House; and
there similar rules were in full fo rce. For all Siste rs there were
dress regulatio ns, w hich many must have fe lt as a grievo us
burden. At Fulneck there was nothing in th e ladies’ dress to
show who w as rich and w ho was poor. They all w ore the same
kind of material; they had all to submit to black, grey, or
brown; they all wore the same kind of three -cornered white
shaw l; and the only dress distinction w as the ribbo n in the
cap, which show ed to w hich estate in life the wearer belonge d.
For married wo men the co lour was blue; for w ido ws, white ; for
young women, pink; and for gir ls under eighteen, red. At the
services in church the audience sat in Cho irs, the women and
gir ls
on
one
side,
the
men
and
bo ys
on
the
other.
The
relations be tween the sexes were strictly guar ded. If a yo ung
man desired to marry, he was not even allowed to speak to his
choice witho ut the consent o f the Elders’ Conference; the
Conference gene rally submitt ed the questio n to the Lot; and if
the Lot gave a stern refusal, he was to ld that his cho ice was
disapproved by God, and enjo ined to fix his affections on
someone else . T he system had a twofo ld effect. It le d, on the
one hand, to purity and peace; o n the o ther, to spir itual pr ide.
Another feature of this settlement life was the presence of
officials.
At
enormous.
Fulneck
T he
place
the
of
number
hono ur
of
was
Church
he ld
by
officials
the
w as
Elders’
Conference. It consisted o f all the ministers of the Yorksh ire
District, the Fulneck Single Brethren’s Labourer , the Single
Sisters’ Laboure ss, and the Widows’ Labouress. It met at
Fulneck
once
a
month,
had
the
general
ove rsight
of
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Yorkshire
work,
and
w as
supposed
to
watch
the
perso nal
conduct of ever y individ ual me mber. Next came the Choir
Elders’ Conference. It consisted of a number of lay assistants,
called Cho ir Helpers, had no independe nt powe rs of actio n,
and acte d as advisory board to the Elders’ Co nference. Next
came the Congr egation Committee. It was e lected by the
voting
members
of
the
congre gation,
had
charge
of
the
premises and finances, and acte d as a board o f arbitration in
cases
of
legal
Conference.
It
dispute.
consisted
Ne xt
of
came
the
the
Large
Committee,
the
Helpers’
Elders’
Conference, and ce rtain others elected by the congregation.
Next
came
the
Congregation
Council,
a
still
larger
body
elected by the Congregatio n. At first sight these institutions
look democratic enough. In reality, the y were not democratic
at all. The mode of election w as p eculiar. As soon as the votes
had been collected the names of tho se at the to p of the po ll
were submitted to the Lot; and only those co nfirmed by the
Lot were held to be duly electe d. T he real pow er lay in the
hands of the Elders’ Conference. They were the supreme cour t
of appeal; they were members, by vir tue o f their office, of the
Committee; and they alo ne had the final decision as to who
should be received as members and who sho uld not. The whole
syste m was German rather than English in conceptio n. It wa s
the system, no t of popular co ntro l, but of ecclesiastical official
authority.
But the most str iking feature of the settlement system is still
to be mentione d. It was the road, not to C hurch e xtension, but
to Church extinction. If the chief object which t he Brethren set
before them was to keep that Church as small as possible,
they could hardly have ado pted a more successful metho d. We
may e xpress that me tho d in the one word “centralizatio n.” For
years the centre of the Yorkshire work was Fulneck. At Fulne ck
met the Elders’ Conference. At Fulneck all C hoir Festivals were
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
held;
at
these
Festivals
the
members
from
the
other
congregations w ere expected to be present; and when Jo hn de
Watte ville arr ive d upo n the sce ne (1754) he laid down the
regulation that alt hough in futur e there were to be “as many
congregations as chapels in Yorkshire,” yet all were still to be
one body, and all members must appear at Fulneck at least
once a quarter! At Fulneck alo ne –in these earlier years –did
the Brethren lay out a cemete ry ; and in that cemetery all
funerals were to be conducted. The result was inevitable. As
long as the othe r congregatio ns were tied to the apron strings
of Fulneck they could never attain to independent grow th. I
give o ne instance to show how the system work e d. At Mirfield
a young Moravian couple lost a child by death. As the seaso n
was winter, and the snow lay two feet deep, they could not
possibly co nvey the coffin to Fulneck; and therefore they had
the funeral conducted by the Vicar at Mirfield. For this s in
they were both expelled from the Moravian C hur ch. At hear t,
in
fact,
Church
these
early
extensio n
Brethren
whatever.
had
They
no
desire
never
for
asked
Moravian
anyone
to
atte nd their me etings, and never asked anyone to join their
ranks. If any person e xpresse d a desire to become a me mber
of the Moravian Church, he was generally told in the fir st
instance “to abide in the Church of England”; and only when
he persisted and begged w as his application eve n considered.
And even the n they threw o bstacles in h is w ay. The y first
submitte d his applicatio n to the Lot. If the Lot said “No,” he
was rejected, and informed that the Lord did not wish him to
join the Brethren’s Chur ch. If the Lot said “Yes,” he had still a
deep river to cross. The “Yes” did not mean tha t he was
admitted; it o nly meant that his case would be co nsidered. He
was now presented with a document called a “testimo nial,”
infor ming him that his applicatio n was receiving atte ntion. He
had then to wait two years; his name was submitted to the
Elders’
Co nference;
the
Conference
inquired
into
all
his
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
motives, and put him through a searching e xaminatio n; and at
the end of the two years he was as likely to be rejected as
accepted.
For
these
rules
the
Brethren
had
one
powerful
reason of their own. They ha d no desire to ste al sheep from
the Church of England. At the very outse t of their campaign
they did their best to make their positio n clear . “We wish for
nothing more,” they declared, in a public notice in the Daily
Adver tiser , August 2nd, 1745, “than tha t so me time or other
there might be some bisho p or parish minister found of the
English C hurch, to whom, w ith convenie nce and to the good
liking o f all side s, we could deliver the care of those persons
of the English C hurch w ho have given themse lves to our care.”
Thus did the Brethren, w ith Fulneck as a centr e, commence
their
work
Gomersal,
in
and
Yorkshire .
At
Mirfield –the y
three
other
established
villages –Wyke ,
so -called
“country
congregations” with chapel and minister’s house. The work
caused a great sen sation. At one time a mob came out from
Leeds threatening to burn Fulneck to the ground. At another
time a neighbo uring landlord se nt his me n to destroy all the
linen hung out to dry. At the fir st Easter Morning Service in
Fulneck four thousand spectato rs assembled to witne ss the
solemn service. And the result of the Brethren’s labours was
that
while
their
own
number s
were
always
small
they
contr ibuted r ichly to the revival of evangelical piety in the
West Riding of Y orkshire .
In the Midlands the system had just the same results. At the
village of Ockbrook, five miles fr om Derby, the B rethren built
another beautiful settlement. Fo r some years, with Ockbrook
as a centre, the y had a clear fie ld for work in the surrounding
district; they had preaching places at Eaton, Belper, Codnor ,
Matlock, Wo lverhampton, Sheffield, Dale , and other towns and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
villages;
and
yet
not
a
single
one
of
these
places
equally
fatal.
At
ever
developed into a congregation.
In
Bedfordshire
the
result
was
first
the
Brethren had a golden cha nce in Bedford. There, in 1738,
there was a terrible epidemic of small -pox; in one week sixty
or seventy persons die d; near ly all the clergy had fle d from
the town in terr or; and then Jacob Rogers, the curate of St.
Paul’s, sent for Ingham and De lamotte to come to the rescue .
The
two
clergymen
came ;
some
Moravians
followe d;
a
Moravian congregation at Bedfor d was organized; and before
long
the
Brethren
had
twenty
socie ties
round
Bunyan’s
charming home. And ye t no t o ne of these socie ties became a
new congrega tio n. As Fulneck was the centre for Yorkshire, so
Bedford was the centre for Bedfordshire; and the syste m that
checked expansion in the North strangle d it at its bir th in the
South.
Chapter 11
“The Labours of John Cennick, 17 39 -1755″
Once more an Anglican paved the way for the Brethren. At the
terrible
perio d
of
the
Day
of
Blood
one
Br other,
name d
Cennick, fled fr om Bohemia to England; and now, abo ut a
hundred years later, his descendant, John C ennick, w as to
play a great par t in the revival of the Brethren’s Church. For
all that, Jo hn C ennick, in the days of his youth, does no t
appear
to
have
known very
much about his
ecclesiastical
descent. He was born (1718) and brought up at Reading, and
was nursed fro m first to last in the Anglican fold. He was
baptized at St. L awrence Church; attended service twice a day
with his mother ; was confir med and took the Communio n;
and, finally, at a service in the C hurch, w hile the psalms were
being read, he passe d through that cr itical expe rience in life
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
to which we co mmonly give the name “conversion.” For us,
therefore, the point to notice is that John Ce nnick w as tr uly
converted to God, and was fully assured of his own salvation
before he had met either Moravian s or Metho dists, and before
he even knew, in all pro bability, that such pe ople as the
Moravians existed. We must not ascr ibe his conversio n to
Moravian influence. If we seek for human influe nce at all let
us give the honour to his mo ther; but the real trut h appears
to
be
that w hat John Wesley
learned from B oehler, Jo hn
Cennick learne d by direct communion with God. His spiritual
experience was as deep and true as Wesley’s. He had been,
like Wesley, in the castle of Giant Despair, and had sought,
like Wesley, to attain salvatio n by attending the ordinances of
the Church. He had knelt in prayer nine times a day; he had
watched; he had faste d; he had give n money to the poor; he
had
almost
go ne
mad
in
his
terror
of
death
and
of
the
judgme nt day; and, finally, wit ho ut any human aid, in his pew
at St. Lawrence Church, he heard, he tells us, the voice of
Jesus saying, “I am thy salvation,” and there and then his
heart danced for joy and his dying soul revived.
At that time , as far as I can discover, he had no t even h ear d
of the Oxford Methodists; but a few months later he heard
strange news of Wesley’s Oxfor d comrade , Charles Kinchin.
The
occasion
w as
a
private
card
par ty
at
Reading.
Jo hn
Cennick was asked to take a hand, and refused. For this he
was regarded as a pri g, and a young fellow in the company
remarked, “There is just such a stupid religious fe llow at
Oxford, one Kinchin.” Forthwith, at the earliest opportunity,
John Cennick set off o n foo t for Oxford, to seek out the
“stupid religious fellow”; fo und him sall ying out of his room to
breakfast; was introduced by Kinchin to the We sleys; ran up
to London, calle d at James Hutton’s, and there met George
Whitefie ld; fe ll o n the great preacher’s neck and kissed him;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and was thus dr awn into the str eam of the Evangelica l Revival
at
the
very
pe riod
in
English
history
whe n
Wesley
and
Whitefie ld first began preaching in the ope n air. He was soon
a Methodist preacher himself {1739.}. At Kingswood, near
Bristo l, John We sley o pened a charity schoo l for the children
of colliers; and now he gave Cennick the post of head master,
and authorized him also to visit the sick and to expound the
Scriptures
in
public.
The
preacher’s
mantle
soon
fell
on
Cennick’s shoulders. At a service held under a sycamore tree,
the appointed pr eacher, S ammy Wather, was late; the crowd
asked Ce nnick to take his place; and Ce nnick, after consulting
the Lot, preache d his fir st sermo n in the o pen air . For the next
eighteen mo nths he now acted, like Maxfield and Humphreys,
as one o f Wesle y’s first lay assista nt preachers; and as long
as he was unde r Wesley’s influe nce he preached in Wesley’ s
sensational style, with strange
sensational results. At
the
services the people conducted themselves like maniacs. Some
foamed at the mouth and tore themse lves in hellish agonies.
Some suffered from swollen tongues and swo llen necks. Some
sweated e normo usly, and broke out in blasphemous language.
At o ne service, held in the Kingswood schoolroo m, the place
became a pande monium; and Cennick himse lf confessed with
horror that the room was like the habitation of lost spirits.
Outside a thunderstorm was raging; inside a storm of yells
and roars. One woman declared that her name was Satan;
another was Beelzebub; and a third was Legio n. And cer tainly
they were all be having now like folk possessed with demons.
From end to end of the room they raced, baw ling and roaring
at the top o f their voices.
“The devil will have me,” shr ieked one. “I am his servant. I
am damned.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“My sins can ne ver be pardone d,” said another. “I am gone,
gone for ever.”
“That fearful thunder,” moaned a thir d, “is raised by the devil;
in this stor m he will bear me to hell.”
A young man, named Sommers, roared like a dragon, and
seven strong me n could har dly hold him down.
“Ten thousand devils,” he roared, “millions , millions of devils
are about me.”
“Bring Mr . Cennick! Bring Mr. C ennick!” was heard on every
side ; and when Mr. Cennick was brought they w anted to tear
him in pieces.
At this early stage in the great Revival exhibitio ns of this
frantic
nature
were
fairly
co mmon
in
England;
and
Jo hn
Wesley, so far from being sho cked, regarded the kicks and
groans
of
the
people
as
signs
that
the
Ho ly
Spir it
was
convicting sinners of their sin. At first Cennick himself had the
same opinion; but before very long his common se nse came to
his rescue . He differed with Wesley on the point; he differed
with him also o n the doctr ine o f predestination; he differed
with him, thirdly, on the doctrine of Christian perfection; and
the upsho t of the quarrel that Wesley dismisse d John Cenn ick
from his service.
As soon, however, as Cennick was free, he joined forces, first
with Howell Harris, and then with Whitefie ld; and entered on
that evange listic campaign w hich was soon to br ing him into
close to uch w ith the Brethren. For five years he w as now
engage d in preaching in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire {1740 5.}; and wherever he went he addressed great crow ds and
was attacked by fur ious mobs. At Upto n -C heyny the villagers
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
armed themse lve s with a hor n, a drum, and a few brass pans,
made the echo es ring w ith the ir horrible din, and knocked the
preachers o n the head with the pans; a genius put a cat in a
cage, and brought so me dogs to bark at it; and others hit
Cennick on the nose and hur led dead do gs at his head. At
Swindon–w here Cennick and Har ri s preached in a place called
the Grove –some rascals fired muskets over their heads, held
the muzzles close up to their faces, and made them as black
as
tinkers;
and
others
brought
the
lo cal
fire -engine
and
drenched the m with dirty water from the ditches. A t Exeter a
huge mob stormed the building, stripped some of the women
of their clo thing, stamped upo n them in the open street, and
rolled them nake d in the gutters.118 At Stratton, a village not
far from Swindon, the mob –an army two mile s in length –
hacke d a t the horses’ le gs, tr ampled the Cennickers under
their feet, and battered Cennick till his sho ulders were black
and blue . At Langley the farme rs ducked him in the village
pond. At Fo xham, Far mer Lee opposed him; and imme diately,
so the stor y ran, a mad do g bit all the farmer’s pigs. At
Broadstock Abbe y an inge nio us shepherd dresse d up his dog
as a preacher , called it Cennick, and speedily sickened and
died; and the Squire of Broadstock, w ho had sworn in his
wrath to cut off the legs of all C ennickers who w alked through
his fields of gree n peas, fe ll down and broke his neck. If these
vulgar incide nts did no t teach a lesson they would har dly be
worth recording; but the real lesson the y teach us is that in
those
days
the
people
of
Wiltshire
were
in
a
benighted
condition, and that Cennick was the man who le d the revival
there. As he rode on his missio n from village to village, and
from town to to wn, he was acting, not as a wild free -lance,
but as the assistant of George Whitefie ld; and if it is fair to
judge of his style by the sermons that have bee n preserved,
he never said a word in those sermons that w ould no t pass
muster in most evange lical pulpits to -day. He ne ver attacked
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the doctr ines of the Church of England; he spoke of the
Church as “our Church”; and he constantly backed up his
argume nts by appeals to passages in the Book of Common
Prayer. In spite of his lack of University training he was no
illiterate
ignoramus.
villagers
the
more
The
more
convinced
he
he
knew
of
became
the
that
Wiltshire
what
they
required w as religious educatio n. For their benefit, therefore,
he
now
prepar ed
“Treatise
on
some
the
Steadfastness,”
a
simple
Holy
“Short
manuals
Gho st,”
of
an
Catechism
for
instr uction:
“Exhortation
the
a
to
Instr uction
of
Youth,” a vo lume of hymns entitled “A New Hymnbook,” a
second entitled “Sacred Hymns for the Childre n of God in the
Day of their Pilgrimage,” and a third entitled “Sacred Hymns
for the Use of Religious Socie tie s.” What sort of manuals, it
may
be
asked,
carefully;
Cennick
and
was
did
have
ne ither
Ce nnick
co me
a
provide?
to
the
lear ned
I
have
co nclusion
theolo gian
nor
read
them
that
tho ugh
an
original
religious thinker , he w as fair ly well up in his subject. For
example,
knowle dge
in
of
his
“Short
the
Bible
Catechism”
and
a
cl ear
he
show s
a
understanding
ready
of
the
evange lical position; and in his “Treatise o n the Holy Ghost”
he quotes at le ngth, not only from the Scriptures and the
Prayer-book, but also from Augustine, Athanasius, Tertullian,
Chrysostom, Calvin, Luther, Ridley, Hooper, and o ther Church
Fathers and Protestant Divines. He was more than a popular
preacher. He was a thorough and compete nt teacher. He made
his
head-quar ters
at
the
village
of
Tytherton,
near
Chippenham (Oct. 25, 1742); there, along with Whitefield,
Howell Harris an d others, he me t his exhorters and stewar ds
in conference ; and meanw hile he established also religious
societies at Bath, Brinkworth, Fo xham, Malmesbury, and many
other villages.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At last, exactly like Ingham in Yor kshire, he fo und that he had
too
many
iro ns
in
the
fire,
and
determine d
to
hand
his
societies over to the care of the Moravian C hurch. He had me t
James Hutton, Zinzendorf, Spangenberg, Boehler, and o ther
Moravians in London, and the mo re he knew of these men the
more profoundly convinced he became that the picture of the
Brethren painted by Jo hn Wesley in his Jour nal w as no be tter
than a malicious falsehood. At every point in his evidence,
which lies befor e me in his pr ivate diary and letters, Jo hn
Cennick, to put the matter bluntly, gives John Wes ley the lie.
He denied that the Brethren pr actised guile; he found them
uncommonly
open
Antinomians,
w ho
and
sincere.
despised
He
go od
denied
works;
that
he
they
found
were
the m
excelle nt characters. He denied that the y were narrow -minded
bigots, who would never acknowledge themse lves to be in the
wrong; he found them remarkably tolerant and broad -minded.
At this period, in fact, he had so high an opinion of the
Brethren that he thought they alone were fitted to reconcile
Wesley and Whitefie ld; and on one o ccasion he persuade d
some Moravians, Wesleyans and Calvinists to jo in in a united
love-feast
at
Whitefie ld’s
Tabernacle,
and
sing
a
common
confession of faith {No v. 4th, 17 44.}.119 John Cennick was a
man o f the Moravian type . The very qualities in the Bret hren
that offended Wesley won the love of Cennick. He loved the
way they spoke of Christ; he loved the ir “Blood and Wo unds
Theology”; and when he read the “Litany of the Wounds of
Jesus,” he actually, instead of being disguste d, shed tears of
joy. For thes e reasons, therefor e, Cennick went to London,
consulted the Brethren in Fetter Lane, and beso ught them to
under take the care of his Wiltshire socie ties. The result was
the same as in Yorkshire. As long as the reque st came from
Cennick alone the Brethren tu rne d a deaf ear . But the need in
Wiltshire was increasing. T he spirit of disorder was growing
rampant. At Bath and Bristo l his converts were quarrelling; at
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Swindon a young woman went into fits and described them as
signs of the New Birth; and a young man named Jonathan
Wildboar , who had been burne d in the hand for stealing linen,
paraded the co untr y show ing his wound as a proof of his
devotion to Chr ist. For these fo llies Cennick knew only one
cure;
and
that
cure
was
the
“apostolic
discipline”
of
the
Brethren. He called his stewards together to a conference at
Tytherto n; the stewards drew up a petition; the Brethren
yielded; some w orkers came do wn {Dec. 18th, 1745.}; and
thus, at the request of the people themselves, the Moravians
began their work in the We st of England.
If the Brethren had now been desirous of C hurch extensio n,
they would, of course, have turned Cennick’s societies into
Moravian congre gations. But the policy they no w pursued in
the West was a repetitio n of their suicidal po licy in Yorkshire .
Instead of forming a number of independent co ngregatio ns,
they centralized the work at Tyther ton, and compelled the
other socie ties to wait in patience. At Bristo l, the n the seco nd
town in the kingdom, the good people had to wait ten years
(1755); at Kin gswood, twe lve years (1757); at Bath, twenty
years (1765); at Malmesbury, twenty -five years (1770); at
Devonport, twenty -six years (17 71); and the o ther socie ties
had to wait so long that finally they lost the ir patie nce, and
died of exhaustio n and neglect .
As soon as Cennick, however, had left his societie s in the care
of the Brethren {1746.}, he se t off on a tour to Germany,
spent three months at Herrnhaag, was received as a member,
returned a Moravian, and then entered on his gr eat campaign
in Ireland. H e began in Dublin, and took the city by storm. For
a year or so so me pio us people , le d by Benjamin La Trobe, a
Baptist student, had been in the habit o f meeting for singing
and prayer; and now, with these as a nucleus, C ennick began
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
preaching in a Baptist Hall at Skinner’s Alley. It was John
Cennick, and not John Wesle y, who began the Evangelical
Revival in Ireland. He was working in Dublin for more than a
year before Wesley arrive d on the scene. The city was the
hunting
gro und
for
many
sects;
the
Bradiloni ans
and
Muggle tonians were in full force; the Unitarians exerted a
widespread influence; and the
bold way in w hich Cennick
exalted the Divinity of C hrist w as welco med like a pulse of
fresh air. T he first Sunday the people were tur ned away in
hundreds. The hall in Skinner’s Alley was crow ded out. The
major ity of his hearers were Catho lics. The w indows of the
hall had to be r emoved, and the people were in their places
day after day three hours befo re the time. On Sundays the
roofs of the surrounding ho uses we re black w ith the waiting
throng; every w indow and wall became a sitting; and Cennick
himself had to climb through a window and craw l on the heads
of the people to the pulpit. “If you make any stay in this
town,” wrote a Carmelite priest, in his Irish zeal , “you will
make as many conversio ns as St. Francis Xavier among the
wild Pagans. Go d preserve you!” At Chr istmas C ennick forgot
his
manners,
attacked
the
Church
of
Rome
in
offensive
language, and aroused the just indignation of the Catholic
priests.
“I curse and blaspheme,” he said, “all the gods in heaven, but
the Babe that lay in Mary’s lap, the Babe that lay in swaddling
clothes.”
The quick-w itted Irish jumped w ith joy at the phrase. Fro m
that mome nt Ce nnick was known as “Swaddling John”;120 and
his name was introduce d into comic songs at the music -halls.
As he walked thr ough the streets he had now to be guar ded by
an escort of fr iendly soldiers; and the mob, ten or fifteen
thousand in number, pelted him with dirt, sto nes and br icks.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At one service, says the local diary, “near 2,000 stones were
thrown
against
Brothers
Cennick
and
La
Trobe,
of
which,
however, not one did hit the m.” Father Duggan denounced him
in a pamphle t entitled “The Lady’s Letter to Mr. Cennick” ;
Father Lyons assured his flock that Cen nick was the devil in
human
form;
pamphlet,
and
o thers
written
by
passed
G ilbert
from
hand
Tennent,
to
hand
de nouncing
a
the
Moravians as dangerous and immoral teachers.
At this interesting po int, whe n Cennick’s name was on every
lip, Jo hn Wesley paid his first visit to Dublin {August, 1747.}.
For
Cennick
Wesley
enter tained
a
thorough
contempt.
He
called him in his Jour nal “that weak man, John Cennick”; he
accused him of having ruined the socie ty at Kingswood; he
was disgusted w hen he heard that he had beco me a Moravian;
and now he tur ned him out of Skinner’s Alley by the simple
process
of
negotiating
pr ivately
with
the
owner
of
the
property, and buying the building over Cennick’s head. At o ne
stroke the cause in Skinner’s Alley passed over into Methodist
hands;
and
thousands
the
w as
pulpit
now
in
w hich
occupied
Cennick
by
John
had
preache d
Wesley
and
to
his
assistants. From that blow the Brethren’s cause in Dublin
never fully recovered. For a lo ng time they were unable to find
another
building,
and
had
to
co ntent
the mselves
w ith
meetings in pr ivate houses; but at last they hir ed a smaller
building in Big Booter Lane,121 near St. Patrick’s Cathedral;
two German Brethren, Jo hn Toe ltschig and Bryzelius, came
over to organize the wor k; Peter Boehler, two years la ter,
“settled” the co ngregatio n; and thus was establishe d, in a
modest
way,
that
small
community
of
Mor avians
whose
descendants wor ship there to the present day.
Meanwhile John Cennick was ploughing another fie ld. For some
years
he
w as
busily
engaged – first
as
an
authorized
lay
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
evange list
and
then
as
an
ordained
Moravian
minister –in
preaching and founding religio us societies in Cos. Antrim,
Down, Derry, Ar magh, Tyrone , C avan, Mo naghan, and Do negal
{1748-55.}; and his influence in Ulster was just as great as
the influe nce of Whitefield in England. He opened his Ulster
campaign at Ballyme na. At first he was fiercely opposed. As
the rebellion of the young Prete nder had been only recently
quashed, the pe ople were rather suspicious of new comers.
The Pretender him self was suppo sed to be still at lar ge, and
the
or thodo x
Presbyterians
denounced
Cennick
as
a
Covenanter, a rebel, a spy, a rogue, a Jesuit, a plotter, a
supporter of the Pretender, and a paid age nt of the Pope.
Again and again he was accuse d of Popery; an d one Doffin, “ a
vagabond and wicked fellow,” swore before the Ballymena
magistrates that, seven years before, he had seen Cennick in
the Isle of Man, and that there the preacher had fled from the
arm of the law . As Cennick was pronouncing the benediction at
the close of a service in the market -place at B allymena, he
was
publicly
Manor;
and
assaulted
the
by
Captain,
Captain
w hose
Adair,
blood
the
w as
Lord
of
inflamed
the
w ith
whisky, str uck the preacher with his whip, atte mpte d to run
him through w ith his s wor d, and then instructe d his foo tman
to
knock
him
down.
At
ano ther
service,
in
a
field
near
Ballymena, two captains of militia had provide d a band of
drummers, and the drummers dr umme d as o nly Irishmen can.
The
young
preacher
was
summoned
to
take
the
oath
of
alle giance and abjuration. But C ennick, like many Moravians,
objected to taking an oath. The scene was the bar -par lour of a
Ballymena ho tel. There sat the justices, C aptain Adair and
O’Neil of Shane’s Castle; and there sat Cennick, the meek
Moravian, w ith a few friends to suppor t him. The more punch
the two gentlemen put away the more pio us and patr iotic they
became. For the second time Adair lost his self -co ntrol. He
called Cennick a rascal, a rogue, and a Jesuit; he dr ank
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
damnation to all his principl es; he asked him w hy he would
not swear and then ge t absolution from the Pope; and both
gentlemen infor med our hero that if he refuse d to take the
oath they would clap him in Carrickfer gus G aol that very
night. As Ce nnick, however, still held to his point, the y were
compelled at last to le t him out on bail; and Cennick soon
after appealed fo r protectio n to Dr. Rider, Bisho p of Down and
Connor. T he goo d Bishop was a broad -minded man.
“Mr.
Cennick,”
he
said,
“yo u
shall
have
fair
play
in
my
diocese .”
In vain t he clergy complaine d to the Bishop that Cennick was
emptying the ir pulpits. T he Bishop had a stinging answer
ready.
“Preach
what
C ennick
preaches,”
he
said,
“pr each
Christ
crucifie d, and then the people will not have to go to Cennick
to hear the Gospel.”
The good Bishop’s words are instr uctive . At that time the
Gospel which C ennick preached was still a str ange thing in
Ulster; and Cennick was welco med as a true revival preacher.
At
Ballee
and
Ballynahone
he
addressed
a
crowd
of
te n
thousand. At Mo neymore th e Presbyterians begge d him to be
their minister . At Ballynaho ne the Catho lics promise d that if
he would only pitch his tent there they would neve r go to Mass
again. At Lisnamara, the rector invited him to preach in the
parish church. At New Mills the peopl e rushed o ut from the ir
cabins, barred his way, offered him milk, and besought him,
saying, “If yo u canno t stop to pr each, at least co me into o ur
houses
to
pray.”
At
Glenavy
the
road
was
lined
w ith
a
cheering multitude for full two miles. At Castle Dawson, Mr.
Justice Downey, the local clergyman, and some other gentry,
kissed him in public in the barrack yard. As he gallo ped along
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the country roads, the farm labo urers in the fie lds would call
out after him, “There goes Swaddling Jack”; he was known all
over Ulster as “the preacher”; his fame ran on before him like
a herald; Count Zinzendorf called him “Paul Revived”; and his
memory lingers down to the present day.
For Cennick, of course, was more than a popular orator. As he
was now a minister of the Brethr e n’s Church, he considered it
his duty, wherever possible , to build chapels, to organize
congregations, and to introduce Moravian books and customs;
and in this work he had the assistance of La Trobe, Symms,
Caries, Cooke , Wade, Knight, Brampto n, Pugh, Brow n, Thorne ,
Hill, Watson, and a host of o the r Brethren whose names need
not be mentio ned. I have not mentio ned the foregoing list for
nothing. It show s that mo st of C ennick’s assistants were not
Germans, but Englishme n or Irishmen; and the people could
not raise the o bjectio n that the Brethren were suspicious
foreigners. At this time , in fact, the strength of the Brethren
was enormous. At the close of his work, Jo hn Ce nnick himself
had built ten chapels, and established two hundre d and twenty
religious socie tie s. Around Lough Neagh the Brethren lay like
locusts; and the work here was divided into four districts. At
the north-east corner they had four societies, with chapels at
Ballymena, G loonen, and Grogan, and a growing cause at
Doagh; at the north -west cor ner, a society at Lisnamara,
established
late r
as
a
co ngregatio n
at
Gracefield;
at
the
south-west corner, in Co. Armagh, three chapels were being
built; and at the south -east cor ner, they had sever al societies,
and
had
built,
or
were
building,
chapels
at
B allinderry,
Glenavy, and Kilwarlin.
At this distance of time the Br ethren’s work in Ulster has
about it a cer tain glamour o f romance. B ut in reality the
conditions were far from attractive. It is hard for us to realize
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
now how poor those Ir ish people were. They lived in hovels
made of loose sods, w ith no chimneys; they shared their
wretched rooms with hens and pigs; and toiling all day in a
damp atmospher e, they earne d their bread by weaving and
spinning. The Brethren themselves were little better off. At
Gloonen, a small village near Gracehill, the Brethren of the
first
Lough
Neagh
district
made
their
headquarters
in
a
cottage consisting of two rooms and two small “closets”; and
this
modest
abode
of
one
story
was
known
in
the
neighbo urhood as “The Great Hou se at Gloonen.” Again, at a
Conference held in Gracehill, the Brethren, being pinched for
money, solemnly passe d a resolutio n never to drink tea more
than once a day.
And yet there is little to show to -day for these he roic labours.
If the visitor go es to U lster now and endeavours to trace the
footste ps o f Ce nnick, he will find it almost impossible to
realize how gre at the power of the Brethren was in those
palmy days. At Gracehill, near Ballymena, he will find the
remains of a se ttlement. At Ballymena itsel f, no w a growing
town, he will find to his surpr ise that the Brethre n’s cause has
ceased
to
exist.
At
Gracefield,
Ballinderry,
and
Kilw arlin –
where once Cennick preache d to thousands –he will find but
feeble, struggling congregations. At Gloonen the people w ill
show him “Cennick’s Well”; at Kilwar lin he may stand under
“Cennick’s Tree”; and at Por tmo re, near Lough Beg, he will
see the ruins of the o ld church, where Jeremy Taylor wrote his
“Holy L iving and Holy Dying,” and where Cennick slept many a
night. At Drumargan (Armagh), he will find a barn that was
once a Moravian Chape l, and a small farmho use that was o nce
a Sisters’ House ; and at Arva (Co . Cavan), he may stand on a
hillock,
still
called
“Mo unt
Waugh,”
in
me mory
of
Joseph
Waugh, a Moravian minister. F or the rest, however, the work
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
has collapsed; and Cennick’s two hundred and tw enty socie ties
have left no t a r ack behind.
For
this
decline
there
were
three
causes.
T he
first
was
financial. At the very time whe n the Brethren in Ulster had
obtained a firm ho ld upo n the affections of the people the
Moravian Church was passing through a financial crisis; and
thus, whe n money would have been most useful, money was
not
to
be
had.
management.
Brethren
T he
Again,
pursued
second
as
the
in
was
the
Y orkshire
system
of
bad
and
system
Wiltshire,
centralization;
of
t he
built
a
settlement at G racehill, and made the other congregatio ns
depende nt o n G racehill, just as the Yorkshire congregatio ns
were dependent on Fulneck. The third cause was the early
death of Cennick himsel f. At the height o f his po wers he broke
down in body and in mind; and, worn out with many labour s,
he became the victim of mental depression. For some time the
conviction had been stealing upon him that his work in this
world w as o ver; and in a letter to J ohn de Watteville , who had
twice
inspected
the
Irish
wor k,
he
said,
“I
think
I
have
finished with the North of Ireland. If I stay here much longer I
fear I shall damage His work.” At length, as he rode from
Holyhead to London, he w as taken seriously ill; a nd arrive d at
Fetter Lane in a state of high fever and exhaustion. For a
week he lay de lirious and rambling, in the room which is now
used as the Vestry of the Moravian Chapel; and there, at the
early age of thir ty -six, he died {July 4th, 1755.}. If the tr ue
success is to labour, Cennick was successful; but if success is
measured by visible results, he ended his brief and brilliant
career
in
tragedy,
failure
and
gloom.
Of
all
the
great
preachers of the eighteenth century, not one w as superior to
him in beauty of character. By the poor in Ireland he was
almost
worshipped.
He
was
often
attacked
and
unjustly
accused; but he never attacke d in return. We search his diar y
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and letters in vain for one single trace of bitte r feeling. He
was infer ior to John Wesley in organizing skill, and inferior to
Whitefie ld in dramatic power; but in devo tion, in simplicity,
and in command over his audience he was equal to either. At
the present time he is chiefly known in this countr y as the
author of the w ell -know n grace before m eat, “Be present at
our table, Lord”; and so me of his hymns, such as “Children o f
the Heave nly King,” and “Ere I sleep, for every favour ,” are
now regarded as classics. His po sition in the Mor avian C hurch
was peculiar. Of all the English Brethren he did th e most to
extend
the
cause
of
the
Moravian
Church
in
the
United
Kingdo m, and no fewer than fifteen congregatio ns owed their
existence,
despite
his
directly
shining
or
indirectly,
gifts,
he
was
to
his
never
effor ts;
and
promoted
to
ye t,
any
positio n of spec ial respo nsibility or hono ur. He was never
placed in sole charge of a congregation; and he was not made
superinte ndent of the work in Ireland. As a soldier in the
ranks he be gan; as a soldier in the ranks he died. He had o ne
blemish in his character. He wa s far too fond, like most of the
Brethren, of ove rdrawn sentimental language . If a man could
read Zinzendorf’s “Litany of the Wounds of Jesus,” and then
shed tears of jo y, as Cennick tells us he did himse lf, there
must have been an unhealthy taint in his b lood. He was
present at Herrnhaag at the Sifting -Time , and do es not appear
to have been shocked. In time his sentimentalism made him
morbid. As he had a wife and tw o children dependent o n him,
he had no right to lo ng for an e arly death; and yet he wrote
the words in his pocket -book:–
Now, Lord, at peace with Thee and all below, L et me depart,
and to T hy Kingdom go .
For this blemish, however, he was more to be pitied than
blamed. It w as partly the result of ill -health and overwork;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and, on the who le, it w as merely a trifle when set beside that
winso me grace, that unse lfish zeal, that mo dest devotion, and
that sunny piety, which char med alike the Wiltshire peasants,
the
Papist
boys
of
Dublin,
and
the
humble
weavers
and
spinners o f the N orth of Ireland.1 22
Chapter 12
“The Appeal to Parliament, 1742 -1749″
Meanwhile, however, the Brethren in England had been bitterly
opposed.
For
this
there
were
several
reasons.
First,
the
leading Brethren in England w ere Germans; and that fact
alone was quite enough to prejudice the multitude against
them {1742 -3.}. For Germans o ur fathers had then but little
liking; they had a German King on the throne, and they did
not love him; and the general feeling in the country was that
if
a
man
w as
a
conspirator
or
foreigners?
asked
“Moravians,”
a
these
foreigner
traitor.
the
he
was
Who
patrio tic
almost
sure
were
these
Brito n.
Who
“Herrnhuters,”
these
to
be
a
mysterio us
were
these
“Germans,”
these
“Quiet in the Land,” these “Antinomians”? T he very names of
the Brethren ar oused the popular suspicion. If a man co uld
prove that his name was John Smith, the presumption was
that John Smith was a loyal citizen; but if he w as known as
Gussenbauer or Ockershausen, he was probably another Guy
Fawkes, and w as forming a plo t to blow up the House of
Commons. At the outset therefo re the Brethren were accused
of treachery. At Pudsey Gussenbauer was arrested, tried at
Wakefie ld, and imprisoned in York Castle . At Broadoaks, in
Essex, the Brethren had o pene d a schoo l, and were soon
accused of being agents of the Young Prete nder. They had, it
was
said,
stored
up
barrels
of
gunpow der;
they
had
undermine d the whole ne ighbour hood, and intended to se t the
town of Thaxte d on fire. At three o’clock one afte rnoon a mob
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
surrounded the building, and tr ied in vain to fo rce the ir way
in. Amo ng them were a sergeant and a corporal. The warden,
Metcalfe , admitted the o fficers, showed them round the house,
and finally le d them to a room where a Bible and Prayer -book
were lying on the table. At this sight the officer s collapse d in
amazement.
“Aye,” said the corporal, “this is proof enough that you are no
Papists; if yo u w ere, this book w ould no t have lain here.”
Another cause of opposition was the Brethren’s quiet mode of
work. In North America lived a ce rtain Gilbert Tennent; he had
met Z inzendorf at New Br unsw ick; he had read his Berlin
discourses; and now, in or der to show the public what a
dangerous
teacher
Zinzendorf
was,
he
published
a
book,
entitled, “Some Account of the Principles o f the Moravians.”
{1743.} As this book was published at Bosto n, it did not at
first do much harm to the English Brethren; but, after a time,
a copy fo und its way to England; an English editio n was
publishe d; and the English edito r, in a preface , accused the
Brethren
of
many
marve llo us
crimes.
T hey
persiste ntly
refused, he declared, to reveal their real opinions. They crept
into houses and led captive silly women. They claimed that all
Moravians were perfect, and taught that the Mor avian Church
was infallible. T hey practised an adventuro us use of the Lot,
had a cur ious metho d of discovering and purging out the
accurse d thing, pledged each other in liquor at their lo ve feasts, and had an “ar tful regulatio n of the ir co nvents.” Abo ve
all, said this wr iter, the Moravians were tyrannical. As soon as
any person joine d the Moravian Church, he was compelled to
place
himself,
his
family,
and
his
estates
entirely
at
the
Church’s disposal; he was bo und to believe what the Church
belie ved, and to do what the C hurch co mmande d; he handed
his children over to the Chur ch’s care; he could not enter into
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
any civil co ntract witho ut the Church’s conse nt; and his so ns
and daughters were given in marriage just as the Church
decreed.123 Gilbert Tenne nt himself was e qually se vere. He
began
by
remarking
criticiz ing
that
Zinzendorf’s
Zinzendor f
was
a
theol ogy;
liar,
he
and
said
that
after
the
Brethren kept their disgusting principles secret, that they
despised good books, that they slighted learning and reason,
that they spo ke lightly of Confessions o f Faith, that they
insinuated themselves into people’s affectio ns by smiles and
soft disco urses about the love of Christ, that they took special
care to apply to young persons, females and ignorant people.
From
all
this
the
conclusio n
was
obvious.
At
hear t
the
Brethren were Roman Catho lics. “The Moravians,” said Gilbert,
“by
this
damnable
metho d
doctrine
of
of
proceeding,
the
Chur ch
are
of
propagating
Rome,
another
namely,
that
Ignorance is the Mother of De votio n.” We can imagine the
effect of this in Protestant England. At one tim e Zinzendorf
was openly accused in the columns of the Universal Spectator
of kidnapping young wo men for Moravian conve nts; and the
alarming rumour spread on all sides that the Brethren were
Papists in disguise.
Another cause of trouble was the Moravian rel igio us language .
If the Brethren did not preach novel do ctr ines they certainly
preached old do ctrines in a novel way. T hey called Jesus the
Man of Smar t; talked a great de al about B lood and Wo unds;
spoke of themselves as Poor Sinners; and described the ir o wn
condition as Sinnership and Sinnerlikeness. To the orthodo x
Churchman this language seemed absur d. He did not know
what it meant; he did not find it in the Bible ; and, therefore,
he concluded that the Brethren’s doctr ine w as unscriptural and
unso und.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Another
cause
of
trouble
was
the
Brethren’s
doctrine
of
justification by faith alone. Of all the charges bro ught against
them the most serious and the most persistent w as the char ge
that
they
despised
Antinomians.
Again
good
and
works.
again,
They
by
were
the
best
denounced
of
men,
as
this
insulting term w as throw n at the ir heads. They taught, it was
said, the immoral doctrine that C hrist had do ne everything for
the
salvation
of
mankind;
that
the
be liever
had
o nly
to
belie ve; that he need not obey the co mmand me nts; and that
such
things
as
duties
did
no t
exist.
At
Windsor
lived
a
gentleman name d Sir John Thorold. He was one o f the earliest
friends of the Moravians; he had often attended meetings at
Hutton’ s house ; he was an upright, conscientious, intelligent
Christian; and yet he accuse d the Brethren of teaching “that
there were no duties in the New Testame nt.” G ilbert Tenne nt
brought the very same accusation. “The Moravian notion about
the law ,” he said, “is a mystery of detestable iniquity; and,
indeed, this see ms to be the mainspr ing of their unreasonable,
anti-e vangelical,
and
licentious
religio n.”
But
the
severest
critic of the Brethren was John Wesley. He attacked them in a
“Letter to the Mo ravian Church,” and had that letter printed in
his Journal. He att acked them again in his “Shor t View of the
Difference betwe en the Moravian Brethren, lately in England,
and the Rev. Mr. John and Char les Wesley.” He attacke d them
again
in
his
“A
Dialogue
be tw een
an
Antinomian
and
his
Friend”; and in e ach of these clever and biting pro ductio ns his
chief char ge against them was that they taught Antinomian
principles, despised good works, and taught that Chr istians
had nothing to do but belie ve.
“Do you coolly affir m,” he asked, “that this is o nly impute d to
a Believer, and that he has no ne at all of this holiness in him?
Is te mperance imputed o nly to him that is a drunkard still? or
chastity to her that goes o n in w horedom?”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
He accused the Brethren of carrying out their principles; he
attacked their personal characte r; and, boiling w ith righteous
indignation, he denounced them as “licentio us spir its and men
of careless lives.”
As the Brethren, therefore, were now being fiercely attacke d,
the questio n aro se, what measures, if any, they should take in
self -defence. At first the y co ntented themselve s with gentle
protests. As the y had been accuse d of disloyalty to the throne ,
James Hutto n, Benjamin Ingham, and William Bell, in the
name of all the English so cie ties connecte d w ith the Brethren’s
Church, drew up an address to the Kin g, we nt to see him in
person, and assured him that they were loyal subjects and
hated Popery and popish prete nders {April 27th, 1744.}. As
they had been accused of attacking the Anglican Church, two
Brethren calle d on Gibson, Bisho p of London, and assured him
that they had co mmitted no such crime . For the r est, however,
the Brethren held the ir tongues. At a Conference in London
they consulted the Lot; and the Lot decide d that the y should
not reply to Gilbert Tennent. For the same reason, probably,
they also decide d to give no reply to John Wesley.
Meanwhile,
how ever,
an
event
occurred
which
roused
the
Brethren to action. At Sheko meko, in Dutchess County, New
York, they had established a flo urishing Indian congregation;
and now , the Assembly o f New Y ork, stir red up by some liquor
sellers who were losing their business, passe d an insulting
Act, de clar ing that “all vagrant preachers, Mor avians, and
disguised Papists,” sho uld not be allowe d to preach to the
Indians unless they first took the oaths of allegiance a nd
abjuration {1744.}. James Hutton was boiling with fury. If
this Act had applied to all preachers of the Gospel he would
not
have
minde d
so
much;
but
the
other
de nominatio ns –
Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists and Quakers –were
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
all
specially
brackete d
disguise.
e xempted ;
together
He
with
re garded
and
the
vagr ant
the
Act
loyal
Moravians
preachers
as
an
and
insult.
He
were
Papists
in
wrote
to
Zinzendorf on the subject. “This,” he said, “is the work of
Presbyterian fire brands.” If an Act like this could be passed in
America, who knew what might not happen soon in England?
“We
ought,”
he
continued,
“to
utilize
this
or
some
other
favourable opportunity for bringing our cause publicly before
Parliame nt.”
Now was the time, thought the fiery Hutton, to define the
positio n of the Brethren’s Church in England. He went to
Marienborn
to
see
the
Count;
a
Synod
met
{1745.};
his
proposal was discussed; and the Synod appointed Abraham
von Gersdorf, the official “Dele gate to Kings,” to appeal to
Lord Granville, and the Board of Trade and Plantations, for
protection in the Colonies. Lord Granville was gracio us. He
infor med the de putation that though the Act could no t be
repealed at o nce the Board of Trade would recommend the
repeal as soon as legally possible; and the ups ho t of the
matter was that the Act became a dead le tter.
Next year Zinze ndorf came to England, and began to do the
best he could to destroy the separate Moravian C hurch in this
country {1746.}. If the Count could only have had his way, he
would now have ma de every Moravian in England r eturn to the
Anglican C hurch. He was full o f his “Tropus” ide a. He wished
to work his idea out in England; he called the English Brethren
to a Synod (Sept. 13 -16), and persuaded them to pass a
scheme w hereby the English branch of the Brethren’s Church
would be taken over entirely by the C hurch of England. It was
one of the most curious scheme s he ever devised. At the ir
Sunday services the Brethren henceforward wer e to use the
Book of Common Prayer; the ir ministers were to be or daine d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
by Anglican and Moravian Bisho ps conjointly; he himse lf was
to be the head o f this Anglican -Moravian Church; and thus the
English
Moravians
would
be
gr afted
on
to
the
Church
of
England. For the second time, therefore, the Count was tr ying
to destroy the Moravian Church. But here, to his surpr ise, he
met an unexpected obstacle. He had forgo tten that it takes
two to make a marriage. He pr oposed the unio n in form to
Archbishop Po tte r; he pleade d the case with all the skill at his
command; and the Archbi sho p pr omptly rejecte d the pro posal,
and the marr iage never came off.
As Zinzendorf, therefore, was baffle d in this e ndeavo ur, he
had now to co me down from his pe destal and try a more
practical plan {1747.}; and, acting on the sage advice of
Thomas
Penn,
p roprie tor
of
Pennsylvania,
and
General
Oglethorpe, Governor of Georgia, he resolved to appeal direct
to Parliame nt fo r protectio n in the Co lonies. As Ogle thorpe
himself was a member of the House of Co mmons, he w as able
to render the Brethren signal se rvice . He had no objection to
fighting
himse lf,
and
even
de fended
duelling,124
but
he
champio ned the cause of the Brethren. Already, by an Act in
1740, the Quake rs had been freed from taking the oath in all
our
American
(1743),
the
Colonies;
privilege
Pennsylvania,
Protestants;
Commons
not
and
that
of
only
now
the
already,
fur ther,
affir ming
to
Quakers,
Oglethor pe
rule
had
in
another
been
but
moved
existing
by
to
in
Ac t
granted
all
the
in
foreign
House
Pe nnsylvania
of
sho uld
henceforth apply to all American Colo nies. If the Moravians,
he argued, were only give n a little
more encourageme nt,
instead o f being worried about oaths and militar y service, they
would settle in larger numbers in America and increase the
prosperity of the colo nies. He wr ote to the Board of Trade and
Plantations;
statements;
his
and
friend,
the
result
Tho mas
was
that
Penn,
the
e ndorsed
new
clause
his
was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
passed, and all foreign Protestants in American Colonies –the
Moravians
being
specially
mentio ned –were
free
to
affirm
instead of taking the o ath.
But this Act w as of no use to the English Brethr en. The great
question at issue was, w hat standing were the Brethren to
hold in England? On the o ne hand, as members of a foreign
Protestant Church they were entitled to religious liberty; and
yet,
on
the
other
hand,
they
were
practically
treate d
as
Disse nters, and had been compelled to have all their buildings
lice nsed.
As
they
were
still
accused
of
ho lding
secret
dangerous pr inciples, they now drew up ano ther “Declaratio n,”
had it printed, sent it to th e offices o f the Archbisho p of
Canterbury, the Lord Chance llor, and the Master of the Rolls,
and
inserte d
it
in
the
leading
newspapers.
At
all
costs,
pleaded the Brethren, let us have a public inquiry. “If any man
of undoubted se nse and candour,” they said , “will take the
pains upon himself to fix the accusatio ns against us in their
real point of view, hitherto unattainable by the Brethren and
perhaps
the
public
too ,
the n
we
w ill
answer
to
the
expectations of the public, as free and directly as may be
expected from honest subjects of the co nstitutio n of these
realms.” The appeal led to nothing; the man of sense and
cando ur
never
appeared;
and
still
the
suffering
Brethren
groaned under all sorts of vague accusation.
At last, however, Zinzendorf himself came t o the rescue of his
Brethren,
rented
Northampto n
House
in
Bloomsbury
Square,125 and brought the who le matter to a head. For the
second time he took the advice of Oglethor pe and Thomas
Penn; and a deputatio n was now appo inted to frame a petition
to Par liame nt that the Brethren in America be e xempted, not
merely fro m the oath, but also fr om military service.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As
General
Oglethor pe
was
now
in
England,
he
gladly
champio ned the Brethren’s cause, presente d the petition in
the House of Commons, and ope ned the campa ign by giving an
account
of
the
past
history
of
the
Brethren
{Feb.
20th,
1749.}. For practical purposes this informatio n was important.
If the House knew nothing else about the Brethren it knew
that
they
were
no
sect
of
mushroom
growth.
And
then
Oglethorpe infor med the House how the Brethre n, already, in
bygo ne days had been kindly tr eated by England; how Amos
Comenius
had
Archbishop
appealed
Sancroft
to
and
the
Bishop
Anglican
Compto n
Church;
had
how
publishe d
a
pathetic account of the ir sufferings; and ho w George I., by the
advice of Archbishop Wake, had issued letters patent for their
relief. But the most effective par t of his speech was the part
in which he spoke from personal knowledge. “In the year
1735,” he said “they were disquieted in Germany, and a bout
twenty families went o ver with me to Georgia. They were
industrio us, patient under the difficulties of a ne w settlement,
labor ious beyond what could have been expecte d. They gave
much of their time to prayer, but that hinder ed not the ir
industry.
Pray er
was
to
them
a
diversio n
after
labo ur.
I
mention this because a vulgar notion has prevailed that they
neglected
labour
for
prayer.”
They
had
spent,
he
said,
£100,000 in various industr ies; they had withdrawn already in
large numbers from Georgia because they were compelled to
bear
arms;
and
if
that
colo ny
was
to
prosper
again
the
Brethren should be granted the privilege they re quested, and
thus be e ncouraged to return. Fo r what privilege , after all, did
the Brethren ask? For the noble privilege of paying money
instead of fighting in battle . T he more these B rethren were
encourage d, said he, the more the Colonies would prosper; he
proposed that the petitio n be referred to a Committee, and
Velters
motio n.
Cornwall,
member
for
Herefordshire,
seconded
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As Zinzendorf listened to this speech, some cur ious feelings
must have sur ged in his bosom. At the Syno d of Hir schberg,
only six years be fore, he had lectured the Brethren for making
business
bargains
consenting
to
such
with
a
Gover nments;
bargai n
himself.
and
The
now
he
de bate
in
was
the
Commons was conducted on business lines; the whole question
at issue was, no t whe ther the Moravians were orthodox, but
whether it would pay the Government to encourage them; and
the British Gover nment took e xactly the same atti tude towards
the Brethren that Fre derick the Great had done seven years
before. The next speaker made this point clearer than ever.
We are not quite sure who it was. It was pro bably Henr y
Pelham, the Prime Minister. At any rate, whoever it was, he
objected to the petition on practical grounds. He declared that
the Moravians w ere a very dangerous body; that they were
really a new sect; that, like the Papists, they had a Pope, and
submitte d to their Pope in all things; that the y made their
Church
supreme
in
t emporal
matters;
and
that
thus
they
destroyed the po wer of the civil magistrate . He suspected that
the Brethren were Papists in disguise .
“I am at a loss,” he said, “whe ther I shall style the petitioners
Jesuits, Papists, or Moravians.”
He intended, he dec lared, to move an amendment that the
Moravians be re strained from making converts, and that all
who joine d the ir ranks be punished. The fate of England was
at stake. If the Moravians co nve rted the who le natio n to their
superstitio n, and everyone objected t o bearing arms, w hat
then would beco me of o ur Ar my and Navy, and how could we
resist invasio n? The next speake rs, however, soon toned dow n
the alarm. If Pelham’s objectio ns applied to the Moravians,
they wo uld apply, it w as ar gued, equally to the Quakers; and
yet
it
was
a
notorious
fact
that
the
Colonies
where
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Quakers
settled
were
the
most
prosperous
places
in
the
Empire. “What place,” asked o ne, “is more flo urishing than
Pennsylvania?” And if the Moravians objected to bearing arms,
what did that matter , so long as they were willing to pay?
For these practical reaso ns, therefore, the mo tion was easily
carried;
a
Par liamentary
Oglethorpe
was
elected
Co mmittee
chairman;
was
and
formed;
the
w hole
General
history,
doctr ine and pr actice of the Brethren were s ubmitted to a
thorough
investigation.
For
this
purpose
Zinzendorf
had
prepared a number of do cume nts; the do cume nts were laid
before
the
documents,
Co mmittee;
the
and,
Committee
on
the
based
its
e vidence
report.
of
those
From
that
evidence three conclusion s follow ed.
In
the
first
place,
the
Brethr en
were
able
to
show,
by
documents of incontestable authenticity, that they really were
the true descendants of the old Church o f the Br ethren. The y
could
prove
that
Daniel
Er nest
Jablonsky
had
been
consecrated a B ishop at the Syno d of Lissa (March 10th,
1699), that Jablonsky in tur n had co nsecrated Zinzendorf a
Bishop, and that thus the Brethren had preser ved the old
Moravian episco pal successio n. They could pro ve, further, and
prove they did, that Ar chbisho ps Wake and Po tter had bo th
declared
that
the
Moravian
episcopacy
was
genuine;
that
Potter had descr ibed the Moravian Brethren as apostolical and
episco pal; and that w hen Z inz endorf was made a B isho p,
Potter himself had written him a letter of co ngratulation. Wit h
such evidence , therefore, as this before the m, the Committee
were convinced of the genuineness of the Moravian episco pal
succession; and when they issued their report they gave due
weight to the point.
In the second place, the Brethre n were able to show that the y
had no sectar ian mo tives, and that tho ugh the y be lieved in
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
their own e pisco pacy, they had no desire to compete with the
Church of England. “T here are,” they said, “no more than two
episco pal Churches among Pro testants: the one known through
all the world under the name of Eccle sia Anglicana; the other
characterise d fo r at least three ages as the Unitas Fratr um,
comprehending
generally
all
other
Protestants
who
choose
episco pal constitution. The first is the only one which may
justly claim the titl e of a national church, because she has at
her head a Chr istian King o f the same rite, which circumstance
is absolute ly re quired to co nstitute a natio nal church. The
other episcopal one, know n by the name of Unitas Fratrum, is
far
from
pretending
to
that
t itle.”
In
that
manifesto
the
Brethren assume d that their episcopal orders w ere on a par
with those of the Church o f England; and that assumption was
accepted,
w itho ut
the
slightest
demur,
not
only
by
the
Parliame ntar y Co mmittee, but by the bench of B ishops .
In the thir d place –and this was the crucial po int –the Brethren
were able to sho w, by the writte n evide nce of lo cal residents,
that
wherever
they
went
they
made
ho nest,
industrio us
citizens. They had settle d down in Pennsylvania; they had
done
good
work
at
Be thlehe m,
Nazareth,
Gnadenhütten,
Frederick’s Town, German Town and Ole y; they had won the
warm
approval
of
Thomas
Penn;
and,
so
far
from
being
traitors, they had do ne their best to teach the Indians to be
loyal to the British throne . They had double d t he value of an
estate in Lusatia, and had built two flourishing settlements in
Silesia; they had taught the negr oes in the West Indies to be
sober, industr ious and law -abiding; they had trie d to uplift the
poor Hotte nto ts in South Africa; they had begun a missio n in
Ceylon, had to iled in plague -str icken Algiers, and had built
settlements for the Eskimos in Greenland. If these state ments
had been made
by Moravians,
the
Committee
might have
doubted their tr uth, but in every instance the evide nce came ,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
not from Brethren themselves, but fro m governo rs, kings and
trading officials. The proof was overwhelming. Wherever the
Brethren went, they did good wor k. They pro mote d trade ; they
enriche d the soul; they taught the people to be both goo d and
loyal; and, ther efor e, the sooner they were encouraged in
America, the better for the British Empire.
As the Co mmitte e, therefore, were compelled by the evide nce
to bring in a go od report, the desired leave was granted to
bring in a bill “for encouraging the people known by t he name
of the Unitas Fr atrum, or Unite d Brethren, to settle in His
Majesty’s Colonies in Amer ica.” Its real purpose, however, was
to recognize the Brethren’s Chur ch as an ancient Protestant
Episcopal C hurch, not o nly in the American Colo nies, but also
in the United Kingdo m; and its provisions were to be in force
wherever
the
British
flag
might
fly.
The
provisio ns
were
generous. First, in the preamble , the Brethren we re described
as “an ancient Protestant Episcopal Chur ch and a so ber and
quiet
industrio us
encourage d
to
p eople,”
settle
in
and,
the
being
American
such,
were
Colonie s.
hereby
Next,
in
response to the ir own request, they were allow ed to affirm
instead of taking the oath. The form of affirmatio n was as
follow s: “I, A. B., do declare in the presenc e of Almighty God
the witness of the tr uth of what I say.” Next, the y were
allowe d to
pay
a fixed
sum instead of rende ring
militar y
service, and we re also exempted from serving on juries in
criminal cases. Next, all members of the Brethren’s Church
were to prove their claims by producing a cer tificate, signed
by a Moravian Bishop or pasto r. Next, the advocate of the
Brethren
was
Plantations
to
w ith
supply
a
the
complete
Commissioners
list
of
fo r
Moravian
Trade
and
bishops
and
pastors, toge the r with their ha ndwriting and seal; and, finally,
anyone w ho falsely claimed to belong to the Brethren’s Church
was to be punished as a w ilful pe rjurer.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The fir st reading was o n March 2 8th, and the passage through
the House of Co mmons w as smo oth. At the seco nd reading, on
April 1st, Gener al Oglethorpe w as aske d to explain why the
privilege of affirming sho uld be extended to Moravians in
Great Britain and Ireland. Why not confine it to the Amer ican
colonies? His answer was convincing. If the pr ivilege, he said,
were confine d to America, it wo uld be no pr ivilege at all. At
that time all cases tr ied in America co uld be r eferred to an
English
confined
Court
to
of
Appeal.
America,
If
the
the
privilege,
Brethren
the refore,
would
be
were
constantly
hampered by ve xatious appeals to England; and an English
Court might at any mo ment upse t the decision of an American
Court. T he explanation was accepted; the thir d r eading came
on; and the Bill passed the Ho use of Commo ns unaltered.
In the House of Lords there was a little more oppositio n. As
the Brethren were described as an “Episcopal Church,” it was
feared that the Bishops might raise an objectio n; but the
Bishops met at Lambeth Palace, and reso lved not to oppose.
At first Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London, objected; but even he
gave way in the end, and when the Bill came before the Lords
not a single Bishop raised his voice against it. The only Bishop
who spo ke was Maddox, of Wor cester, and he spoke in the
name of the rest.
“Our Moravian B rethren,” he said, “are an ancie nt Episcopal
Church. Of all Protestants, they come the ne arest to the
Established
Church
in
this
kingdom
in
their
doctr ine
and
constitutio n. And tho ugh the ene my has persecuted them fro m
several quar ters, the soundness o f their faith and the pur ity of
their
morals
have
defe nded
them
from
any
imputatio n
of
Popery and immo rality.”
The one dangerous opponent was Lord Chancellor Hardw icke.
He objected to the clause abo ut the certificate. If a man
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
wishe d to prove himself a Moravian, let him do so by br inging
witnesses. What use w as a Bishop’s certificate? It would not
be acce pted by any judge in the countr y.
On the other hand, Lord Granville, in a genial speech, spo ke
highly of the Brethren. As so me members were still afraid that
the who le co untry might become Moravians, and refus e to
defend our land against her foes, he dismissed their fears by
an anecdote abo ut a Q uaker. At one time, he said, in the days
of his yo uth, the late famous admiral, Sir Char le s Wager, had
been mate on a ship co mmande d by a Quaker; and on one
occasion the ship was attacked by a French pr ivateer. What,
then, did
the
Quaker
privateer
himse lf,
captured
the
Brethren,
he
he
captain
gave
privateer,
held,
were
do?
ove r
and
Instead o f fighting
the
made
even
command
his
broader
to
the
Wager ,
for tune.
But
the
minde d
than
the
Quakers.
“I may compare them,” he said, “to a casting -net over all
Christendo m, to enclose all deno minations of C hristians. If you
like episcopacy, they have it; if you choose the Presbytery of
Luther or Calvin, they have that also ; and if yo u a re pleased
with Quakerism, they have something o f that.”
With
this
speech
Zinzendorf
w as
delighted.
As
the
little
difficulty about the certificate had no t yet been cleared away,
he suggeste d that the person bringing the certificate sho uld
bring w itnesses a s well; and with this tr ifling amendment the
Bill at last–on May 12 th, the Moravian Memor ial Day –was
carried w ithout a divisio n.
In one se nse this Act was a tr iumph for the Brethren, and ye t
it scarce ly affected their fortunes in England. Its interest is
national rather than Moravian. It was a step in the history of
religious toleration, and the gre at pr inciple it e mbodied was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that a religious body is entitled to freedom on the ground of
its usefulness to the State . The principle is o ne of the deepest
importance. It is the fundamental principle to -day of religio us
liberty in England. But the Brethren themse lves reaped very
little benefit. With the exceptio n of the ir freedom from the
oath and from military service, they still occupied the same
positio n as bef or e the Act w as passed. We come here to one of
those contr adictions which are the glory of all le gal systems.
On the o ne hand, by Act of Par liament, they wer e declared an
Episcopal Chur ch, and could hardly, therefore, be regarded as
Disse nters; on the othe r, they were treated as Dissenters still,
and still had the ir chur ches lice nsed as “places o f worship for
the use of Protestant Dissenters.”126
Chapter 13
“The Battle of the Books, 1749 -1755″
As
soo n
as
settlement
resolved
at
that
the
Act
of
Herrnhaag
the
Par liament
had
been
headquarters
of
was
passed,
broken
the
up,
and
the
Brethr en’s
the
Count
Church
should henceforward be in London; and to this intent he now
leased a block of buildings at Chelsea, know n as L indsey
House. T he great house, in altered form, is standing still. It is
at the corner of Cheyne Walk and Beaufort Street, and is close
to the Thames Embankment. It had once be lo nged to Sir
Thomas More, and also to the ducal family of Ancaster. The
designs of Zinze ndorf were ambitio us. He lease d the adjoining
Beaufort grounds and gardens, spent £12,000 on the property,
had the house remodelle d in gr andiose style , erected, close
by, the “C lock” chapel and a minister’s house , laid out a
cemetery, know n to this day as “Sharon,” and thus made
preliminary arrangements for the establishment in Chelsea of
a Moravian settlement in full w orking order. In those days
Chelsea was a charming Londo n subur b. From the ho use to the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
river side lay a terrace, use d as a grand parade; from the
bank to the water there ran a short flight of ste ps; and from
there the pleasure -boats, w ith banners flying, to ok trippers up
and down the shining r iver. For five years this Paradise was
the headquarter s of the Brethr en’s Church. There, in grand
style, lived the Count himself, w ith the me mbers o f his Pilgr im
Band;
there
the
Brethren
met
in
conference ;
there
the
archives of the Church were preserved; and ther e letters and
reports were rece ived from all parts of the rapidly extending
missio n field.
And now the Count led a new campaign in England. As debates
in Parliame nt w ere not then publishe d in full, it was always
open for an e nemy to say that the Brethren had obtained the ir
privileges by me ans of some underhand trick; and in order to
give this charge the lie, the Count now publishe d a folio
volume, entitled, “Acta Fr atrum Unitatis in Anglia.” In this
volume he took the bull by the horns. He issued it by the
advice of Wilso n, Bishop of Sod o r and Man. It was a thorough
and
comprehensive
treatise ,
and
contained
all
about
the
Moravians that an honest and inquiring Briton w ould need to
know. The first part consisted o f the pr incipal vouchers that
had been examined by the Par liamentar y Committee . The next
was
an
article,
“The
Whole
System
of
the
Twenty -o ne
Doctrinal Article s of the Confession of Augsbur g”; and here
the Brethren se t forth the ir do ctrinal beliefs in detail. The
next ar ticle was “The Brethren’s Metho d of Preaching the
Gospel, accord ing to the Synod o f Bern, 1532″; and here they
explaine d w hy they preached so much abo ut the Person and
suffer ings of C hr ist. The next article w as a series of extracts
from the minute s of German Synods; and here the Brethren
showed w hat the y meant by such phrases as “Sinnership” and
“Blood and Wounds Theolo gy.” But the cream o f the volume
was Zinzendorf’s treatise, “The Ratio nale of the Brethren’s
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Litur gies.” He explaine d why the Brethren spoke so freely on
certain moral matters, and contended that while th ey had
sometimes
use d
language
which
pr udish
people
might
condemn as indecent, they had done so from the loftiest
motives, and had always maintained among themselves a high
standar d
of
purity.
At
the
clo se
of
the
volume
was
the
Brethren’s “Church Litany,” revised by Sherlo ck, Bishop of
London, a glossary of their religious terms, and a pathetic
request that if the reader was not satisfie d yet he should ask
for further infor mation. The volume was a challenge to the
public.
It
was
an
honest
manifesto
of
the
B rethren’s
principles, a declaratio n that they had nothing to conceal, and
a challenge to their enemies to do the ir worst.
The next task o f Zinzendorf was to comfort the Brethren’s
friends.
At
this
period,
London, the w hole
w hile
Zinzendorf
w as
resident
in
cause of the Brethren in England was
growing at an amazing pace ; and in Yorkshire, Derbyshire,
Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Dublin, and
the Nor th o f Ire land, the members of the numerous societies
and preaching places were clamouring for full admissio n to the
Moravian Chur ch. They assumed a very natural attitude. On
the one hand, they w anted to become Moravians; on the
other, they objected to the system of discipline enforced so
strictly in the se ttlements, and contended that though it might
suit in Germany, it was not fit for independent Britons. But
Zinzendorf gave a clear and crushing answer . For the benefit
of all goo d Britons who wished to join the Moravian Chur ch
without accepting the Moravian discipline , he issued what he
called a “Consolatory Letter”;127 and the conso latio n that he
gave them w as that he could no t consider their arguments for
a moment. He informed them that the Brethren’s rules were so
strict that candidates could only be received with caution; that
the Brethren had no desire to distur b those w hose outward
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
mode
of
mystical
religio n
was
communion
already
w ith
fixe d;
Chr ist
that
which
the y
o thers
lived
might
in
a
not
understand; and, finally, that they refused po int -blank to rob
the other Chur ches of the ir members, a nd preferred to act “as
a seaso nable assistant in an irr eligious age, and as a most
faithful servant to the o ther Pro testant Churches.” Thus were
the socie ty me mbers blackballed; and thus did Zinzendorf
prove in England that, w ith all his faults, he was ne ver a
schismatic or a poacher on o thers’ preserves.
Meanwhile, the battle of the bo oks had begun. The first blow
was struck by John Wesley. For the last seve n years –as his
Journal shows –he had seen but little of the Brethr en, and was,
therefore, no t in a p osition to pass a fair judgment on the ir
conduct; but, on the other hand, he had seen no reason to
alter
his
old
opinion,
and
still
regarded
the m
as
wicked
Antinomians. The Act of Parliament aroused his anger. He
obtained a copy of Zinzendorf’s Acta Fratr u m, and published a
pamphlet128
summar izing
its
contents,
w ith
characteristic
comments of his own {1750.}. He signe d himse lf “A Lover of
the
L ight.”
Brethren.
His
T he
Parliame ntar y
pamphlet
very
was
a
evidence
C ommittee
was
fierce
that
a
proof
attack
had
to
upon
convinced
Wesley
that
the
the
the
Brethren were heretics and de ceivers. He accused the m of
having deceived the Government and of having o btained their
privileges
by
false
pretences.
He
asserted
that
they
had
brought forward documents w hich gave an er roneous view of
their principles and co nduct. He hinted that Zinzendorf, in o ne
document, claimed for himse lf the power, w hich belonged by
right
to
the
King
and
Par liament
only,
to
transpor t
his
Brethren beyond the seas, and that he had deceived the
Commit tee by using the milder word “transfer.” He accused
the Brethren of hypocr itical pretence, threw doubts upo n their
assumed reluctance to steal she ep from other churches, and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
hinted that while they rejecte d the poor they w elcomed the
rich with ope n arms. At the close of his pamphle t he declared
his convictio n that the chief effect of the Brethr en’s religio n
was to fill the mind w ith absur d ideas about the Side -Wound
of Christ, and rivers and seas of blood; and, therefore, he
earnestly besought all Methodists who had joined the Church
of the Brethren to quit the ir diabolical delusio ns, to flee from
the borders of Sodom, and to le ave these Brethr en, loved the
darkness and re jected the Holy Scriptures.
The next attack was of a milder nature. At Melbourne , in
Derbyshire, the Brethren had a small society; and George
Baddeley, the local curate, being naturally sho cked that so
many o f his parishioners had ceased to attend the Parish
Church, appealed to them in a pamphle t entitled, “A Kind and
Friendly Letter to the P eople called Moravians at Melbo urne, in
Derbyshire.” And kind and fr iendly the pamphle t certainly was.
For
the
Brethre n,
as
he
knew
them
by
personal
co ntact,
George Baddeley professed the highest respect; and all that
he had to say against them was that th ey had helped to empty
the
Parish
Chur ch,
and
had
ignorantly
taught
the
people
doctr ines contrary to Holy Scr ipture. They made a sing -so ng,
he
complained,
of
the
doctrine
of
the
cleansing
blood
of
Christ; they had driven the doctrine of imputatio n too far, and
had spoken of Christ as a personal sinner; they had taught
that Chr istians w ere as holy as G od, and co -e qual with Christ,
that be lievers w ere not to pray, that there were no degrees in
faith, and that all w ho had no t full assurance of faith were
children of the devil. The pamphlet is instructive. It was not
an accurate account of the Brethren’s teaching; but it shows
what
impressio n
their
teaching
evange lical country curate .
made
on
the
mind
of
an
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Another
writer,
whose
name
is
unknow n,
de nounced
the
Brethren in his pamphlet “Some Observations.” He had read
Zinzendorf’s Acta Fratrum, was convince d that the Brethren
were Papists, and feared that now the Act was passed they
would spread their Popish doctrines in the colonies. For this
judgme nt the chief ev ide nce he summoned was a passage in
the
volume
expounding
the
Brethren’s
doctrine
of
the
Sacrament; and in his opinion their doctr ine was so close to
Transubstantiation that ordinary Protestants could not tell the
difference be tween the two .
At Spo ndo n, ne ar Derby, lived Gregory Oldknow ; and Gregory
publishe d
a
Pernicious
pamphlet
Doctrines
entitled,
of
the
“Serious
Moravians
Objectio ns
and
to
the
Metho dists.”
{1751.} As he did no t explain his point very clearly, it is hard
to see what obje ctio n he had to t he Brethren; but as he calle d
them cannibals and German pickpocke ts, he cannot have had
much respect for their perso nal character. At their love -feasts,
he said, their chief object was to squeeze money from the
poor. At some of their services they played t he bass viol, and
at others they did no t, w hich plainly showed that they were
unsteady in the ir minds. And, the refore, they were a danger to
Church and State.
At Dublin, John Roche, a Chur chman, published his treatise
{1751.}, the “Moravian Heresy.” His bo ok was publishe d by
private
subscr iptio n,
Archbishop
of
and
Armagh,
among
the
the
B isho ps
subscribers
of
Meath,
were
the
Raphoe,
Waterford, Clo gher, Kilmore, Kildare, Derry, and Down and
Connor,
and
several
deans,
ar chdeaco ns
and
other
Irish
clergymen. He denounced the Brethren as Antino mians. It is
worth while noting what he meant by this term. “The moral
acts of a believer,” said the Br ethren, “are no t acts of duty
that are necessary to give him a share in the mer its of C hrist,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
but acts of love which he i s excited to pay the Lamb for the
salvation already secured to him, if he w ill but unfeignedly
belie ve it to be so. Thus every good act of a Moravian is no t
from a sense of duty, but from a sense of gratitude.” Thus
Roche
denounced
as
Antinomian
the
very
d octr ine
now
commonly regar ded as evangelical. He said, fur ther, that the
Moravians suffer ed from hideous diseases inflicted on them by
the devil; but the chief interest of his book is the proof it
offers of the str ength of the Brethren at that time. He wro te
when
bo th
Cennick
and
Wesley
had
been
in
Dublin;
but
Cennick to him seemed the really dangerous man. At first he
intende d to expose both Moravians and Me tho dists. “But,” he
added, “the Moravians being the more dangerous, subtle and
powerful sect, and I fear will be the more obstinate, I shall
treat of them fir st.”
For the next attack the Brethren were themselves to blame. As
the
Brethren
had
sunk
some
thousands
of
pounds
at
Herrnhaag, the y should now have endeavo ured to husband
their resources; and yet, at a Syno d held in London, 1749,
they reso lved to erect cho ir -ho uses in England. At L indsey
House they sunk £12,000; at Fulneck, in Yorkshire they sunk
thousands more; at Bedford the y sunk tho usands more; and
meanwhile
the y
were
spending
thousands
more
in
the
purchase and le ase of building land, and in the support of
many
preachers
congregations.
And
in
here
the
they
r apidly
made
increasing
an
amazing
co untry
business
blunder . Instead of cutting the ir coat according to their cloth,
they relie d on a fictitio us capital supposed to exist on the
Continent. At one time Jo hn We sley paid a visit to Fulneck,
saw the buildings in co urse of e rection, asked how the cost
would be met, and receive d, he says, the asto unding answer
that the money “would come from beyond th e sea.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At this po int, to make matters worse, Mrs. Stonehouse, a
wealthy Moravian, die d; and one clause in her will was that,
when her husband fo llowed her to the grave, her property
should
the n
Diaco nies.
be
Again
devoted
the
to
the
English
support
Brethren
of
the
made
a
C hurch
business
blunder . Instead of waiting till Mr. Stoneho use died, and the
money was actually theirs, they relied upo n it as prospective
capital, and indulged in speculations beyond their means; and,
to cut a long sto ry shor t, the sad f act has to be r ecorded that,
by the close of 1752, the Moravian Church in England was
about £30,000 in debt. As soon as Zinzendorf heard the news,
he rushe d heroically to the rescue, gave secur ity for £10,000,
dismissed the managers of the Diaco nies, and f ormed a new
board of administration.
But the financial disease was too deep -seated to be so easily
cured.
The
managers
of
the
English
Diaconies
had
been
extremely foolish. T hey had inve sted £67,000 with one Gomez
Serra,
a
payment,
liabilities
Por tuguese
the
Jew .
£ 67,000
were
now
was
Gomez
lost,
nearly
Serra
and
sudde n ly
thus
£100,000
the
stopped
Brethren’s
{1752.}.
Again
Zinzendorf, in generous fashion, came to the r escue of his
Brethren. He acted in England exactly as he had acted at
Herrnhaag. He discover ed befor e long, to his dismay, that
many o f the English Brethren had invested money in the
Diaco nies, and that now they ran the serio us danger of being
impriso ned for debt. He called a meeting of the creditors,
pledged himself for the who le sum, and sugges ted a plan
whereby the debt co uld be paid o ff in four years. We must not,
of course, suppose that Zinzendorf himself proposed to pay
the whole £100,000 out of his own estate s. For the present he
made himself responsible, but he confidently relied on the
Brethren to repay their debt to him as soo n as po ssible . At all
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
events, the creditors accepted his offer; and all that the
Brethren needed now was time to weather the stor m.
At this point George Whitefield interfered, and nearly sent the
Moravian ship to the bo tto m {1753.}. He appealed to the
example of Moses and Paul. As Moses, he said, had rebuked
the Israe lites w hen they made the go lden calf, and as Paul
had resisted Pe ter and Barnabas when carried away with the
dissimulation of the Jews, so he, as a champ ion of the Church
of Christ, could hold his peace no lo nger. He attacked the
Count in a fiery pamphlet, entitled, “An Expostulatory Letter
to Count Zinzendorf.” T he pamphlet ran to a second editio n,
and was circulated in Germany. He began by condemning
Moravian custo ms as unscriptural. “Pr ay, my lor d,” he said,
“what instances have we of the first C hristians w alking round
the graves of their deceased fr ie nds o n Easter -Day, atte nded
with haut-boys, trumpe ts, French horns, vio lins and other
kinds o f musical i nstrume nts? Or where have we the least
mention made of pictures of par ticular persons being bro ught
into the first Chr istian assemblies, and of candles being placed
behind them, in order
to
give
a transparent
view
of the
figures? Where was it ever known th at the picture of the
apostle Paul, representing him handing a ge ntle man and lady
up to the side o f Jesus Chr ist, was ever introduced into the
primitive love -feasts? Again, my lord, I beg leave to inquire
whether we hear anything of eldresses or deaconesse s of the
aposto lical
covered
chur ches
with
surrounded
artificial
with
wax
seating
themselves
befo re
flowers,
against
a
tapers,
on
that
which
stood
a
little
a
table
altar
cross,
composed either of mock or real diamo nds, or other glittering
stones?” As the B rethren, therefore, practised custo ms which
had no sanction in the New T estament, George Whitefield
conclude d that they were encouraging Po pery. At this period
the Brethren w ere certainly fo nd of symbo ls; and on o ne
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
occasion, as the London Diary r ecords, P e ter Boehler entered
Fetter Lane Chapel, arrayed in a white robe to symbolize
purity, and a red sash tied at the waist to symbo lize the
cleansing blood of Christ. But the next po int in Whitefield’s
“letter” was cruel. At the very time whe n Zinzendorf was
giving his money to save his English Brethren fro m a debtor’s
priso n,
Whitefield
accused
him
and
his
Brethren
alike
of
robbery and fraud. He declared that Z inzendorf was £40,000
in debt; that there was little hope that he would ever pay;
that his allies w er e not much better; and that the Brethren
had dece ived the Parliamentary Committee by representing
themse lves
Whitefie ld,
as
men
whe n
of
the
means.
Moravian
At
the
leaders
ve ry
were
time,
said
boasting
in
Parliame nt of their great po ssessions, they were rea lly binding
down their English members fo r thousands mo re than they
could
pay.
The y
drew
bills
on
consent; they compelled simple
tradesme n
w ithout
their
folk to sell their estates,
seized the mone y, and then sent the penniless o wners abroad;
and they claime d authority to say to the rich, “Either give us
all
tho u
hast,
or
get
thee
gone.”
For
the se
false hoods
Whitefie ld claimed, no doubt quite honestly, to have good
evidence; and to prove his po int he quo ted the case of a
certain Thomas Rhodes. Poor Rhodes, s aid Whitefield, was one
of the Brethren’s victims. They had first persuade d him to se ll
a valuable estate; they had the n seized par t of his money to
pay their debts; and at last they drained his store s so dry that
he had to sell them his w atch, bureau, hor se and saddle, to fly
to France, and to leave his old mother to die of starvation in
England. For a while this r idiculous story was belie ved; and
the Brethren’s cr editors, in a state of panic, pressed har d for
their money. The little Church of the Brethren w as now on the
brink of ruin. At one moment Zinzendorf himse lf expected to
be thrown into prison, and was o nly saved in the nick of time
by
the
arrival
of
money
from
Germany.
But
the
English
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren now showed their manhood. The ver y men w hom
Zinzendorf was supposed to have robbe d now rose in his
defence. Instead of thanking Whitefie ld for defe nding them in
their suppose d distresses, they formed a committee, drew up
a statement,129 dedicate d that statement to the Archbisho p of
York, and declared that ther e was not a word of truth in
Whitefie ld’s
robbed
by
charges.
Zinz endorf
The y
had
not,
they
and
the
Moravian
declared,
leaders;
on
been
the
contrary, they had received substantial benefits from them.
Thomas R hodes himself prove d Whitefie ld in the wrong. He
wrote a letter to his own law yer; James Hutton published
extracts from the letter, and in that letter Rhodes declared
that he had sold his estate of his own free will, that the
Brethren had paid a good price , and that he and his mo ther
were living in perfe ct comfor t. Thus was Whitefield’s fiction
explo ded, and the Brethren’s credit restored.
But the next attack was still mo re deadly. At the time when
Whitefie ld wrote his pamphlet there had already appeared a
book entitled “A Candid Narrative of the Rise and Progress of
the Herrnhuters”; and W hitefield himself had read the book
and had allowed it to poiso n his mind {1753.}. T he author was
Henry Rimius.13 0 He had been Aulic Councillor to the King o f
Prussia, had me t Moravians in Germany, and now live d in
Oxenden Street, London. For tw o years this scr ibbler devote d
his energie s to an attempt to paint the Brethren in such
revolting co lours that the Government would expel them from
the country. His method was unscrupulo us and immoral. He
admitted, as he had to adm it, that such English B rethren as he
knew were exce llent people ; and yet he gave the impression in
his books that the whole Moravian Church was a sink of
iniquity. He dire cted his main attack against Zinzendorf and
the old fanatics at Herrnhaag; and thus h e made the English
Brethren suffer for the past sins of their German cousins. He
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
accused the Brethren of deceiving the House of Commons. He
would
now
show
them
up
in
their
tr ue
colours.
“No
Government,” he said, “that harbours them can be secure
whilst
the ir
hitherto .”
leaders
He
go
accused
on
at
the
rate
them
of
holding
they
have
immor al
done
principles
dangerous to Church and State. They held, he said, that C hrist
could make the most villainous act to be vir tue, and the most
exalted virtue to be vice. T he y spoke w ith co ntempt of the
Bible ,
and
co ndemned
Bible
r eading
as
dangerous.
They
denounced the orthodox theolo gy as fit only for dogs and
swine ,
and
described
the
prie sts
of
other
Churches
as
professors of the devil. They called themse lves the only tr ue
Church, the C hurch of the Lamb, the Church of Blood and
Wounds; and claimed that, o n the Judgment Day, they would
shine forth in all the ir splendour and be the angels co ming in
glory. At hear t, however, they w ere not Protestants at all, but
Atheists in dis guise ; and the real object of all their plo tting
was to set up a godless empire of their ow n. The y claimed to
be independent of governme nt. They employed a secret gang
of informers. T hey had their own magistrates, the ir own co urts
of justice, and the ir own
secret laws. At their head w as
Zinzendorf, their Lord Advocate, with the authority of a Pope.
As
no
one
co uld
join
the
Mo ravian
Church
without
first
promising to abandon the use of his reaso n, and submit in all
things to his leaders, those leaders could g uide them like little
children into the most horrid e nterpr izes. At Herrnhaag the
Brethren
had
established
an
independent
state,
and
had
robbed the Counts of Büdingen o f vast sums of money; and, if
they were allowed to do so, they would co mmit similar crim es
in England. They had a fund calle d the Lamb’s Chest, to which
all their membe rs were bound to contribute. T he power of
their Elders w as enormous. At any mo ment they could marry a
couple against their w ill, divorce the m whe n the y thought fit,
tear childr en fro m their parents, and dispatch them to distant
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
corners of the e arth. But the gr eat object of the Moravians,
said Rimius, was to secure liberty for themselves to practise
their se nsual abominations. He suppor ted his case by quo ting
freely, no t only fro m Z inzendorf’s sermo ns, but also from
certain
German
hymn -books
which
had
been
publishe d
at
Herrnhaag during the “Sifting Time”; and as he gave chapter
and verse for his statements, he succeeded in covering the
Brethren with ridicule . He accused the m of bl asphe my and
indecency. The y spoke o f Chr ist as a Tyburn bir d, as digging
for roots, as ve xed by an aunt, and as sitting in the beer house among the scum of socie ty. They sang hymns to the
devil.
They
re velle d
in
the
most
hideous
and
filthy
expressio ns, cha nted the praises of lust and se nsuality, and
practise d a number of sensual abominatio ns too loathsome to
be
described.
Zinzendorf,
At
said
one
service
Rimius,
commandment
was
recommende d
immorality
held
had
no t
Fetter
declared
binding
to
in
on
his
that
Lane,
the
C hristian s,
Count
se venth
and
congregatio n.131
had
It
is
impossible to give the modern reader a true idea of the
shocking
pictur e
of
the
Brethren
painted
by
Rimius.
For
malice, spite, indecency and unfairness, his works would be
hard to match even i n the vilest literature of the eighteenth
centur y.
As
his
books
came
out
in
rapid
succession,
the
picture he drew grew more and more disgusting. He wrote in a
racy, some times jocular style; and, knowing the dir ty taste of
the age , he pleased his public by retailing anecdo tes as coar se
as any in the “Decameron.” His chie f object was probably to
line his own pockets. His fir st book, “The Candid Narrative,”
sold well. B ut his attack was me an and unjust. It is true that
he
quo ted
quite
correctly
fro m
the
silly
literature
of
the
Sifting-T ime; but he carefully o mitted to state the fact that
that literature
had now
been
condemned by
the
Brethren
themse lves, and that only a few absur d stanzas had appeared
in English. At the same time, in the approved fashion of all
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
scandal-mongers, he constantly gave a false impression by
tearing passages from their original co nnectio n. As an attack
on the English Brethren, his wo rk was dishonest. He had no
solid evidence to bring against them. From fir st to last he
wrote
almost
enti rely
of
the
fanatics
at
Her rnhaag,
and
fathered their sins upon the inno cent Brethren in England.
Meanwhile,
how ever,
a
genuine
eye -witness
was
telling
a
terrible tale. He named his book {1753.}, “The True and
Authentic Acco unt of Andrew Frey.” For four ye ars, he said, he
lived among the Brethren in Germany, travelled about he lping
to form societie s, and settled down at Marie nbo rn, when the
fanaticism there was in full bloo m. He was know n among the
Brethren as Andrew the Great. As he wore a lo ng bear d, he
was considered r ather eccentric. At Mar ienborn he saw strange
sights and heard strange doctrine . At the ir feasts the Brethren
ate like gluttons and drank till they were tipsy. “All godliness,
all devotion, all piety,” said Rubusch, the general Elder of all
the Single Brethren on the Co ntinent, “are no more than so
many snares of the devil. Things must be brought to this pass
in the co mmunity, that no thing shall be spoke n of but wounds,
wounds, wounds. All other disco urse, however Scriptural and
pious, must be spued out and tr ampled under fo ot.” Another,
Vieroth, a preacher in high repute among the Brethren, said,
in a sermon at Marienborn castle church: “No thing gives the
devil greater jo y than to decoy into good works, de parting
from evil, shalling and willi ng, tr ying, w atching and examining
those souls who have experienced anything of the Savio ur’s
Grace in the ir hearts.” Ano ther , Calic, had de fended self indulgence. “Anyone,” he said, “having found lodging, bed and
board in the L amb’s wo unds cannot but be m e rry and live
according to nature; so that whe n such a one plays any pranks
that the godly ones cry out against them as sins, the Savio ur
is so far from being displease d therewith that he rejoices the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
more.” In vain Frey endeavoure d to correct the se cross -air
birds;
they
denounced
him
as
a
rogue.
He
appealed
to
Zinzendorf, and found to his dismay that the Count was as
depraved as the rest. “Do not suffer yourselves to be molested
in yo ur merrime nt,” said that tr umpe t of Satan; and others
declared that the B ible was dung, and only fit to be trampled
under foot. At last Andrew, disgusted beyond all measure,
could restrain his soul no longer; and telling the Brethren they
were the wickedest sect that had appeared since the days of
the Apostles, and profoundly t hankful that their gilded poiso n
had
not killed
his so ul, he
turned his back
on them
for
ever.132
The next smiter of the Brethre n was Lavingto n, Bishop of
Exeter. He called his book “The Moravians C ompared and
Detected.” He had already de no unced the Me thod ists in his
“Enthusiasm of Metho dists and Papists Co mpare d” {1754.};
and now he de scribe d the Brethren as immoral characters,
fitted to enter a herd of swine. In a pompo us introduction he
explaine d his purpose, and that purpose w as the suppression
of the “Brethren’s Church in England.” “With respect to the
settlement of the Moravians in these kingdoms,” he said, “it
seems
to
have
been
surreptitiously
obtained,
under
the
pretence of the ir being a peaceable and innocent sort of
people. And peaceable probably they will remain while they
are permitted, without co ntrol, to r uin familie s and r iot in
their debaucheries.” Of all the attacks upon the B rethren, this
book by Lavington was the most offensive and scurrilous; and
the
Brethren
themselves
could
hardly
belie ve
that
it
was
written by a B ishop. It was unfit for a decent pe rson to read.
The good Bishop knew nothing of his subject. As he could no t
read the German language , he had to rely for his information
on the English e ditio ns of the w orks of Rimius and Frey; and
all he did w as to collect in one volume the nastiest passages
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
in the ir indictme nts, co mpare the Brethren with certain queer
sects o f the Middle Ages, and thus hold the m up before the
public as filthy dreamers and de bauchees o f the vilest order.
And now , to give a finishing touch to the picture, John Wesley
arose once more {1755.}. He , to o, had sw allowed the po ison
of Rimius and Fr ey, and a good deal of other po ison as well.
At Bedford a scandal -monger informed him that the Brethren
were
the
another
worst
avowed
payma sters
that
the
in
the
tow n;
and
Brethren
whom
he
at
had
Ho lbeck
me t
in
Yorkshire were quite as bad as Rimius had stated. As Wesley
printed these statements in his jo urnal they were soon read in
every county in England. B ut Wesley himself did no t assert
that these state ments were true . He wished, he said, to be
quite fair to the Brethren; he wished to give them a chance of
clearing the mselves; and, therefore, he now published his
pamphlet entitled “Queries to Count Z inzendorf.” It contained
the who le case in a nutshell. For the sum of sixpence the
ordinar y reader had now the case against the Brethren in a
popular and handy for m.
Thus the Brethre n, attacked from so many sides, were bound
to bestir themse lves in self -defence. The burden of reply fell
on Zinzendorf. His life and conversation were described as
scandalous; his hymns were denounced as filthy abominations,
and his discourses as pleas for immorality; and the Brethren
for whose sake he had sacr ificed his fortune were held up
before the B ritish public as po litical co nspirators, athe ists,
robbers
of
the
poor,
kidnappers
of
children,
ruiners
of
families, and lascivious lo vers of pleasure. But the Count was
a busy man. James Hutton says that he worked o n the average
eighteen hours a day. He w as constantly preaching, writing,
relieving
the
distressed, paying
other
people’s
debts, and
providing the ne cessaries of life for a hundred ministers of the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Gospel. He had dealt with similar accusations in G ermany, had
publishe d
a
volume
containing
a
thou sand
answers
to
a
thousand questio ns, and was lo th to go over the whole ground
again. For some time he clung to the hope that the verdict of
Parliame nt and the common sense of Englishmen would be
sufficient protection against abuse; and he gallantly defend ed
the character of Rimius, and spo ke with generous enthusiasm
of Whitefield. T he best fr iends of the Brethren, such as Lord
Granville and the Bishops of Lo ndon and Worce ster, advised
them to treat Rimius w ith conte mptuous silence. But a reply
became a necessity. As long as the Brethren remaine d silent,
their ene mies asserted that this very silence was a confession
of guilt; and so me mischievo us scoundrel, in the name, but
without the co nsent, of the Brethren, inserted a notice in the
General Advertiser tha t they intended to reply to Rimius in
detail.
For
the se
reasons,
therefore,
Zinzendorf,
James
Hutton, Frederick Neisser, and others who prefer red to write
anonymously, no w issue d a serie s of defensive pamphle ts.133
The Count offered to lay before the publi c a full statement of
his financial affairs; and James Hutton, in a notice in several
newspapers, pro mise d to answer any reasonable questions. It
is needless to give the Brethren’s defence in detail. The plain
facts of the case were beyond all dispute. In two ways the
accusations of R imius and Frey were out of court. First they
accused the whole Church of the Brethren of sins which had
only been committed by a fe w fanatics at Marienbor n and
Herrnhaag;
and,
secondly,
that
fanaticism
had
practically
ceased be fore the Act o f Par liament was passe d. The Count
here stood upo n firm gro und. He pointed out that the accusers
of the Brethren had near ly alw ays taken care to go to the
Wetterau for the ir material; and he co ntended that it was a
shame to blame innocent Eng lishmen for the past sins, long
ago
abandoned,
confidently
to
of
the
a
few
public.
for eign
“We
are
fanatics.
so
well
He
appealed
known
to
our
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
neighbo urs,”
he
said,
“that
all
our
clearing
ourselves
of
accusations appears to them quite needless.” In reply to the
charge of using indecent language, he contended that his
purpose was go od, and justified by the results; and that, as
soon as he found himse lf misunderstood, he had cut out all
doubtful phrases from his disco ur ses.
James Hutton explaine d the ir use of childish language. At this
period the Brethren, in some of their hymns, used a number of
endearing epithe ts which would strike the mode rn reader as
absur d. For example, they spoke of the little Lamb, the little
Jesus, the little Cross -air Bird. B ut even he re the y were not so
childish as their critics imagined. The truth was, these phr ases
were
Bohemian
in
origin.
In
the
Bohemian
language
diminutives abound. In Bohemia a servant gir l is addresse d as
“demercko”–i.e., little, little maid; and the liter al trans latio n
of “mug mily Bo zicko” –a phrase often used in public worship –
is “ my dear, little, little God.”
But the Brethren had a be tter defence than writing pamphlets.
Instead of taking too much notice of their enemies, the y
began to set their English house in order. For the first time
they
now
published
an
autho rized
collection
of
English
Moravian hymns {1754.}; and in the preface they clearly
declared their purpose. The pur pose was twofo ld: first, the
proclamation of the Gospel; second, the cultivatio n of pers onal
holiness. If we judge this book by mo dern standards, we shall
certainly find it faulty; but, on the o ther hand, it must be
remembered that it rendered a very noble se rvice to the
Christianity of the eighteenth ce ntury. The chief burden of the
hymns
wa s
Ecce
Homo.
If
the
Brethren
had
never
done
anything else, they had at least placed the sufferings of Chr ist
in the forefront of the ir message . With rapturous enthusiasm
the Brethren depicte d every de tail of the Passion History; and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
thus they reminded thei r heare rs of events w hich ordinary
Christians had almost forgo tte n. At times the language they
used
was
grue some;
and,
lost
in
mystic
adoration,
the
Brethren, in imagination, tro d the Via Dolorosa. They nestled
in the nail -pr ints; they kissed the spear; th ey gazed with rapt
and ho ly awe on the golden head, the raven lo cks, the pallid
cheeks, the foaming lips, the melting eyes, the green wreath
of thorns, the torn sinews, the great blue wounds, and the
pierced palms, like rings of gold, beset with rubie s red . In one
stanza they abhorred themse lve s as worms; in the next they
rejoiced as alabaster doves; and, glorying in the constant
presence of the Well -Belove d, they feared no t the King of
Terrors, and calmly sang of death as “the last magnetic kiss,
to
consummate
extravagant
importance.
their
bliss.”
language,
At
that
this
time
But,
despite
hymn -book
the
number
its
was
of
crude
of
and
histor ic
hymn -books
in
England was small; the Anglicans had no hymn -book at all,
and never sang anything but Psalms; and thus t he Brethren
were among the first to make the adoration of C hrist in song
an essential part of public wo rship. It was here that the
Brethren excelled, and here that they he lped to free English
Christianity fro m the chilling influence o f De ism. T he who le
point w as quaintly expresse d by B isho p John Gambold: –
The
Doctrine
of
the
Unitas
By
Providence
was
meant,
In
Christendo m’s degenerate days, That cold lump to ferment,
From Scripture Pearls to w ipe the dust, Give blood -bo ught
grace its compass just, In praxis, truth from shew to part,
God’s Power fro m Ethic Art.
But the last line must no t be misunderstood. It did no t mean
that the Brethren despised ethics. Of all the charges brought
against them, the charge that they were Antino mians was the
most
malicio us
and
absurd.
At
the
very
time
when
their
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
enemies were accusing them of teaching that goo d works were
of no importance, they inserte d in their Litany for Sunday
morning
worship
a
number
of
petitio ns
which
were
alone
enough to give that charge the lie. T he petiti ons were as
follow s:–
O!
that
we
might
never
see
a
necessito us
person
go
unrelieved! O! that we might see none suffer for want of
clothing! O! that we might be eyes to the blind and feet to the
lame ! O! that we could refresh the heart of the Fatherless! O!
that we co uld mitigate the burden of the labo uring man, and
be ourselves not ministered unto but minister! Feed its w ith
that pr ince ly repast of so lacing o thers! O ! that the blessing of
him who was ready to perish might come upo n us! Yea! may
our hearts r ejo ice to see it go we ll with our enemies.
Again, therefore, as in the ir hymns, the Brethr en laid stress
on the humane e lement in C hristianity.134
But the ir next retort to their enemies was the grandest of all.
At a Syno d held in Lindse y Ho use, they resolv ed that a Book
of Statutes w as needed, and requested Z inzendorf to prepare
one {1754.}. The Count was in a quandary. He could see that
a Book of Statutes was required, but he could not decide w hat
form
it
should
take.
If
he
framed
the
laws
in
his
own
language, his cr itics would accuse him of departing from the
Scriptures; and if he used the language of Scripture, the same
critics
would
accuse
him
of
he dging
and
of
having
some
private interpretatio n of the Bible. At length he decided to use
the language of S cripture. He w as so afraid of causing o ffence
that, Greek scho lar tho ugh he was, he felt bound to adhere to
the
Authorise d
Version.
If
Zinzendorf
had
used
his
own
translatio n his e nemies wo uld have accused him of tampering
with the Wor d of God. The bo ok ap peared. It was e ntitled,
Statutes: or the General Principles of Practical Christianity,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
extracted out of the New Testament. It was de signed for the
use of all English Moravians, and was sanctione d and adopted
by
the
Synod
on
May
12th,
1755.
It
was
thorough
and
syste matic. For fathers and mo thers, for sons and daughters,
for masters and servants, for governors and governed, for
business
men,
for
bishops
and
pastors,
the
appro priate
commandments were selected fr om the New Testament. In a
printed notice on the title page, the Brethren explaine d their
own interpretation of those commandments. “Lest it should be
thought,”
they
said,
“that
they
seek,
pe rhaps,
so me
subterfuge in the pretended indeterminate nature of Scripture style, they know very we ll that it beco mes them to understand
every precept
and obligation
in
the
same
manner
as the
generality of serious Christians understand the same (and this
is a thing, God be praised, pretty we ll fixed), or, if at all
differently, the n always str icter.” The purpose of th e book was
clear. It was a handy guide to daily conduct. It w as meant to
be learned by he art, and was issued in such size and form that
it co uld be carr ied abo ut in the pocket. It was “a faithful
monitor to so uls who, having be en first washed through the
blood o f Jesus, do now live in the Spirit, to walk also in the
Spirit.”
To
the
Brethren
this
little
C hristian
guide
was
a
treasure. As lo ng as they ordered their daily conduct by these
“convenient rule s for the house of their pilgr image,” they
could smile a t the sneers of Rimius and his supporters. The
Moravian influence in England w as now at high tide. At the
very
time
immoral
when
their
Antino mians,
congregations
at
enemies
they
Fulneck,
were
denouncing
established
the ir
Gomersal,
Wyke,
them
as
strongest
M irfield,
Dukinfield, Bristol, and Gracehill {1755.}; and in all their
congregations the “Statutes” were enforced w ith an iron hand.
Thus did the Brethren repel the attacks of their assailants.
From this chapte r one certain conclusio n follows. The very fact
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that the Brethren were so fiercely attacked is a proof how
strong they wer e. As the reader wanders over England, he
may see, if he knows where to lo ok, memor ials of their bygo ne
labo urs. In Northampto n is an auction room that was o nce a
Moravian chapel. I n Bullock Smithy is a row of cottages named
“Chape l Ho uses,” where now the Brethren are fo rgotte n. In a
private house at Bolto n, L ancashire, w ill be fo und a cupboar d
that was once a Moravian Pulpit. In Wiltshire stands the “two
o’clock chapel,” where Cenni ck used to preach. We may learn
much from such memorials as these. We may learn that the
Brethren played a far greater part in the Evange lical Revival
than most historians have recognise d; that they worked more
like the unseen leaven than like the spreadin g mustard tree;
that they hankered not after earthly pomp, and despise d what
the
world
calls
success;
and
that,
reviled,
insulte d,
and
misrepresented, the y pursue d their quiet w ay, content with
the reward which man canno t give .
Chapter 14
“The Amer ican Exp erime nts, 173 4 -1762″
In order to have a clear view o f the events recorded in this
chapter, we must bear in mind that the Brethren worked
according
to
a
definite
Plan;
they
generally
formed
the ir
“Plan” by means of the Lot; and this “Plan,” speaking broadly ,
was of a threefold nature. The Brethren had three ideals:
First, they were not sectar ians. Instead of trying to extend the
Moravian Church at the expense of other denominations, they
consiste ntly endeavoured, where ver they went, to preach a
broad
and
co m prehensive
G ospel,
to
avo id
theo logical
disputes, to make peace betwe en the sects, and to unite
Christians o f all shades o f be lief in co mmo n devotion to a
common
Lord.
Secondly,
by e stablishing
settlements,
they
endeavoured to unite the secular and the sac r ed. At these
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
settlements
the y deliberately adopte d,
for
pur ely religious
purposes, a for m of voluntary r eligious socialism. They were
not, however, socialists or communists by convictio n; they
had
no
desire
established
to
the ir
alter
the
communistic
laws
of
proper ty;
organization,
no t
and
they
from
any
political mo tives, but because they felt that, fo r the time at
least, it would be the most economical, would fo ster Christian
fellowship,
would
sanctify
daily
labo ur,
and
w ould
enable
them, poor men though t hey wer e, to find w ays and means for
the spread of the Gospel. And thir dly, the Brethren would
preach that Gospel to all me n, civilized or savage, who had
not heard it be fore. With these three ideals before us, we
trace their footsteps in North Ame rica.
The first impulse sprang from the kindness of Zinzendorf’s
heart. At Görlitz, a town a few miles from Her rnhut, there
dwelt a small body of Schwenkfelders; and the King of Saxony
issued an edict banishing the m from his dominions {1733.}.
As soo n as Zinze ndor f heard of their troubles he lo nged to find
them a home . He opened negotiatio ns with the trustees of the
Colony
of
Georgia.
The
nego tiatio ns
were
successful.
The
Governor of Georgia, General Oglethorpe, was glad to welcome
good workmen; a parcel o f land wa s offered, and the poor
Schwenkfe lders,
accompanied
by
Böhnisch,
a
Moravian
Brother, set off for their American home. For some reason,
however, they changed their minds on the way, and, instead
of settling down in Georgia, went on to Pe nnsylvania. The land
in Georgia was now crying out for settlers. At Herrnhut trouble
was brewing. If the spirit of persecution continue d raging, the
Brethren themselves might soon be in need of a home. The
Count took time by the forelo ck. As soon as the storm burst
over Herrnhut, the Brethren might have to fly; and, therefore,
he
now
sent
Oglethorpe.
Spangenberg
Again
the
to
arrange
nego tiatio ns
ter ms
were
with
General
successful;
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
General offered the Brethren a hundred acre s; and a few
weeks later, led by Spange nber g, the first batch of Moravian
colonists arrive d in Georgia {17 34.}. The next batch was the
famous company on the Simmonds. The new settleme nt was
on the banks of the Savannah River. For some years, w ith
Spangenberg as general manager, the Brethren tr ied to fo und
a flo urishing far m co lony. The learned Spangenberg was a
practical
man.
In
spite
of
the
fact
that
he
had
been
a
University lectur er, he now put his hand to the plough like a
labo urer to the manner born. He was the business agent; he
was the cashier; he wa s the spir itual leader; he was the
architect; and he was the medical adviser. As the climate of
Georgia was utterly different fro m the climate of Saxony, he
perceived at once that the Brethren would have to be careful
in matters of die t, and rather astonis hed the Sisters by giving
them de tailed instructions about the cooking of rice and beef.
The difference between him and Zinzendorf was enormous. At
St.
Croix,
a
Missio naries
co uple
had
of
years
died
immor talized
their
Spangenberg
calmly
of
before,
fever;
exploits
in
considered
a
band
and
a
how
of
while
hymn,
such
Moravian
Zinzendorf
the
practical
her oic
trage dies
could be prevented in the future. In political matters he was
equally far -seeing. As the Brethren were now in an English
colony, it was, he said, their plain duty to be naturalized as
Englishmen as soon as possible; and, therefore, in a letter to
Zinzendorf,
he
himself,
secure
to
implored
for
him
the
to
become
Br ethren
the
a
Br itish
rights
of
subject
English
citizens, and, above all, if possible to obtain letters patent
relieving the Brethren from the obligatio n to render militar y
service. But o n Zinzendorf all this w isdo m was thrown away.
Already the r uin of the co lony w as in sight. At the very time
when the Brethr en’s labours sho uld have been crown ed with
success, Captain Jenkins, at the bar of the Ho use of Commons,
was
telling
how
his
ear
had
been
cut
off
by
Spaniards
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
{1738.}. The gr eat war between England and Spain broke o ut.
The chief aim of Spain was to destroy our colo nial supremacy
in America. Spanish so ldiers thre atened Georgia. The Brethren
were summoned to take to arms and he lp to defend the colony
against the foe. But the Brethren objected to taking arms a t
all. The far m colony was abando ned; and the scene shifts to
Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile,
the
Pennsylvania,
good
Spangenberg
looking
Schwenkfe lders.
He
after
attende d
had
the
their
be en
interests
meetings,
busy
in
of
the
wore
their
clothing–a green coat, w ithout buttons or pocke ts –studie d the
works of Schwenkfeld, and organized them into w hat he called
an “Econo my.” In other words, he taught them to help each
other by joining in common work on a communist basis. At the
same time , he tried to teach them to be a little more broad minded, and no t to quarrel so much with other Christians. But
the more he talked of brother ly love the more bigo ted the
poor Schwenkfelders became . At this time the colony had
become a nest o f fanatics. For some years, in response to the
generous
offers
of
Thomas
Pe nn,
all
sorts
of
persecuted
refugees had fled to Pennsylv ania; and now the land was
infested
Baptists,
by
a
motley
Separ atists,
gro up
of
Sabbatar ians,
Episco palians,
Unitarians,
Quakers,
Lutherans,
Calvinists, Memnonites, Presbyterians, Indepe nde nts, Inspired
Prophets, Hermits, New born Ones, Dunckers, and Pro tes tant
Monks and Nuns. Thus the land w as fille d with “religio ns” and
almost e mpty o f religio n. Instead of attending to the spiritual
needs of the peo ple, each Church or sect was trying to prove
itse lf in the right and all the others in the wrong; and the onl y
principle
on
w hich
they
agr eed
was
the
principle
of
disagreeing with each other. The result was heathendom and
babe l. Most of the people attended neither church nor chape l;
most of the par ents were unbaptized, and bro ught up their
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
children in ignor ance; and, accor ding to a popular proverb of
the day, to say that a man professed the Pennsylvania religion
was a polite way of calling him an infide l.
As soon, therefo re, as Zinzendor f heard from Spangenberg of
these disgraceful quarrels a glo rious visio n rose before his
mind; and the conviction flashed upon him that Pennsylvania
was the spot w here the Brethren’s broad evange l was needed
most. There, in the midst of the quarrelling sects he would
plant
the
lily
of
peace ;
there,
where
the
cause
of
unity
seemed ho peless, he wo uld realiz e the prayer of Christ, “that
they all may be one.” For two reason, America se emed to him
the true home of the ideal Church of the Brethre n. First, there
was no State Church; and, therefore, whatever line he took,
he could no t be acc used of causing a schism. Se condly, there
was religious liberty; and, there fore, he co uld work out his
ideas
without
fear
of being
checked
by edicts.
For
these
reasons he first sent out ano ther batch of colo nists, le d by
Bishop Nitschmann; and then, in due time, he arrived o n the
scene himse lf. The first mo ve had the promise of good. At the
spot the Lehigh and the Monocany meet the Brethren had
purchased a plo t of ground {1741}; they all lived toge ther in
one
log-house ;
Herrnhut;
and
they
there,
Zinzendorf
conducte d
shone
keen,
around
the
them
cold
ranged
propose d
one
a
to
build
immortal
consecratio n
stars,
the
God’s
babel
of
a
settlement
l ike
Chr istmas
Eve,
Count
service .
Above
them
messengers
strife;
and
of
peace;
the
Count,
remembering ho w the Prince of P eace had been born in a
humble
wayside
lodging,
named
the
futur e
settleme nt
Bethlehem. The name had a two fold meaning. It was a toke n
of the Brethren’s missio n of peace; and it re minded them that
the future settle ment was to be a “House of Bread” for their
evange lists.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The Count was now in his ele ment. For two ye ars he did his
best to teach the quarrelling sects in Pennsylvania to help and
esteem each o ther; and the bond of union he set before them
was a commo n experience of the redeeming gr ace of Christ.
He had come to America, no t as a Moravian Bishop, but as a
Lutheran clergyman; and he w as so afraid o f be ing suspected
of sectarian mo tives that, before he set out from London, he
had
purpose ly
laid
his
episco pal
office
aside.
For
some
months, therefore, he now acted as L utheran cle rgyman to a
Lutheran
issued
co ngre gation
a
circular ,
in
Philadelphia;
inviting
German
and
meanwhile
Christians
he
of
all
denominatio ns to meet in Conference. His purpose, to use his
own phrase , was to establish a grand “Congregati on of God in
the Spirit.” At first the outlook was ho peful. From all sects
deputies came, and a series of “Pennsylvanian Synods” was
held.
Again,
ho wever,
the
Count
w as
misle d
by
his
own
ignorance of history. At this time he held the erroneous view
that the Union o f Sendo mir in Poland (1570) was a beautiful
union
of
churches
Brethren; he
brought
imagined also
about
by
that the
the
efforts
of
the
Bohemian Confession
(1575) had been drawn up by the Brethren; and, therefore, he
very
naturally
concluded
that
wh at
the
Brethren
had
accomplished in Poland and Bo hemia they could accomplish
again in Pennsylvania. But the stern facts of the case were all
against him. At the very time w hen he was endeavouring to
establish
a
“Congregatio n
of
God
in
the
Spir it”
in
Pennsylvania, he heard that his own Brethren in Germany
were departing from his ideals; and, therefore, he had to
return
to
Germany,
and
hand
on
his
Amer ican
work
to
Spangenberg {1 743.}.
For that task the broad -minded Spangenberg w as admirably
fitted, and now he held a numbe r of titles suppo sed to define
his mission. First, he was officially appo inted “G eneral Elder”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
in America; second, he was co nsecrate d a Bishop, and was
thus head of the American Moravian C hurch; and third, he was
“Vicarius generalis episcoporu m”; i.e ., General Vicar of the
Bishops. For the next four years the Pennsylvania Synods,
with the broad -minded Spange nbe rg as President, continued to
meet with more or less regularity. In 1744 the y met twice ; in
1745 three time s; in 1746 four times; in 174 7 three times;
and
in
1748
character.
At
different
twice.
first
bodies;
But
gradually
representatives
then
o nly
the
Syno ds
attended
altered
fr om
Lutherans,
a
in
dozen
C alvinists
and
Moravians; then only Moravians; and at length, w hen Jo hn de
Watte ville arr ive d upo n the scene , he found that for all intents
and purposes the Pennsylvanian Syno d had beco me a Synod of
the Moravian C hurch. He recognized the facts of the case,
abolished
the
“Congregatio n
of
the
Spirit,”
and
laid
the
constitutio nal fo undations of t he Brethren’s C hurch in North
America (1748). Thus Zinzendorf’s scheme of unio n collapsed,
and the first American e xperiment was a failure.
Meanwhile,
Bishop
Spangenberg
had
been
busy
with
the
second. If this man was inferio r to Zinzendorf in genius he
was
far
above
him
as
a
practical
politician.
He
now
accomplished his “Masterpiece .”135 The task before him was
twofold. He had to find bo th men and money; and fro m the
first he bravely resolved to do w ithout one penny of assistance
from Germany. He calle d his plan the “Econo my,” and an
economical
plan
it
certainly
w as.
His
great
principle
w as
subdivision of labour. As the work in Amer ica was mostly
among poor peo ple –some immigrants, o thers Red Indians – he
perceived
that
special
measure s
must
be
taken
to
cover
expenses; and, therefore, he divide d his army into two main
bodies. The one was the commissariat de partment; the o ther
was the fighting line. The one was engaged in manual labour;
the other was preaching the go spel. The one was stationed
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
chiefly at Bethlehe m; the other was scattered in different
parts
of
North
America.
Abo ut
ten
miles
north -west
of
Bethlehem the Brethren purchase d a tract of land from George
Whitefie ld, gave it the name of Nazareth, and proposed to
build another settlement there. At first th e two settlements
were practically worked as o ne. For eighteen years they bore
between
them
Brethren’s
almost
work
settlement
of
in
the
North
who le
financial
America.
Bethlehem -Nazareth,
bur den
There,
the
at
of
the
the
jo int
“Economy”
was
established. The r e lay the gene ral “camp”; the re stood the
home of “the Pilgrim Band”; ther e was built the “Schoo l of the
Prophets”; there, to use Spange nberg’s vivid phrase, was the
“Saviour’s Ar moury.” The great pur pose which the Brethren
set before them was to preach th e Gospel in America witho ut
making the
American people
preachers
supported
congregations,
by
they
would
pay. Instead of having their
contr ibutions
support
from
these
their
preachers
themse lves. For this task the only capital that Spangenberg
possessed was two uncultivated tracts of land, three roomy
dwelling -houses, two or three outho uses and barns, his ow n
fertile genius, and a body of Brethren and Siste rs willing to
work. His metho d of work was r emarkable. In or der, fir st, to
cut dow n the expenses o f livi ng, he asked his w orkers the n
and
there
to
surrender
the
comforts
of
family
life.
At
Bethlehem stood two large houses. In one live d all the Single
Brethren; in the other the families, all the husbands in one
part,
all
the
wives
in
ano ther,
all
the
children
(under
guardians) in the third. At N azareth there was only one ho use;
and there lived all the Single Sisters. As the Sisters set o ff
through the for est to their ho me in Nazare th, they carried
their spinning -w heels on their shoulders; and two hours after
their arrival in the house they w ere driving their wheels w ith
zeal. At Bethle hem the energy of all was amazing. Bishop
Spangenberg was commonly kno wn as Brother Joseph; and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brother
Joseph,
in
a
letter
to
Zinzendorf,
e xplained
the
purpose of his scheme. “As Paul,” he said, “wor ked with his
own hands, so as to be able to preach the Gospel without pay,
so we, according to our ability, will do the same; and thus
even a child o f four will be able , by plucking w ool, to serve
the Gospe l.”
For patie nt devotion and hero ic self -sacrifice these humble
toilers at the Bethlehem -Nazareth “Eco nomy” are unsurpassed
in the history of the Brethren’s Church. They built the ir own
houses; they made the ir own clothes and boots; they tilled the
soil and provided the ir own meat, ve getables, bre ad, milk, and
eggs; they sawe d their ow n woo d, spun the ir o wn yar n, and
wove their own cloth; and the n, selling at the regular marke t
price what was not require d for their personal use, they spent
the
profits
in
the
support
of
preachers,
teach ers,
and
missio naries in various parts of North America. For a motto
they
too k
the
words:
“In
commune
oramus,
in
commune
laboramus, in commune patimur, in co mmune gaudeamus”;
i.e., together we pray, together we labo ur, toge ther we suffer,
together we rejoi ce. The mo tive, however, was not social, but
religious. “It is nothing,” said Spangenberg himself, “but love
to the Lamb and His C hurch.” For this cause the ploughman
tille d
the
soil,
the
women
se wed,
the
jo iner
sawed,
the
blacksmith plied his hammer; for this cause the fo nd mothers,
with tear s in their eyes, handed o ver the ir childre n to the care
of guar dians, so that they themselves might be fre e to toil for
the Master. Thus every trade was sanctified; and thus did all,
both o ld and yo ung, spend all their powers for the Gospel’ s
sake. If there is any distinction between secular and sacred,
that distinction was unknown at Bethle hem and Nazareth. At
Bethlehem the Brethren accounte d it an honour to chop wood
for the Master’s sake; and the fir eman, said Spange nberg, fe lt
his po st as impo rtant “as if he were guarding the Ark of the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Covenant.” For the members of e ach trade or calling a special
series of services was arranged; and thus e very toiler was
constantly reminded that he was working no t for himse lf but
for God. The number of lovefe asts was enormous. At the
opening of the harvest season the farm labour ers held an
early morning lo vefeast; the discourse was partly on spiritual
topics and partly on rules of diet; then the sickles were
handed out; and the who le band, with hymns of praise on
their lips, set off for the harvest field. For days at a time the
Single Brethren would be in the forest felling trees; but before
they se t off they had a lo vefeast, and when they r eturned they
had another. As soon as the joi ne rs had the oil -mill ready they
celebrated
lovefeast
the
event
once
a
in
week.
a
lovefeast.
The
The
joiners,
spinners
the
had
weavers,
a
the
cartwrights, the smiths, the hewers of wood, the milkers of
cows, the knitte rs, the sewers, the cooks, the w asherw omen–
all
had
their
special
lovefeasts.
At
o ne
time
the
joyful
discovery w as made that a Brother had served a year in the
kitchen, and was ready to serve another; and thereupon the
whole settle ment held a general lovefeast in his honour . For
the mothers a s pecial meeting was held, at w hich an expert
gave instructio ns on the art of bringing up children; and at
this
meeting,
while
the
lecturer
disco ursed
or
occasio nal
hymns were sung, the women were busy with the ir hands. One
made shoes, ano ther tailored, anot her ground po wder for the
chemist’s shop, another copied invoices and le tters, another
sliced turnips, another knitted socks. For each calling special
hymns were composed and sung. If these hymns had been
publishe d in a volume we should have had a Working -man’ s
Hymnbook.
Thus
every
man
and
wo man
at
Bethle hem -
Nazareth had enlisted in the missionar y army. N ever, surely,
in the history of Protestant C hristianity were the secular and
the
sacred
mor e
happily
wedded.
“In
our
Economy,”
said
Spangenberg, “the spiri tual and physical are as closely united
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
as a man’s body and soul; and e ach has a marke d effect upo n
the other.” If a man lost his touch with Christ it was notice d
that he was careless in his work; but as long as his heart was
right w ith God his eye was cle ar and his hand ste ady and fir m.
At
the
head
of
the
w hole
concern
stood
Spangenberg,
a
business man to the finger tips. If genius is a capacity for
taking pains, then Spangenberg was a genius of the finest
order. He drew up regulations de aling w ith every d etail of the
business, and at his office he kept a str ict acco unt of every
penny expe nded, every yard o f linen wove n, e very pound of
butter
made,
and
every
egg
consumed.
As
lo ng
as
Spangenberg was on the spot the business arrangements were
perfect; he was assisted by a Board of Directors, know n as the
Aufseher Colle gium; and so gre at was the enterprise show n
that before the close of his first period of administr ation the
Brethren had several farms and thir ty -two industries in full
working order. It was this w hich impresse d o ur House of
Commons, and enabled them, in the Act of 1749, to recognize
the Brethren “as a sober and industr ious people.” For that Act
the cre dit must be given, no t to the air y dreams of Zinzendorf,
but to the so lid labours of Spangenberg . At the time when the
Bill was under discussio n the chief stress w as laid, in bo th
Houses,
deeply
on
w as
Brethren
length,
a
the
Ear l
results
of
Granville
hundred
accompanied
Spangenberg’s
impressed
thousand
by
five
acres
o ther
that
in
labo urs;
he
North
Brethren,
and
offered
Carolina.
so
the
At
Spangenberg
himself set off to view the land, se lected a site, organized
another
“Econo my,”
establishe d
two
congregatio ns,
named
Bethabar a and Bethany, and thus became the fo under of the
Southern Province of the Bret hren’s Church in Ame rica.
But his greatest success was in the Northern Province . For
many year s the Brethren at Bethlehem -Nazareth maintained
nearly all the preachers in Nor th America. In Pennsylvania
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
they had preachers at Germantown, Philadelphia, Lancast er ,
York, Donegal, Heidelberg, Lebanon, Lititz, O ley, Allemaengel,
Emmaus,
Salisbury,
Falkner’s
Swamp,
the
Trappe,
Mahanatawny, N eshaminy, and Dansbury. In Maryland they
had a statio n at Graceham. In Jersey they had stations at
Maur ice River, Racoon, Pe nn’ s N eck, Oldman’s Creek, Pawlin’ s
Hill, Walpack, and Brunsw ick; in Rhode Island, at Newport; in
Maine, at Broadbay; in New York, at Canajoharie; and o ther
statio ns at State n Island and Long Island. They o pened fifteen
schools for poor children; they paid th e travelling expenses of
missio naries to Surinam and the West Indies; they maintaine d
a
number
of
Spangenberg,
Moravian
missio naries
by
Chur ch
misunderstand
hi s
to
means
of
in
North
motives.
the
his
Red
Indians.
“Econo my,”
Amer ica.
He
never
We
made
T hus
did
e stablish
the
must
his
not
system
compulsory, and he never intended it to last. If any Brother
objected to working for the “Economy,” and preferred to trade
on his own acco unt, he was free to do so; and as soon as the
“Economy”
had
served
its
purpose
it
was
abolished
by
Spangenberg himself (1762). It is easy to object that his
syste m interfered with family life. It is easy to say that this
Moravian Bishop had no right to split families into sectio ns, to
herd the husbands in one abode and the wives in ano t her, to
tear children fro m their mo thers’ arms and place them under
guardians.
But
Brother
Jo seph
had
his
answer
to
this
objection. At B ethle hem, he declared, the members of the
“Economy” were as happy as birds in the sunshine ; and,
rejoicing in the ir volu ntar y sacr ifice, they vowe d that they
would rather die than resign this chance of service. The who le
arrangement was voluntary. Not a man or woman was pressed
into the service. If a man jo ins the volunteers he is generally
prepared, for the time be ing, to forego the comforts of family
life,
and
these
gallant
volunteers for God.
toiler s
of
the
“Eco nomy”
were
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Another feature of Spangenberg’s work w as his loyalty as a
British citizen. As long as he was resident in a B ritish Colo ny
he considered it his duty, Ge rman tho ugh he was, to stand by
the British flag; and while that famous war was raging which
ended in the brilliant capture of Quebec, and the conquest o f
Canada, Brother Joseph and the Moravian Brethre n uphe ld the
British cause fro m first to last. The Red Indians were nearly
all on the side of France. As the Brethren, therefore, preached
to the Indians, they were at first suspecte d of tr eachery, and
were even accused of inciting the Indians to rebellion; but
Spangenberg proved their loyalty to the hilt. At Gnadenhütten,
on the Maho ny River, the Brethren had established a Mission
Station {1755.}; and there, one night, as they sat at supper ,
they heard the farm do gs set up a warning barking.
“It
occurs
to
me,”
said
B rother
Senseman,
“that
the
Congregatio n Ho u se is still o pen; I will go and lock it; there
may be straggler s from the militia in the neighbo urhood.” And
out he went.
At that mome nt, while Senseman was about his duty, the
sound of footste ps was hear d; the Brethren opened the door;
and there stoo d a b and of painted Indians, with rifles in their
hands. The w ar -whoop was raise d. T he first vo lley was fire d.
John
N itschmann
continued,
the
fell
dead
Brethren
and
on
the
Sisters
spo t.
As
the
endeavoured
to
fir ing
take
refuge in the attic; but before they co ul d all clamber up the
stairs five other s had falle n dead. The Indians set fire to the
building. The fate of the missionaries was se aled. As the
flames arose, one Brother managed to escape by a back door,
another
let
himself
down
from
the
window,
another
was
captured, scalpe d alive , and left to die ; and the rest, huddled
in the blazing garret, were roaste d to death.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“Dear Saviour, it is well,” said Mrs. Se nseman, as the cruel
flames lapped ro und her; “it is w ell! It is w hat I e xpecte d.”
No
longer
could
the
Br ethren’s
loyalty
be
doubte d;
and
Spangenberg acted, on behalf of the British, with the skill o f a
military expert. As he went about in his regime ntals his critics
remarked that he looked far mor e like an ar my o fficer than an
apostle of the Lo rd. For him th e problem to solve was, how to
keep the Indians at bay; and he actually advised the British
authorities
to
construct
a
line
of
forts,
po inted
out
the
strategic impor tance of G nade nhütten, and offe red the land
for military purposes. At Bethlehem and the oth e r Brethren’s
settlements
he
constr ucted;
had
at
sentinels
all
specially
appo inted
vulnerable
and
barricades
po ints
he
had
blockhouses erected; and the result was that the Brethren’s
settlements were among the safest places in the country. At
Bethlehem the Brethren sheltered six hundred fugitives. The
plans of Spange nberg were successful. No t a single settlement
was
attacked.
unsettlement,
usual;
the
In
the
spite
of
business
Brethren
the
of
labo uring
the
in
war
and
the
“Eco nomy”
the
general
went
harve st
field
on
as
were
protecte d by loyal Indians; and amid the panic the Brethren
founded ano ther settlement at L ititz. Thus did Spangenberg, in
a difficult situation, act with co nsummate wisdo m; and thus
did he set an example of lo yalty for Moravian missionaries to
follow in days to come.
And yet, despite his w isdom and zeal, the Moravian Church at
this
period
did
not
spread
rapidly
in
America.
For
this,
Zinzendorf w as largely to blame. If the Count had been a good
business man, and if he had re alized the impor tan ce of the
American work, he would have left the manage ment o f that
work entirely in Spange nberg’s hands. But his treatme nt o f
Spangenberg
was
peculiar .
At
first
he
almost
ignored
his
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
existence, and broke his hear t by not answering his letters
(1744-48); an d then, when he found himself in trouble, and
affairs at Herrnhaag were coming to a crisis, he sent John de
Watte ville in ho t haste to Bethle hem, summone d Spangenberg
home, and kept him busy writing po nderous apologies. As
soon as Spange nberg had co mpleted his task, and done his
best to clear Zinzendorf’s character, he se t off for Bethlehem
again, and established the Brethr en’s cause in No rth Carolina;
but before he had been two ye ars at work the Count w as in
financial
difficulties,
and
summoned
him
home
on ce
more
(1753). His last stay in America was his longest (1754 -1762).
He was still ther e when Zinzendorf died. As soon as Zinzendorf
was laid in his grave the Brethre n in Germany for med a Board
of Manage ment; but, before long, the y discovered that they
could not do w ithout Spangenberg. He left America for e ver.
And thus Brothe r Joseph w as lost to America because he was
indispensable in Germany.
The second cause of failure was the system o f management.
For the most part the men who took Spangenberg’s place i n
America–such as John de Watteville and John Nitschmann –
were obsessed with Zinzendorf’s ideas abo ut settlements; and,
instead
of
tur ning
the
numerous
preaching
places
into
independe nt congregations they centralized the work round
the four chief settlement s of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Lititz and
Sale m. We have seen how the settlement syste m worked in
England. It had precise ly the same result in America.
The thir d cause of failure was financial complicatio ns. As long
as
Spange nberg
was
on
the
spot
he
kept
the
Am erican
finances independent; but whe n he left for the last time the
American Province was place d under the direct control of the
General
Directing
Board
in
Germany,
the
American
and
German finances were mixed, the accounts became hopelessly
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
confused,
and
A merican
affair s
were
mismanaged.
It
is
obvio us, o n the face of it, that a Directing Board with its seat
in Germany was incapable of managing efficiently a difficult
work four thousand miles away; and yet that w as the system
pursued for nearly a hundred yea r s (1762 -1857).
We come now to the brightest part of our Amer ican story – the
work among the Red Indians. At this per iod almost the whole
of North America was the home of numerous Indian tr ibes.
Along the upper valley of the Tennessee River, and among the
grand hills o f G eorgia, Alabama, and Western Alabama were
the Cherokees. In Mississippi were the Natchez; near the town
of Augusta the Uchies; be tween the Tennessee and the Ohio ,
the Mobilians; in Central Caro lina, the Cataw bas; to the west
of the Mississipp i the Dahcotas; in New England, New Jersey,
Maryland, Vir ginia, and the region stretching to the great
lakes, the Delaw ares; and finally, in New York, Pennsylvania,
and the region enclosed by Lakes Huron, Er ie, and Ontario ,
the Iroquois. Thus, the Brethren in America wer e surrounde d
by Indian tribes; and to tho se Indian tr ibes they under took to
preach the Gospel.
The first step was taken by Chr istian He nry Rauch. As soo n as
he arrived in Pe nnsylvania he offered himself fo r the Indian
Missio n, went to the In dian town of Sheko meko {1740.}, and
began to preach the Gospel in a manner which became famo us
in Moravian history. Fir st, at a Conference in Bethle hem, the
story was told by Tschoo p, o ne of his earliest converts; and
then it was officially quoted by Spang e nberg, as a typical
example of the Brethren’s me thod of preaching. “Brethren,”
said Tschoop, “I have been a he athen, and grow n old among
the heathen; the refore I know how the heathe n think. Once a
preacher came and began to explain that there was a God. W e
answered, ‘Dost thou think us so ignorant as not to know
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that? Go to the place w hence thou camest!’ Then, again,
another preache r came, and began to teach us, and to say,
‘You must no t steal, nor lie, nor get drunk, and so forth.’ We
answered, ‘Tho u fool , dost tho u think that we do not know
that? Learn first thyself, and then teach the pe ople to w hom
thou belo ngest to leave off these things. For who steal, or lie,
or who are more drunken than thine own people?’ And the n we
dismissed him.”
But Rauch came w ith a very diffe rent message .
He told us of a Mighty One , the Lord of earth and sky, Who
left His glory in the Heavens, for men to bleed and die; Who
loved poor Indian sinners still, and lo nge d to gain the ir love ,
And be the ir Saviour here and in His Fathe r’s house above.
And when his tale was ended –”My friends,” he gently said, “I
am weary w ith my journey, and would fain lay down my head;
So beside our spears and arrows he laid him down to rest, And
slept as sweetly as the babe upon its mother’s bre ast.
Then we looked upon each other, and I w hispered, “This is
new; Yes, we have heard glad tidings, and that sleeper knows
them tr ue; He knows he has a Fr iend abo ve, or would he
slumber here, With men of war around him, and the war whoop in his ear.?”
So we told him on the morrow that he need no t journey on,
But stay and te ll us further of that loving, dying One; And
thus we hear d of Jesus first, and fe lt the wo ndrous power,
Which makes His people willing, in His ow n accepted hour .
“Thus,”
adde d
Tschoop,
“through
the
grace
of
God
an
awakening took place amo ng us. I say, therefor e, Brethren,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
preach Chr ist our Savio ur, and His sufferings and death, if you
will have your w ords to gain entr ance among the heathe n.”
As
soon,
therefore,
as
Rauch
had
struck
this
no te,
the
Brethren bo ldly under took the task of preaching to all the Red
Indians in North America. The Count himself set off to spy the
land, and unde rtook three dangerous missionary jour neys.
First, accompanied by his daughter Benigna, and an escort of
fourteen,
he
visited
the
Long
Valley
be yond
the
Blue
Mountains, me t a delegation of the League of the Iroquo is,
and rece ived fro m them, in sole mn style, a fathom made of
one hundred and sixty -e ight str ings of wampum {1742.}. The
fathom w as a sign of goodw ill. If a mi ssionar y co uld only show
the fatho m he was sure of a kindly welcome . In his second
journey Zinzendorf went to She komeko, or ganised the first
Indian
Mission
Church,
and
baptized
three
converts
as
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In his thir d journey he visited the
Wyoming Valley, and interviewed the chiefs of the Shawanese
and Mo hicans. He was here in deadly peril. As he sat one
afternoon in his tent two hissing adders dar te d across his
body; and a few days later some suspicio us Indians plo tted to
take his life . Bu t a government agent arr ived o n the scene ,
and Z inzendorf’s scalp was saved.
And now the Brethren began the campaign in earnest. At
Bethlehem
Missio n
Spangenberg
College.
The
had
great
a
Mission
hero
of
the
Conference
work
was
and
a
David
Zeisberger. He wa s, like most of these early missio naries, a
German. He was born at Zauchtenthal, in Moravia; had come
with his parents to Herrnhut; had fo llowe d them later to
Georgia; and was now a student at Spangenberg’s College at
Bethlehem. For sixty -three years he li ved among the Indians,
and his life was one continual series of thr illing adventures
and escapes. He became almost an Indian. He w as admitted a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
member of the Six Natio ns, received an Indian name, and
became a member of an Indian family. He was an Iroquo is to
the Iro quois, a Delaware to the Delawares. He understoo d the
hidden science of belts and strings of wampum; he could
unriddle the ir mysterious messages and make speeches in
their
bombastic
thought
in
style;
their
and
he
thought s,
spoke
and
in
lived
their
their
speech
life
in
and
the ir
wigwams. He loved the ir majestic prair ies, stretching be yond
the Blue Mo untains. He love d their mighty r ive rs and their
deep clear lakes. Above all, he loved the red -br own Indians
themse lves. Full well he knew w hat trials a waite d him. If the
reader
has
Fenimore
for med
Cooper’s
his
conception
novels,
he
of
will
the
Indians
probably
think
from
that
Zeisberger spent his life among a race of gallant heroes. T he
reality was rather different. For the most par t the Indians o f
North
America
were
the
reverse
of
heroic.
They
were
bloodthirsty, drunken, lewd and treacherous. The y spent their
time in hunting buffaloes, smoking pipes, lolling in the sun,
and scalping each other’s heads. They wasted their nights in
tipsy
revels
and
dances
by
the
light
of
the
moon.
They
cowered in terror of evil spirits and vicious and angry go ds.
But Zeisber ger never feared and never despaired. As long as
he had such a grand Gospel to preach, he felt sure that he
could make these savages sober, pure , w ise, kind and brave ,
and that God w ould ever shield him with His wing. He has
been called “The Apostle to the Indians.” As the missionar ies
of the early Christian Church came to our rude fathers in
England,
desired
and
to
made
be
an
us
a
Chr istian
Augustine
to
the
people ,
Indians,
so
Zeisberger
and
found
a
Christian Indian kingdo m stretching fro m Lake Michigan to the
Ohio.
He began his wo rk with the League of the Iro quois, co mmonly
called
the
Six
Nations
{17 45.}.
At
Ono ndaga,
their
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
headquarters, w here he and B is hop Cammerho f had arranged
to meet the Great Council, the meeting had to be postpone d
till the members had recovered from a state of intoxication.
But Cammerhof addresse d the chiefs, brought o ut the soothing
pipe of tobacco , watched it pass from mo uth to m outh, and
received permission for two missionar ies to co me and settle
down.
From
there,
still
accompanie d
by
Cammerhof,
Zeisberger went on to the Senecas. He was welcomed to a
Pandemonium of revelry. The whole village was drunk. As he
lay in his tent he co uld hear fiendish yells rend the air ; he
went out with a kettle, to get so me water for Cammerhof, and
the savages knocked the ke ttle out of his hand; and later,
when the shades of evening fell, he had to defend himse lf with
his fists against a bevy of lasc ivious women, w hose long hair
streamed
in the
night wind,
and w hose
lips
swelle d with
passion. For Cammerhof the jo urney was too much; in the
bloom of yo uth he died (1751).
But Zeisber ger had a frame of steel. Passing o n from tribe to
tribe,
he
thicke ts,
stro de
thro ugh
through
miry
darkling
woods,
sloughs,
thr ough
through
tangle d
swarms
of
mosquitoes; and anon, plying his swift canoe , he sped through
primeval forests, by flowers of the tulip tree, thr ough roaring
rapids,
round
beetling
bluffs,
past
groups
of
mo ttled
rattlesnakes that lay basking in the sun. At the present time,
in many Moravian manses, may be seen an engraving of a
picture by Schüssele, of Philadelphia, representing Zeisberger
preaching
to
the
Indians.
The
incident
occurred
at
Goschgoschünk, on the Alleghany River (1767). In the picture
the service is r epresented as being held in the open air; in
reality it was he ld in the Council House. In the centre of the
house was the w atch -fire. Around it squatted the Indians –the
men on one side , the wom en on the other ; and among those
men were murderers who had played the ir part, twelve years
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
before, in the massacre on the Mahony River . As soon as
Zeisberger rose to speak, every eye was fixed upon him; and
while he deliver ed his Gospel message, he knew t hat at any
moment a to mahawk might cleave his skull, and his scalp hang
bleeding at the murderer’s girdle. “Never yet,” he wrote, “did
I see so clearly painte d on the faces of the Indians both the
darkness of hell and the world -subduing power of the Gospe l .”
As the years rolled on, this dauntless hero won comple tely the
confidence o f these suspicio us savages. He w as known as
“Friend of the Indians,” and w as allowe d to move among them
at
his
ease.
In
vain
the
sor cerers
plotted
against
him.
“Beware,” the y sai d to the simple people , “of the man in the
black coat.” At times, in order to bring down the vengeance of
the spirits on Zeisberger’s head, they sat up through the night
and gorged the mselves with swine’s flesh; and, w hen this
mode of enchantment failed, t hey bake d themselves in hot
ovens
till
they
became
unconscious.
Zeisberger
still
went
boldly on. Wherever the Indians were most debauche d, there
was he in the midst of them. Both the Six Natio ns and the
Delawares passe d laws that he w as to be uninter rupte d in his
work. Before him the haughtiest chieftains bow ed in awe . At
Lavunakhannek, on the Alle ghany River, he met the great
Delaware
orator ,
Glikkikan,
who
had
baffle d
Jesuits
and
statesmen, and had prepared a complicated speech with which
he meant to crus h Zeisberger for ever; but when the two men
came face to face, the orator fell an easy victim, forgot his
carefully prepare d oration, mur mured meekly: “I have no thing
to say; I believe your words,” submitted to Zeisberger like a
child, and became one of hi s war mest friends and supporters.
In like manner Zeisberger won over White Eyes, the famous
Delaware captain; and, hand in hand, Zeisberger and White
Eyes worked for the same great cause. “I want my people,”
said
W hite
Eyes,
“now
that
peace
is
established
in
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
country, to turn their atte ntion to peace in their hearts. I
want them to e mbrace that religion w hich is taught by the
white
teachers.
We
shall
never
be
happy
until
we
are
Christians.”
It seemed as though that time we re drawing nigh {1765 -81.}.
Zeisberger was a splendid organizer. As soon as the “Indian
War” was over, he founde d a number of Christian settlements,
and taught the Indians the arts of industry and peace. For the
Iroquois he founded the settlements o f Friede nshütten (Tents
of
Peace),
Alleghany,
Peace),
on
t he
and
on
Susquehanna,
Lavunakhanne k
the
Beaver
River;
Goschgoschünk,
and
Friede nstadt
and
for
the
on
the
(Town
of
Delawares
he
founded the settleme nts o f Schönbrunn (Beautiful Spr ing),
Gnadenhütten (Tents of Grace), Lichtenau (Meadow of Light),
on
the
Tuscaw aras,
settlements
were
and
like
Sale m,
diamo nds
on
the
flashing
Muskinghum.
in
the
His
darkness.
Instead of the wildness of the desert were nut trees, plums,
cherries,
mulbe rries
and
all
manner
of
fruits;
instead
of
scattered wigwams, orderly stre ets of huts; instead of filth,
neatness
and
cleanliness;
instead
of
drunken
brawls
and
orgies, the vo ice of children at the village school, and the
voice of morning and evening pr ayer.
No longer were the Indians in these settlements wild hunte rs.
They were now steady business men. T hey conducte d far ms,
cultivated gar dens, grew corn and sugar, made butter, and
learned to manage the ir local affairs as well as an English
Urban District C ouncil. At the head of each settlement was a
Governing Board, consisting o f the Missionaries and the native
“helpers”; and all affairs of special importance w ere referred
to a ge neral meeting of the inhabitants. The system fille d the
minds of visitor s with wonder. “The Indians in Zeisberger’s
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
settlements,”
said
Co lo ne l
Mo rgan,
“are
an
example
to
civilized w hites.”
No
longer,
further,
were
the
Indians
ignor ant
savages.
Zeisberger was a great linguist. He mastered the Delaware
and Iro quois languages. For the benefit of the co nverts in his
setleme nts, and with the assis tance of Indian sachems, he
prepared and had pr inted a number of useful books: first
(1776), “A Delaware Indian and English Spe lling -book,” with
an
appe ndix
containing
the
Lord’s
Prayer,
the
Ten
Commandme nts, some Scripture passages and a Litany; next
(1803), in the Delaware language, “A Collection of Hymns for
the use of the C hristian Indians,” translated fro m the English
and German Mor avian Hymn -boo ks, and including the Easter ,
Baptismal and B urial Litanies; next, a vo lume of “Sermons to
Children,” transl ated from the G erman; next, a translation o f
Spangenberg’s “Bodily Care of Children”; next, “A Harmo ny o f
the Fo ur Gospels,” tr anslated fr om the Harmony prepared by
Samuel Leiberkühn; and last, a grammatical treatise on the
Delaware conjugatio ns. Of his se rvices to philo logy, I need not
speak in detail. He prepared a lexicon, in seven volumes, of
the German and Onondaga languages, an Onondaga Grammar,
a
Delaw are
Grammar ,
a
German -De laware
Dictionary,
and
other works of a similar nature . As these contributio ns to
science were never publishe d, they may no t se em of much
importance;
but
his
manuscr ipts
have
bee n
carefully
preserved, so me in the library of the Philosophical Socie ty at
Philadelphia, others at Harvar d University.
Thus did Zeisber ger, explorer and s cho lar, devote his powers
to
the
physical,
moral
and
spir itual
improvement
of
the
Indians. For some years his success was br illiant; and when,
on Easter Sunday morning, his converts gathered for the early
service, they presented a scene unlike any o ther in the world.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As the sun rose red beyond the great B lue Mountains, as the
morning
mists
broke
gently
away,
as
the
gemmed
trees
whispered with the breath of spr ing, the Indians repeated in
their lone ly ce metery the same solemn Easter Litany that the
Brethren repeate d at Herrnhut, Zeisberger read the Confession
of Faith, a trained choir led the responses, the Easter hymn
swelled o ut, and the final “Amen” rang over the plateau and
aroused the hosts of the woodland.
Away in the forest, how fair to the sight Was t he clear, placid
lake as it sparkled in light, And kissed w ith low mur mur the
green shady shor e, Whence a tribe had depar ted, whose traces
it
bore.
Where
the
lo ne
Indian
hastened,
and
wo ndering
hushed His awe as he trod o’er the moulder ing dust! How
bright were the waters –how cheerful the song, Which the
wood-bird w as chirping all the day lo ng, And ho w welcome the
refuge those solitudes gave To the pilgrims who toile d over
mountain
and
wave;
Here
the y
rested –here
gushed
forth,
salvation to br ing, The fount of the Cross, by the “Beautiful
Spring.”
And yet the name of this wonder ful man is almost unknown in
England. We are just coming to the reason. At the very time
when his influe nce was at its height the American War of
Indepe ndence broke out, and Zeisberger and his converts, as
an Indian orator put it, were between two exce eding mighty
and wr athful go ds, who stood opposed with e xtended jaws.
Each party wishe d the Indians to take up arms on its side. But
Zeisberger ur ged them to be neutral. When the English s ent
the hatchet of war to the Delawares, the De lawares politely
sent it back. When a letter came to Zeisberger, requesting him
to arouse his co nverts, to put himse lf at the ir head, and to
bring the scalps of all the rebels he could slaughter, he threw
the sheet into the flames. For this policy he was suspected by
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
both sides. At one time he was accuse d befor e an English
court of being in league with the Americans. At another time
he was accuse d by the Americans of be ing in league with the
English.
At
length
the
thunde rbolt
fe ll.
As
the
Christian
Indians of Gnadenhütten were engaged one day in tilling the
soil, the American troops o f Colo nel Williamso n appeared upon
the sce ne, asked for quar ters, w ere comfortably, lodge d, and
then, disarming the inno cent victi ms, accused the m of having
side d w ith the Br itish. For that accusatio n the o nly ground w as
that the Indians had show n hospitality to all who demanded it;
but this defence was not acce pted, and Colone l Williamson
decided to put the whole congre gation to dea th {March 28th,
1782.}. The log huts were turne d into shambles; the settlers
were allowed a few minutes for prayer; then, in couples, they
were summoned to the ir doom; and in cold blood the soldiers,
with tomahawks, malle ts, clubs, spears and scalping kniv es,
began the work of butchery. At the end of the performance
ninety corpses lay dabbled w ith blood o n the gr ound. Among
the victims were six National Assistants, a lady w ho could
speak English and German, twe nty -fo ur other w omen, eleve n
boys and eleve n gi rls. The Blood -Bath of Gnade nhütten was a
hideous crime. It shattered the Indian Mission. The grand
plans of Zeisber ger collapse d in ruin. As the w ar raged on,
and w hite men encroached more and more on Indian so il, he
found himself and his converts dr iven by brute for ce from one
settlement after ano ther. Already, before the w ar broke out,
this
brutal
continued
pro cess
for
twenty
Goschgoschünk;
in
had
co mmenced;
year s.
1770,
In
1769
and
he
alto gether
had
Lavunakhannek;
to
it
abando n
in
1772,
Friede nshütten; in 1773, Friedenstadt; in 1780, Lichtenau; in
1781,
Gnadenhütten,
Sale m
and
Schönbrunn;
in
1782,
Sandusky; in 17 86, New Gnadenhütten; in 1787, Pilgerruh; in
1791, New Salem. As the old man drew near his end, he
endeavoured to stem the torrent of destructio n by founding
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
two new settlements –Fairfield, in Canada, and Go shen, on the
Tuscawaras; but even these had to be abandoned a few years
after his death. Amid the Indians he had live d; amid the
Indians, at Goshen, he lay o n his death -bed {1808.}. As the
news of his approaching disso lutio n spread, the chapel bell
was tolled: his converts, kno wing the signal, entered the
room; and then, uniting the ir vo ices in song, they sang him
home in tr iumphant hymns which he himself had translated
from the hymns of the Anci e nt Brethren’s C hurch.
Chapter 15
“The Last Days o f Zinzendorf, 1755 -1760″
As Zinzendorf dr ew near to his e nd, he saw that his efforts in
the cause of C hrist had no t e nded as he had ho ped. His design
was the union of Christe ndom, his achievement the revival of
the Church of the Brethren. H e had given the “Hidden Seed” a
home at Herrnhut. He had discovered the ancient laws of the
Bohemian Brethr en. He had maintained, fir st, for the sake of
the Missio ns, and, secondly, for the sake of his Brethren, the
Brethren’s Episcopal Successio n. He had founded the Pilgrim
Band at Marie nborn, had begun the Diaspora work in the Baltic
Provinces, had gained for the Brethren legal recognition in
Germany, England and North America, and had given the
stimulus to the work of foreign missio ns. At the same time, he
had continually impressed his o wn religious ide as upon his
followers; and thus the Renewed Church of the Brethren was a
Church of a two fold nature. The past and the present were
dove-tailed. > Fr om the Bohemian Brethren came the str ict
discipline , the mi nisterial succession, and the martyr -spir it;
from Zinzendorf the idea of “Church w ithin the Church,” the
stress laid o n the great do ctr ine of reconciliatio n through the
blood of C hrist, and the fiery missionary enthusiasm. Without
Zinzendorf the B ohemian B rethre n would probably have never
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
returned
to
life ;
and
w ithout
the
fibre
of
the
Bohemian
Brethren, German Pietism would have died a natural death.
We must, however, keep clear of one misconception. Whatever
else the Renewed Church of the Brethren was, it did not spring
from a union o f races. It was not a fusio n of German and
Czech elements. As the first settlers at Herrnhut came from
Moravia, it is natural to regard them as Moravian Czechs; but
the truth is that they were Germans in blood, and spoke the
German language. It was, therefore, the German element o f
the old Brethren’s Church that formed the backbone of the
Renewed Church. It was Germans, not Czechs, w ho began the
foreign missionary work; Germans who came to England, and
Germans who renewed the Br ethren’s Church in America. In
due time pure Czechs from Bo hemia came and settle d at
Rixdorf
and
Niesky;
but,
spe aking
broadly,
the
Renewed
Church of the Brethren was revived by German me n w ith
German ideas.
As the Church, therefore, was now establishe d in the three
provinces of Germany, Great Britain and North America, one
problem
only
still
aw aited
solutio n.
T he
problem
was
the
welding of the pr ovinces. T hat we lding was brought abo ut in a
simple way. If the reader is of a thoughtful tur n of mind, he
must have wo ndered more than once where the Brethren found
the money to carry on their e nterpr ises. They had relie d
chiefly on two sources of inco me: first, Zinzendorf’s estates;
second, a number of business concerns known as Diaconies.
As long as these Diaconi es prospered, the Brethr en were able
to keep their he ads abo ve water; but the tr uth is, they had
been
mismanaged.
The
Church
was
now
on
the
verge
of
bankruptcy; and, therefore, the Brethren held at Taubenhe im
the so -called “Economical Confere nce.” {1755.}
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
In the time of need came the deliverer, Frederick Kö ber. His
five measures proved the salvation of the Chur ch. Fir st, he
separate d
the
property
of
Zinzendorf
fro m
the
general
property of the Church. Secondly, he put this ge neral pro perty
under the care o f a “Co llege of Directors.” T hir dly, he made an
arrangement whereby this “Colle ge” should pay o ff all de bts in
fixe d yearly sums. Fo urthly, he proposed that all members of
the Church should pay a fixed annual sum to ge neral Church
funds. And fifthly, on the sound principle that those who pay
are entitled to a vote, he suggested that in future all members
of the Church should have the right to send representatives to
the General Dir ecting Boar d or Conference. In this w ay he
drew the outline s of the Moravian Ch urch Constitution.
Meanwhile, Count Z inzendorf’s end was draw ing near . The
evening of his life he spent at Herrnhut, for whe re more fitly
could he die?
“It will be better ,” he said, “whe n I go home ; the Conferences
will last for ever.”
He employed his last days in r evising the Text -book, w hich
was to be daily food for the Pilgrim Church {1760.}; and whe n
he wrote dow n the final words, “And the King tur ned His face
about, and blessed all the congregation o f Isr ael,” his last
message
to
the
Brethren
was
deliv ered.
As
his
illness –a
viole nt catarrhal fever –gained the mastery over him, he was
cheered by the sight of the numerous fr iends who gathered
round him. His band of workers watched by his couch in turn.
On
the
last
night
about
a
hundred
Brethren
and
Sisters
assembled in the death chamber . John de Watteville sat by the
bedside.
“Now, my dear friend,” said the dying Count, “I am go ing to
the Saviour. I am ready. I bow to His w ill. He is satisfied w ith
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
me. If He does not want me here any more, I am ready to go
to Him. There is nothing to hinde r me now .”
He looked aro und upon his friends. “I canno t say,” he said,
“how much I love you all. Who would have believed that the
prayer of Christ, ‘That they may be one,’ could have been so
strikingly
fulfilled
among
us.
I
only
asked
for
first -fruits
among the heathen, and thousands have been give n me… Are
we not as in Heaven? Do we no t live together like the angels?
The
Lord
and
His
servants
understand
one
another…I
am
ready.”
As the night wore on towards morning, the scene , says one
who
was
prese nt,
was
no ble,
charming,
litur gical.
At
ten
o’clock, his bre athing grew feebler {May 9th, 1760.}; and
John de Watteville prono unce d the Old Testame nt Benediction,
“The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord make His face
shine upon thee and be gracio us unto thee. The Lord lift up
His
countenance
upo n
thee
and
give
thee
pe ace.”
As
de
Watte ville spoke the last words of the blessing, the Count lay
back on his pillow and closed his eyes; and a few seconds
later he breathe d no more.
At Herrnhut it is still the custom to anno unce the death of any
member
of
the
congregatio n
by
a
chorale
played
on
trombo nes; and when the trombo nes sounded that morning all
knew that Zinzendorf’s earthly career had closed. The air was
thick with mist. “It seem ed,” said John Nitschmann, then
minister
at
He rrnhut,
“as
though
nature
herself
were
weeping.” As the Count’s body lay next day in the coffin,
arrayed in the robe he had worn so often when co nducting the
Holy
Co mmunio n,
the
w hole
congregatio n,
choir
by
cho ir,
came to gaze for the last time upon his face. For a week after
this the coffin remained close d; but on the funer al day it w as
opened again, and hundreds from the neighbour ing towns and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
villages came cr owding into the chamber. At the funeral all
the
Sisters
we re
dressed
in
white;
and
the
number
of
mourners w as o ver four tho usand. At this time there were
present in Herrnhut Moravian ministers from Holland, England,
Ireland, North America and Greenland; and these, along w ith
the
German
ministers,
took
turn s
as
pall-bearers.
The
trombo nes sounded. John N itschmann, as precentor, started
the hymn; the procession to the Hutberg began. As the coffin
was lowered into the grave some verses were sung, and then
John N itschmann spoke the words: “With tears we sow thi s
seed in the ear th; but He, in his own good time, will br ing it
to life , and will gather in His harvest w ith thanks and praise!
Let all w ho w ish for this say, ‘Amen.’”
“Amen,” respo nded the vast, weeping throng. T he inscription
on the grave -sto ne is as fo llow s: “Here lie the re mains of that
immor tal man o f God, N icho las Lewis, Count and Lord o f
Zinzendorf and Pottendorf; who, through the grace of God and
his ow n unwearied service , became the honoure d Ordinary o f
the Brethren’s C hurch, re newed in this e ight eenth century. He
was born at Dre sden on May 26 th, 1700, and entered into the
joy
of
his
appo inted
Lord
to
at
br ing
Herrnhut
forth
on
fr uit,
May
and
9th,
that
1760.
his
fruit
He
was
should
remain.”
Thus, in a halo of tearful glory, the Count -B isho p was lai d to
rest. For many years the Brethre n cherished his memory, not
only w ith affection, but w ith ve neratio n; and even the sober
Spangenberg de scribe d him as “the great treasure of our
times, a love ly diamo nd in the r ing on the hand of our Lord, a
servant of the L ord without an equal, a pillar in the ho use of
the Lord, God’s message to His people.” But history hardly
justifies this ge nerous eulogy; and Spangenberg afterwards
admitted
himself
that
Zinzendorf
had
two
sides
to
his
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
character. “It may seem a parado x,” he wro te, “but it really
does seem a fact that a man cannot have great vir tues w ithout
also having great faults.” The case of Zinzendorf is a case in
point. At a Syno d he ld a few years later (1764), the Brethren
commissioned Spangenberg to w rite a “Lif e o f Zinzendorf.” As
the Count, however, had been far from perfect, they had to
face the serio us question w hether Spangenberg should be
allowe d to expo se his faults to public gaze. They consulted the
Lot: the Lot said “No”; and, the refore, they sole mnly wa rned
Spangenberg
that,
in
order
to
avoid
creating
a
false
impressio n, he was “to leave out everything w hich would not
edify the public.” The loyal Spangenberg o beyed. His “L ife of
Zinzendorf” appeared in eight large volumes. He desired, of
course, to be ho nest; he was convinced, to use his own words,
that “ an histor ian is responsible to God and men for the
truth” ; and yet, though he told the truth, he did not tell the
whole truth. The result was lame ntable . Instead of a life -like
picture of Zinzendorf, the reade r had only a shaded portrait,
in w hich both the beauties and the defects we re carefully
toned
down.
colour less.136
The
For
English
a
abr idged
hundred
edition
years
the
was
still
more
character
of
Zinzendorf lay hidden beneath a pile of pious phrases, and
only the recent researches of scholars have enabled us to see
him as he was. He was no mere commonplace Pietist. He was
no mere pious German noble man, conver ted by looking at a
picture . His faults and his virtues stood o ut in glaring relief.
His very a ppear ance to ld the dual tale . As he strolled the
streets of Berlin or Londo n, the wayfarers instinctively move d
to let him pass, and all me n admired his noble bearing, his
lofty brow, his fiery dark blue eye, and his firm set lips; and
yet, on the othe r ha nd, they could not fail to notice that he
was untidy in his dress, that he strode on, gazing at the stars,
and that often, in his absent -mindedness, he stumbled and
staggered in his gait. In his por traits we can re ad the same
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
double story. In some the prev ailing to ne is dignity; in others
there is the faint suggestion of a smirk. His faults were those
often found in men of genius. He was nearly always in a hurry,
and was never in time for dinne r. He was unsystematic in his
habits, and incompetent in mo ney m atters. He was rather
imperious in dispositio n, and sometimes over bearing in his
conduct. He was impatient at any oppo sitio n, and disposed to
treat w ith conte mpt the advice of others. For e xample, when
the financial cr isis arose at Her rnhaag, Spangenberg a dvised
him
to
raise
funds
by
weekly
collections;
but
Zinzendorf
brushed the advice aside, and r etorted, “It is my affair.” He
was rather short -tempered, and would stamp his foot like an
angry child if a bench in the church was not placed exactly as
he desired. He was superstitious in his use of the Lot, and
damaged the cause of the Brethren immensely by teaching
them to trust implicitly to its guidance . He was reckless in his
use of extr avagant language ; and he forgot that public men
should consider, not o n ly what they mean themselves, but
also w hat impre ssion their wor ds are likely to make upo n
others. He was not always str ictly truthful; and in one of his
pamphlets he actually asserted that he himself w as in no w ay
responsible for the scandals at Herrnhaag . For these reasons
the Count made many enemies. He was cr iticiz ed severely,
and so metimes justly, by me n of such exalted character as
Bengel, the famous German co mmentator , and honest John
Wesley in England; he w as reviled by vulgar scribblers like
Rimius ; and thus, like his great contemporary, Whitefield, he
Stood pilloried o n Infamy’s high stage , And bore the pelting
scorn of half an age; T he very butt of slander and the blot For
every dart that malice ever shot.
But serio us though his failings w ere, the y were far outshone
by his vir tues. Of all the religious leaders of the eighteenth
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
centur y, he was the most original in genius and the most
varied
in
tale nt;
misunderstood,
the
and,
ther efore,
most
fierce ly
he
hate d,
was
the
the
most
most
foully
libelled, the mo st shamefully attacke d, and the most fondly
adored. In his love for Christ he was like St. B ernard, in his
mystic devotion like Madame Guyon; and Herder, the German
poet, described him as “a conqueror in the spiritual world.” It
was those who knew hi m best w ho admired him most. By the
world at lar ge he was despise d, by orthodox critics abused, by
the
Brethren
honoured,
by
his
intimate
frie nds
almost
worshipped. According to many orthodox Lutherans he was an
athe ist; but the Brethren commonly called hi m “the Lord’s
disciple .” He w as abstemious in diet, cared little for wine, and
drank chiefly tea and lemonade. He was broad and Catho lic in
his views, refused to speak o f the Po pe as Antichrist, and
referred to me mbers of the C hurch of Rome as “Brethren” ;
and, while he re mained a Luther an to the end, he had fr iends
in every br anch of the Church of Christ. He had not a dro p of
malice in his blood. He never learned the art of bearing a
grudge, and whe n he was reviled, he never revile d again. He
was free with his money, and co uld never refuse a beggar. He
was a thoughtful and suggestive theolo gical wr ite r, and holds
a
high
place
in
the
history
of
dogma;
and
no
thinker
expounded more beautifully than he the grand doctr ine that
the innermost nature of God is reve aled in all its glory to man
in the Person o f the suffering Man C hrist Jesus. He was a
beautiful Chr istian poet; his hymns are found to -day in every
collection;
his
“Jesus,
Thy
blood
and
r ighteo usness”
was
translated into English by Jo hn Wesley; and his no ble “Jesus,
still lead on!” is as popular in the cottage home s of Germany
as Newman’s “Lead, kindly light” in England. Of the three
great
qualities
possessed
o nly
required
in
two.
had
He
a
poet,
the
Zinzendorf,
sensibility;
he
however,
had
the
imaginatio n; but he rarely had the patience to take pains;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and, therefore, nearly all his poetry is lacking in finish and
artistic
beauty.
He
was
an
earnest
so cial
reformer;
he
endeavoured, by means of his settlement system, to solve the
social pro blem; and his effort s to uplift the working classes
were
praised
by
the
famous
German
cr itic,
Lessing.
The
historian and theologian, Albrecht Ritschl, has accused him of
sectar ian
motives
and
of
wilfully
creating
a
split
in
the
Lutheran Church. The accusatio n is absolute ly fa lse. There is
nothing more attractive in the character of Zinzendorf than his
unse lfish devotio n to one grand ideal. On one occasio n, after
preaching at Ber lin, he met a yo ung lieute nant. T he lie utenant
was in spiritual trouble .
“Let me ask yo u,” said Zinz endorf, “o ne questio n: Are you
alone in your religio us troubles, or do you shar e them with
others?”
The
lieutenant
replied
that
some
friends
and
he
were
accustome d to pr ay to gether.
“That is right,” said Zinzendorf. “I acknow ledge no Christianity
without fe llowship.”
In those words he pointe d to the loadstar of his life. For that
holy cause of Christian fellowship he spent every breath in his
body and every ducat in his possessio n. For that cause he
labo ured amo ng the peasants of Berthelsdorf, in the street s of
Berlin, in the smiling Wetterau, in the Baltic Provinces, on the
shores of Lake G eneva, in the w ilds of Yorkshire, by the silver
Thames, on West Indian plantations, and in the wigwams of
the Iroquois and the Delaware. It is no t alw ays fair to judge of
men by their conduct. We must tr y, w hen po ssible, to find the
ruling mo tive; and in mo tive Zinzendorf was alw ays unse lfish.
Sometimes he was guilty of reckless dr iving; but his wagon
was hitched to a star . No man did more to revive the Moravian
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Church, and no man did more, by his very ideals, to retard he r
later expansion. It is here that we can see most clear ly the
contrast
betwee n
Zinzendorf
easily
Zinzendorf
bore
the
and
John
palm;
in
Wesle y.
practical
In
genius
wisdo m
the
Englishman far e xcelled him. T he one was a poet, a dreamer,
a thinker, a mystic; the other a practical statesman, w ho
added no thing to religio us tho ught, and ye t uplifte d millions of
his fe llow men. At a Synod of the Brethren held at Herrnhut
(1818), Jo hn Albertini, the elo quent preach er, described the
key-no te of Zinzendorf’s life. “It was love to Christ,” said
Albertini, “that glowed in the heart of the child; the same love
that burne d in the young man; the same love that thr illed his
middle-age; the same love that inspired his every endeavour .”
In actio n faulty, in motive pure; in judgment erring, in ideals
divine; in policy wayward, in pur pose unselfish and true; such
was
Zinzendorf,
the
Renewer
of
the
Church
of
the
Brethren.137
Next
Chapter 7
“The Pilgrim Band, 1736 -1743″
As soon as Zinz endorf was banished from Saxo ny, he sought
another
sphere
of
work.
Abo ut
thirty
miles
northeast
of
Frankfur t-o n-the -Main there lay a quaint and charming district
known as the Wetterau, wherein stood two old r uin ed castles,
called Ronnebur g and Marie nbor n. The owners of the estate,
the Counts of Isenberg, had fallen on hard time s. The y were
deep
in
debt;
Ronneburg
houses,
their
walls
farms
estates
were
an d
w ere
crumbling
stables
were
running
to
decay;
the
to
pieces,
and
the
out -
let
out
fifty -six
dir ty
to
families of Jews, tramps, vagabonds and a mongrel thro ng o f
scoundrels of the lowest class. As soon as the Counts heard
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
that Zinzendorf had been banished from Saxo ny, they kindly
offered him the ir estates on lease. They had tw o objects in
view. As the Brethren were pious, they would improve the
people’s morals; and as they we re good workers, they wo uld
raise the value of the land. The Count sent Chr istian David to
reconnoitre. Chr istian David bro ught back an e vil re port. It
was a filthy place, he said, unfit for respectable people. B ut
Zinzendorf fe lt that, filthy or not, it was the ver y spot w hich
God had cho sen for his new work. It suited his high ideas. The
more squalid the people, the more reason there w as for go ing.
“I will make this nest of vagabo nds,” he said, “the centre for
the universal religio n of the Saviour . Christian,” he asked,
“haven’ t you been in Greenland?”
“Ah,
yes,”
replied
Christian,
w ho
had
been
w ith
the
two
Stachs, “if it wer e only as goo d as it w as in Greenland! But at
Ronneburg Castle we shall only die.”
But the Co unt w ould no t hear another wor d, went to see the
place for himself, closed with the terms of the Counts of
Isenberg, and thus co mmenced that romantic chapter in the
Brethren’s
Histo ry
called
by
some
German
historians
the
Wetterau Time .
It was a time of many adventur es. As the Count took up his
quar ters in Ronneburg Castle, he brought w ith him a body of
Brethren and Sisters who m he called the “Pilgr im Band”; and
there, on June 17th, 173 6, he pr eached his first sermon in the
castle. It w as now exactly four teen years since Christian David
had fe lle d the first tree at Her rnhut; and now for another
fourteen years these crumbling walls were to be the home of
Moravian life. What the members of the Pilgr im B and were we
may know from the very name. T hey were a travelling Chur ch.
They
were
a
body
of
Chr istians
called
to
the
task,
in
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Zinzendorf’s
ow n
words,
“to
proclaim
the
Saviour
to
the
world”; and the Count’s noble motto was: “The earth is the
Lord’s; all so uls are His; I am de btor to all.” Ther e was a dash
of romance in that Pilgr im Band, and more than a dash of
heroism. They lived in a wild and eerie district. They slept on
straw. T hey hear d the rats and mice ho ld revels on the worm eaten stair cases, and heard the night w ind how l and sough
between the br oken windows; and from those ruined walls
they went out to preach the tidings of the love of Christ in the
wigwams
of
the
Indians
and
the
snow -made
huts
of
the
and
his
Eskimos.
As
char ity,
how ever,
begin s
at
home,
the
Co unt
Brethren began their new labour s among the degraded rabble
that
lived
in
filth
and
poverty
round
the
castle.
They
conducte d free schools for the children. They held meetings
for men and wo men in the vaults of the castle. They v isited
the miserable gipsies in the ir dirty home s. They invited the
dir ty little ragamuffins to tea, and the gipsies’ children sat
down at table with the sons and daughters of the Count. They
issued an order forbidding begging, and tw ice a week, on
Tuesday s and Fridays, they distr ibuted food and clothing to
the poor. One picture will illustrate this strange campaign.
Among the motley medley that lived abo ut the castle was an
old grey-haire d Jew, named Rabbi Abraham. O ne bright June
evening, Zinzendorf me t h im, stretched o ut his hand, and
said: “Grey hair s are a crow n o f glory. I can see from your
head and the expressio n of your eyes that you have had much
experience bo th of heart and life . In the name o f the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, le t us be fr iends .”
The old man was str uck dumb with wonder. Such a greeting
from a Christian he had never heard before. He had usually
been
saluted
with
the
words,
“Begone,
Jew !”
“His
lips
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
trembled; his voice failed; and big tears rolle d dow n his
wrinkled cheeks upon his flow ing beard.
“Enough, father,” said the Count; “we understand each other.”
And from that moment the two were friends. The Count went
to see him in his dirty ho me, and ate black bread at his table.
One morning, before dawn, as the two w alked out, the old
patr iarch opene d his hear t.
“My hear t,” said he, “is longing for the dawn. I am sick, ye t
know
not
what
is
the
matter
with
me .
I
am
looking
for
something, yet know no t what I seek. I am like one who is
chased, yet I se e no enemy, except the one within me, my o ld
evil heart.”
The Count ope ned his lips, and preached the Gospel of Chr ist.
He painted Love on the Cross. He described that Love coming
down from ho liness and heave n. He to ld the
old Jew , in
burning words, how Christ had met corrupted mankind, that
man might become like God. As the o ld man wept and wrung
his hands, the two ascended a hill, whereon stood a lonely
church. And the sun rose, and its rays fell on the golde n cross
on the church spire, and the cross glittered br ightly in the
light of heave n.
“See there, Abr aham,” said Zinzendorf, “a sign from heaven
for you. The God of your father s has placed the cross in yo ur
sight, and now the rising sun fro m on high has tinged it with
heavenly splendour. Believe o n Him whose blood was shed by
your fathers, that God’s pur pose of mercy might be fulfilled,
that yo u might be free from all sin, and find in Him all yo ur
salvation.”
“So be it,” said the Jew, as a new light flashed on his soul.
“Blessed be the Lord who has had mercy upon me .”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
We have now to notice, step by step, how Zinzendorf, despite
his theories, restored the Moravian Church to vigo rous life . His
first move was dramatic. As he strolled one day on the shore
of the Baltic Sea, he bethought him that the time had co me to
revive the Brethren’s Episcop al Orders in Germany. He w ished
to give his Brethren a legal standing. In Saxony he had been
condemned as a heretic; in Prussia he would be recognized as
orthodox; and to this intent he wrote to the King of Prussia,
Frederick William I., and asked to be ex amine d in doctrine by
qualifie d Divines of the State Church. The King responde d
gladly. He had been informed that the Count was a foo l, and
was, therefore, anxious to see him; and now he sent him a
messenger
to
say
that
he
w ould
be
highly
please d
if
Zinzendorf would come and dine with him at Wusterhausen.
“What did he say?” aske d His Majesty of the me ssenger w hen
that functionar y returned.
“Nothing,” re plied the messenger .
“Then,” said the King, “he is no fool.”
The Count arrived, and stayed three days. The first day the
King was co ld; the second he w as friendly; the third he was
enthusiastic.
“The devil himse lf,” he said to his co urtiers, “could no t have
told me more lie s than I have be en told about this Count. He
is neither a here tic nor a distur ber of the peace. His only sin
is that he, a w ell -to -do Co unt, has devo ted himself to the
spread o f the G ospel. I w ill no t believe another word against
him. I w ill do all I can to help him.”
>From that time Frederick William I. was Z inz endorf’s fast
friend.
He
encou raged
him
to
become
a
Bisho p
of
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren. The C ount was still in doubt. For so me months he
was terribly puzzled by the question whether he could beco me
a Moravian B ishop, and ye t at the same time be loyal to the
Lutheran Church; and, in order to come t o a r ight conclusio n,
he actually came over to England and discusse d the who le
thorny subject of Moravian Episcopal Orders with John Po tter ,
Archbishop of C anterbury. The Archbishop soo n relieved his
mind. He informed the Count, first, that in his judgment the
Moravian Episco pal Or ders were apostolic; and he informed
him, seco ndly, that as the Brethren were true to the teaching
of the Augsbur g Confession in Germany and the Thirty -nine
Articles in England, the Count co uld honestly become a Bishop
without
bei ng
guilty
of
fo unding
a
new
sect.
The
Count
returned to Ger many. He was e xamined in the faith, by the
King’s command, by two Berlin Divines. He came through the
ordeal w ith flying co lours, and finally, on May 2 0th, he w as
ordaine d a Bisho p of the Brethren’ s Church by Bishop Daniel
Ernest Jablo nsky, Court Preacher at Berlin, and Bishop David
Nitschmann {1737.}.
The situation w as now remarkable. As soon as Zinzendorf
became a Bisho p, he occupied, in theory, a double positio n.
He was a “Luthe ran Bisho p of the Brethren’s Church.” On the
one hand, like Jablo nsky himself, he was still a clergyman of
the Lutheran Church; on the other, he was qualified to ordain
ministers in the Church of the Br ethren. And the Brethren, of
course, laid stress on the latter point. Th ey had now episcopal
orders
of
the ir
own;
they
re alized
the ir
standing
as
an
independe nt church; they o bjected to mere to leratio n as a
sect; they demanded reco gnition as an orthodox chur ch. “We
design,” they wr ote to the Counts of Ise nberg, “to establish a
home for thir ty or forty families from Herrnhut. We demand
full liberty in all our mee tings; we demand full liberty to
practise our discipline and to have the sacraments, baptism
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and communio n administered by our own ministers, ordaine d
by our own Bohemo -Moravian Bishops.” As the Counts agreed
to these co nditio ns the Brethren now laid out near the castle a
settlement after the Herrnhut mo del, name d it He rrnhaag, and
made it a regular training -ground for the futur e ministers o f
the Chur ch. At Herrnhut the B rethren were under a Lutheran
Pastor; at Herr nhaag the y were independent, and ordained
their
own
training
men
co llege ,
for
the
with
work.
They
Spangenberg
erected
as
a
head.
theological
T hey
had
a
pædago gium for boys, with Po lycarp Müller as Rector. They
had also a flour ishing schoo l for gir ls. For ten years this new
settlement at Herrnhaag was the busiest centre of evangelistic
zeal
in
the
world.
At
the
the ological
college
there
were
students fro m e very university in Germany. At the schoo ls
there were over 600 children, and the Brethren had to issue a
notice that they had no room for more. The whole place was a
smithy. There the spir itual weapons were forged for service in
the foreign field. “Up, up,” Spangenberg would say to the
young me n at sunrise, “we h ave no time for dawdling. Why
sleep ye still? Ar ise, young lions!”
And now the Count had a strange adventure, w hich spurred
him to another step forward. As there were certain sarcastic
people in Germany who said that Zinzendorf, though w illing
enough to se nd out others to die of fever in for eign climes,
was content to bask in comfor t at home, he determined now to
give the charge the lie. He had travelled already on many a
Gospel journey. He had preached to crowds in Berlin; he had
preached in the Cathedr al at Reval, in L ivonia, and had made
arrangements fo r the publicatio n of an Esthonian Bible ; and
now he thought he must go to St. Tho mas, w here Friedr ich
Martin, the apostle to the negro es, had built up the strongest
congregation in the Missio n Fie ld. He con sulte d the Lo t; the
Lot said “Yes,” and off he set o n his jour ney. The ship flew as
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
though on eagle’s wings. As they neared the island, the Count
turne d to his companio n, and said: “What if we find no one
there? What if the missio naries ar e all dead?”
“Then we are the re,” replied We ber.
“Gens aeterna, these Moravians,” exclaimed the C ount.
He landed on the island {Jan. 29th, 1739.}.
“Where are the B rethren?” said he to a negro .
“They are all in priso n,” w as the star tling answer.
“How lo ng?” asked the Count.
“Over three mo nths.”
“What are the ne groes doing in the meantime?”
“They are making good progress, and a great revival is going
on. The very imprisonme nt of the teachers is a se rmon.”
For three months the Count was busy in St. Tho mas. He burst
into
the
Go vernor’s
castle
“like
thunder,”
and
nearly
frightene d him out of his wits. He had brought with him a
document
signe d
by
the
King
of
Denmark,
in
which
the
Brethren were author ized to pre ach in the Danish West Indies.
He had the prisoners released. He had th e w hole work in the
Danish West Indies place d on a legal basis. He made the
acquaintance of six hundred and seventy ne groes. He was
amazed and charmed by all he saw. “St. Thomas,” he wrote,
“is a greater marvel than Herrnhut.” For the last three years
that master missionar y, Friedr ich Martin, the “Apostle to the
Negroes,”
had
been
continuing
the
noble
wor k
begun
by
Leonard Dober; and, in spite of the fierce oppo sition of the
planters
and
also
of
the
Dutch
Reformed
Church,
had
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
established a number of native congregatio ns. He had o pened
a school for negro boys, and had thus taken the first step in
the education of West Indian slaves. He had taught his peo ple
to form socie tie s for Bible study and prayer; and now the
Count put the finishing to uch to the work. He introduce d the
Herrnhut system of discipline . He appointe d one “Peter” chief
Elder of the Brethren, and “Magdalene” chief Elder of the
Sisters. He gave some to be helpe rs, some to be advisers, and
some to be distr ibutors o f alms; and he even introduce d th e
syste m of incessant hour ly praye r. And then, before he took
his
leave,
he
made
a
no table
speech.
He
had
no
such
conceptio n as “N egro emancipatio n.” He regarded slavery as a
Divine ly appointed system. “Do your work for your masters,”
he
said,
“as
though
y ou
were
working
for
yourselves.
Remember that Christ has given every man his w ork. The Lord
has made kings, masters, servants and slaves. It is the duty
of each of us to be content with the station in which God has
placed him. God punished the first negroe s by making them
slaves.”
For the work in St. Thomas this visit was important; for the
work at home it was still more so. As the Count returned from
his visit in St. T homas, he saw more clearly than ever that if
the Brethren we re to do their w ork aright, t hey must justify
their co nduct and position in the eyes of the law. His views
had broadened; he had gr ander conceptio ns of their mission;
he began the practice of summoning the m to Syno ds, and thus
laid the foundations of modern Moravian Church life.
At the first Syno d, held at Ebersdorf (June, 1739), the Count
expounded
Brethren,
his
in
views
a
at
series
length
of
{1739.}.
brilliant
and
He
informed
rathe r
the
mystifying
speeches, that there were now three “religio ns” in Germany –
the Lutheran, the Reformed a nd the Moravian; but that their
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
duty and missio n in the world was, not to restore the old
Church of the Brethren, but rather to gather the children of
God into a mystical, visio nary, ideal fellowship w hich he called
the “Community of Jesus.” For the presen t, he said, the home
of this ideal “G emeine” wo uld be the Moravian Church. At
Herrnhut and other places in Saxony it would be a home for
Lutherans; at Herrnhaag it would be a ho me for Calvinists;
and
then, whe n
it
had
done
its work and united
all the
children of God, it co uld be conveniently explo ded. He gave
the Moravian Church a rather short life . “For the present,” he
said, “ the Savio ur is manifesting His Geme ine to the world in
the outward for m of the Moravian Church; but in fifty years
that Church w ill be forgotten.” It is do ubtful how far his
Brethren understood him. They listened, admired, wondered,
gaspe d and quietly went the ir ow n way.
At the se cond Synod, he ld at the Moor Hote l in Gotha, the
Count explained his projects still more clearly {1740.}, and
made the most astounding speech that had yet falle n from his
lips. “It is,” he declared, “the duty of our Bisho ps to defend
the rights o f the Protestant Moravian Church, and the duty of
all the congregation to be loyal to that Church. It is absolute ly
necessary, for the sake of Christ’s work, that our Church be
recognized as a true Church. She is a true Church of God; she
is in the world to further the Saviour’s cause ; and people can
belong to her just as much as to any o ther.” If these wor ds
meant anyt hing at all, they meant, of cour se, that Zinzendorf,
like the Moravians themse lves, insisted on the independe nt
existence of the Moravian Church; and, to pro ve that he really
did mean this, he had Polycarp Müller consecrated a Bishop.
And
yet,
at
the
same
time,
the
Count
insisted
that
the
Brethren were not to value the ir Church for her own sake.
They were not to try to extend the Church as such; the y were
not to prose lytiz e from other C hurches; they we re to regard
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
her rather as a house of call for the “scat tere d” in all the
churches;94 and, above all, they must ever remember that as
soon as they had done the ir work their Church w ould cease to
exist. If this puz zles the reader he must no t be distressed. It
was equally puzzling to some of Zinzendorf’s follower s. Bisho p
Polycarp Müller confessed that he could never understand it.
At bottom, howe ver, the Count’s idea w as clear. He still had a
healthy
horror
of
sects
and
splits;
he
still
regarded
the
Brethren’s Church as a “C hurch within the Chur ch”; he still
insisted, w ith perfect tr uth, that as they had no distinctive
doctr ine they could no t be condemned as a nonconforming
sect;
and
the
goal
for
which
he
was
straining
was
that
wheresoever the Brethren went they should endeavour not to
extend the ir own borders, bu t rather to serve as a bond of
union evange lical Chr istians of all denominations.
Next year, at a Syno d at Mar ienborn, the Count explaine d how
this wonderful w ork was to be done {1740.}. What w as the
bond o f unio n to be? It w as certainly not a do ctr ine. In stead
of making the bond of union a doctrine, as so many C hurches
have done , the Brethren made it personal exper ience. Where
creeds had failed experience wo uld succeed. If me n, they said,
were to he united in one grand evange lical Church, it would
be, no t by a common creed, but by a common threefold
experience –a co mmon experience of their own misery and sin;
a common experience of the redeeming grace of Christ; and a
common e xperie nce of the religious value of the Bible. To
them this personal experie nce was the one essential. They had
no rigid doctr ine to impose. They did no t regar d any o f the
standar d creeds as final. They did no t demand subscription to
a creed as a test. They had no rigid doctrine of the Ato nement
or of the Divinity of C hrist; the y had no special process of
conversio n;
and,
most
striking
of
all,
they
had
no
rigid
doctr ine of the inspiration of the Bible. T hey did not believe
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
either in verbal inspiration or in Biblical infallibility. T hey
declared that the famous words, “all Scripture is giv en by
inspir ation of God,” must be taken in a free and broad way.
They held that, though the Bible was inspired, it contained
mistakes in detail; that the teaching of St. Jame s was in flat
contradiction to the teaching of St. Paul; and that even the
Apostles
sometimes
made
a
wrong
application
of
the
prophecies. To them the value of the Bible consisted, no t in its
supposed infallibility, but in its appeal to their hearts. “The
Bible ,” they declared, “is a ne ver -failing spr ing for the heart;
and the one thing that authenticates the tr uth of its message
is the fact that what is said in the book is confirmed by the
experience o f the heart.” How modern this so unds.
But how was this universal e xperience to be attaine d? The
Count had his answer ready. He had studie d the philosophical
works of Spinoza and Bayle. He was familiar w ith the trend of
the rationalistic movement. He w as aware that to thousands,
both inside and outside the C hurch, the God whom Jesus
called “Our Father” was no more than a cold philosophical
abstraction; and that many pastors in the Lutheran Church,
instead of trying to make God a reality, were wasting the ir
time in spinning abstruse speculations, and discussing how
many le gio ns of ange ls co uld stand o n the po int of a needle.
As this sort of ph ilosophy rather disgusted Zinzendorf, he
determined to fr ame a theo logy of his ow n; and thereby he
arrived at the conclusion that the only way to teach me n to
love God was “to preach the Cr eator of the Wo rld under no
other shape than that of a wounded and dying Lamb.” He held
that the Suffering Chr ist on the Cross was the one perfect
expressio n and r evelation o f the love of God; he held that the
title “L amb of G od” was the favourite name for Christ in the
New Testament; he he ld that the central doctr ine of the faith
was the “Ranso m” paid by Chr ist in His sufferings and death;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and, therefore, he began to preach himse lf, and taught his
Brethren to preach as well, the famous “Blood and Wounds
Theology.”
And now, at a Synod he ld in London, the Brethre n cleared t he
decks for action, and took their stand on the stage of history
as a free, inde pendent Church of Christ {1741.}. The situation
was alarming. Of all the Protestant Chur ches in Europe , the
Church of the B rethren was the broadest in do ctrine and the
most inde pende nt in action; and yet, dur ing the last few
years, the Brethren were actually in danger of bending the
knee to a Pope . The Pope in questio n was Leonard Dober. At
the
time
w hen
Herrnhut
was
founded,
the
Brethren
had
elected a governing boar d of twelve Elders. Of these twelve
Elders, four Ove r -Elders were set apar t for spiritual purpo ses;
and of these fo ur Over -Elders, one was specially chosen as
Chief Elder. The first Chief Elde r was Augustin Neisser, and
the second Martin Linner. As long as the office lay in Linner’s
hands, there was no danger of the C hief Elder becoming a
Pope. He was poor; he was humble; he was w eak in health;
and he spent his time in praying for the Chur ch and attending
to the spir itual needs of the Single Brethren. B ut gradually th e
situatio n altered. For the last six years the office had been
held by Leonard Dober. He had been elected by Lot, and was,
therefore,
supposed
to
possess
Divine
author ity.
He
was
General Elder of the whole Brethren’s Church. He had become
the supreme auth ority in spiritual matters. He had author ity
over Zinzendorf himself, over all the Bishops, over all the
members of the Pilgr im Band, over all Moravian Brethren at
Herrnhut, over the pioneers in England and N orth America,
over the missio naries in Greenland , the West Indies, South
Africa and Sur inam. He had beco me a spiritual re feree. As the
work extended, his duties and po wers increased. He was Elder,
not
merely
of
the
Brethren’s
Church,
but
of
that
ideal
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“Community o f Jesus” which eve r swam be fore the visi on of
the Count. He was becoming a court of appeal in cases of
dispute.
Already
disagreements
were
rising
among
the
Brethren. At He rrnhut dwelt the old -fashione d, sober, str ict
Moravians.
At
Herrnhaag
the
Brethren,
with
their
freer
notions, were already sh ow ing dangerous signs of fanaticism.
At Pilgerruh, in Holstein, anothe r body were being tempted to
break fro m the C ount alto gether. And above these disagreeing
parties
the
General
Elder
sat
supreme .
His
position
had
become impossible. He was supposed to be above all par ty
disputes; he was the fr iend of all, the intercessor for all, the
broad-minde d ideal Brother; and yet, if an actual dispute
arose, he would be expected to give a binding decision. For
these manifo ld duties Dober felt unfit; he had no desire to
become a Prote stant Pope ; and, therefore, be ing a modest
man, he wrote to the Conference at Marienborn, and asked for
leave to lay do wn his office . T he questio n was submitted to
the Lot. The Lot allowed Dober to resign. The situation w as
now
more
dange rous
than
ever.
The
Brethren
were
in
a
quandar y. They could never do witho ut a General Elder. If
they did they wo uld cease to be a tr ue “Community o f Jesus,”
and degenerate into a mere par ty -sect. At last, at a house in
Red Lion Street, London, they met to thrash out the question.
For the thir d time a cr itical questio n was submitted to the
decision of the L ot {Sept. 16th, 1741.}. “As we began to think
about the Eldership,” says Zinze ndorf himse lf, in telling the
story, “it occurred to us to accept the Savio ur as Elder . At the
beginning of our deliberations we opened the Textbook. On the
one page stood the words, ‘Let us open the door to Chr ist’; o n
the other, ‘Thus saith the Lord, etc.; your Maste r, etc.; show
me to my children and to the work of my hands. A way to
Jesus! Away! e tc.’ Forthw ith and with one conse nt we resolved
to have no other than Him as our General Elder . He sanctio ned
it.95
It
was
just
Congregatio n
Day.
We
lo oked
at
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Watchword for the day. It ran: ‘The glory of the Lord filled the
house.
We
bow
permissio n.96
before
We
the
obtained
Lamb’s
face ,
etc.’
We
it.
sang
with
unequalled
We
asked
emotio n: ‘Co me, then, for we belong to Thee, and ble ss us
inexpressibly.’” As the story just quoted was wr itten by the
poetic Count, it has been supposed th at in recording this
famous event he added a spir itual flavour of his own. But in
this case he was telling the lite ral truth. At that Conference
the Brethren deliberate ly resolve d to ask Christ to under take
the office w hich had hitherto been held by Leonar d Do ber;
and, to put the matter beyo nd all doubt, they inscribed on
their minutes the resolutio n: “That the office of General Elder
be abo lished, and be transferred to the Savio ur.”97 At first
sight that resolutio n savo urs both of blasphemy and of pride ;
and R itschl, the great theolo gian, declares that the Brethren
put themse lves on a pe destal above all o ther C hurches. For
that judgment Moravian writers have largely been to blame. It
has
been
asser ted
again
and
again
that
on
that
famous
“Memorial Day” the B rethren made a “special co venant” with
Christ.
For
that
legend
Bisho p
Spangenberg
was
partly
responsible. As that godly wr iter, some thirty years later, was
writing the story of these transactions, he allo wed his pio us
imaginatio n to cast a halo over the f acts; and, therefore, he
penned the misleading sente nce that the chief concern of the
Brethren was that Christ “would condescend to enter into a
special co venant with His poor Brethren’s people, and take us
as his peculiar property.” For that statement the re is no t a
shadow of evide nce. The whole story of the “special co venant”
is a myth. In consulting the Lo t the Brethren showed their
faith; in passing their resolution they showed their wisdo m;
and the meaning of the resolution was that he nceforth the
Brethren rejecte d all human authority in spiritual matters,
recognized
C hrist
alone
as
the
Head
of
the
Church,
and
thereby became the fir st free Church in Europe. Instead o f
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
bowing to any human authority they proceeded now to manage
their ow n affairs; they ele cted by Lot a Co nference of Twelve,
and thus laid the foundations of that democratic system of
government
which
exists
at
the
present
day.
They
were
thrilled w ith the joy of their experience; they fe lt that now, at
length, the y were free indeed; they resol ved that the jo yful
news should be publishe d in all the congregatio ns on the same
day (November 13th); and henceforward that day was held in
honour as the day when the Brethren gaine d their freedom
and bowed to the will and law of Christ alone .
And now the re was only one mor e step to take . As soon as the
Syno d
in
Londo n
was
over,
C ount
Zinzendorf
set
off
for
America in pursuit o f a scheme to be mentio ned in its proper
place; and as soon as he was safely o ut of the way, the
Brethren at home set abo ut the tas k of obtaining recognition
by the State. They had an easy task be fore them. For the last
ninety -four year s –ever since the Peace of Westphalia (1648) –
the ruling pr inciple in German had been that each little king
and each little prince should settle what the religion should be
in his ow n particular do minio ns. If the King was a Lutheran,
his people must be Lutheran; if the King was Catho lic, his
people must be Catho lic. But no w this pr inciple was suddenly
thrown overboar d. The new King of Prussia, Frederick th e
Great, was a scoffer. For religion Frederick the Great cared
nothing; for the material welfare of his people he cared a good
deal. He had recently conquered Silesia; he desir ed to see his
land
well
tille d,
and
his
people
happy
and
good;
and,
therefore, he re adily granted the Brethren a “Concessio n,”
allow ing the m to settle in Prussia and Silesia {Dec. 25th,
1742.}. His attitude was that of the practical business man.
As long as the Brethren obeyed the law , and fo stered trade,
they could worship as they pl e ased. For all he cared, they
might have prayed to Beelzebub. He grante d them perfect
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
liberty of co nscience; he allowe d the m to ordain the ir own
ministers; he informed them that they would no t be subject to
the Lutheran co nsistory; and thus, though not in so many
words, he practically reco gnized the Brethren as a free and
independe nt C hurch. For the future history of the Brethren’s
Church, this “Concessio n” was of vast importance. In one
sense it aided their progress; in another it was a fatal barrier .
As the Brethren came to be known as good wo rkmen, other
magnates speedily followed the king’s example ; for particular
places par ticular “concessions” were prepared; and thus the
Brethren
were
encouraged
to
extend
the ir
“settle ment
syste m.” Instead, therefore, of advancing from town to town,
the Brethren co ncentrated the ir attention o n the cultivation of
settlement life; and before many years had passed away they
had founde d settleme nts at Niesky, Gnadenberg, Gnadenfrei,
and Ne usalz -on-the-Oder.
Thus, the n, had the Brethren sketche d the plan of all their
future work. They had regaine d their episco pal orders. They
had defined their mission in the world. They had chosen their
Gospel message . They had asserted the ir freedom of tho ught.
They had won the goodwill of t he State . They had adopted the
“settlement system.” T hey had begun their Diaspora work for
the scattered, and the ir missio n work for the heathen; and
thus the y had re vive d the old Church of the Brethren, and laid
down
those
fundamental
pr inciples
w hich
hav e
been
maintained down to the present day.
Meanwhile their patr iotic instincts had been confir med. As
Christian David had brought Brethren from Moravia, so Jan
Gilek brought B rethren from Bo hemia; and the story of his
romantic
adventures
aroused
fresh
zeal
for
the
ancient
Church. He had fled from Bo hemia to Saxo ny, and had o ften
returned, like C hristian David, to fetch bands of Brethren. He
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
had been captured in a hay -lo ft by Jesuits. He had been
impriso ned for two years at Leito mischl. He had been kept in a
dungeon swar ming with fro gs, mice and other ve rmin. He had
been fed w ith hot bread that he might suffer from colic. He
had been emplo yed as street sw eeper in Leitomischl, w ith his
left hand chaine d to his right foot. At length, however, he
made his escape (1735), fled to Gerlachse im, in Silesia, and
finally, along w ith o ther Bohe mian exiles, helped to form a
new congregatio n at Rixdorf, near Berlin. As the Brethren
listened to Gile k’s story their zeal for the Church of the ir
fathers was gre ater than ever; and now the critical questio n
was, w hat would Zinzendorf say to all this when he retur ned
from America?
Book III–The Rule of the Germans
Chapter 1
“The Church and Her Missio n, Or the Three Constitutional
Syno ds,
1760-1775″
As
we
enter
on
the
closing
stages
of
our
journey,
the
character of the landscape changes; and, leaving behind the
wild land of ro mance and adventure, we come out on the
broad, high road of slow but steady progress. The death of
Zinzendorf w as no crushing blow . At first some enemies of the
Brethren rejoiced, and one pro phet triumphantly remar ked:
“We shall now see an end of these Moravians.” But that time
the prophe t spo ke without his mantle . Already the Brethren
were sufficiently strong to realiz e their calling in the world. In
Saxony
they
had
established
powerful
co ngregations
at
Herrnhut and Kleinwelke; in Silesia, at Niesky, Gnadenberg,
Gnadenfre i and Neusalz ; in Central Germany, at Ebersdorf,
Neudie tendorf and Barby; in North Germany, at Rixdorf and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Berlin;
in
West
Germany,
at
Neuwied -on-the-Rhine;
in
Holland, at Zeist, near Utrecht. At first sight this list does not
look very impre ssive; but we must, of course , bear in mind
that most of the se congregations were powerful settlements,
that each se ttlement was engaged in Diaspora work, and that
the
branches
of
that
work
had
extende d
to
Denmar k,
Switzerland and Norway. In Great Britain a similar pr inciple
held good. In England the Brethr en had flour ishing causes at
Fulneck, Gomersal, Mirfield, Wyke, Ockbrook, Bedford, Fetter
Lane, Tyther ton, Dukinfield, Leo minster ; in Ireland, at Dublin,
Gracehill, Grace field, Ballinderr y and Kilw arlin; and aro und
each of
these
congregations w ere
numerous societies and
preaching places. In Nor th America they had congregations at
Bethlehem, Emmaus, Grace ham, L ancaster, L ititz, Nazare th,
New Dorp, New York, Philade lphia, Schoeneck and York (York
Co.);
and
in
addition,
a
number
of
preaching
places.
In
Greenland they had built the settleme nts o f New Herrnhut an d
Lichtenau.
In
the
West
Indies
they
had
established
congregations in St. Tho mas, St. Croix, St. Jan, Jamaica and
Antigua. In Berbice and Sur inam they had three main centres
of
work.
Among
the
Red
Indians
Zeisberger
was
busily
engage d. As accurate statistics are not available, I am not
able to state exactly h ow many Moravians there were then in
the world; but we know that in the missio n -field alo ne they
had
o ver
a
thousand
co mmunicant
members
and
seven
thousand adhere nts under their special care.
As soon, then, as the leading Brethren in Herr nhut –such as
John de Watteville, Leonard Dober, David N itschmann, the
Syndic, Frederick Köber , and o thers –had reco vered from the
shock occasione d by Z inzendorf’s death, the y set about the
difficult task o f organizing the work of the w hole Moravian
Church. First, they formed a provisional Board of Directors,
known
as
the
Inner
Council;
next,
they
despatched
two
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
messengers to America, to summon the practical Spangenberg
home to take his place on the bo ard; and then, at the earliest
convenient oppo rtunity, they summoned their c olleagues to
Marienborn for the first General Representative Synod of the
Renewed Church of the Brethren. As the Count had le ft the
affairs
of
Brethren
the
was
Church
in
e normous
co nfusio n,
{1764.}.
the
The y
task
had
before
their
the
Church
constitutio n to frame; they had their finances to straighten
out; they had their missio n in the world to define; the y had,
in a word, to bring or der out of chaos; and so difficult did they
find the task that ele ven year s passed aw ay before it w as
accomplished to any sati sfactio n. For thir ty ye ars they had
been half blinded by the dazzling brilliance of Zinzendorf; but
now they began to see a little more clearly. As long as
Zinzendorf
was
in
their
midst,
an
orderly
syste m
of
government was impossible. It was now an abso lut e necessity.
The reign of o ne man was over; the period of constitutio nal
government began. At all co sts, said the sensible Frederick
Köber, the Count must have no successor. For the first time
the
Syno d
was
attended
by
duly
e lected
congregatio n
deputies: t hose deputies came not only from Germany, but
from Great Britain, America and the mission -field; and thus
the voice o f the Syno d was the voice, not of o ne commanding
genius, but of the whole Moravian Church.
The first questio n to settle was the Church’s Mi ssion. For what
purpose did the Moravian Church exist? To that question the
Brethren gave a threefo ld answe r. First, they said, the y must
labo ur in the whole world; second, their fundamental do ctr ine
must be the do ctrine of reconciliation through the merit s of
the life and sufferings of C hrist as set forth in the Ho ly
Scriptures and in the Augsburg C onfession; and, third, in the ir
settlements
the y
would
continue
to
enforce
that
str ict
discipline – including the separation of the se xes –without which
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the Gospel message would be a mockery. Thus the world was
their parish, the cross their message, the syste m of discipline
their method.
Secondly, the B rethren framed their constitutio n. Of all the
laws ever passe d by the Brethr en, those passed at the first
General S ynod had, for nearly a hundred years (1764 -1857),
the greatest influence on the pro gress of the Mor avian C hurch.
The keyword is “centralizatio n.” If the Chur ch was to be a
united bo dy, that Church, held the Brethren, must have a
central cour t of appeal, a central administrative board, and a
central legislative authority. At this first Constitutio nal Syno d,
therefore, the B rethren laid dow n the follow ing principles of
government: That all power to make rules and regulations
touching the faith and pr actice of the Church should be vested
in the General Synod; that this General Synod should co nsist
of all bishops and ministers of the Church and of duly electe d
congregation deputies; that no deputy should be considered
duly elected unless his e lection had been co nfirmed by the
Lot; and that during an inter -synodal period the supreme
management of Church affairs should be in the hands of three
directing boards, which sho uld all be elected by the Synod,
and be responsible to the ne xt Synod. The first bo ard was the
Supreme Board of Management. It was called the Directory,
and consisted of nine Brethren. The second was the Brethren’s
ministry o f foreign affairs. It was called the Board of Syndics,
and managed the Church’s relations w ith gover nments. The
third was the B rethren’s treasury. It was calle d the Unity’s
Warden’s Board, and managed the Chur ch finances. For us
English readers, however, the chief po int to no tice is that,
although these boards were elected by the Gener al Syno d, and
although, in theory, they were i nternatio nal in character, in
actual fact they consiste d entirely of Germans; and, therefore,
we have the astounding situatio n that during the next ninety -
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
three
years
the
whole
work
of
the
Moravian
Church –in
Germany, in Holland, in Denmar k, in Great Britai n, in North
America,
and
in
the
rapidly
extending
mission -field–was
managed by a board or boards consisting of Germans and
resident in Germany. There all General Synods were held ;
there lay all supr eme administrative and legislative power.
Of local se lf-government there w as practically no ne. It is tr ue
that so -calle d “Provincial Syno ds” were held; but these Syno ds
had no power to make laws. At this period the Moravian
Church w as divided, roughly, into the six Provinces of Upper
Lusatia, Silesia, Holland, En gland, Ireland, and America; and
in
each
of
these
Provinces
Synods
might
be
held.
But
a
Provincial Syno d was a Synod only in name. “A Provincial
Syno d,” ran the law, “is an assembly of the ministers and
deputies of the congregatio ns of a who le province or land who
lay to hear t the weal or woe of their congregations, and lay
the results of their conferences before the General Synod or
the Directory, w hich is constituted from one General Syno d to
another. In o the r places and districts, indeed, that name does
not suit; but yet in every congregation and distr ict a so lemn
conference of that sort may ever y year be holden, and report
be made out of it to the Director y and General Synod.”
In individual congregations the same principle applied. T here,
too, self-government was almo st unknow n. At the head of
each
congregation
was
a
board
known
as
the
Elders’
Conference; and that Elders’ Conference consisted, not of
Brethren elected by the C hurch members, but o f the minister,
the minister’s wife, and the choir -labourers, all appo inted by
the supreme Dir ecting Boar d. It is true that the members of
the congregatio n had power to elect a committee, but the
powers of that committee were strictly limite d. It dealt with
business
matter s
only,
and
all
members
of
the
Elders’
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Conference were ex officio members of the Co mmittee. We can
see, then, what this cur ious system meant. It meant that a
body of Moravian members in L ondon, Dublin o r Philadelphia
were under the authority of a Conference appointed by a
Directing Board of Germans resident in Germany.
The next question to settle was finance; and here again the
word “centralization” must be our guide through the jungle. At
that time the finances had sunk so low that at this first
General Synod most of the ministers and deputies had t o sleep
on straw , and now the great pr oblem to settle was, how to
deal w ith Zinzendorf’s property. As long as Z inze ndorf was in
the flesh he had generously used the income fro m his estates
for all sor ts of Church purposes. But now the situation was
rather delicate. On the one hand, Zinzendorf’s landed property
belonged by law to his he irs, i.e., his three daughters, and his
wife’s
nephew,
Count
Reuss;
on
the
other
hand,
he
had
verbally pledged it to the Brethr en to help them out of their
financial trouble s. The proble m was solved by purchase. In
exchange for Zinzendorf’s estates at Berthelsdo rf and Gross Hennersdorf,
the
Brethren
offe red
the
heirs
the
sum
of
£25,000. The heirs accepted the offer; the deeds of sale were
prepared; and thus Zinzendorf’s landed proper ty became the
property of the Moravian Chur ch. We must not call this a
smart
business
transaction.
When
the
Brethr en
purchased
Zinzendorf’s estates, they purchased his debts as well; and
those de bts amo unte d now to over £150,000. The one thing
the Brethren gained was indepe ndence . They w ere no longer
under an o bligation to the Zinzendorf family.
At the next Gene ral Synod, he ld again at Mar ienborn {1769.},
the centralizing principle was still more emphatically enforced.
As the three separate boar ds of management had not worked
very smoothly to gether, the Brethren now abolished them, and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
resolved that he nceforth all supr eme administrative author ity
should be veste d in one grand comprehensive board, to be
known as the Unity’s Elders’ Conference.138 The Co nference
was divided into three depar tme nts – the College of Overseers,
the College of Helpers, and the College of Servants. It is hard
for English readers to realize what absolute power s this board
possessed. The secret lies in the Brethren’s use of the Lot .
Hitherto the use of the Lot had been haphazard; henceforth it
was a recogniz ed principle of Church government. At this
Syno d the Brethren laid down the law that all elections,139
appo intments and impor tant decisio ns should be ratifie d by
the Lot. It was used, no t only to confirm elections, but often,
though not always, to se ttle que stio ns of Church policy. It was
often appealed to at Synods. If a difficult question came up
for discussion, the Brethren frequently consulted the Lot. The
metho d was to place three papers in a box, and then appo int
someone to draw one out. If the paper was positive , the
resolution
was
carried;
if
the
paper
was
negative ,
the
resolution w as lo st; if the paper was blank, the r esolution was
laid on the table . The weightiest matters were settled in this
way. At one Synod the Lot decided that George Waiblinger
should be entrusted with the task of preparing an “Expo sitio n
of Christian Doctrine”; and yet when Waiblinger fulfille d his
duty, the Brethr en were not satisfied w ith his wo rk. At another
Syno d
the
Lot
decide d
that
Spangenberg
should
not
be
entrusted with that task, and yet the Brethren were quite
convince d
that
Spangenberg
was
the
best
man
for
the
purpose . But pe rhaps the greatest effect of the Lot was the
power and dignity w hic h it conferred on officials. No man
could be a member of the U.E.C . unless his electio n had been
confirmed by the Lot; and whe n that confirmation had been
obtained, he felt that he had been appointe d, not only by his
Brethren, but also by God. Thus the U.E .C ., appointed by the
Lot, employed the Lot to settle the most de licate questions.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
For example, no Moravian minister might marry witho ut the
consent of the U.E.C. T he U.E.C. submitted his choice to the
Lot; and if the Lot decided in the negative, he accept ed the
decision as the voice o f God. In the congregatio ns the same
practice prevaile d. All applications for church me mbership and
all proposals o f marriage were submitted to the Local Elders’
Conference; and in each case the Conference arrived at its
decis ion by consulting the Lot. To some critics this practice
appeared a symptom of lunacy. It was not so regarded by the
Brethren. It was the ir way o f seeking the guidance of God;
and w hen they were challenge d to justify their conduct, they
appealed to the exa mple of the e leven Apostles as recorded in
Acts i. 26, and also to the pro mise of Chr ist, “Whatsoever ye
shall ask in My name, I w ill do it.”
At this Syno d the financial problem came up afresh. The
Brethren tried a bold experime nt. As the Church’s debts co uld
not be extinguished in any o ther way, they determined to
appeal to the ge nerosity of the members; and to this end they
now
resolved
that
the
property
of
the
Church
should
be
divided into as many sectio ns as there were congregatio ns,
that each co ngre gat ion should have its own property and bear
its own burden, and that each co ngregatio n -committee should
supply the needs of its own minister. Of co urse, money for
general
Brethren
Church
trusted
purposes
that
would
this
still
wo uld
be
come
required:
readily
but
the
from
the
pockets of loving members.
But love , tho ugh a beautiful silken bond, is so metimes apt to
snap.
The
new
arrangeme nt
was
violently
o pposed.
What
right, asked grumblers, had the Syno d to saddle individual
congregations with the debts of the w hole Church? The local
managers of diaconies prove d incompetent. At Neuwied one
Brother lost £6,0 00 of Church mo ney in a lottery. The financial
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
pressure became harder than e ver. James Skinner , a member
of the Londo n co ngregatio n, suggested that the needful mo ney
should be raise d by weekly subscriptions. In England this
proposal might have found favour ; in Germany it was rejecte d
with contempt. The relief came from an unexpe cted quarter .
At Herrnhut the members were celebrating the congregation
Jubilee
{1772 .};
and
twe nty
poor
Single
Sisters
there,
inspired w ith patriotic zeal, concocted the follo wing letter to
the U.E.C .: “After maturely weighing how we might be able , in
proportion to our slender means, to contribute something to
lessen the debt on the Unity – i.e., our ow n debt –we have
cheerfully agreed to sacr ifice and dispose of all unnecessary
articles, such as gold and silver plate, watches, snuff -boxes,
rings, trinkets and jewellery o f every kind for the pur pose of
establishing a Sinking Fund, on conditio n that not only the
congregation at Herrnhut, but all the members of the Church
everywhere, rich and
poor,
old and
young,
agree
to
this
proposal. But this agreement is not to be binding on those
who can contr ibute in o ther ways.” The brave le tte r caused an
imme nse sensation. The spir it o f generosity sw ept over the
Church like a fr eshening breeze. For very shame the other
members fe lt co mpelled to dive into their pockets; and the
young men, not
being possessed of trinkets,
offered free
labo ur in their leisur e ho urs. The good fo lk at Herrnhut vied
with each other in giving; and the Brethren at Philadelphia
vied with the Brethren at Herrnhut. The Sinking Fund was
established. In less than twe lve months the Single Sisters at
Herrnhut raised £1,300; the total con tributions at Herrnhut
amounted to £3,500; and in three years the Sinking Fund had
a capital o f £25,000. Thus did twenty Single Sisters earn a
high place on the Moravian roll of honour. At the same time,
the U.E.C . were able to se ll the three estates of Ma rienborn,
Herrnhaag and L indsey House ; and in these ways the debt on
the C hurch was gradually wiped off.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The third constitutional Synod w as he ld at Barby, on the Elbe,
near Magdeburg {1775.}. At this Synod the power of the
U.E.C. was strengthened. In order to prevent financial cr ises
in future , the Brethren now laid dow n the law that each
congregation,
though
having
its
own
pro perty,
should
contr ibute a fixed annual quo ta to the general fund; that all
managers of lo cal diaco nies sho uld be directly r esponsib le to
the U.E.C.; and that each co ngre gation sho uld se nd in to the
U.E.C. an annual financial state ment. In this way, therefore,
all
Church
property
was,
directly
or
indirectly,
under
the
control o f the U.E.C. T he weakness of this ar rangement is
manifest. As long as the U.E.C. was resident in Germany, and
as long as it consisted almost exclusively of Ger mans, it co uld
not be expected to understand financial questio ns arising in
England and America, or to fathom the mysterie s of English
and American law; and yet this was the system in force for the
next e ighty -two years. It is tr ue that the Brethr en devised a
metho d
to
over come
this
difficulty.
The
method
was
the
metho d of official visitations. At certain perio ds a member of
the
U.E.C.
wo uld
pay
official
visi tatio ns
to
the
chief
congregations in Germany, England, America and the Mission
Fie ld. For example, B isho p John Frederick Reichel visite d North
America (1778 -1781) and the East Indies; Bishop Jo hn de
Watte ville (1778 -1779) visited in England, Ireland, Scot land
and Wales; and John Henry Quandt (1798) visited Neuwied on-the-Rhine . In some ways the method was go od, in others
bad. it was good because it fostered the unity of the Church,
and e mphasized its broad internatio nal character . It w as bad
because it was cumbrous and expensive , because it exalted
too highly the official element, and because it checked local
independe nt gro wth.
Finally, at this third constitutional Syno d, the Br ethren struck
a clear note o n doctr inal questio ns. The main do ctrines of the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Church
were
de fine d
as
fo llows:
(1)
The
do ctrine
of
the
universal depravity of man; that there is no he alth in man,
and that since the fall he has no power whateve r left to he lp
himself. (2) The doctrine of the Divinity of C hrist; that God,
the Creator of al l things, was manifest in the flesh, and
reconciled us unto Himse lf; that He is before all things, and
that
by
Him
all
things
co nsist.
(3 )
The
doctrine
of
the
atoneme nt and the satisfaction made for us by Jesus C hrist;
that He was delivered for our offence s, and raised again for
our justification; and that by His merits alone we receive
freely the forgiveness of sin and sanctification in soul and
body. (4) T he doctrine of the Ho ly Spirit and the operatio ns of
His gr ace; that it is He who wor keth in us convi ctio n of sin,
faith in Jesus, and pureness of heart. (5) The doctrine of the
fruits
of
obedience
faith;
to
that
the
faith
must
commandme nts
evidence
of
itself
God,
fr om
by
w illing
love
and
gratitude to Him. In those doctrines there was nothing str iking
or peculiar . The y were the orthodox Protestant doctr ines o f
the day; they w ere the doctrine s of the Lutheran Church, of
the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland; and they
were, and are, all to be found in the Augsbur g C onfession, in
the Thirty-nine A rticles, and in the Westminster C onfession.
Such, the n, wer e the methods and do ctr ines laid down by the
three constitutio nal Syno ds. In metho ds the Brethren were
distinctive; in doctrine they wer e “orthodox evangelical.” We
may now sum up the results o f th is chapter. We have a semi democratic Church co nstitutio n. We have a gove rning board,
consisting mostly of Germans, and resident in G ermany. We
have
the
systematic
use
of
the
Lot.
We
have
a
broad
evange lical doctr inal standpoint. We are now to see how thes e
principles and methods worked o ut in Germany, Great Britain
and Amer ica.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 2
“The Fight for the Gospel,
Or, Moravians and Rationalists,
1775-1800″
If a man stands up for the old theology w hen ne w theo logy is
in the air , he is sure to be praised by some for his loyalty, and
condemned by others for his stupidity; and that was the fate
of the Brethren in Germany during the clo sing years of the
eighteenth
century.
The
situation
in
Germany
was
swiftly
changing. The whole country was in a theological uphe aval. As
soon as the Brethren had frame d their co nstitutio n, they were
summoned to the open field of battle. For fifty years they had
held their ground against a cold and lifeless orthodoxy, and
had, therefore, been regarded as heretics; and no w, as tho ugh
by a sudden mir acle, they became the boldest champio ns in
Germany of the orthodox Lutheran faith. Already a powerful
enemy had entered the field. T he name of the enemy was
Rationalism. As we enter the last quarter of the eighteenth
centur y, we hear the so und of tramping armies and the first
mutterings of a mighty storm. The spirit of free inquiry spread
like wildfire. In America it led to the War of Inde pendence; in
England it le d to Deism; in France it led to o pen athe ism and
all
the
horrors
of
the
French
Revolution.
In
Germany,
however, its effect was rather different. If the reader knows
anything of Germany history, he will probably be aware of the
fact that Germany is a land of many famous universities, and
that these unive rsities have alw ays playe d a l e ading part in
the national life. It is so to -day; it was so in the eighteenth
centur y. In England a Professor may easily beco me a fossil; in
Germany he often guides the thought of the age. For so me
years that scoffing wr iter , Voltaire, had been ope nly pe t ted at
the co urt of Fr ederick the Great; his sceptical spir it was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
rapidly becoming fashio nable; and now the professors at the
Lutheran
Universities,
and
many
of
the
leading
L utheran
preachers, were expounding certain radical views, not o nly o n
such vexed questio ns as B iblical inspir ation and the credibility
of the Gospel narratives, but e ven on some of the or thodo x
doctr ines
se t
University,
forth
John
in
Semler
the
Augsburg
propounded
Confession.
new
view s
At
Halle
abo ut
the
origin of the Bible; at Je na, Gr iesbach expounded textual
criticism;
at
Göttingen,
Eichhor n
was
lectur ing
on
Higher
Criticism; and the more the vie ws of these scholars spread,
the more the average Church members feared that the old
foundations were giving way.
Amid the alarm, the Brethre n came to the rescue . It is needful
to state the ir position w ith so me exactness. We must no t
regard them as blind suppor ters of traditio n, o r as bigote d
enemies of science and research. In spite of their love of the
Holy Scriptures, they never entered into any controversy on
mere
questio ns
of
Biblical
cr iticism.
They
had
no
special
theory of Biblical inspiration. At this time the official Church
theolo gian w as Spangenberg. He was appo inted to the position
by the U.E.C .; he was co mmissio ned to prepare an Exp osition
of
Doctrine;
and,
therefore,
the
attitude
adopte d
by
Spangenberg may be taken as the attitude o f the Brethren.
But Spangenberg himse lf did no t believe that the whole Bible
was inspired by God. “I canno t assert,” he w rote in o ne
passage, “that every word in the Holy Scr iptures has been
inspired by the Holy Ghost and give n thus to the writers. For
example, the speeches at the end of the book o f Job, ascr ibe d
there to God, are of such a nature that they cannot possibly
have proceeded from the Holy G hos t.” He be lieved, of co urse,
in the public reading of Scr ipture ; but w hen the B rethren were
planning a lectionary, he urged them to make a distinction
between
the
Old
and
New
T estaments.
“Otherwise,”
he
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
declared, “the r eading of the Old Testame nt may do mor e
harm than goo d.” He objected to the public reading of Job and
the Song of Songs.
But advanced vie ws about the Bible were not the main feature
of the ratio nalistic mo vement. A large number of the German
theolo gians
we re
teaching
w hat
we
sho uld
call
“New
Theology.” Inste ad of adher ing to the Augsburg Confession, a
great many of the Lutheran professors and preachers were
attacking some of its leading do ctrines. Fir st, they denied the
doctr ine of the Fall, w hittled away the to tal depravity of man,
and asserte d that God had created men, no t w ith a natural
bias to sin, but perfectly free to choose betwe en good and
evil. Secondly, they re jected the doctrine of reconciliatio n
through the me ritorio us sufferings of Chr ist. Thirdly, the y
suggested that the doctrine o f the Holy Trinity w as an offence
to reason. Around these three do ctrines the great battle was
fought. To the B rethren those do ctrines were all fundame ntal,
all e ssential to salvation, and all precio us parts of Christian
experience ; and, therefore, they de fende d them against the
Rationalists, not on inte llectual, but on moral and spir itual
grounds. The w hole question at issue, in the ir judgme nt, was
a question of C hristian experie nce. The case of Spangenberg
will
make
this
clear.
To
understand
Spangenberg
is
to
understand his Brethren. He de fended the doctrine of total
depravity, no t merely because he found it in the Scriptures,
but because he was as certain as a man can be that he had
once been totally deprave d himself; and he defended the
doctr ine of recon ciliation because , as he wrote to that dr inking
old sinner, Professor Basedow, he had found all grace and
freedom from sin in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. He often
spoke of himself in co ntemptuous language; he calle d himse lf
a mass o f sins, a disgusting cre ature, an offe nce to his own
nostr ils; and he recorded his ow n experience whe n he said: “It
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
has pleased Him to make out of me –a revolting creature –a
child of God, a temple of the Holy Ghost, a me mber of the
body
of
C hrist,
Spangenberg’s
all
heir
theology
of
in
eternal
a
life .”
sentence ;
Th e re
there
we
have
shines
the
Brethren’s experimental religion. The doctrine of the Trinity
stood upon the same basis. In God the Father they had a
protector ; in God the Son an ever present frie nd; in God the
Holy G host a spiritual guide ; and, therefore, they defended
the doctrine of the Trinity, not because it was in the Augsbur g
Confession, but because , in their judgment, it fitted the ir
personal exper ience.
And yet the Brethren were not controversialists. Instead of
arguing with the ratio nalist pre achers, they employe d more
pleasing metho ds of the ir own.
The first me tho d was the publicatio n of useful literature. The
most
striking
Spangenberg’s
book,
Idea
and
Fidei
the
most
Fratr um;
i.e .,
influential,
Exposition
was
of
the
Brethren’s Doctrine {1778.}. For many years this treatise was
prized by the
Brethren as a body of sound divinity; and
although it can no longer be regarded as a text -book for
theolo gical stude nts, it is still used and highly valued at so me
of the Morav ian Missio n stations.140 From the fir st the book
sold well, and its influence in Germany was great. It was
translated
into
English,
Danish,
French,
Swe dish,
Dutch,
Bohemian and Polish. Its stre ngth was its lo yalty to Ho ly
Scripture; its w eakness its lack o f original thought. If every
difficult
theolo gical
question
is
to
be
solve d
by
simply
appealing to passages of Scripture, it is o bvious that little
room is le ft for profound and original reflectio n; and that,
speaking broadly, was the me tho d adopte d by Spa ngenberg in
this volume. His object was tw ofold. On the one hand, he
wishe d to be tr ue to the Augsburg Confession; on the other
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
hand,
he
would
admit
supported
by
Scriptural
languag e.
no
Scripture.
do ctrine
The
T he
book
that
was
conve ntional
w as
almost
phrases
not
clearly
entirely
of
in
theolo gy
were purposely omitte d. In spite of his adhe rence to the
orthodox faith, the writer never used such phrases as Trinity,
Original Sin, Person, or Sacrament. He de liberate ly abandone d
the language of the creeds for the freer language of Scripture.
It was this that helpe d to make the book so popular. The more
fiercely the theological controversy raged, the mor e ready was
the average wor king pastor to flee from the dust and din of
battle by appealing to the testimony of t he Bible.
“How evangelical! How purely Biblical!” wrote Spangenberg’ s
friend, Co urt C ouncillor Frederick Falke (June 10th, 1787).
Christian David Lenz, the Luthe ran Superintendent at R iga,
was char med. “Nothing,” he wr ote, “has so convinced me of
the pur it y of the Brethren’s evangelical teaching as your Idea
Fidei Fr atrum. It appeared just when it was needed. In the
midst of the universal corruptio n, the Brethren are a pillar of
the truth.” The Danish Minister of Religion, Adam Str uensee,
who had been a fel low -student w ith Spange nberg at Jena, was
eloquent
in
University,”
his
he
praises.
wrote
to
“A
great
Spangenberg,
philoso pher
“complained
at
to
our
me
about our mode rn theolo gians; and then added: ‘I am just
reading Spangenberg’s Idea. It is certain that o ur successors
will have to reco ver their C hristian theology from the Moravian
Brethren.’” But the keenest cr iticism was passe d by Caspar
Lavater.
His
mixture
of
praise
and
blame
was
highly
instructive. He contrasted Spangenberg with Zinzendorf. In
reading Zinzendorf, we constantly need the lead pencil. One
sentence we wish to cross o ut; the next we w ish to underline .
In reading Spangenberg we do neither . “In these recent works
of the Brethren,” said Lavater, “I find much less to strike out
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
as unscriptural, but also much le ss to underline as deep, than
in the soaring writings o f Zinzendorf.”
And
thus
the
Brethren,
under
Spangenberg’s
guidance,
entered on a new phase. In o riginality they had lost; in
sobriety they had gained; and no w the y were honoured by the
orthodox party in Germany as tr uste d champions of the faith
delivered once fo r all unto the saints.
The same lesson was taught by the new edition o f the Hymn book {1778.}. It was prepared by Christian Gregor. The first
Hymn-book, issued by the Renewed Chur ch of the Brethren,
appeared in 1735. It consisted chiefly of Brethr en’s hymns,
written mostly by Zinzendorf; and dur ing the next fifteen
years
it
was
steadily
enlarged
by
the
additio n
of
twelve
appendices. But in two ways these appendices were faulty.
They
were
far
too
bulky,
and
they
containe d
some
objectionable hymns. As soon, however, as the Brethren had
recovered
from
the
errors
of
the
Sifting -T ime,
Count
Zinzendorf published a revised Hymn -book in London (1753 4); and then, a little later, an extract, entitled “Hymns of
Sharon.” But even these editions were unsatisfactory. They
containe d too many hymns by Br ethren, too many relics of the
Sifting-T ime, and too few hymns by wr iters of o ther Churches.
But the e ditio n published by Gregor was a masterpiece . It
containe d the finest hymns of C hristendo m from nearly every
source. It was absolute ly free from extravagant language;
and, therefore, it has not only been used by the Brethren from
that day to this, but is highly valued by C hristians of o ther
Churches. In 1784 Christian Gregor brought o ut a volume of
“Chorales,”
whe re
noble
tho ughts
and
stately
music
were
wedded.
The next class of literature issued was histor ical. T he more
fiercely the orthodox Gospe l was attacked, the more zealously
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
the Brethren br ough t out boo ks to show the effect of that
Gospel
on
the
lives
of
men.
In
1765,
David
Cranz,
the
historian, published his “History of Greenland.” He had been
for fourteen mo nths in Greenland himself. He had studie d his
subject at first hand; he was a careful, accurate, conscie ntious
writer; his book soon appeared in a second e dition (1770),
and w as translated into English, Dutch, Swedish and Danish;
and whatever objections philosophers might raise against the
Gospel of reconciliatio n, David Cr anz was able to sh ow that by
the preaching of that Gospel the Brethren in G reenland had
taught the natives to be sober, industr ious and pure. In 1777
the Brethren published G. A. O lde ndorp’s elaborate “History o f
the Mission in the Danish West Indies,” and, in 1789, G. H.
Loskiel’ s “History of the Mission Among the Nor th American
Indians.” In each case
the
author
had been on the
spo t
himself; and in each case the book was we lcomed as a proof
of the power of the Gospel.
The second me thod was correspondence and visitatio n. In
spite of their oppositio n to ratio nalistic doctrine the Brethren
kept in friendly touch with the leading ratio nalist preachers.
Above all, they kept in touch with the Universities. The leader
of this good wo rk was Spangenberg. Where Zinzendorf had
failed,
Spangenberg succeeded.
It
is a
cur ious feature
of
Zinzendorf’s life that while he won the favo ur of kings and
governments,
Churchmen.
he
As
could
long
as
rarely
win
Zinzendorf
the
favo ur
reigne d
of
learned
supreme,
the
Brethren were rather despised at the Universities; but now
they were treate d w ith marked respect. At one time the U.E.C.
suggested that regular annual visits should be paid to the
Universities of Halle , Witte nberg and Leipzig; and in one year
Bishop L ayritz, a member of the U.E.C., visited th e Lutheran
Universities of Halle, Er langen, Tübingen, Str asbur g, Erfurt
and Le ipzig, and the Calvinist Universities of Bern, Geneva
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and Basle . In response to a request from Walch of Göttingen,
Spangenberg
w rote
his
“Brief
Historical
Account
of
the
Brethren” and his “Account of the Brethren’s Work Among the
Heathe n”;
and,
in
response
to
a
request
fr om
Köster
of
Gieszen, he wr ote a series of theolo gical articles for that
scholar’s
“Encyclopædia.”
correspondence
Meanwhile,
with Schneider
at
he
was
in
constant
Eisenach, Le nz
at Riga,
Reinhar d at Dre sden, Roos at Anhausen, Tittman at Dresde n,
and other well -known Lutheran preachers. For thirteen years
(1771-1784) the seat of the U.E.C. was Barby; and there they
often received visits from leading German scholars. At one
time the no torious Professor B asedow begged, almost with
tears in his eyes, to be admitted to the Moravian Church; but
the Brethre n could not admit a man, however learned he might
be, who sought consolation in drink and gambling. On o ther
occasions the Br ethren were visited by Campe , the Minister of
Education; by Salzmann, the fo under of Schnepfe nthal; and by
Becker, the future editor of the German Times. But the most
distinguished
visitor
at
Barby
was
Semler ,
the
famo us
ratio nalist Professor at Hall e. “He spent many hours with us,”
said Spangenberg {1773.}. “He expounded his views, and we
heard him to the end. In reply we told him our convictions,
and then we par ted in peace fro m each other.” When Semler
publishe d his “Abstract of Church History,” he sent a copy to
Spangenberg; and Spangenberg returne d the complime nt by
sending him the latest volume o f his “L ife of Zinzendorf.” At
these frie ndly meetings with learned men the Brethren never
argued. T heir method was diffe rent. It was the metho d of
personal testimo ny. “It is, I imagine, no small thing,” said
Spangenberg, in a letter to Dr. J. G. Rosenmüller, “that a
people exists among us who can testify bo th by word and life
that in the sacr ifice of Jesus they have found all grace and
deliverance from si n.” And thus the Brethre n r eplie d to the
Rationalists by appealing to personal e xperience.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The third metho d was the educatio n of the yo ung. For its
origin we turn to the case of Susannah Kühne l. At the time of
the great revival in Herrnhut {1 727.}, the chi ldren had not
been neglecte d; Susannah Kühnel, a girl of ele ven, became
the leader of a revival. “We had then for our master,” said
Jacob L iebich, “an upr ight and se rious man, w ho had the good
of his pupils much at hear t.” The name of the master was
Krumpe. “He never failed,” continued Liebich, “at the close of
the school to pr ay with us, and to commend us to the Lord
Jesus and His Spir it dur ing the time of our amusements. At
that time Susannah Kühnel w as awakened, and freque ntly
withdrew into her father’s garden, especially in the evenings,
to ask the grace of the Lord and to seek the salvation of her
soul with strong crying and tears. As this was next door to the
house where we lived (there w as only a bo arded par tition
between us), we could hear her prayer s as we were going to
rest and as we lay upon o ur be ds. We were so much impresse d
that we could not fall asleep as carelessly as formerly, and
asked o ur teachers to go w ith us to pray. Instead of going to
sleep as usual, w e went to the bo undaries which sep arated the
fields, or among the bushes, to throw ourselves before the
Lord and beg Him to turn us to Himse lf. Our teachers often
went with us, and whe n we had done praying, and had to
return, we went again, one to this place and ano ther to that,
or in pair s, to cast ourse lves upon our knees and pr ay in
secret.” Amid the fervour occurr ed the events of August 13th.
The
children
at
Herrnhut
were
stirred.
For
three
days
Susannah Kühnel was so absorbe d in thought and prayer that
she forgot to take her food; and then, on August 17th, having
passed thro ugh a severe spir itual struggle, she was able to
say to her fathe r: “Now I am become a child o f God; now I
know how my mother felt and fe els.” We are no t to pass this
story
over
as
a
mere
pious
anecdo te.
It
illustrat es
an
important Moravian pr inciple. For the next forty -two years the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren
Church
practised
the
member s
in
syste m
of
separate
training
the
institutions;
children
the
of
children,
therefore, were boarded and educated by the Church and at
the Church’s exp ense;141 and the principle underlying the
syste m was that childre n fro m their ear liest years should
receive systematic religious training. If the child, they held,
was properly trained and taught to love and obey Jesus Chr ist,
he would not ne ed afterwards to be converted. He would be
brought up as a member of the Kingdom of Go d. As long as
the
Brethren
could
find
the
money,
they
maintained
this
“Children’s Eco nomy.” The date of Susannah’s co nversio n was
remembered, and became the date of the annual Children ’s
Festival; and in every settleme nt and co ngregatio n special
meetings for children were regularly he ld. But the system was
found too expensive . At the Synod of 1769 it w as abando ned.
No
longer
children
could
of
all
the
th eir
Brethren
maintain
member s;
and
the ncefoward
educate
they
the
could
maintain and e ducate only the childre n of tho se in chur ch
service.
For the sons of ministers the y established a Pædagogium; for
the daughters o f ministers a Girls’ Schoo l at Kleinwelke, in
Saxony;
and
for
candidates
for
ministerial
service
a
Theological Seminary, situated first at Bar by, then at Niesky,
and finally at G nadenfeld, in Silesia. At the same time, the
Brethren laid down the rule that each congregatio n should
have its ow n elementary day school. At first these schoo ls
were meant for Moravians o nly; but be fore lo ng they were
thrown open to the public. T he principle of serving the public
steadily grew. It began in the elementar y schoo ls; it led to the
establishment of boarding -schools. T he first step was taken in
Denmark.
Brethren
At
had
Christiansfeld,
e stablished
a
in
Schlesw ig -Holste in,
congregatio n
by
the
the
special
request of the Danish Governme nt; and there, in 1774, they
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
opened two boarding -schoo ls fo r boys and gir ls. From that
time the Brethr en became mor e practical in their methods.
Instead of atte mpting the hopeless task o f providing free
educatio n, they now built a number of boarding -schools; and
at the Syno d of 1782 they officially recognized education as a
definite part of their Church work. The chief schools were
those
at
Neuwied -o n-the -Rhine;
Gnadenfre i,
in
Silesia;
Ebersdorf, in Vogt -land; and Mo ntmirail, in Switzerland. The
style
of
architecture
ado pted
was
the
Mansard.
As
the
standar d of education was high, the schoo ls soon became
famous; and as th e religion taught was broad, the pupils came
from all Protestant de nominatio ns. On this subject the well known histor ian, Kur tz, has almo st told the truth. He informs
us that dur ing the dreary perio d of Ratio nalism, the schools
established by the Brethren were a “sanctuar y for the old
Gospel, w ith its blesse d promises and glor ious hopes.” It
would
be
be tte r,
however,
to
speak
of
these
schools
as
barracks. If we think o f the Brethren as retir ing hermits, we
shall entirely misunderstand their character. The y fought the
Rationalists w ith their own weapons; they gave a splendid
classical, literary and scientific education; they e nforced their
discipline on the sons of barons and no bles; they staffe d the ir
schools with me n of lear ning and piety; and these men, by
taking a personal interest in the religious life of their pupils,
trained up a band of fearless war riors for the ho ly cause of the
Gospel. It was this force of per sonal influence and example
that made the schools so famo us; this that won the confide nce
of the public; and this that caused the Brethr en to be so
widely
trusted
as
defenders
of
the
faith
and
life
of
the
was
the
Lutheran Church.
The
fourth
method
emplo yed
by
the
Brethren
Diaspora. Here again, as in the public schoo ls, the Brethren
never attempte d to make proselytes. At the Synod of 1782,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
and
again
at
a
Conference
of
Diaspora -workers,
held
at
Herrnhut (1785), the Brethren emphatically laid down the rule
that no worker in the Diaspora should ever attempt to w in
converts for the Moravian C hurch. The Diaspora w ork was now
at the he ight o f its glory. In L usatia the Brethre n had centres
of work at Herr nhut, N iesky and Kle inwe lke; in Silesia, at
Gnadenfre i,
Gnadenberg,
Gnadenfeld
and
Neusalz ;
in
Pomerania, at R ügen and Mecklenburg; in East Prussia, at
Danzig, Königsbe rg and Elbing; in Thuringia, at Ne udietendorf;
in
the
Palatinate
Brandenburg,
at
Christiansfeld,
and
Berlin
the
Wetterau;
at
Neuwied;
in
and
Potsdam;
in
Denmark,
at
Copenhage n;
in
Schlesw ig,
Fühnen,
and
Norway, at C hristiana, Drammen and Berg en; in Swe den, at
Stockho lm and Gothenburg; in Switzerland, at Basel, Bern,
Zürich and Mo ntmirail; and finally, in Livonia and Esthonia,
they employe d about a hundred preachers and ministered to
about six thousand souls. At this rate it wo uld appear that t he
Moravians in Germany were incr easing by leaps and bo unds;
but in reality they were doing no thing of the kind. At this time
the Moravian influence was fe lt in every part o f G ermany; and
yet
during
this
very
perio d
they
founde d
only
the
three
congregations o f Gnadenfeld, G nadau, and Kö nigsfeld.
But the greatest proof of the Brethren’s powe r was their
influe nce over Schle iermacher. Of all the religious leaders in
Germany Schleie rmacher was the greatest since Luther; and
Schleiermacher
learned
his
religion,
bo th
directly
and
indirectly, from the Brethren. It is some times stated in lives of
Schleiermacher
that
he
received
his
earliest
re ligio us
impressio ns from his parents; but, on the o ther hand, it
should be remembered that both his parents, in their turn,
had
come
under
Moravian
influe nce.
His
father
was
a
Calvinistic army chaplain, w ho had made the acquaintance of
Brethren
at
Gnadenfrei
(1778).
He
there
adopte d
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren’s conce ption of religion; he became a Moravian in
everything but the name; his w ife passed through the same
spir itual experie nce; he then settled dow n as Calvinist pastor
in the
colony o f Anhalt; and finally, for
the
sake
of his
children, he visited the Brethren again at Gnade nfrei (1783).
His famous son was now a lad of fifteen; and here , among the
Brethren
at
Gnadenfrei,
the
young
seeker
fir st
saw
the
heavenly visio n. “It was here,” he said, “that I first became
aware of man’s connectio n with a higher world. It was here
that
I
develo ped
that
mystic
faculty
which
I
regard
as
essential, an d w hich has o ften upheld and save d me amid the
storms of doubt.”
But Schleiermacher’s father was not conte nt. He had visited
the Brethren both at Herrnhut and N iesky; he admired the
Moravian type o f teaching; and now he requeste d the U.E.C.
to admit both h is sons as pupils to the Pædagogium at N iesky.
But the U.E.C. objected. The Pædagogium, the y said, was
meant for Moravian students only. As the old man, however,
would take no re fusal, the question was put to the Lot; the Lot
gave co nsent; and to N iesky Sc hleiermacher and his brother
came. For two years, therefore, Schleiermacher studied at the
Brethren’s Pædagogium at Niesky; and here he learned some
valuable lesso ns {1783 -5.}. He learned the value of hard
work; he formed a friendship with Albertini, and p lunge d with
him into a passionate study of G reek and Latin literature ; and
he learned by personal contact with bright young souls that
religion, w hen based on personal experience , is a thing of
beauty and joy. Above all, he learned from the Brethren the
value
of
the
historical
C hrist.
The
great
object
of
Schleiermacher’s life was to reco ncile science and religion. He
atte mpted for the Germans o f the eighteenth centur y what
many
theologians
endeavoured
to
are
make
a
attempting
for
“lasting
trea ty
us
to -day.
be tween
He
living
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Christian faith and the spir it o f free inquir y.” He found that
treaty
existing
already
at
Nie sky.
As
the
sole mn
time
of
confirmatio n drew near, the yo ung lad was carrie d away by his
feelings, and expected his spir itual instr uctor to fan t he flame.
“But no!” says Schle iermacher, “he led me back to the fie ld of
history. He urged me to inquir e into the facts and quietly
think
out
co nclusions
for
myself.”
Thus
Schleiermacher
acquired at Niesky that scientific frame of mind, and also that
passionate devotion to Chr ist, which are seen in e very line he
wrote.
>From N iesksy
he
passed
to
the
Theological
Seminary
at
Barby {1785 -87.}. But here the influence w as o f a different
kind. Of the three theological pro fessors at Barby –Baumeister,
Bossart, and T homas Moore –not one was inte lle ctually fitted
to deal w ith the religious difficulties of young me n. Instead of
talking frankly with the stude nts about the bur ning problems
of the day, the y simply lectured on the old or thodo x lines,
asserted that certain d o ctr ines w ere true, informed the young
seekers that doubting was sinful, and clo sed every door and
window of the college against the entrance of modern ideas.
But modern ideas streamed in
through the
chinks. Young
Schleiermacher was now like a golden eagle in a cage. At
Niesky he had learned to think for himse lf; at Barby he was
told
that
thinking
for
himse lf
was
wrong.
He
called
the
doctr ines taught by the professors “stupid orthodoxy.” He
rejected, on inte llectual grounds, the ir doctr ine o f the eternal
Godhead of Chr ist; and he rejected on moral and spir itual
grounds the ir doctrines of the
total de pravity of man, of
eternal punishment, and of the substitutio nary sufferings of
Christ. He wrote a pathe tic le tter to his fathe r. “I cannot
accept these do ctrine s,” he said. He begged his father to allow
him to leave the college; the old man reluctantly granted the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
request; and Schleiermacher , therefore, left the Brethren and
pursued his inde pendent career.
And ye t, though he differed from the Brethren in theolo gy , he
felt himself at one with them in religion. In o ne sense, he
remaine d a Moravian to the end. He called himself a “Moravian
of the higher order”; and by that phrase he probably meant
that he had the Brethren’s faith in Chr ist, but r ejected their
orthodox
theology.
“Nachrichten.”
He
He
read
maintained
the ir
his
mo nthly
fr iendship
magazine,
with
Bisho p
Albertini, and studied his sermons and poems. He ke pt in
touch w ith the B rethren at Berlin, where his siste r, Char lotte,
lived in one of their establishme nt s. He frequently stayed at
Gnadenfre i, Barby, and Ebersdorf. He chatted w ith Albertini at
Berthelsdorf. He described the B rethren’s singing meetings as
models. “They make a deep religio us impression,” he said,
“which is ofte n of greater value than many ser mo ns.” He loved
their celebratio n of Passion Week, their triumphant Easter
Morning service, and their beautiful Holy Communion. “T here
is no Communio n to compare w ith the irs,” he said; and many
a non -Moravian has said the same. He admired the Moravian
Church because she was free; and in o ne of his later writings
he
declared
that
if
that
Church
could
o nly
be
reformed
according to the spirit of the age, she would be one of the
grande st Churches in the world. “In fundamentals,” he said,
“the
Brethren
are
right ;
it
is
only
their
Chr isto logy
and
theolo gy that ar e bad, and these are only exter nals. What a
pity they cannot separate the surface fro m the solid rock
beneath.” To him the fundame ntal truth of theo logy was the
revelation of G od in Jesus C hrist; and that
also w as the
fundame ntal e lement in the teaching o f Zinzendo rf.142
Meanwhile the great leader of the Brethren had passed away
from
earth.
At
the
advanced
age
of
eighty -eight,
Bishop
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Spangenberg
died
at
Berthe lsdorf
{1792.}.
In
history
Spangenberg has no t r eceive d his deserts. We have allowed
him to be over shadowe d by Zinzendorf. In ge nius, he w as
Zinzendorf’s
inferior;
in
energy,
his
equal;
in
practical
wisdo m, his superior. He had organized the first Moravian
congregation in England, i.e ., the one at Fette r Lane; he
superinte nded the first campaign in Yorkshire ; he led the
vanguar d in Nor th America; he defended the Brethren in many
a pamphlet just after the Sifting -Time; he gave their broad
theolo gy literary form; and for thirty years, by his wisdom, his
skill,
and
his
patience ,
he
guided
the m
through
many
a
dangerous financial crisis. Amid all his labo urs he was mo dest,
urbane and che erful. In appear ance his admirers calle d him
aposto lic. “He lo oked,” said one , “as Peter must have looked
when he stoo d befor e Ananias, or John, w hen he said, Little
children, love each other.”
“See there, Lavater,” said ano the r enthusiast, “that is what a
Christian looks like.”
But the noblest testimo ny was given by Becker, the editor of
the German Times. In an article in that paper, B ecker related
how once he had an interview with Spange nber g, and how
Spangenberg recounted some of his exper ience s during the
War in North America. The face of the Bishop was aglow. The
great editor w as struck w ith amazement. At le ngth he stepped
nearer to the w hite -haired veteran, and said: –
“Happy man! reveal to me your secret! What is it that makes
you so strong and calm? What light is this that illumines yo ur
soul? W hat powe r is this that makes you so content? Tell me ,
and make me happy for ever .”
“For this,” replied the simple Spangenberg, his eyes shining
with joy, “for this I must thank my Savio ur.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
There lay the secret of Spangenberg’s power; and there the
secret of the services rendered by the Brethren when pio us
evange licals in Germany trem ble d at the onslaught of the new
theolo gians. For these services the Brethren have been both
blamed
and
Ritschl,
such
Lutheran
praised.
men
Church.
as
According
to
that
Spangenberg
According
to
eminent
were
Dorner,
the
the
histor ian,
bane
of
the
evange lica l
theolo gian, the Brethren helpe d to save the Pr otestant faith
from ruin. “Whe n other Churches,” says Dorner, “were sunk in
sleep, w hen dar kness was almost everywhere, it was she , the
humble priestess of the sanctuar y, who fed the sacred flame .”
Between tw o such doctors of divinity who shall judge? But
perhaps the philosopher, Kant, w ill be able to he lp us. He was
in the thick of the ratio nalist movement; and he live d in the
town of Königsberg, where the Brethren had a Socie ty. One
day a stude nt co mplained to Kant that his philosophy did not
bring peace to the heart.
“Peace!” replied the great philo sopher, “peace of heart you
will never find in my lecture room. If you want peace, you
must go to that little Moravian Church over the way. That is
the place to f ind peace.”143
Chapter 3
“A Fall and a Recovery, 1800 -1857″
As the Rationalist mo vement spread in Germany, it had two
distinct effects upon the Brethr en. The first w as who lesome;
the second was morbid. At first it aroused them to a sense of
their duty, and made them gallant soldiers o f the Cross; and
then, towards the close of the eighteenth century, it fille d
them with a ho rror of all changes and reforms and of all
independe nce in thought and actio n. The chief cause of this
sad change was the French Revolu tion. At fir st sight it may
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
seem that the French Revo lution has little to do with our
story; and Car lyle does not discuss this part of his subject.
But no nation lives to itse lf; and Robespierre, Mirabeau and
Marat
shook
the
civilized
world.
In
England
Revolution caused a general panic. At first,
the
French
of course , it
produce d a few revolutionaries, of the stamp o f Tom Paine;
but,
on
the
politicians
whole,
afraid
of
its
general
changes,
to
effect
was
strengthen
to
the
make
our
forces
of
conservatism, and thus to block the path of the social and
political reforme r. Its effect o n the Brethren was similar . As
the news of its horrors spread through Europe , good Christian
people could not help feeling that all free thought led straight
to athe ism, and all chan ge to revolution and murder; and,
therefore, the leading Brethren in Germany opposed liber ty
because they we re afraid of lice nse, and reform because they
were afraid of re volutio n.
For the lo ng period, therefore of eighteen years, the Moravian
Church in Ge rmany remained at a standstill {1800 -18.}. At
Herrnhut the Brethren met in a G eneral Synod, and there the
Conservatives w on a signal victory. Already the first shots in
the battle had been fired, and already the U.E.C . had taken
stern measures. Instead of facing the situatio n frankly, they
first shut their own eyes and then tried to make others as
blind as the mse lves. At this Synod the de puty for Herrnhut
was a lawyer named Riegelmann; and, being desirous to do his
duty efficiently, he had asked for a co py o f the “Synodal
Results” of 1764 and 1769. His request was moderate and
sensible . No deputy co uld possibly do his duty unless he knew
the existing law s of the Chur ch. But his request was sternly
refused.
He
was
informe d
that
no
private
individual
was
entitled to a copy of the “Results.” Thus, at the o pening of the
nineteenth century, a false no te was struck; and the Syno d
deliberate ly prevented honest inquiry. Of the me mbers, all but
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
two
were
church
officials.
For
all
practical
purposes
the
laymen were unre presented. At the head o f the conservative
party was Godfrey Cunow . In vain so me English minister s
requested that the use of the Lot should no longe r be enforced
in marriages. T he arguments o f Cunow prevailed. “Our entire
constitutio n demands,” he said, “t hat in our settleme nts no
marriage
shall
be
contracted
without
the
Lo t.”
But
the
Brethren laid do wn a still more depressing pr inciple. For some
years the o lder leaders had noticed, w ith feelings of mingled
pain and horror, that revolutionary ideas had foun d a home
even in quiet Mo ravian settlements; and in order to keep such
ideas in check, the Syno d now adopte d the pr inciple that the
true kerne l of the Moravian Church consisted, not of all the
communicant me mbers, but o nly of a “Faithful Few.” We can
hardly call this encouraging. It tempted the “Faithful Few” to
be Phar isees, and banne d the rest as black sheep. And the
Pastoral Le tter, drawn up by the Synod, and addressed to all
the congregatio ns, w as still more dishear tening. “It w ill be
better ,”
ran
one
f atal
sente nce,
“for
us
to
decrease
in
numbers and increase in piety than to be a lar ge multitude,
like a body without a spir it.” We call easily see what such a
sentence means. It means that the Brethren we re afraid o f
new ideas, and r esolved to stifle them in their birth.
The new po licy produce d strange results. At the Theological
Seminary
strange
in N iesky
positio n.
the
If
professors found
they
taught
the
themselves
old
in a
theology
of
Spangenberg, they would be untrue to the ir convictions; if
they taught their convictions, they would be untrue to the
Church; and, therefore, they solved the proble m by teaching
no theology at all. Instead o f lectur ing on the Bible, they
lectured
now
teaching
of
on
Chr ist
philoso phy;
and
His
instead
Apostle s,
of
they
expo unding
the
expounded
the
teaching of Kant, Fichte and Jacobi; and w hen the students
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
became ministers, they had little but philoso phy to offer the
people. For ordinary people philosophy is as tasteless as the
white of an egg. As the preacher s spoke far above t he heads
of the people, they soon lost touch with their flocks; the
hungry sheep lo oked up, and were not fed; the sermons were
tinkling br ass and clanging cymbal; and the ministers, instead
of attending to their pastoral duties, were hidden away in
their s tudie s in clouds of philoso phical and theological smoke,
and e mployed their time co mposing discourses, w hich neither
they nor the people could unde rstand. Thus the shepherds
lived in one wor ld, and the wandering sheep in another; and
thus the bond o f sympa thy between pastor and people was
broken.
For
this
reason
the
Moravian
Church
in
Germany
began now to show signs of decay in moral and spiritual
power; and the only encour aging signs o f pro gress were the
establishment of the new settlement of Königsfeld in the Black
Forest, the Diaspora work in the Baltic Provinces, officially
recognized by the Czar, the gr owth of the boarding -schoo ls,
and the extensio n of foreign missions. In the boar ding -schools
the Brethren we re at the ir best. At most of the m the pupils
were prepared for confirmation, and the children of Catholics
were admitted. But the life in the congregations was at a low
ebb. No longer w ere the Brethren’s Houses homes of Christian
fellowship; they were now little better than lodging -houses,
and the yo ung men had beco me sleepy, frivo lous, and even in
some cases lice ntious. For a short time the U.E.C. tried to
remedy this evil by enforcing stricter rules; and when this
vain proceeding failed, they thought of abo lishing Brethren’ s
Houses alto gether. At th e services in C hurch the Bible was
little read, and the people were content to feed their souls o n
the Hymn -book and the C atechism. T he Diacony managers
were slothful in business, and the Diaco nies ce ased to pay.
The subscr iptio ns to centr al funds dw indle d . T he fine property
at Barby was abandoned. T he Diaspora work w as curtaile d.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Another cause of decay was the growing use of the Lot. For
that growth the obvio us reaso n was that, w hen the Brethren
saw men adr ift on every side , they felt that the y themselves
must have an anchor that would hold. It was even used in the
boarding -schools. No
pupil
could be
admitted
to
a school
unless his applicatio n had been confirmed by the Lot.144 No
man could be a member of a Conference, no election w as
valid, no law w as carri ed, no important business ste p was
taken, witho ut the consent of the Lot. For example, it was by
the decision o f the Lot that the Brethren abandone d their
cause at Barby; and thus, afraid of intellectual pr ogress, they
submitte d
affair s
of
impor tance
to
an
external
ar tificial
authority. Again and again the U.E.C. desired to summon a
Syno d; and again and again the Lot rejecte d the proposal.
Meanwhile ano ther destructive force was working. Napoleon
Buonapar te was scouring Euro pe, and the German settlements
were constantly invaded by so ldiers. At Barby, G enerals Murat
and Bernado tte were lodged in the castle, and e ntertaine d by
the War den. At Gnadau the Fr ench made the chapel the ir
headquarters, killed and ate the live stock, ransacked the
kitchens
and
barricades
of
cellars,
the
cleared
casks,
out
the
stores,
w heelbarrows
and
and
made
carts.
At
Neudie tendorf the Prussians lay like locusts. At Ebersdorf,
Napoleon
lodged
in
the
Brethren’s
House,
and
quartered
twenty or thir ty of his men in every private dwelling.
At
Kleinwelke, wher e Napoleon settled with the whole staff of the
Grand Ar my, the Single Sisters had to nurse two thousand
wounded warrior s; and the pupils in the boar ding -school had
to be removed to Uhyst. At Gnadenberg the settleme nt was
almost ruine d. T he furniture was smashed, the beds were cut
up, the tools of the tradesme n were spoiled, and the soldiers
took
possessio n
of
the
Sisters’
House.
But
Napo leon
afterwards visite d the settle ment, declared that he knew the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Brethren to be a quiet and peace able people , and promised to
protect the m in future. He did not, however , offer them any
compensation; his promise of protection w as no t fulfilled; and
a few months later his ow n soldie rs gutte d the place again. At
Herrnhut, o n one occasio n, w hen the French we r e there, the
chape l was illuminate d, and a service was he ld to celebrate
Napoleon’s birthday; and then a little later Blücher arrived on
the sce ne, and summo ned the pe ople to give thanks to God for
a victory over the French. At Niesky the who le settleme nt
became a gener al infir mary. Amid scenes such as this Church
progress was impossible. The co st in mo ney was enormous. At
Herrnhut alone the levies amounted to £3,000; to this must be
added
the
destructio n
of
property
and
the
feeding
of
thousands of tr oops o f bo th sides; and thus the Brethren’s
expenses were increased by many tho usands of po unds.
At length, howe ver, at Waterloo Napoleo n me t his co nqueror;
the great cr iminal was captured and sent to St. Helena; and
then,
w hile
he
weather,
the
General
Synod
was
playing
Brethren
me t
{1818.}.
chess
again
At
this
and
at
grumblin g
Herrnhut
Synod
at
the
in
ano ther
some
curio us
regulations were made. For the purpose of cultivating perso nal
holiness,
Bisho p
Cunow
propo sed
that
hence forward
the
members of the Moravian C hurch should be divided into two
classes. In the first class he placed the ordinary members –
i.e., those w ho had been confir med or who had been received
from other Churches; and all belonging to this class were
allowe d to attend Communion once a quarter . Hi s second class
was a sacred “Inner Circle.” It consiste d of tho se, and only
those, who made a special religious professio n. No one could
be admitted to this “Inner Circle” witho ut the sanction of the
Lot; and none but those be longing to the “Cir cle” could be
members
of
the
Congregatio n
Council
or
Committee.
All
members be longing to this class attended the Communio n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
once
a
mo nth.
For
a
wonder
this
strange
r esolution
was
carried, and remaine d in force fo r seven years; and at bo ttom
its ruling pr inciple was th at only those e lected by the Lot had
any real share in Church government. But the question of the
Lot was still causing trouble . Again there came a request from
abroad–this time from Amer ica –that it should no longer be
enforced
in
marriages.
For
seven
year s
the
question
was
keenly debated, and the radicals had to fight very hard for
victory. First the Syno d passed a resolution that the Lot need
not be used for marriages except in the regular settlements;
then the members in the settlements gr umble d, and wer e
granted the same pr ivilege (1 819), and o nly ministers and
missio naries
were
compelled
to
marry
by
Lo t;
then
the
ministers begge d for liberty, and receive d the same pr ivilege
as the laymen (1825); and, finally, the missionaries fo und
release
(1836),
and
t hus
the
enforced
use
of
the
Lot
in
marriages passe d out of Moravian history.
But the Brethren had be tter work on hand than to tinker with
their constitutio n. At the root o f their troubles had been the
neglect of the Bible. In order, therefore, to restore t he Bible
to its pro per position in C hurch esteem, the Brethren now
established
the
Theological
Co llege
at
Gnade nfeld
(1818).
There John Plitt took the tr aining o f the stude nts in hand;
there syste matic lectures were given on Exe gesis, Dogmatics,
Old Testament Introduction, C hurch Histor y, and Brethren’s
History; there, in a word, John Plitt succeeded in training a
band of minister s who co mbined a love for the Bible w ith love
for
the
Brethren’s
Chur ch.
At
the
same
time,
the
Synod
appo inted an “Educational De partment” in the U.E.C .; the
boarding -schools were now more efficiently managed; and the
number of pupils ran up to thirte en hundred.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Amid this new life the sun rose on the morning of the 17th of
June, 1722, a hundred years after Christian David had fe lle d
the first tree at Herrnhut. The Brethren glance d at the past.
The blood o f the martyrs seemed dancing in their veins. At
Herrnhut
the
archives
of
the
Church
had
been
stored;
Frederick Kölbing had ransacked the records; and only a few
months before he had produced his book, “Me morial Days of
the
Renewed
B rethren’s
C hurch.”
From
hand
to
hand
the
volume passed, and was read w ith eager delight. The spir it o f
patr iotic zeal w as revived. Never surely w as there such a
gathering in Herrnhut as on that Centenary Da y. From all the
congregations in Germany, from Denmark, from Sweden, fro m
Holland,
fro m
Switzerland,
fr om
England,
the
Brethren
streamed to thank the Great Shepherd for His never -failing
kindnesses. Ther e were Brethren and fr iends of the Brethren,
clergyme n and laymen, poor peasants in simple garb from the
old home land in Moravia, and high officials from the Court of
Saxony in purple and scarlet and go ld. As the vast assembly
pressed into the Church, the trombones sounde d for th, and
the choir sang the words o f the Psalmist, so r ich in historic
associations: “Here the sparrow hath found a home, and the
swallow a nest for her young, even thine altars, oh, Lord of
Hosts!” It was a day of high jubilation and a day of penitent
mourning; a day of festive robes and a day o f sack -clo th and
ashes. As the great thro ng, so me thousands in number, and
arranged in choirs, four and four , stood round the spot on the
roadside where Christian David had raised his axe, and where
a
new
memorial -stone
now
stood,
they
rejoiced
bec ause
during tho se hundred years the seed had become a great tree,
and they mourned because the branches had be gun to wither
and the leaves begun to fall. The chie f speaker was John
Baptist Albertini, the o ld friend of Schle iermacher. Ster n and
clear was the message he gave; deep and full w as the note it
sounded. “We have lost the old love,” he said; “let us repe nt.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Let us take a w arning from the past; le t us return unto the
Lord.” With faces abashe d, with heads bowed, with hear ts
renewed, with tears of sorr ow and of joy in their eyes, the
Brethren went thoughtfully home wards.
At the next General Synod (182 5), however, they made an
alarming
discovery.
In
spite
of
the
revival
of
Church
enthusiasm, they found that dur ing the last seve n years they
had lost no fe wer than o ne tho usand two hundr ed members;
and, sear ching about to find the cause , they found it in Bishop
Cunow’s “Inner Circle .” It w as time to abolish that “Circle”;
and abo lished it therefore was.
At the ne xt General Synod (1836), the Brethren took ano ther
step forward. In order to encourage the ge neral study of the
Bible , the y arranged that in every congregatio n regular Bible
readings should be held; and, in order to deepen the interest
in
evangelistic
should be
work,
they
decr eed that
a
prayer
meeting
held the fir st Monday of every month. At this
meeting the topic of intercessio n was to be, not the mere
prosperity
relations
of
w ith
the
Brethren,
other
but
Churches
the
and
cultivation
the
extensio n
of
of
good
the
Kingdo m of God throughout the w orld.
The next sign o f progress was the wonderful r evival in the
Pædago gium at Niesky {1841.}. For nine years that important
institution, where minister ial candidates were traine d before
they e ntered the Theological Se minary, had been under the
management of Freder ick Immanuel Kle inschmidt; and ye t,
despite his ster nness and piety, the boys had shown but a
meagre spir it of religio n. If Kleinschmidt rebuke d them, they
hated him; if he tried to admonish the m private ly, they told
him fibs. There, at the very he art of t he young Church life,
religion was o pe nly despised; and the Pæ dago gium had now
become little be tter than an ordinary private school. If a boy,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
for example , wished to read his Bible , he had to do so in
French, pretend that his pur pose was simply to learn a new
language, and thus escape the mockery of his schoolmates.
The case was alarming. If piety was despised in the schoo l of
the prophets, w hat pastors w as Israel likely to have in the
future?
The revival began very quie tly. One boy, Pr ince Reuss, was
summoned home to be present at his father’s de ath -be d; and
when he retur ned to the school a few days later found himse lf
met by an amount of sympathy which boys are not accusto med
to show. A change of some kind had taken place during his
absence . The nightwatch man, Hager, had been heard praying
in his attic for the bo ys. A boy, in great trouble w ith a
trigonometr ical
problem
which
would
no t
come
right,
had
solved the difficulty by linking work with prayer. The boys in
the “ First Room” –i.e., the elder boys –made an agreement to
speak w ith o ne another o penly before the Holy Co mmunio n.
At le ngth, on November 13th, w hen the Brethren in the other
congregations w ere celebrating the centenar y of the Headship
of
Christ,
Niesky,
there
occurred,
“some thing
new,
at
the
evening
so mething
Communio n
unusual,
at
so mething
mightily surprising.” With shake of hand and without a word
those e lder boys made a sole mn cove nant to serve Christ.
Among them wer e two who, fifty years later, were still famous
Moravian preachers; and w hen the y recalled the e vents of that
evening they could give no explanatio n to each other. “It
was,” they said, in fond reco llectio n, “so mething unusual, but
something great and holy, that overcame us and moved us. It
must have been the Spir it of Christ.” For tho se boys that
wonderful Communion service had ever sacred associations;
and Bisho p Wunderling, in te lling the story, declared his own
convictions. “The Lord took possession of the house,” he said,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
“bound all to o ne ano ther and to Himse lf, and over all was
poured the spirit of love and fo rgivene ss, and a power from
above was distributed fro m the e njoyment of the Communio n.”
“What wonder w as it,” wrote one boy ho me, “that w hen we
brothers united to praise the Lord, He did not put to shame
our longings and our faith, but kindled o thers from our fire.”
In
this
work
the
chief
leaders
were
Kleinschmidt
the
headmaster , Gustave T ietzen, Ferdinand Geller, and Ernest
Reichel. At first, of course, ther e was some danger that the
boys
would
lose
their
balance ;
but
the
mas ters,
in
tr ue
Moravian style, checked all signs of fanaticism. It is har dly
correct to call the movement a re vival. It is be tter to call it an
awakening. It was fanned by historic memories, was very
similar to the first awakening at Herrnhut, and soon led to
very similar results. No groans, or tears, or morbid fancies
marred the scene. In the playgr ound the games continued as
usual.
On
every
hand
were
radiant
faces,
and
groups
in
earnest chat. N o one ever aske d, “Is so -and-so converted?”
For those lads the bur ning questio n was, “In w hat way can I
be like C hrist?” As the boys r etired to rest at night, the y
would ask the masters to reme mber them in prayer, and the
masters asked the same in return of the boys. The rule of
force was over . Before, old Kle inschmid t, like our English Dr .
Temple, had been feared as a “just beast.” Now he was the
lovable
father.
At
revivals
in
schools
it
has
so metimes
happened that while the boys have loo ked mo re pious, they
have no t always been more dilige nt and truthful; but at Nies ky
the boys now became fine models of industr y, honesty and
good manners. They confessed their faults to one another,
gave each other friendly warnings, forme d unions for prayer,
applie d the Bible to daily life, were conscientio us in the class room and in the playground; and then, whe n these go lde n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
days were over, went out w ith to ngues of flame to spread the
news through the Church. The real test of a revival is its
lasting effect on character. If it leads to se lfish dreaming, it is
clay; if it leads to lif e-long sacr ifice , it is go ld; and well the
awakening at N iesky stood the test.
At the next General Synod all present could see that the
Moravian
C hurch
was
American
de puties,
now
who
restored
had
come
to
full
life,
to
see
her
and
the
decently
interrred, we re amazed at her ho pefulness and vigour. At that
Syno d the signs of vigorous life were many {18 48.}. For the
first time the B rethren ope ned their meetings to the public,
allowe d reporters to be present, and had the results of their
proceedings pr inted and sold. For the first time they now
resolved
that,
instead
of
shutting
themselves
up
in
settlements, the y would try, whe re possible, to establish town
and country congregations. For the first time the y now agreed
that,
in
the
English
and
American
congregatio ns,
new
members might be received without the sanction of the Lot.
Meanwhile, the
boys awakene d at Niesky were
already in
harness. So me had continue d their studies at Gnadenfeld, and
were now powerful preachers. Some had become teachers at
Königsfe ld, Klei nwelke, and Neuwied. So me were preaching
the Gospel in foreign lands. Along the Rhine, in South and
West Germany, in Metz and the Wartebruch, and in Russian
Poland, the Brethren opened new fields o f Diaspora work; and
away in the bro adening mission fie ld t he energy was greater
than
ever.
In
Greenland
a
ne w
statio n
was
founde d
at
Friedr ichstal; in Labrador, at Hebron; in Sur inam, at Bambey;
in South Africa, at Siloh and Goshen; on the Moskito Coast, at
Bluefie lds; in Australia, at Ebene zer; and in British In dia, near
Tibet, at Kyelang.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
And thus our nar rative br ings us down to 1857. We may pause
to
sum
up
results.
If
a
chur ch
is
descr ibed
as
making
progress, most r eaders generally wish to know how many new
congregations she has founded, and how many members sh e
has
gained.
Brethren
B ut
progress
desired;
and
of
dur ing
that
the
kind
was
per iod
not
what
covered
by
the
this
chapter they fo unde d only one new congregation. They had
still only seventeen congregatio ns in Germany, in the proper
sense of that wo rd; but, on the o ther hand, they had fifty -nine
Diaspora centres, and abo ut one hundred and fifty Diaspora
workers. At the heart, therefore, of all the ir endeavo urs we
see the design, not to extend the Moravian Chur ch, but to ho ld
true to the old ideals of Z inzendo rf. In that sense, at least,
they had made good progress. They showe d to the world a
spir it o f bro therly union; they w ere on good ter ms with other
Churches; they made their scho ols and their Diaspora centres
homes of Christian influe nce; and, above all, li ke a diamo nd
set in go ld, there flashed still with its ancient lustre the
missio nary spirit of the fathers.
Chapter 4
“The British Collapse, 1760 -1801″
Of all the proble ms raised by the history of the Brethren, the
most difficult to solve is the one we have now to face. In the
days o f Jo hn We sley, the Moravians in England were famous;
in
the
days
unknown.
For
of
a
Robertson,
of
Brighton ,
hundred
years
the
they
Moravians
were
in
almost
England
played so obscure and modest a part in our natio nal life that
our great historians, such as Gr een and Lecky, do no t even
notice the ir existence, and the problem now before us is, what
caused this sw ift and myster ious decline?
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As the companions of Zinzendo rf –Boehler, Cennick, Rogers
and
Okele y–passed
one
by
one
from
the
scenes
of
their
labo urs, there towered above the other English Brethren a
figure of no small grandeur . It was Benjamin La Tr obe, once a
famous
preache r
in
England.
He
sprang
from
a
Hugue not
family, and had first come for ward in Dublin. He had been
among the first there to give a welcome to John Cennick, had
held to Cennick when others left him, had helped to form a
number of his hearers into the Dublin congregation, and had
been with Cennick on his ro mantic jo urney’s among the bogs
and cockpits of Ulster. As the years rolled on, he came more
and more to the front. At Dublin he had met a teacher of
music named Worthington, and a few years later La Trobe and
Worthington
we re
famous
men
at
Fulneck.
When
Fulneck
chape l was be ing built, La Trobe stood upo n the roof of a
house to preach. When the chapel was finished, La Trobe
became Brethren’s labo urer, and his fr iend Worthington played
the organ. In those days Fulneck Chape l was no t large eno ugh
to hold the crowds that came, and La Trobe had actually to
stand upo n the roof to harangue the vast w aiting thro ng. As
Cennick had been before in Ireland, so La Trobe was now in
England. He was far above mo st preachers of his day. “He
enraptured
resistless
his
audience ,”
elo quence.
His
says
an
old
language
account,
flowed
like
“by
his
rippling
streams, and his ideas sparkled like diamonds. His taste was
perfect, and his illustrations
were
dazzling;
and w hen
he
painte d the blackness of the human heart, whe n he depicted
the matchless gr ace of Christ, when he described the beauty
of holiness, he spoke with an energy, w ith a passion, with a
dignified sweep of majestic powe r which probe d the hea r t, and
pricked the conscience , and char med the trouble d breast.” It
was he o f w hom it is so quaintly recorded in a congregation
diar y: “Br. La Tr obe spoke much on many things.”
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
For twenty -one years this brilliant preacher was the chief
manager of the Bret hren’s work in England; and yet, though
he
was
not
a
German himself,
his
influence
was entirely
German in char acter {1765 -86.}. He was manager of the
Brethren’s English finances; he w as appointed to his office by
the German U.E.C.; and thus, along with Jam es Hutton as
Secretary, he acted as official re presentative of the Directing
Board in England.
In many ways his influence w as all for goo d. He helpe d to
restore to vigoro us life the “Society for the Furtherance of the
Gospel” (1768) remaine d its Pre side nt till his death, and did
much to further its wor k in Labrador. He was a diligent wr iter
and translator . He wrote a “Succinct View of the Missio ns” of
the Brethren (17 71), and thus brought the subject of foreign
missio ns
be fore
the
C hristian
public;
and
in
o rder
to
le t
inquirers know w hat sort of people the Moravians really were,
he translated and publishe d Spangenberg’s “Idea of Faith,”
Spangenberg’s “Concise Acco unt of the Present C onstitution of
the
Unitas
Fratrum,”
and
David
Cranz’s
“History
of
the
Brethren.” The r esult was good. The more people read these
works by La Trobe, the more the y respected the Brethren. “In
a var iety of publicatio ns,” said the Lo ndon C hronicle, “he
removed every aspersio n against the Brethren, and fir mly
established the ir reputati o n.” He was well known in higher
circles, was the friend of Dr. Johnson, and worked in unio n
with such well -known Evangelical leaders as R owland Hill,
William Romaine , John Newto n, Charles Wesley, Hannah More,
Howell Harr is, and B isho p Porte ous, the famous advocate of
negro emancipation. Above all, he cleanse d the Brethren’s
reputation fro m the last stains of the mud thrown by such men
as Rimius and Fr ey. He was a friend of the Bishop of Chester;
he
was
a
popular
preacher
in
Disse nting
and
Wesleya n
Chape ls; he addressed Howell Harris’s students at Trevecca;
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
he explained the Brethren’s do ctrines and customs to Lord
Hillsborough, the First Commissioner of the Board of Trade
and Plantations; and thus by his pen, by his w isdom and by
his elo quence, he caused the Brethren to be hono ured both by
Anglicans and by Dissenters. At this period James Hutton –now
a deaf old man–was a favourite at the Court of George III. No
longer were the Brethren denounced as immoral fanatics; no
longer did Jo hn Wesley feel it his duty t o expose their errors.
As Jo hn Wesley grew older and wiser, he began to think more
kindly of the Brethren. He renewed his frie ndship w ith James
Hutton, whom he had no t seen fo r twenty -five ye ars (Dec. 21,
1771);
he
recorded
visited
the
event
Bishop
in
his
John
Gambo ld
Jo urnal
with
in
the
London,
an d
characteristic
remark, “Who but Count Zinzendorf could have se parate d such
friends as we ar e?” He called, along w ith his bro ther Charles,
on John de Watteville at Lindse y House; and, above all, when
Lord Lyttleton, in his book “Dialogues of the De ad,” attacked
the character of the Brethren, John Wesley himself spoke out
nobly in their defence. “Could his lordship,” he wrote in his
Journal (August 30th, 1770), “show me in England many more
sensible men than Mr . Ga mbold and Mr. Okeley? And ye t bo th
of
these
were
called
Moravians…What
sensible
Moravian,
Metho dist or Hutchinsonian did he ever calmly converse with?
What does he know of them but from the caricatures drawn by
Bishop Lavingto n or Bishop Warburto n? And did he ever give
himself the trouble of reading the answers to these warm,
lively men? Why should a goo d -natured and a thinking man
thus conde mn w hole bodies by the lump?” But the pleasantest
proof of Wesley’s good feeling w as still to come. At the age of
eighty
he
we nt
over
to
Holland,
visite d
the
Brethren’s
beautiful se ttlement at Zeist, me t there his old fr iend, Bisho p
Anthony Se iffer th, and aske d to hear some Moravian music
and singing. The day was Wesle y’s bir thday. As it happened,
however, to be “Childre n’s Prayer -Day” as well, the minister,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
being busy w ith many meetings, was not able to ask Wesle y to
dinner; and, the refore, he invite d him instead to come to the
children’s love -feast. Jo hn Wesley went to the chape l, took
part in the lo ve -feast, and heard the little children sing a
“Birth -Day Ode” in his hono ur {June 28th, 1783.}. The o ld
feud between Mo ravians and Methodists was o ver. It ende d in
the children’s so ng.145
One
instance
{1777.}.
At
preacher,
Dr.
w ill
show
La
that
time
there
Dodd;
and
Tr obe’s
now ,
reputation
liv ed
to
in
the
in
Londo n
horror
England
a
of
famous
all
pio us
people, Dr. Do dd was accused and convicted of e mbezzlement,
and condemned to death. Never was Londo n more excited. A
petition w ith twe nty -three tho usand signatures was sent up in
Dodd’s be half. Frantic plots were made to rescue the criminal
from prison. But Dodd, in his tro uble, was in nee d of spiritual
aid; and the two men for whom he sent were John Wesley and
La Trobe. By We sley he was visited thrice ; by La Trobe, at his
own request, r epeatedly; and
La Trobe was the one w ho
brought co mfort to his soul, stayed with him till the end, and
afterwards wrote an o fficial acco unt o f his death.
And yet, o n the other hand, the policy now pursued by La
Trobe was the very worst policy possib le for the Moravians in
England. For that po licy, however, we must lay the blame , no t
on the man, but on the syste m under which he worked. As
long
as
the
Brethren’s
C hurch
in
England
was
under
the
control of the U.E.C., it followed, as a matter of course, that
German ideas w ould be e nforced on British soil; and already,
at the second General Synod, the Brethren had resolved that
the British work must be conducted on German lines. Never
did
the
Brethren
Germany the
make
syste m
a
had a
gre ater
blunder
measure
in
tactics.
In
of succe ss, and has
flour ishe d till the present day; in England it was doomed to
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
failure at the o utse t. La Trobe gave the syste m a beautiful
name. He called it the syste m o f “United Flocks.” On paper it
was lovely to behold; in practice it was the direct road to
consumptio n. In name it was English enough; in nature it was
Zinzendorf’s
Diaspora.
At
no
period
had
the
Brethren
a
grander oppor tunity o f extending their borders in England than
during
the
last
quar ter
of
the
eighteenth
centur y.
In
Yorkshire, w ith Fulneck as a centre, they had fo ur flo urishing
congregations, societies in Bradford and Leeds, and preaching
places
as
far
away
as
Doncaster
and
Kirby
Lonsdale ,
in
Westmoreland. In Lancashire , with Fairfield as a centre, they
were opening w ork in Manchester and C howbent. In C heshire,
with Dukinfield as a centre, they had a number of societies on
the
“C heshire
Plan,”
including
a
rising
cause
at
B ullock -
Smithy, near Stockport. In the Midlands, w ith O ckbrook as a
centre, they had preaching plac es in a dozen surrounding
villages. In Bedfordshire, with B edford as a ce ntre, they had
societies at Rise ley, Northampton, Eydon, Culwo rth and other
places. In Wales, with Haverfordwest as a centre, they had
societies
at
Laughharne ,
Fishguard,
Car marthen
a nd
Carnarvon. In Scotland, w ith Ayre146 as a centre, they had
societies at Irvine and Tarbo lto n, and preaching -places at
Annan,
Blackhall,
Kilmar nock,
smaller
Dumfries,
Ladyburn,
places.
In
the
Edinbur gh,
Prestw ick,
W est
of
Glasgow,
Westtown,
England,
and
with
Kilsyth,
twenty
Bristo l
and
Tytherto n as ce ntres, they had preaching -places at Apperley,
in Gloucestershir e; Fo me and Bideford, in So merset; Plymo uth
and Exeter, in Devon; and many villages in Wiitshire. In the
North
of
Ireland,
preaching-places
with
Gracehill
at Drumar gan,
as
a
Billies,
ce ntre ,
they
had
Arva (Cavan), and
many other places.
For the Brethre n, therefore, the critical question was, what to
do with the so cieties and preaching -places? There lay the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
secret of success or failure; and there th ey co mmitted their
great
strategic
blunder .
They
had
two
alternatives
before
them. The o ne w as to treat each society or preaching -place as
the nucleus of a future congregation; the other w as to keep it
as a mere society. And the Brethren, in obedience to o rders
from
Germany,
chose
the
latter
course.
At
the
Moravian
congregations proper the strictest rules were enforced; in
most congregatio ns there were Brethren’s and Sisters’ Houses;
and all full me mbers of the Moravian Church had to sign a
document known a s the “Brotherly Agreement.” {1771.} In
that document the Brethren gave some remarkable pledges .
They swore fidelity to the Augsburg Confession. They promised
to do all in their power to help the Anglican C hurch, and to
encourage all her members to be loya l to her. They declared
that
they
wo uld
ne ver
pr oselytize
from
any
other
denominatio n. T hey promised that no marr iage should take
place without the consent of the Elders; that all children must
be educated in o ne of the Brethr en’s schoo ls; that the y would
help to support the widows, old people and orphans; that no
member should set up in busine ss without the consent of the
Elders; that the y would never r ead any books of a harmful
nature. At each congregation the se rules –and o thers too many
to
mention
her e –were
read
in
public
once
a
year;
each
member had a printe d copy, and any member w ho broke the
“Agreement”
Brethren
was
signe d
liable
the ir
to
be
names
expelled.
to
an
T hus
the
“Agreeme nt”
English
made
in
Germany, and e xpressing German ideals o f religious li fe. If it
never became very popular, we need not wonder. But this
“Agreement” was not binding on the societies and preaching places. As the Brethren in Germany fo unde d societies witho ut
turning them into settleme nts, so the Brethren in England
conducte d
pr eaching -places
w ithout
turning
them
into
congregations and without asking the ir hearers to become
members of the Moravian C hurch; and a str ict rule was laid
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
down that only such hearers as had a “distinct call to the
Brethren’s Church” should be allowed to join it. The distinct
call came through the Lot. At nearly all the societies and
preaching-places, therefore, the bulk of the members were
flatly
refuse d
remaine d,
admission
for
the
most
to
the
part,
Moravian
members
of
C hurch;
the
they
Church
of
England; and once a quarter, w ith a Moravian minister at their
head, they marched in procession to the Communion in the
parish church. For unselfishness this po licy was unmatched;
but it nearly r uined the Moravian Church in England. At three
places–Woodford,147
Bai ldon
and
Devonport –the
Brethren
turne d socie ties into congregations; but mo st of the others
were sooner or later abandone d. In Yorkshire the Brethren
closed their chapel at Pudsey, and abando ned their societies
at Holbeck, Halifax, Wibsey and Doncaster. At Manchester they
gave up their chapel in Fetter Lane. In Cheshire they retreated
from Bullock Smithy; in the Midlands from No rthampton; in
London from Chelsea; in Somer set from Bidefor d and Fro me;
in Devon from Exeter and Plymo uth; in Gloucestershire from
Apper ley;
in
Scotland
from
Irvine ,
Glasgow ,
Edinburgh,
Dumfr ies and thirty or forty other places;148 in Wales from
Fishguard, Laugharn, Carmar the n and C arnarvo n; in Ireland
from Arva, B illies, Drumargan, Ballymena, Glo onen, Antrim,
Dromore, Crosshill, Ar tr ea, Ar magh, and so on. And the net
result
of
this
policy
was
that
when
Bisho p
Holmes,
the
Brethren’s Historian, published his “History of the Brethren”
(1825), he had to record the distressing fact that in England
the Moravians had only twenty congregatio n s, in Ireland only
six, and that the to tal number of me mbers w as only four
thousand
eight
hundred
and
sixty -seven.
The
question
is
sometimes asked to -day: How is it that the Moravian Church is
so small? For that smallness mo re reasons than one may be
give n;
but
one
reason
was
certainly
expounded in the present chapter.149
the
singular
po licy
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 5
“The British Advance, 1801 -1856″
But our proble m is not yet solve d. As soon as the nineteenth
centur y opened, the Brethren began to look forward with hope
to the future; and their leading preachers still believed in the
divine and ho ly calling of the
Moravian Church. Of those
preachers the most famous was Christian Frederick Ramftler.
He was a typical Moravian minister . He was a type in his
character, in his do ctrine, and in his fortunes. He came of an
old Moravian family, and had martyr’s blood in his veins. He
was born at the Moravian settle ment at Barby (1780). At the
age of six he attended a Good Friday service, and was deeply
impressed by the words, “He bo w ed his head and gave up the
ghost”; and although he could never name the date of his
conversio n, he w as able to say that his religion was based o n
the love of C hrist and on the obligatio n to lo ve Christ in
return. At the age of seven he was sent to the Mor avian schoo l
at Kleinwelke ; he then entered the Pædago gium at Barby, and
completed his education by studying theolo gy at Niesky. At
that place he was so anxious to preach the Gospel that, as he
had
no
opportunity
of
preaching
in
the
congregatio n,
he
determined to preach to the ne ighbo uring Wends; and, as he
knew not a word of their language, he borrowed one of their
minister’s sermo ns, learned it by heart, asce nde d the pulpit,
and delivered the discourse w ith such te lling energy that the
delighted peo ple ex claimed: “Oh, that this young man might
always preach to us instead o f our sleepy parson.” For that
freak he was gr avely rebuked by the U.E.C ., and he behave d
with more discr etion in the future. For two ye ars he served
the C hurch as a schoo lmaster, first a t Neusalz -on-the-O der,
and then at Uhyst; and then, to his sur prise , he received a
call
to
England.
For
the
mo ment
he
was
staggered.
He
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
consulted the L ot; the Lo t gave consent; and, therefore, to
England he came. For six years he now served as master in
the Brethren’s boarding -school at Fairfield; and then, in due
course,
he
was
called
as
minister
to
the
Brethren’s
congregation at Bedford. As so on, however, as he accepted
the call, he was informe d that he would have to marry; his
wife was found for him by t he Church; the marr iage turned out
a happy one; and thus, w ith her as an official helpmate, he
commence d his ministerial caree r (1810). At Bedford he joined
with o ther ministers –such as Le gh Richmond and S. Hillyard –in
founding
B ible
associatio ns.
At
Fulne ck–w here
he
was
statio ned twe lve years –he was so beloved by his congregatio n
that one member actually said: “Dur ing seven years your
name has not o nce been omitte d in our family prayers.” At
Bristo l he was noted for his missionar y zeal, too k an interest
in the conversion of the Jews, and often spoke at public
meetings o n be half o f the Church Missionar y So ciety; and in
one year he tr avelled a thousand miles on behalf of the
“London Associatio n in aid of Moravian Missions.” In manner
he was rough and abrupt; at heart he was gentle as a woman.
He was a strict disciplinar ian, a keen questio ner, and an
unflinching demander of a Chr istian walk. No t one jot or tittle
would he allow his people to yield to the loose ways of the
world. In his ser mons he dealt hard blo ws at cant; and in his
private conversatio n he generally managed to put his finger
upon the sore spot. One day a collier came to see him, and
complained, in a rather whining tone, that the path of his life
was dark.
“H’m,” grow led Ramftler, w ho hated sniff ling, “is it darker
than it was in the coal -pit?”
The words proved the co llier’s salvation.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
In all his habits Ramftler was strictly metho dical. He always
rose before six; he always finished his writing by eleven; and
he kept a list of the texts from w hich he preached. As that list
has been preser ved, we are able to form some notion of his
style; and the chief po int to no tice is that his preaching was
almost entirely from the New Testament. At time s, of course,
he gave his peo ple systematic lectures on the P atriar chs, the
Prophets and the Psalms; but, speaking, broadly, his favourite
topic was the Passio n History. Above all, like most Moravian
ministers, he w as an adept in dealing with children. At the
close of the Sunday mor ning ser vice , he came down from th e
pulpit, took his seat at the Communion table , put the children
through the ir catechism, and then aske d all w ho wishe d to be
Christians to co me and take his hand.
At length, towar ds the close of his life, he was able to take
some par t in pioneer work. Amo ng his numerous fr iends at
Bristo l was a certain Louis West.
“Have yo u neve r thought,” said Ramftler, “of becoming a
preacher of the Gospel?”
“I believe,” replied West, “I shall die a Moravian minister ye t.”
“Die as a minister!” snapped Ramftler. “You ough t to live as
one!”
The words soon came true. In response to an invitation from
some pio us peo ple, Ramftler paid a visit to Brockweir, a little
village on the Wye, a few miles above Tinter n. T he village was
a hell on earth. It was witho ut a chur ch, and poss essed seve n
public-houses. There was a field of labour for the Brethren. As
soon as Ramftle r could co llect the mo ney, he had a small
church erected, laid the corner -sto ne himself, and had the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
pleasure
of
se eing
West
the
first
minister
of
the
new
congregation.
And like Ramftler was many another of kindred blood. At
Wyke, Jo hn Steinhauer (1773 -76), the children’s friend, had a
printing press, wherewith he pr inted hymns and passages of
Scripture in days when children’s books were almo st unknown.
At Fulneck the famous teacher, Job Bradley, served for forty five years (1765 -1810), devo ted his life to the spir itual good
of boys, and summed up the passion of his life in the words he
was often heard to sing: –
Saviour, Savio ur , lo ve the children; Children, children, love
the Saviour .
At
Kimbolton,
Bishop
John
King
Mar tyn
founded
a
new
congregation. At Kilwarlin, Basil Patras Zula revived a flagging
cause . If the Moravian Church was small in England, it w as no t
because her ministers were idle, or because they were lack ing
in moral and spiritual power.
And yet, fine characters though they were, these men could do
little for Church extensio n. They were still tied down by the
“Brotherly Agreement.” They aimed at quality
rather
than
quantity. As long as the Brethre n’s work in England remained
under
German
management,
that
“Brotherly
Agreement”
remaine d their charter of faith and practice. Fo r power and
place they had not the slightest desire. At the ir public service
on Sunday mornings they syste matically joined in the prayer ,
“From the unhappy desire of becoming great, preserve us,
gracio us Lord and God.” As lo ng as they were true to the
Agreement and the B ible, they do no t appear to have cared
very much whether they increased in numbers or not. For
them the only thing that m attered was the cultivation of
personal
ho liness.
As
the
preaching -places
fe ll
away
they
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
devoted the ir attention more and more to the care of the
individual. T hey had a deep reverence for the authority of
Scripture. No man could be a me mber of the Mor avian C hurch
unless he pro mised to read his Bible and hold r egular family
worship. “The Bible,” ran one clause of the Agreement, “shall
be our constant study; we will read it daily in our families,
with pr ayer for the influence o f the Holy Spirit of God.” If th at
duty was broke n, the member was liable to expulsion. And the
same he ld good with the other clauses of the “Agreement.” We
often
read
in
the
congregatio n
diaries
of
me mbers
being
struck off the rolls for var ious sins. For cursing, for lying, for
slanderi ng,
for
evil -speaking,
for
fraud,
fo r
deceit,
for
drunkenness, for sabbath breaking, for gambling or any other
immorality–for all these offences the me mber, if he persisted
in his sin, w as summarily expelle d. In some of their ideals the
Brethren were like the Pur itans; in o thers like the Quakers.
They
were
modest
in
dress,
never
played
cards,
and
condemned theatres and dancing as wor ldly fo llies. As they
still enter tained a horror of war, they preferred not to serve
as soldiers; and any Moravian could obtai n a certificate from
the
magistr ates
exempting
him
from
personal
militar y
service.150 At the same time, they were loyal to Church and
State, had a gr eat love for the Church of England, regarde d
that C hurch as the bulwar k of Pr otestantism, detested Popery,
and some times spoke of the Pope as the Man of Sin. And yet,
stur dy Pro testants though they were, they had a horror of
religious str ife. “We will abstain from religio us controversy,”
was another clause in the Agre ement; and, the refore, they
never took any p art in the religious squabbles o f the age . For
example, the Br ethren too k no part in the fight for Catho lic
emancipation.
As
they
did
not
regard
themselves
as
Disse nters, they decline d to jo in the r ising mo vement for the
separation of C hurch and State; and ye t, on the other hand,
they live d on go od terms with all Evange lical Christians, and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
willingly exchanged pulpits w ith Metho dists and Disse nters. At
this perio d their chief do ctr ine was redemptio n through the
blood of C hrist. I have no ticed, in reading th e memoirs of the
time, that altho ugh the authors differed in character, they
were all alike in their spiritual experiences. They all spo ke of
themse lves as “poor sinners”; they all condemned their ow n
self -righteousness;
and
they
all
traced
what
virtue s
th ey
possessed to the meritor ious sufferings of the Re deemer. Thus
the Brethren sto od for a Pur itan standar d, a Bible religion and
a broad Evange lical Faith. “Yon man,” said Robert Bur ns’s
father in Ayr , “prays to Chr ist as though he w ere God.” But
the best illustration of the Brethren’s attitude is the story of
the poet himse lf. As Rober t and his brother Gilbert were on
their
way
one
Sunday
morning
to
the
parish
church
at
Tarbolto n, they fell in with an old Moravian named William
Kirkland;
discussing
Moravian
and
before
theology.
the
Old
long
Burns
th e
poet
defended
L ights.
At
length
and
the
Kirkland
New
Bur ns,
be gan
Lights,
the
finding
his
argume nts of no avail, exclaimed: “Oh, I suppose I’ve met
with the Apostle Paul this morning.”
“No,” retorted the Moravi an Evange lical, “you have not me t
the Apostle Paul; but I think I have met one of those wild
beasts which he says he fo ught w ith at Ephesus.”
Meanwhile, the Brethren showed other signs of vigour. The
first, and one o f the most influential, was their system of
public schoo l e ducation. At the General Syno d in 1782 a
resolution
had
been
passed
that
education
should
be
a
recognized branch of Church w ork; and, therefore, following
the example set in Germany, the English Brethren now opened
a
number
of
public
boa rding -schools.
In
1782 -1785
they
began to admit non -Moravians to the two schools already
established at Fulneck. In 1792 they o pened girls’ schools at
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Dukinfield and Gomersal; in 1794 a girls’ schoo l at Wyke ; in
1796 a gir ls’ school at Fairfield; in 1798 a gir ls’ school at
Gracehill; in 1799 a girls’ school at Ockbrook; in 1801 a boys’
school at Fairfield, and a girls’ school at Bedford; in 1805 a
boys’ school at Gracehill; and, in 1813, a bo ys’ school at
Ockbrook. At these schools the chief object of the B rethren
was
the
formation
of
C hristian
char acter .
They
were
all
established at se ttlements or at flourishing congregations, and
the pupils lived in the midst of Moravian life . Fo r some years
the religio n taught was unhealthy and maw kish, and bo th boys
and girls were far too str ictly tr eated. They were not allowed
to play compe titive games; the y were under the constant
supervision of teachers; the y had scarcely any exercise but
walks; and they were often rather encouraged in the notion
that it was desirable to die young. At one time the girls at
Fulneck complained that not one of their number had die d for
six months; and one of the Fulneck records r uns: “By occasion
of the smallpox our Saviour he ld a rich harvest among the
children, many o f whom departed in a very blessed manner.”
As long as such morbid ideas as these were taught, both bo ys
and gir ls became rather maudlin characters. T he case of the
boys at Fulneck illustrates the point. They atte nded services
every night in the week; they heard a great deal o f the
physical sufferings of Christ; they were encouraged to talk
about the ir spiritual experience s; and yet they were often
found guilty of lying, of stealing, and of o ther more serious
offences. At fir st, too, a good many of the masters were
unlearned an d ignorant men. They were drafte d in fro m the
Brethren’s Ho use s; they taught o nly the eleme ntary subjects;
they had narrow ideas of life; and, instead of teaching the
boys
to
be
manly
and
fight
their
ow n
battles,
they
endeavoured rather to shield the m from the world. B ut as time
went on this co ddling system w as mo dified. T he standar d of
educatio n was r aised; the masters were often learned men
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
preparing
for
the
ministry;
the
laws
against
compe titive
games were repealed; and the religious instr uctio n became
more sensible and practical. If the parents desired it, their
children, at a suitable age, wer e prepared for confirmatio n,
confirmed by the local Moravian minister, and admitted to the
Moravian
Communion
service.
The
pupils
came
from
all
denominatio ns. Some times even Catholics sent their children,
and allowed the m to receive religious instr uctio n.151 But no
atte mpt was eve r made to make proselytes. For many years
these schoo ls enjoyed a high reputation as ce ntres of high class education and of str ict moral d iscipline . At all these
schools the Brethren made much of music; and the music was
all of a so lemn devotional character.
“The music taught,” said Chr istian Ignatuis La Trobe, “is both
vocal and instrumental; the for mer is, however , confined to
sacred compo sitions, congregatio nal, choral, and orchestral,
the great obje ct being to turn this divine ar t to the best
account for the service and edification o f the C hurch.” At that
time (abo ut 1768) the dormitory of Fulneck Boys’ School was
over the chapel; and La Trobe tells us how he would keep
himself aw ake at night to hear the congre gation sing one of
the
L iturgies
to
the
Father,
Son
and
Spirit.1 52
Thus
the
Brethren, true to their o ld ideal, endeavoure d to teach the
Christian
religion
without
adding
to
the
numbe rs
of
the
Moravian Church. It is hardly possible to over -estimate the
influe nce of these schoo ls. In Ire land the schoo ls at Gracehill
were famous. T he pupils came from the highest ranks of
society. At o ne time it used to be said that the mere fact that
a boy or gir l had been educated at Gracehill was a passport to
the best society. In Yorkshire the Brethren were educational
pioneers. The most famous pupil of the Brethren was Richard
Oastler. At the age of eight (1 797) that great reformer –the
Factory King–was sent by his parents to Fulneck School; and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
years later, in an address to the boys, he reminded them how
great the ir pr ivileges were. “Ah, boys,” he said, “let me exhor t
you to value yo ur privile ges. I know that the privileges of a
Fulneck schoolbo y are r are.”
But the greatest influence exercised by the Brethren was in
the cause of fore ign missions. For that blessing w e may par tly
thank Napo leon Buonaparte . As that eminent philanthropist
scoured the continent of Europe , he had no intention of aiding
the missionar y cause; but one r esult of his exploits w as that
when Chr istian people in England heard how grievously the
German Brethren had suffered at his hands the ir hearts were
filled w ith sympathy and the de sire to help. At Edinburgh a
number of gentlemen fo unded the “Edinburgh Association in
Aid of Moravian Missions”; at Glasgow o thers founded the
“Glasgow Auxiliary Socie ty”; at B risto l and Londo n some ladies
formed
the
“Ladies’
Asso ciation”
(1813);
in
Yorkshire
the
Brethren the mse lves forme d the “Yorkshire Society for the
Spread of the Gospel amo ng the Heathe n” (1827); at Sheffield
James Mo ntgome ry, the Moravian poet, appeale d to the public
through his paper, the Iris; and the result was that in o ne
year subscriptio ns to Moravian Missio ns came in fro m the
Church Missio nary Society, and from other missionary and
Bible societies. In Scotland mo ney was collected annually at
Edinburgh,
Kincardine ,
Elgin,
Perth,
Dumfries,
Falkir k,
Horndean,
Jedwater,
Calto n,
Haddington,
Bridgetow n,
Denny, Greenock, Stir ling, Paisl e y, Anstruther, Inverkeithing,
Aberdeen, Lochw innoch, Leith, Tranent, St. Ninian’s, Brechin,
Montrose ; in England at Bath, Bristo l, B irmingham, Henley,
Berwick, St. Ne ots, Bedford, Northampton, Co lchester, York,
Cambr idge; in Ireland at Ballymena, Belfast, Carrickfer gus,
Lurgan, Cooksto wn, Dublin. As the interest of Englishme n in
Foreign Missions was still in its infancy, a lo ng list like this is
remarkable. But the greatest pr oof of the r ising interest in
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
missio ns was the foundation of the “London Associat io n in Aid
of Moravian Missions” (1817). It was not a Moravian Society.
The
founders
w ere
mostly
C hurchmen;
but
the
basis
w as
unde nominatio nal, and membership was open to all who were
willing
to
subscribe.
At
first
the
amo unt
raised
by
the
Associatio n was a little over £1,000 a year; but as time went
on the annual income increase d, and in recent years it has
sometimes amo unte d to £17,000. It is hard to mention a
nobler instance of broad -minde d charity. For some years the
secretary of this Association has ge nerally been an Anglican
clergyman;
churches;
he
the
pleads
annual
for
Moravian
ser mon
is
Missio ns
preache d
in
in
parish
St.
Paul’ s
Cathedr al; and thus the Brethren are inde bted to Anglican
friends
for
many
tho usands
of
pounds.
Another
proof
of
interest in Moravian Missions was the publication of books o n
the
subject
anonymous
by
writer
non -Moravian
publishe d
writers.
“T he
At
Moravians
Edinburgh
in
an
Greenland”
(1830) and “The Moravians in Labrador” (1833). Thus the
Brethren had quickene d missionary enthus iasm in every par t
of the United Kingdom.
At ho me, meanw hile, the Brethren moved more slowly. As they
did not wish to interfere with the Church of England, they
purpose ly confined their forward movement almo st entirely to
villages and neglected co untry dis tr icts. In 1806 they built a
chape l in the little village of Prior s Marsto n, near Woodford; in
1808 they founded the co ngregatio n at Baildon, Yorkshire; in
1818 they be gan ho lding services at Stow, near Bedford; in
1823 they founded the co ngregatio n at Kim bolton; in 1827
they
fo unded
the
congregation
Brockweir -on-the -Wye;
in
Stratford -on-Avo n,
abandoned
Sale m,
Oldham.
but
In
1829
1834
at
they
Pertenhall;
they
it
starte d
in
founde d
1839;
the
in
a
in
1833
at
cause
at
1836
at
Socie ty
for
Propagating the Gospel in Ireland; in 1839 they began holding
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
services
at
T illbrook,
near
Bedford;
and
in
1839
they
endeavoured, though in vain, to establish a new congregation
at
Horto n,
Bradford.
In
comparison
w ith
the
number
of
societies abando ned, the numbe r of new congrega tions was
infinitesimal. T he same tale is told by their statistical retur ns.
In 1824 they had 2,596 co mmunicant members; in 1834,
2,698; in 1850, 2,838; and, in 1 857, 2,978; and thus we have
the startling fact that, in spite of their effor ts at church
extension, they had no t gained four
hundred members in
thirty -three years. For this slo wness, however, the reasons
were purely mechanical; and all the obstacles sprang from the
Brethren’s co nne ctio n w ith Germany.
First, we have the persistent use of the Lot. F o r some years
the English Brethren adhered to the custom of enforcing its
use
in
marriages;
and
even
when
it
was
abolishe d
in
marriages they still used it in applicatio ns for me mbership. No
man could be a member of the Moravian C hurch without the
consent o f the Lot; and this rule was still enforced at the
Provincial Synod held at Fairfield in 1847. Sometimes this rule
worked out in a curious way. A man and his w ife applied for
admission to the Church; the case of each was put separate ly
to the Lot; the o ne was accepted, the other was r ejected; and
both were disgusted and paine d.
Another barrier to progress w as the system of ministerial
educatio n. For a few years (1809 -27) there existed at Fulneck
a high -class Theological Seminary; but it spe edily sickene d
and die d; and henceforward all candidates for the ministry
who
desired
a
good
educatio n
were
compelled
to
go
to
Germany. T hus the Brethren now had two classes of ministers.
If the candidate was not able to go to Germany, he receive d
but a poor educatio n; and if, o n the other hand, he went to
Germany, he stayed there so long –first as a student, and then
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
as a master –that when he retur ned to England, he was full o f
German ideas o f author ity, and often spo ke with a German
accent. And thus Englishmen naturally o bt aine d the impression
that the Church was not only German in origin, but meant
chiefly for Germans.
Another cruel barrier was the po verty of the ministers. They
were overworked and underpaid. They had generally five or six
services to ho ld every Sunday; the y had seve ral meetings
during
the
week;
they
were
expecte d
to
interview
ever y
member at least once in two months; they w ere entirely
without lay assistants; the ir wive s held official po sitions, and
were expected to share in the work; and yet, despite his
manifo ld duties, there was scarce ly a minister in the Pro vince
whose salar y was enough to enable him to make ends meet. At
one time the salary of the minister in Londo n was only £50 a
year; at Fulneck it was only 8s. a week; in o ther places it was
about the same. There was no proper sustentation fund; and
the result w as that near ly all the ministers had to add to their
inco mes in o ther ways. In most cases they kept little schools
for the sons and daughters of ge ntry in the country distr icts;
but as they were teaching five days a week, they could no t
possibly pay proper atte ntion to their ministerial duties. If the
minister had be en a single man, he might easily have risen
above his troubles; but as he was compe lle d by church law to
marry, his case was often a har d one; and at the Provincial
Syno d held at Fulneck, the Brethr en openly confessed the fact
that one of the chief hindrances to progress was lack of time
on the par t of the ministers {1835.}.
Another barrier was the abso lute power of officials and the
limited power o f the laity. No Church can expect to make
much progress unless its institutions are in tune with the
institutions of the country. For good or for evil, England was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
growing
demo cratic;
should
have
been
and,
ther efore,
democ ratic
too.
the
But
Mor avian
in
tho se
Church
days
the
Moravian C hurch was the rever se of demo cratic. In theory
each co ngregation had the power to elect its own committee ;
in fact, no e lection was valid unless ratified by the Lot. In
theory each co ngregation had the power to se nd a deputy to
the
Provincial
privilege.
centur y
At
Syno d;
the
(1824),
first
only
in
fact,
only
Provincial
four
a
few
Syno d
deputies
e ver
of
were
the
used
the
nineteenth
present;
at
the
second (1835), only seven; at the thir d (1847), only nine; at
the
fourth
(1853),
only
twelve;
at
the
fifth
(1856),
only
sixteen; and thus, when the deputies did appear , they could
always be easily outvo ted by the ministers.
Another hindrance was the Brethren’s peculiar conceptio n of
their duty to the ir fe llow -men in this cou ntry. In spite of their
enthusiasm for Foreign Missions, they had little enthusiasm for
Home Missions; and clinging still to the old Pie tist no tion o f a
“Church w ithin the Church,” the y had not ye t opened the ir
eyes
to
the
fact
that
go dless
Englishmen
w ere
quite
as
plentiful as godless Red Indians or Hottento ts. Fo r proof let us
turn to the “Pastoral Le tter” drawn up by co mmission of the
Syno d
at
Fulne ck
{1835.}.
At
that
Synod,
the
Brethren
prepared a revised edition of the “Brotherly Agreement”; and
then,
to
enforce
the
pr inciples
of
the
“Agree ment,”
they
commissioned the P.E.C .153 to address the who le Chur ch in a
“Pastoral Le tter.” But neither in the Agreement nor in the
Letter did the Brethren recommend Home Missio n work. They
urged
the ir
flocks
to
ho ld
p rayer
meetings,
to
distr ibute
tracts, to visit the sick, to invite outsiders to the House of
God; the y warne d them against the corruption of business life;
and they even besought them not to meddle in politics or to
wear party co lo urs. In Ireland they were no t to join Orange
Lodges; and in England they we re not to jo in trade unions.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Thus the Brethren distinctly recommended the ir people not to
take too promine nt a part in the social and political life of the
nation.
Again, twelve years later, at the next Syn od, he ld at Fairfield
{1847.}, the Brethren issued ano ther “Pastoral Le tter.” In this
letter the members of the P.E.C . complained that some were
denying the doctrine of eter nal punishment, that the parents
were neglecting the religious education of their c hildren, that
the Bible was not systematically read, that the “speaking”
before
the
Holy
Communion
was
neglected,
that
the
old
custom of shaking hands at the close of the Sacrament was
dying out, that the members’ contributions were not regularly
paid, and that private prayer meetings were not he ld as of
old; and, therefore, the Brethren pleaded earne stly for the
revival of all these good customs. And yet, even at this late
stage, there was no definite reference in the “Letter” to Home
Missio n Work.
Another
cause
literature.
We
of
paralysis
come
here
was
to
an
the
lack
astounding
of
fact.
periodical
For
one
hundred and eight years (1742 -1850), the Moravians str uggled
on in England w ithout either an o fficial or an unofficial Chur ch
magaz ine; and the only per i odical literature they possessed
was the quarter ly missio nary report, “Periodical Acco unts.”
Thus
the
C hurch
members
had
no
means
of
airing
the ir
opinions. If a member conceived some scheme of reform, and
wishe d to expo und it in public, he had to wait till the next
Provincial Synod; and as only five Synods were held in fifty
years, his oppor tunity did no t come very often. Further, the
Brethren were bound by a r ule that no member should publish
a book or pamphlet dealing with Church affairs witho ut the
consent of the U.E.C. or of a Syno d.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At length, however, this muzzling order was repealed; and the
first Briton to speak his mind in print was an Ir ishman, John
Carey. For so me time this man, after first reviving a dying
cause
at
Coote hill,
in
Co.
Cavan,
had
be en
making
vain
endeavours to arouse the Irish Moravians to a sense of their
duty {1850.}; but all he had received in retur n was official
rebukes. He had trie d to star t a new cause in Belfast; he had
gathered to gether a hundred and fifty hearers; he had ren ted
a hall for worship in King Street; and then the Irish Elders’
Conference, in solemn asse mbly at Gracehill, strangle d the
movement at its bir th. Instead of encouraging and helping
Carey, they infor med him that his work was irregular , forbade
him
to
form
a
Society,
and
even
issued
a
notice
in
the
Guardian disowning his meetings. But Carey was not to be
disheartene d; and now, at his ow n risk, he issued his monthly
magaz ine, The Fraternal Messenger. The magazine was a racy
production. As John Carey held no official positio n, he was
able to aim his bullets wherever he pleased; and, glowing with
patr iotic zeal, he first gave a co ncise epitome of the “History
of the Brethren,” and then dealt with burning problems of the
day. If the magazine did nothing else, it at least caused men
to think. Among the contributors was Bisho p Alexander Hassé.
He had visited certain places in Ireland –Arva, Billies, and
Drumar gan–wher e once the Brethren had been str ong; he gave
an acco unt of these visits; and thus those w ho read the
magaz ine co uld not fail to see w hat glorious opportunities had
been thrown away in the past.
At the next Syno d, held in Fulneck, all present co uld see that
a new influence was at work {1 853.}. For the first time the
Brethren de liberately resolved that, in their efforts for the
Kingdo m of God, they should “aim at the enlargement of the
Brethren’s Church.” They sanctio ned the employment of lay
preachers; they established the Moravian Magazine, edite d by
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
John England; and they even encouraged a modest attempt to
rekindle
the
dying
embers
at
such
places
as
Arva
and
Drumar gan.
At the next Syno d, held again at Fulneck, the Brethren showed
a still clearer conception of their duties {1856.}. The Synodal
sermon was preached by William Edw ards. He was a me mber
of the Directing Board, and must have spoken w ith a sense of
responsibility; and in that ser mon he deliber ately declared
that, instead of following the German plan of concentrating
their ener gy on settlements, the Brethren ought to pay more
atte ntion to tow n and country congregatio ns. “It is here,” he
said,
“that
we
lie
most
o pen
to
the
char ge
of
omitting
opportunities of usefulness.” And the members of the Synod
were
equally
e mphatic.
They
made
arrange ments
for
a
Training Institution; they rejected the principle , which had
ruled so long, of a “C hurch w ithin the C hurch”; and, thirdly, –
most important point o f all – the y resolve d that a society be
formed, called the Moravian Ho me Missio n, and that the object
of that socie ty should be , no t only to evangelize in dark an d
neglected districts, but also to establish, wherever possible ,
Moravian
congr egations.
The
chief
leader
in
this
new
movement was C harles E. Sutcliffe. He had pleaded the cause
of Home Missio ns for years; and now he was made the general
secretary of the n ew Home Missio n society.
In
one
way,
however,
the
conduct
of
the
B rethren
was
surpr ising. As w e have now arrived at that po int in our stor y
when the Moravian Church, no longer under the rule of the
U.E.C., was to be divided into three independent provinces , it
is natural to ask what par t the British Moravians played in this
Home Rule mo vement; what part the y playe d, i.e., in the
agitatio n that each Province should have its own property,
hold its own Pr ovincial Syno ds, and manage its own lo cal
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
affairs. T hey played a very mo dest par t, indeed! At this Syno d
they passed thr ee resolutio ns: first, that the British P.E.C.
should be empo wered to summo n a Provincial Synod with the
consent of the U.E.C .; second, that the Synod sho uld be
empowered
to
elect
its
own
P.E. C.;
and
thir d,
that
“any
measure affecting our ow n province, carried by a satisfactory
major ity, shall at once pass into law for the province, w ith the
sanctio n of the Unity’s Elders’ C onference, w itho ut waiting for
a General Synod.” But in other respects the British Moravians
were in favour of the old co nstitution. They were not the tr ue
leaders of the Home Rule move ment. They made no demand
for a separatio n of property; the y were still w illing to bow to
the
authority
of
the
German
Directing
Board;
they
st ill
declared their belief in the use of the Lot in appointme nts to
office ; and the agitatio n in favour of Home Rule came, not
from Great Britain, but from North America. To North Amer ica,
therefore, we must now turn o ur atte ntion.
Chapter 6
“The Str uggle i n America, 1762 -1857″
For nearly a ce ntur y the Moravians in America had felt as
uncomfortable as David in Saul’s armour; and the armour in
this par ticular instance was made of certain iron rules forged
at
the
General
Syno ds
he ld
in
Germany.
As
soon
as
Spangenberg had left his Amer ican frie nds, the work was
placed, for the time being, under the able manageme nt of
Bishop
Seidal,
Bishop
Hehl,
and
Frederick
William
von
Marschall; and then, in due co urse, the American Brethren
were
informed
that
a
General
Syno d
had
been
held
at
Marienborn (1764), that certain Church pr inciples had there
been laid dow n, and that hence forward the ir duty, as loyal
Moravians,
was
to
obey
the
laws
enacte d
at
the
General
Syno ds, and also to submit, without asking que stio ns, to the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
ruling o f the German Directing Board. The Ame ricans meekly
obeyed. The system of Government adopted w as peculiar. At
all costs, said the Brethren in Germany, the unity o f the
Moravian C hurch must be maintained; and, therefore, in order
to maintain that unity t he Directing Board, from time to time,
sent
high
officials
across
the
Atlantic
on
visitatio ns
to
America. In 1765 they sent old David Nitschmann; in 1770
they sent C hristian Gregor, John Lorentz, and Alexander vo n
Schwe initz ; in 1 779 they sent Bishop Jo hn Fre derick Reichel;
in 1783 they sent Bishop Jo hn de Watteville; in 1 806 they se nt
John
Verbeck
and
Jo hn
C harle s
Forester;
and
thus
they
respectfully reminded the American Brethren that altho ugh
they live d some thousands of miles away, the y were still
under the fatherly eye of the German Directing B oard. For this
policy
the
German
Brethren
had
a
no ble
reason.
As
the
resolutions passed at the General Synods were nearly always
confirmed by the Lot, they could not help feeling that those
resolutions had some Di vine authority; and, therefore, what
God called good in Germany must be equally good in Amer ica.
For
this
reaso n
they
enforced
the
settlement
system
in
America just as strictly as in Ge rmany. Instead of aiming at
church extension they centraliz ed the work ro und the four
settlements o f B ethle hem, Nazar eth, Salem and Lititz. There,
in the settle ments, they enforced the Brotherly Agreement;
there the y insisted on the use of the Lot; there they fostered
diaconies, choirs, Brethren’s Houses and Sisters’ Houses, and
all
the
features
of
settlement
life;
and
there
alone
they
endeavoured to cultivate the Mo ravian Quietist type of ge ntle
piety. Thus the Brethren in America were soon in a queer
positio n. As there was no State Church in America, and as,
therefore, no o n e could accuse them of being schismatics,
they had just as much r ight to push their cause as any o ther
denominatio n; and yet the y were just as much restricted as if
they had been dangerous heretics. Around them lay an ope n
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
country, w ith a fair field and no favour ; within their boso ms
glowed a fine missionary zeal; and behind the m, far away at
Herrnhut, sat the Directing Boar d, w ith their hands upon the
curbing rein.
If this system of government favoured unity, it also prevented
growth. It was opposed to Ame rican principles, and out of
place on American soil. What those American pr inciples were
we all know. At that famous period in Amer ican history, when
the W ar of Independence broke out, and the Declaration of
Indepe ndence was framed, near ly all the people w ere resolute
champio ns
against
the
of
democratic
rule
of
King
gover nment.
They
had
George
they
stood
III.;
revolted
for
the
principle , “no taxation w ithout r epresentatio n”; they erected
democratic
institutio ns
in
every
State
and
C ounty;
they
belie ved in the rights of free spe ech and free assembly; and,
therefore, being democratic in politics, they naturally wished
to be democratic in religion. B ut the Moravians were on the
horns of a dilemma. As they wer e not supposed to meddle with
politics, they did not a t first take definite sides in the war.
They objected to bearing arms; they objected to taking oaths;
and, therefore, of co urse, they objecte d also to swearing
alle giance to the Test Act (1777). But this attitude could no t
last for ever . As the w ar continu ed, the American Moravians
became ge nuine patr iotic American citizens. For some months
the General Hospital of the Ame rican Ar my was statio ned at
Bethlehem; at another time it was statio ned at Lititz ; and
some of the yo ung Brethren joined the American Army , and
fought under General Washingto n’s banner for the cause of
Indepe ndence. For this natural conduct they wer e, of course,
rebuked; and in some cases they were even expelled fro m the
Church.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
At this point, when national e xcitement was at its height,
Bishop Reiche l arrived upon the scene from Germany, and
soon instructed the Amer ican Brethren how to manage the ir
affairs {1779.}. He acted in o pposition to American ideals.
Instead of summoning a Conference of ministers and deputies,
he summoned a Conference consisting of ministers only; the
American layme n had no chance of expressing their opinions;
and,
therefore,
acting
under
Reiche l’s
influence,
the
Conference passed the astounding resolution that “in no sense
shall the societies of awakened, affiliate d as the fruit of the
former extensive itineratio ns, be regarded as pr eparatory to
the organisatio n of co ngregatio ns, and that membership in
these societies does not at all carry with it communicant
membership or preparation for it.” There lay the cause of the
Brethren’s failur e in America. In spite of its r ather stilte d
language, we can easily see in that sente nce the form of an
old familiar friend. It is really our German friend the Diaspora,
and our English friend the system of United Flocks. For the
next si xty-four years that one se ntence in italics was as great
a barr ier to pr ogress in America as the syste m of United
Flocks in England. As long as that resolution remained in
force,
the
extending;
American
and
all
Moravians
the
had
no
co ngregat io ns
fair
chance
exce pt
the
of
four
settlements were treated, no t as hopeful centres of work, but
as mere societie s and preaching -places. T hus again, precisely
as in Great Britain, did the Brethren clip their ow n wings; thus
again
did
they
sternly
refuse
admissio n
to
hun dreds
of
applicants for C hurch membership. A few figure s will make
this clear. At Gr aceham the Brethren had 90 adherents, but
only 60 members {1790.}; at L ancaster 258 adherents, but
only 72 member s; at Philadelphia 138 adherents, but o nly 38
members;
at
O ldmanscreek
131
adherents,
but
only
37
members;
at
State n
100
adherents,
but
only
20
members;
at
Gnadenhütten
but
only
31
Island
41
adherents,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
members; at Emmaus 93 adherents, but o nly 51 members; at
Schoeneck 78 adherents, but only 66 members; at He bron 7 2
adherents, but only 24 members; at York 117 adherents, but
only 38 member s; and at Bethe l 87 adherents, but only 23
members.
If
instructive;
American
these
and
the
Moravians,
figures
are
grand
point
still
daz zled
dry,
they
they
by
are
prove
at
is
that
Zinzendo rf’s
least
the
“Church
within the C hur ch” idea, co mpe lled hundreds w ho lo nged to
join their ranks as members to r emain o utside the Church. In
Germany this policy succeeded; in England, w here a State
Church e xisted, it may have bee n excusable; but in America,
where a State Church was unknown, it was senseless and
suicidal.
And yet the American Moravians did not live entirely in vain.
Amid the fury of American po litics, they cultivated the three
Moravian fr uits of pie ty, education and missionary zeal. A t
Bethlehem they opened a Girls’ School; and so popular did
that school beco me that one of the directors, Jacob Van Vleck,
had to issue a circular, stating that during the next eighteen
months no more applicatio ns from parents could be receive d.
It was one of the finest institutio ns in North America; and
among the tho usands of scholars we find relatives of such
famous American leaders as Washington, Addison, Sumpter,
Bayard, Livingstone and Roosevelt. At Nazareth the Brethren
had a school for boys, known as “Nazareth Hall.” If this school
never served any o ther purpo se, it certainly taught some
rising Americans the value of order and discipline. At meals
the bo ys had to sit in perfect silence; and when they w ished
to
indicate
their
wants,
they
did
so ,
no t
by
using
their
tongues, but by holding up the hand or so many fingers. The
school was divided into “rooms”; each “room” co ntaine d only
fifteen
or
eighteen
pupils;
the se
pupils
were
under
the
constant supervision of a maste r; and this master, who was
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
generally
a
theological
scholar,
was
the
co mpanio n
and
spir itual adviser of his charges. He joined in all their games,
heard them sing the ir hymns, and was with them when the y
swam in the “De ep Hole” in the Bushkill R iver on Wednesday
and Saturday afternoons, whe n they gathered nuts in the
forests, and w hen they sledge d in winter in the surrounding
country.
For foreign missions these American Brethren were equally
enthusiastic. They established a missionary society know n as
the “ Society for Propagating the Gospel A mong the Brethren”
(1787); they had that society enrolle d as a cor porate bo dy;
they were granted by Congress a tract of 4,000 acres in the
Tuscawaras Valley; and they co nducted a sple ndid mission to
the Indians in G eorgia, New York, Connecticut, Massachuse tts,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Canada, Kansas and Arkansas.
But work of this kind was no t enough to satisfy the Amer ican
Brethren. As the population increased around them they co uld
not he lp feeling that they o ught to do more in the ir native
land; and the yoke of German authority galled them more and
more. In the ir case there was some excuse for rebellio us
feelings. If there is anything a genuine American detests, it is
being compelled to obey law s which he himse lf has not he lped
to make ; and that was t he very position of the American
Brethren. In theory they were able to attend the General
Syno ds; in fact, very few could under take so lo ng a jour ney.
At
o ne
Synod
(1782)
not
a
single
American
Brother
was
present; and yet the decisio ns of the Synod were of full force
in Amer ica.
At length the Americans took the first ste p in the directio n of
Home Rule. For forty -eight years the ir Pro vincial Synods had
been
attended
by
ministers
only;
but
no w
by
special
permissio n of the U.E.C., they summo ned a Provincial Sy no d
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
at Lititz consisting of ministers and de puties {1 817.}. At this
Syno d they framed a number of petitions to be laid before the
next General Synod in Germany. They reque sted that the
monthly “speaking” should be abolishe d; that Brethren should
be allowed to se rve in the ar my; that the American Provincial
Helpers’ Confere nce should be allowed to make appointments
without consulting the German U.E.C.; that the congregations
should be allowe d to elect their o wn committees without using
the
Lot;
that
all
adul t
communicant
me mber s
should
be
entitled to a vote; that the use of the Lot should be abolishe d
in
marr iages,
in
applications
for
membership,
and
in
the
election of deputies to the Gener al Syno d; and, finally, that at
least one member of the U.E.C. should know so mething about
American affairs. Thus did the Americans clear the w ay for
Church reform. In Germany they were regarded as dangerous
radicals. T hey were accused of an unw holeso me desire for
change. They de signed, it was said, to pull dow n everything
old and set up something new. At the General Syno d (1818)
most of their requests were refused; and the only point they
gained was that the Lot need no t be used in marr iages in tow n
and
countr y
co ngregatio ns.
At
the
very
time
when
the
Americans were growing more radical, the Ger mans, as we
have seen already, were grow ing more conservative.154
But the American Brethren were not dishear tene d. In additio n
to being leaders in the cause of r eform, they now became the
leaders in the Home Missio n mo vement; and here they were
twenty years before their British Brethren. In 1835, in Nor th
Carolina, they fo unde d a “Home Missio nary Society”; in 1844
they abolishe d the settlement system; in 1849 they founded a
general “Ho me Missio nary So cie ty”; in 1850 they founded a
monthly magaz ine, the Moravian Church Miscellany; in 1855
they founded their weekly paper the Moravian, and placed all
their Ho me Mission work under a general Home Mission Board.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Meanwhile, they had establishe d new congregatio ns at Co lored
Church, in North Caro lina (1822; Hope , in Indiana (1830);
Hopedale,
in
Pennsylvania
(18 37);
Canal
Do ver,
in
O hio
(1840); West Salem, in Illino is 1844; Enon, in Indiana (1846);
West Salem for Germans, in Edwards County (1848); Green
Bay, in Wisconsin (1850); Mount Bethe ll, in C aroll County
(1851); New Yo rk (1851); Ebe nezer, in Wisco nsin (1853);
Brooklyn (1854); Utica, in One ida County (1854); Watertow n,
in W isconsin (18 54); and Lake Mills, in Wisco nsin (1856). At
the very time w hen the British Moravians were forming the ir
first
Home
Mission
Society,
the
Americans
had
founded
fourteen new co ngregatio ns; and thus they had become the
pioneers in every Moravian onw ard moveme nt.
But
the ir
greatest
contr ibution
to
progress
is
still
to
be
mentioned. Of all the Provincial Syno ds he ld in America, the
most impor tant was that which met at Bethlehe m on May 2nd,
1855. As the ir Home Mission w ork had extended so rapidly
they now felt more keenly than ever how absurd it was the
American work should still be managed by a Directing Board in
Germany; and, therefore, they now laid down the proposal
that American affairs should be managed by an American
Board, e lected by an American Provincial Synod {1855.}. In
other words, the Americans de manded independence in all
American affair s. They wished, in fu ture , to manage their own
concerns; the y wishe d to make their own regulatio ns at their
own
Provincial
Synods;
they
established
an
indepe ndent
“Sustentation Fund,” and desired to have the ir own property;
and therefore they requested the U.E.C. to summon a G eneral
Syno d at the first convenient opportunity to consider their
resolutions.
Thus,
step
by
step,
the
American
Moravians
prepared the way for great changes. If these changes are to
be regarded as reforms, the American Moravians must have
the chief praise and glory. The y were the pio neers in the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Home Mission movement; they w ere the staunche st advocates
of democratic government; they had long been the stoutest
opponents o f the
Lot;
and no w
they
led
the
way
in
the
movement which ended in the separation of th e Provinces. In
England
the ir
demand
for
Ho me
Rule
awakened
a
partial
response; in Ge rmany it excited anger and alarm; and now
Moravians all over the world we re waiting w ith some anxie ty
to see what ve rdict would be passed by the next General
Syno d.155
Chapter 7
“The Separation of the Provinces, 1857 -1899″
As soon as the American demands became known in Germany,
the German Brethren were much disturbed in their minds ;
they feared that if these de mands were granted the unity o f
the Moravian C hurch wo uld be de stroyed; and next year they
met in a German Provincial Synod, condemne d the American
proposals
as
unso und,
and
pathetically
requested
the
American Brethr en to reconsider their positio n {1856.}. And
now,
to
writer,
make
w ho
pamphlet
institutions
the
called
hotly
of
excitement
himself
keener,
“Forscher”
attacking
the
still
so me
Church.
He
an
anonymous
(Inquirer),
of
the
calle d
his
issued
a
time -ho noured
pamphlet,
“Die
Brüderkirche: Was ist Wahr heit?” i.e., The Truth about the
Brethren’s Church, and in his end eavour to te ll the truth he
penned some stinging words. He asserte d that far too much
stress had been laid o n the “C hief Eldership of Chr ist”; he
denounced
the
abuse
of
Brethren’s
settlements
the
were
Lot;
too
he
declared
exclusive;
he
that
the
criticized
Zinzendorf’s “Church within the Church” idea; he condemned
the o ld “Diacony” system as an unho ly alliance of the secular
and the sacred; and thus he described as source s of evil the
very
custo ms
which
many
Ge rmans
regarde d
as
precio us
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
treasures. As this ma n was really John Henry Buchner, he was,
of
course,
a
German
in
blood;
but
Buchner
was
then
a
missio nary in Jamaica, and thus his attack, like the American
demands,
came
from
across
the
Atlantic.
No
wonder
the
German Brethren were excited. No wonder they f elt that a
crisis in the Church had arrived. For all loyal Moravians the
question now w as whe ther the Moravian C hurch could stand
the strain; and, in order to preserve the true spirit of unity,
some Brethren at Gnadenfe ld prepared and issue d an “Appeal
for Unite d Praye r.” “At this very time,” they de clared, “when
the Chur ch is favoured with an unusual degree of outward
prosperity, the e nemy of souls is striving to deal a blow at o ur
spir itual union by sowing amo ng us the seeds o f discord and
confusio n”;
and
therefore
they
besought
the ir
Brethren –
German, English and American alike –to banish all feelings of
irritation, and to join in prayer every Wednesday evening for
the unity and pr osperity of the Brethren’s C hurch.
At le ngth, June 8th, 1857, the General Syn od me t at Herrnhut
{1857.}.
In
his
opening
sermo n
Bisho p
John
Nitschmann
struck the right note. He reminded his Brethren of the rock
from which they were hewn; he appealed to the testimo ny o f
history; and he asserted that the testimony of history w as
that the Moravian Church had be en create d, not by man, but
by
God.
“A
wo rd,”
he
said,
“never
uttered
before
at
a
Brethren’s Synod has lately been heard among us –the word
’separation.’
Se paration
among
Brethren!
The
very
sound
sends a pang to the heart of every true Brother!” With that
appeal
r inging
in
their
ears,
the
Brethren
addressed
themse lves to their difficult task; a committee was formed to
examine the American pro posals; the spir it of lo ve triumphed
over the spirit o f discor d; and finally, after much dis cussion,
the new constitutio n was framed.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
If the unity of the Chur ch w as to be maintaine d, there must,
of course, still be one supreme authority; and, therefore the
Brethren now decided that henceforward the General Synod
should be the supreme legislative , and the U.E.C . the supreme
administrative ,
body.
But
the
constitutio n
of
the
General
Syno d was changed. It was partly an official and par tly an
elected body. O n the one hand, there were still a number of
ex-officio members; on the othe r a large majority o f elected
deputies. Thus the General Synod was now composed of: (1 )
Ex-o fficio members: i.e., the tw elve members of the U.E.C.;
all Bishops of the Church; o ne member of the English and one
of the American P.E.C .; the Secretarius Unitatis Fratrum in
Anglia;
the
administrators
of
the
C hur ch’s
estates
in
Pennsylvania and North Carolina; the Director of the Warden’s
Department; the Director of the Missio ns Department; the
Unity’ s L ibrar ian. (2) Elected members: i.e., nine deputies
from each of the three Provinc e s, elected by the Synods of
these Provinces. As these twe nty -seven deputies could be
either ministers or laymen, it is clear that the democratic
principle was now given some encouragement; but, on the
other hand, the number of officials was still nearly a s great as
the number of deputies. The functio ns o f the Ge neral Synod
were defined as follow s: (a) To determine the doctrine s of the
Church, i.e ., to decide all questions which may arise upo n this
subject. (b) To decide as to all e ssential points of Liturg y. (c)
To prescribe the fundame ntal rule s of order and discipline . (d)
To determine w hat is required for membership in the Church.
(e) To nominate and appo int Bishops. (f) To manage the
Church’s
Foreign
Missio ns
and
Educational
Work.
(g)
To
inspect the Chu r ch’s general finances. (h) To ele ct the U.E.C.
(i) To form and constitute General Synods, to fix the time and
place
of
the ir
representation.
meetings,
(j)
To
and
settle
establish
the
everything
interests o f the Moravian C hurc h as a who le.
basis
of
co ncerning
the ir
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
As the U.E.C. were elected by the General Synod, it was
natural
that
they
should
still
possess
a
lar ge
share
of
administrative power; and therefore they were no w authorized
to manage all concerns of a general nature, to represent the
Church in her dealings with the State , and w ith other religio us
bodies,
and
to
see
that
the
principles
and
regulatio ns
established by the General Syno d were carried out in every
department of Church work. For the sake of efficiency the
U.E.C.
were
divide d
into
thr e e
boards,
the
Educational,
Financial, and Missio nary; they managed, in this way, the
schools in Germany, the general finances, and the whole of
the foreign missions; and meanwhile, for legal reasons, they
also acted as P.E.C. for the German Province of th e Church.
Thus the first part of the problem was solved, and the unity of
the Moravian C hurch w as maintained.
The next task w as to satisfy the Amer ican de mand for Home
Rule. For this purpose the Brethren now resolved that each
Province of the Church should have its own property; that
each Province should ho ld its ow n Provincial Synod; and that
each of the thr ee Provincial Synods should have power to
make law s, provided these laws did not co nflict with the laws
laid down by a General Syno d. As the U.E.C. sup erintended
the work in Ger many, there was no further need for a new
arrangement the re; but in Great Britain and North Amer ica the
Provincial Syno d in each case w as empowered to elect its ow n
P.E.C ., and the P.E.C., when duly elected, manage d the affairs
of
the
Province .
They
had
the
control
of
all
provincial
property. They appo inted ministers to the ir se veral po sts;
they summo ned Provincial Syno ds when they tho ught needful;
and thus each Province possessed Home Rule in all local
affairs.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
For the next tw enty -two years this constitution –so skilfully
drawn–remained unimpaired. At best, however, it was only a
compromise; and in 1879 an alter atio n was made {1879.}. As
Missio n work was the only work in which the w hole Church
took
part
as
such,
it
was
de cide d
that
only
the
Mission
Department of the U.E.C . should be e lecte d by the General
Syno d;
the
tw o
other
de partments,
the
Educational
and
Financial, were to be nominate d by the German Provincial
Syno d; and in o rder that the Br itish 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 fo ur me mbe rs of the Missio ns De partment, one from the
Educational
De partment,
and
one
from
the
Finance
Department. At the same time the U.E.C ., divided still into its
three
depar tments,
remained
the
supreme
Board
of
Management.
But
this
arrangement
was
obvio usly
doome d
to
failure
{1890.}. In the first place it w as so co mplex that few could
understand it, and only a per son of subtle intellect co uld
define the difference between the functio ns 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 tw elve members
four were elected, no t by a German Provincial Synod, but by
the General Synod; and, therefore, the Germans were ruled by
a board of who m only eight members were elected by the
Germans themse lves. At the ne xt General Syno d, therefore
(1889), the U.E.C. was divided into two depar tments: first,
the Foreign Mission De partment, consisting of fo ur members,
elected by the General Syno d; second, the German P.E.C .,
consisting of eight members, ele cted by the German Provincial
Syno d. Thus, at last, thir ty -two years after th e British and
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
American Provinces, did the German Province attain Provincial
independe nce.
But
even
this
arrangement
pr oved
unsatisfactory.
As
we
thread our way through these constitutional changes, we can
easily see where the trouble lay. At each General S ynod the
problem was, ho w to reconcile the unity of the Church w ith
the rights o f its respective Provinces; and so far the proble m
had not been so lved. T he flaw in the last arrange ment is fairly
obvio us. If the U.E.C. was still the supreme managing board,
it was unfair to the Americans and Brito ns that eight of its
twelve members should be really the German P.E.C., e lected
by the German Provincial Synod.
The
last
change
in
the
constitutio n
was
of
British
origin
{1898.}. At a Provincial Syno d held in Mirfiel d, the British
Moravians ske tched a plan whereby the U.E.C . and the Unity
Department wo uld both cease to exist; and w hen the next
General Syno d met at Herrnhut, this plan was practically
carried into effect. At present, therefore, the Mo ravian Church
is
constituted
as
follows
{18 99.}:
First,
the
supreme
legislative bo dy is still the General Synod; seco nd, the Church
is divided into four Provinces, the German, the British, the
American North, and the American South; third, e ach of these
four Provinces holds its own Pro vincial Syno ds, makes its ow n
laws, and e lects its own P.E.C.; fourth, the for eign mission
work is manage d by a Mission Board, electe d by the General
Syno d; and last, the supreme U.E.C., no longer a body seated
in Germany and capable of ho lding freque nt mee tings, is now
composed of the Mission Board and the four gove rning boards
of the four independent Provinces. In one se nse, the old
U.E.C. is abo lished; in another, it still e xists. It is abolished
as
a
co nstantly
manager
of
active
cer tain
Directing
C hurch
Board;
pr operty,156
it
as
exis ts
the
as
the
Church’ s
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
representative in the eyes of the law, and as the supreme
court of appeal during the perio d between Gener al Syno ds. As
some of the me mbers of this co mposite board live thousands
of miles from each other, they are never able to meet all
together. And ye t the Board is no mere fiction. In theory, its
seat is still at Berthelsdorf; and, in fact, it is still the supreme
administrative author ity, and as such is empow ered to see
that the principles l aid down at a General Syno d are carried
out in every br anch of the Moravian Church.157
And
ye t,
though
ecclesiastical
the
body,
Moravian
each
Church
Province
is
is
still
one
independent
united
in
the
management of its own affairs. For example, let us take the
case
of
the
British
Province.
Provincial
Syno d.
It
ministers
of
Church
the
is
The
composed
in
active
legislative
body
of,
all
first,
congregation
is
the
ordained
service;
second, the Advocatus Fratr um in Angliâ and the Secretarius
Fratr um
in
Angliâ;
th ir d,
lay
deputies
elected
by
the
congregations. At a recent British Provincial Synod (1907) the
rule was laid do wn that every congregatio n possessing more
than o ne hundred and fifty members shall be entitled to send
two deputies to the Synod; and thus ther e is a te ndency 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
administr ation
of
f inances,
to
establish new congregatio ns, to superintend all official Chur ch
publicatio ns, 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 G eneral Syno d, so the P.E.C . act in the n ame
and by the authority of a Provincial Synod. They see to the
execution of the laws of the C hurch, appo int and superinte nd
all ministers, pay official visits o nce in three years to inspect
the state of the congregations, examine candidates for the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
ministry, administer the finances of the Province, and act as a
Court of Appeal in cases of dispute.
The same principles apply in individual congregatio ns.
As
each
Pro vince
manages
its
own
affairs
subject
to
the
general law s of the Chur ch, so each co ngregation m anages its
own affairs subject to the general laws of the Pr ovince. As far
as its own affairs are concerne d, each congregatio n is self ruling. All members over eightee n years who have paid the ir
dues are entitle d to a vo te. They are empowered to elect a
deputy for the Provincial Syno d; they e lect also , once in three
years, the congregation committee; and the co mmittee, in co operatio n with the minister, is expected to maintain good
conduct, ho nesty and propr iety among the members of the
congregation, to
adm inister due discipline and reproof, to
consider applicatio ns for me mbership, to keep in order the
church,
Sunday -school,
minister’s
ho use,
and
o ther
congregation property, and to be responsible for all temporal
and financial concerns.
Thus
the
described
constitution
as
of
democratic.
the
It
Moravian
Church
is
by
ruled
may
be
committees,
conferences and syno ds; and these committees, conferences
and synods all consist, to a large extent, o f elected deputies.
As the Moravians have Bisho ps, the question may be asked,
what special par t the B isho ps play in the go vernment of the
Church? The reply may be give n in the words of the Moravians
themse lves. At the last General Syno d the old principle was
reasserted, that “the office o f a B isho p imparts in and by itself
no manner of claim to the control of the w hole Church or o f
any part o f it; the administratio n of particular dioceses does
therefore not be long to the Bishops.” T hus Moravian Bishops
are far from being prelates. They are author ized to ordain the
presbyters a nd deacons; they examine the spiritual co ndition
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
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 lo ng
as the Lot was used at all, it interfered to some extent with
the democratic principle ; but during the last tw enty or thirty
years it had gr adually falle n into disuse, and in 1889 all
reference to the Lot was str uck o ut o f the Church regulatio ns;
and w hile the B rethren still acknowledge the living Chr ist 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 Spir it.
Book IV–The Mo dern Moravians 18 57 -1908
Chapter 1
“Moravian Principals”
When the Brethr en made their maide n speech in the Valley of
Kunw ald four hundred and fifty years ago, they little tho ught
that they were founding a Church that would spr ead into every
quar ter 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 acco mplish the greatest results. At no period have
the Brethren be en 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 C hur ches in England, the Moravian
Church is the oldest; and wherever the Brethren have raise d
their
standard,
they
have
acted
as
pioneers.
They
were
Reformers sixty years before Martin Luther. They were the
first to ado pt the principle that the Bible is the only standar d
of faith and practice. They were among the first to issue a
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
translatio n of the Bible from the original Hebre w and Greek
into the language of the people. They led the way, in the
Protestant
children.
movement,
They
in
publishe d
history.
They
produced
modern
educatio n.
in
They
the
the
catechetical
first
Hymn
Comenius
save d
the
the
instr uction
Book
known
to
pioneer
of
movement
in
great
Pietist
of
Germany from an early grave ; they prepared the way for the
English Evangelical Revival; and, above all, by example rather
than by precept, they aro used in the Protestant Churches o f
Christendo m that zeal for the cause of foreign missions which
some writers have describe d as the crowning glory of the
nineteenth century. And now we have only o ne further land to
explore. As the Moravians are still amo ng the least of the
tribes
of
Israe l,
it
is
natural
to
ask
w hy,
despite
t heir
smallness, they maintain their separate existence, what par t
they are playing in the world, w hat share they are taking in
the
fight
against
the
Canaanite,
for
w hat
pr inciples
they
stand, what methods they emplo y, what attitude they ado pt
towards other C hurches, and what so lutio n they offer of the
social and religious pro blems that co nfront us at the ope ning
of the twentieth centur y.
If the Moravians have any distinguishing principle at all, that
principle is one which goes back to the beginnings of the ir
history. For so me years the y have been accusto med to use as
a
mo tto
the
necessariis
famous
unitas;
in
words
of
Rupertus
no n -necessariis
Meldenius:
libertas;
in
“In
utrisque
caritas”–in essentials unity; in no n -esse ntials libe rty; in both,
charity.
But
t he
distinctio n
between
essentials
and
non -
essentials goes far behind Rupertus Me ldenius. If he w as the
first to pen the saying, he was certainly no t the first to lay
down the pr inciple. For fo ur hundred and fifty years this
distinctio n betw een essentials a nd non -essentials has been a
fundame ntal principle of the Brethren. From who m, if fro m any
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
one, they lear ned it we
do
not know . It is
found in no
mediæval wr iter, and w as taught ne ither by Wycliffe nor by
Hus. But the Brethren held it at the outset, and ho ld it still. It
is fo und in the works of Peter of Chelcic;158 it was fully
expounded by G regory the Patriarch; it was taught by the
Bohemian Brethren in their catechisms; it is implied in all
Moravian teaching to -day. To Mor avians this word “essentials”
has a definite meaning. At every stage in the ir history we find
that in the ir judgment the essentials o n which all C hristians
should agree to unite are certain spiritual truths. It was so
with
the
Bohe mian
Brethren;
it
is
so
with
the
modern
Moravians. In the early wr itings of Gregory the Patriar ch, and
in the catechisms of the Bohemian Brethren, the “essentials”
are such things, and such things only, as faith, ho pe, lo ve and
the doctrines taught in the Apo stles’ Creed; and the “non essentials,” on the other h and, are such visible and concrete
things as the church on earth, the ministry, the sacraments,
and the other means of grace . In essentials the y could allow
no compromise ; in no n -essentials they gladly agre ed to differ.
For essentials they often she d their blood; but non -essentials
they descr ibed as merely “use ful” or “accide ntal.”
The modern Mor avians ho ld very similar views. For them the
only “esse ntials” in religion are the fundame ntal truths of the
Gospel
as
reve aled
in
Ho ly
Scripture.
In
the se
days
the
question is some times asked, What is the Moravian creed? The
answer is, that they have no creed, apart from Holy Scripture .
For
the
creeds
of
other
chur ches
they
have
the
deepest
respect. Thy have declare d their adherence to the Apostles’
Creed. They conf ess that in the Augsburg Co nfession the chief
doctr ines of Scr ipture are plainly and simply set forth; they
have
never
attacked
the
Westminster
Confession
or
the
Articles of the Church of England; and yet the y have never
had a creed of their own, and have always decline d to bind the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
consciences of their ministers and members by any creed
whatever . Instead of binding men by a creed, the y are conte nt
with the broade r language of Holy Scripture. At the General
Syno d of 1857 they laid dow n the pr inciple that th e “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 acknow ledge no o ther
canon or rule of doctr ine; they re gard every human system of
doctr ine as imperfect; and, therefore, the y stand to -day for
the position that Christians should agree to unite on a broad
Scriptural basis. Thus the Moravians claim to be an Unio n
Church. At the Syno d of 1744 they declared that they had
room within
their
borders for
three
leading
tropuse s, the
Moravian, the L utheran and the Reformed; and now, within
their own ranks, they allow gr eat difference o f opinion on
doctr inal questio ns.
Meanwhile, of course, they agree on certain points. If the
reader consults their ow n official statements –e.g., tho se laid
down
in
the
“Moravian
Church
Book” –he
will
notice
two
features of impo rtance . First, he will observe that (speaking
broadly) the Moravians are Evangelicals; second, h e will no tice
that the y state their doctr ines in very general te rms. In that
volume it is stated that the Brethren hold the do ctrines of the
Fall and the total depravity of human nature, of the lo ve of
God the Father, of the real Godhead and the real Human ity of
Jesus C hrist, of justification by faith, o f the Ho ly Ghost and
the operatio ns of His grace, of good works as the fr uit of
faith, of the fe llowship of all be lievers w ith C hrist and w ith
each other , and, finally, of the second co ming o f Christ and
the resurrection of the dead to condemnatio n o r to life. But
none of these do ctrines are defined in dogmatic language , and
none of them ar e impose d as creeds. As lo ng as a man holds
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
true to the bro ad pr inciples of the Christian faith, he may,
whether he is a minister or a layman, think much as he
pleases on many other vexed questio ns. He may be either a
Calvinist or an Arminian, either a Higher Critic or a defender
of plenary inspir atio n, and e ithe r High Church or Methodistic
in his tastes. He may have his own theory of the Atoneme nt,
his own conception of the meaning of the Sacrame nts, his own
views o n Apostolical Succession, and his ow n belief abo ut the
infallibility of the Gospel records. In their judgment, the main
essential in a minister is no t his ortho do x adherence to a
creed, but his personal relatio nship to Jesus Chr ist. For this
reason they are not afraid to allow their candidates for the
ministry to sit at the feet of professors belonging to other
denominatio ns.
Gnadenfe ld,
At
the
their
German
professors
Theolo gical
syste matically
College
instruct
in
the
students in the most advanced results of critical research;
sometimes the students are sent to German Universities; and
the German quarterly magaz ine – Religion und Geisteskultur –a
periodical similar to our English “Hibbert Journal,” is edited by
a Moravian the ological pro fessor. At o ne time an alarming
rumour arose that the Gnadenfe ld professors were leading the
students astray; the case was tried at a German Provincial
Syno d, and the professors prove d t heir innocence by show ing
that, although they held advance d views on cr itical questions,
they still taught the Moravian central doctrine o f redemption
through Jesus C hrist. In England a similar spir it of liber ty
prevails. For so me years the Br itish Moravia ns have had the ir
own
Theological
Manchester ;
and
College ;
it
although
is
the
situated
students
at
Fairfield,
attend
near
lectures
delivered by a Moravian teacher , they receive the greater part
of their education, fir st at Manchester University, and then
either at the Manchester University Divinity Scho ol, or at the
Free Church College in Glasgow or Edinbur gh, or at any o ther
suitable
home
of
learning.
Thus
do
the
Mor avians
of
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
twentieth centur y tread in the footste ps of the later Bohemian
Brethren; and thus do they uphold the principle that w hen the
heart
is
right
with
Chr ist,
the
reasoning
po wers
may
be
allowe d free play.
In all other “no n -esse ntials” the y are equally br oad. As they
have never quarrelled with the C hurch of England, they rather
resent be ing called Dissenters; as they happen to possess
Episcopal Or ders, they regar d themselves as a tr ue Episco pal
Church; and ye t, at the same time, they live on good terms
with
all
Evangelical
Nonconformist
service
Disse nter s,
ministers,
me mber s
of
all
and
exchange
adm it
Evangelical
to
their
pulpits
w ith
Communion
denominatio ns.
T hey
celebrate the Ho ly Communion once a month; they sing hymns
describing the bread and w ine as the Body and B lood 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 R egeneratio n.
They practise Confir mation;159 and ye t they do not insist on
confirmatio n as an absolute conditio n, in all cases, of church
membership. If the candidate, for example, is advanced in
years, and shrinks from the orde al of confirmatio n, he may be
admitted to the Moravian C hurch by reception; and me mbers
coming from o ther churches are admitted in the same way.
They practise e piscopal or dinat ion, 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 e piscopally ordained. At the Sacraments, at
weddings and at ordinations, the Moravian minister genera lly
wears a surplice ; and yet there is no reference to vestme nts
in the regulations of the Chur ch. In some congre gations they
use the wafer at the Sacrame nt, in o thers ordinar y bread; and
this fact alone is enough to show that they have no ruling o n
the subject. Again, the Moravians observe what is called the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Church year. They observe, that is, the seaso ns of Advent,
Lent, Easter, Whitsuntide , and Trinity; and ye t they do not
condemn as heretics those who differ from them o n this po int.
If there is any seas on specially sacred to Moravians, it is Ho ly
Week. To them it is generally known as Passion Week. On
Palm Sunday they sing a “Hosannah” co mposed by C hristian
Gregor; at othe r
services dur ing the
week the y read the
Passion History together, fro m a Harmony o f the Four Gospels;
on the Wednesday evening there is generally a “Co nfir mation” ;
on Maundy Thur sday they celebr ate the Holy Co mmunio n; o n
Good Friday, w here 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 C ontinent at sunr ise. Thus the
Brethren
are
observances,
principles.
As
like
and
the
High
very
Chur chmen
unlike
customs
them
the y
in
in
some
their
pract ise
are
of
their
ecclesiastical
hallowed
by
tradition, and have ofte n been found he lpful 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
spir itual
“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 be lieve
that here they stand for a no ble principle , and that some day
that pr inciple will be adopted by every branch of the militant
Church of C hrist. Accor ding to Romanists the true bond of
union among C hristians is obedience to the Pope as Head of
the
Church;
according
to
some
Anglicans,
the
“Histor ic
Episcopate”; according to Moravians, a commo n 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 C hurch o f C hrist. Meanwhile, the
Brethren are spreading the ir pr inciples in a varie ty of ways.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Chapter 2
“Moravians in Ge rmany”
In Germany, and on the Continent generally, the y still adhere
in the main to the ideal se t up by Zinzendorf. We may divide
their work into five depar tments.
First, there is the ordinary pastoral work in the settlements
and co ngregations. In Germany the settleme nt sys te m still
flour ishes. Of the twenty -six Mo ravian co ngregatio ns o n the
Continent, no fewer than twelve are settleme nts. In most
cases
these
inhabite d
se ttlements
almost
are
exclusive ly
quiet
by
little
Mor avian
Moravians;
the
towns,
Brethren’s
Houses and Sis ters’ Houses are still in full working order; the
very hotel is under direct chur ch control; and the settlements,
therefore, are models of order, sobriety, industry and piety.
There the visito r will still find neither poverty nor wealth;
there, far from th e madding cro wd, the ange l of peace reigns
supreme . We all know how Carlyle once visited Herrnhut, and
how deeply impressed he was. At all the settleme nts and
congregations
the
chief
object
of
the
Brethren
is
the
cultivatio n of pe rsonal pie ty 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 additio n to the public worship on
Sunday, there is a meeting of some kind every week -night.
One evening the re will be a Bible exposition; the next, reports
of church work; the next, a prayer meeting; the next a liturgy
meeting; the next, ano ther B ible exposition; the next, an
extract from the auto bio graphy o f some famous Moravian; the
next, a singing meeting. At the se meetings the chief thing
that str ikes an English visitor is the fact that no one but the
minister takes any prominent part. The minister gives the
Bible
expositio n;
the
minister
reads
the
report
or
the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
auto bio graphy; the ministe r offe rs the prayer; and the only
way in which the people take part is by singing the litur gies
and
hymns.
T hus
the
German
Moravians
have
nothing
corresponding to the “prayer meetings” he ld in England in
Nonconformist
churches.
In
so me
congregatio ns
there
are
“prayer unions,” in which layme n take part; but these are of a
private and unofficial character.
Meanwhile, a go od many of the old stern rules are still str ictly
enforced, and the Brethren are still cautious in we lcoming new
recruits. If a pe rson not b orn in a Moravian family desires to
join the Moravian Chur ch, he has generally to exercise a
considerable amount of patience. He must first have live d
some
time
in
the
congregatio n;
he
must
have
a
good
knowle dge of Mo ravian doctrines and customs; he must t hen
submit to an examination on the part of the congregatio n committee; he must then, if he passes, wait about six months;
his
name
is
announced
to
the
congregatio n,
and
all
the
members know that he is on probation; and, the refore, when
he is finally admit ted, he is a Mo ravian in the fullest sense of
the term. He becomes no t only a member of the congregatio n,
but a member of his particular “choir .” The cho ir system is
still in force; fo r each cho ir there are special services and
special labourers; and tho ug h the Single Brethre n and Single
Sisters are now allowe d to live in their own homes, the cho ir
houses are still occupied, and still serve a useful purpose.
Second,
there
is
the
“Inner
Missio n.”
In
this
way
each
congregation car es for the poor and neglected living near at
hand. There are Bible and tract distr ibutors, free day schools,
Sunday
schools,
work
schoo ls,
technical
schools,
rescue
homes, reformatories, orphanage s and young men’s and young
women’s Chr istian associatio ns. In spite of the exclusiveness
of settleme nt life, it is utter ly untrue to say that the members
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
of
the
settleme nts
live
for
themselves
alo ne.
They
form
evange listic societies; the y take a special interest in navvies,
road menders, pedlars, railwaymen and others cut off fro m
regular
church
connectio n;
the y
open
lodging -houses
and
temperance restaurants; and thus they endeavo ur to rescue
the falle n, to fight the dr ink evil, and to care fo r the bodies
and souls of be ggars and tramps, o f unemployed workmen,
and o f starving and ragge d childr en.
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 scho ols, the Brethre n provide an “Infant School” ;
and here, havin g a free hand, they are able to instil the first
principles
of
C hristianity;
and,
secondly,
for
the
o lder
children, they have what we should call Vo luntary Schoo ls,
manned
by
Moravian
teachers,
but
under
Government
inspection and control. At these schools the B rethren give
Bible teaching three hours a w eek; special services for the
scholars are held; and as the schools are open to the public,
the scho lars are instr ucte d 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 pre sent they have nine gir ls’ scho ols and five
boys’ boarding-schools; the headmaster is always a Moravian
minister;
the
teachers
in
the
boys’
schoo ls
are
generally
candidates for the ministry; and, although in co nseque nce of
Government requirements the B rethren have no w to devote
most of the ir energy to purely secular subjects, they are still
permitted and still endeavo ur to keep the religious influe nce
to
the
fore.
For
Pædago gium
at
corresponds
to
more
Niesky;
that
advanced
and
the
imparte d
students
classical
at
o ur
they
have
education
a
there
Universities.
At
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Gnadenfe ld
the y
have
a
The ological
Seminary,
ope n
to
students fro m other churches.
Fourth, there is the Brethren’s medical wor k, conducted by a
Diako nissen -Ver band, or N urses’ Union. It was begun in 1866
by Dr. Hermann Plitt. At Gnadenfeld the Brethren have a small
hospital, known as the He inr ichstift; at Emmaus, near Niesky,
are the headquarters of the Unio n; the work is manage d by a
special committe e, and is suppor ted by Church funds; and on
the average abo ut fifty nurses are employe d in ministering to
the
poor
in
twenty -five
managers
of
small
diffe rent
sick -ho use s;
places.
others
Some
are
act
as
engage d
in
teaching poor children; and others have gone to tend the
lepers in Jerusalem and Surinam.
Fifth,
there
is
the
Brethren’s
Diaspora
wor k,
which
now
extends all over Germany. There is no thing 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 w hole
principle on w hich it is based is one which the average clear headed Brito n finds it hard to understand. If the Moravians in
England held se rvices in parish churches –supposing such an
arrangement
possible –formed
the ir
hearers
into
little
societies, visited them in the ir homes, and the n ur ged the m to
become good members of the Anglican Church, their co nduct
would pro bably arouse considerable amazement. And ye t that
is exactly the kind of work do ne by the Moravians in Germany
to-day. In this work the Brethren in Germany make no attempt
to exte nd the ir own borders. The Moravians supply the men;
the Moravians supply the mone y; and the National L utheran
Church reaps the benefit. Some times the Brethr en preach in
Lutheran Churches; sometimes, by permission of the Lutheran
authorities,
the y
even
administer
the
Communion;
and
wherever they go they urge their hearers to be true to the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
Natio nal Church. In England Zinzendorf’s “Church within the
Church” idea has never found much favour ; in G ermany it is
valued bo th by Moravians and by Lutherans. At present the
Brethren
have
Diaspora
centres
in
Austr ian
Silesia,
in
Wartebruch, in Neumark, in Mo ravia, in Po merania, in the
Bavarian Palatinate, in Würtemburg, along the Rhine from
Karlsr uhe
to
Düsseldorf,
in
Switzerland,
in
Norway
and
Sweden, in Russian Poland, and in the Baltic Provinces. We are
not, of co urse, to imagine for a moment that all ecclesiastical
authorities on the Continent re gard this Diaspo ra work with
favour . In spite of its unse lfish purpose , the B rethren have
occasionally been suspecte d of sectarian mo tives. At o ne time
the
Russian
General
Consisto ry
forbade
the
Brethren’s
Diaspora work in Liv onia {1859.}; at another time the Russian
Government for bade the Brethren’s work in Volhynia; and the
result of this intolerance was that some of the Br ethren fled to
South America, and founded the colony of Brüde rthal in Braz il
(1885), w hile others made t heir way to Canada, appealed for
aid to the Amer ican P.E.C ., and thus fo unded in Alberta the
congregations of Brüderfeld and Brüderheim. Thus, even in
recent years, persecution has favoured the extensio n of the
Moravian
Church;
but,
generally
speaking,
the
Brethren
pursue the ir Diaspora work in pe ace and quietness. They have
now about sixty or seventy stations; they employ about 120
Diaspora workers, and minister thus to about 7 0,000 souls;
and yet, dur ing the last fifty years, they have fo unded o nly six
new congregatio ns –Goldberg (1858), Hansdorf (1 873), Breslau
(1892), and Locle and Montmirail in Sw itzerland (1873). Thus
do
the
German
Moravians
Zinzendorf.
Chapter 3
“Moravians in Gr eat Britain”
uphold
the
Pietist
ideals
of
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
For the last fifty years the mo st str iking feature about the
British Moravians is the fact that they have ste adily become
more
British
in
all
their
w ays,
and
more
practical
and
enthusiastic in their work in this country. We can see it in
every depar tment of the ir work.
They began with the training of their ministers. As soon as the
British Moravians became indepe ndent, they ope ned their ow n
Theological Training Institutio n; and then step by ste p they
allowe d their students to co me more and more under English
influe nces. At first the ho me o f the Training College was
Fulneck; and, as long as the students lived in that placid
abode, they saw but little o f the outside wor ld. But in 1874
the Co llege w as removed to Fairfield; the n the junior students
began to attend lectures at the Owens College ; then (1886)
they began to study for a degr ee in the Victoria University;
then (1890) the theolo gical stude nts were allowe d to study at
Edinburgh or Glasgow; and the final result of this broadening
process is that the average mo dern Moravian minister is as
typical an Englishman as any one would care to meet. He has
English blood in his ve ins; he bears an English name; he has
been trained at an English University; he has learned his
theolo gy from English or Scotch Professors; he has English
practical ideas o f Chr istianity; and eve n w hen he has spe nt a
few years in Ger many –as still happens in exceptional cases –he
has no more foreign flavo ur abo ut 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 appo inted Committees to revise their Hymn -boo k;
and the result was that when the next edition of the Hymn book appeared (1886), it was fo und to contain a large number
of hymns by popular English writers. And this, of course,
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
invo lved another change. As these popular English hymns were
wedded to popular English tunes, tho se tunes had perforce to
be admitte d into the next e dition of the Tune -book (1887);
and thus the Moravians, like other Englishmen, began now to
sing hymns by Toplady, Char les Wesley, George Rawson and
Henry Fr ancis L yte to such well -known melodies as Sir Ar thur
Sullivan’s “Coena Domini,” Sebastian Wesle y’s “Aurelia,” and
Hopkins’s “Ellers.” But the change in this respect was only
partial. In music the Moravians have always maintained a high
standar d. With them the popular type of tune was the chorale;
and here they refused to give w ay to po pular clamour. At this
period the o bjectio n was raised by so me that the old chorales
were too difficult for Englishmen to sing; but to this objection
Peter
La
Thomas,
Trobe
he
had
said,
given
a
Zinzendorf
crushing
had
heard
answer.160
the
At
negroes
St.
sing
Luther’s fine “Gelobet seiest”; at Gnadenthal, in South Africa,
Ignatius La Trobe had heard the Hottento ts sing Grummer’s
“Jesu, der du meine Seele”; in Antigua the negroe s could sing
Hassler’s “O Head so full of bruises”; and therefore, he said,
he naturally co ncluded that chor ales w hich were not above the
level of Negroes and Hottentots could easily be sun g, if they
only tried, by Englishmen, Sco tchmen and Ir ishmen of the
nineteenth century. And ye t, despite this official attitude ,
certain standard chorales fe ll into disuse , and were replaced
by flimsier English airs.
Another proof of the influence of Engli sh ideas is found in the
decline of peculiar Moravian customs. At present the British
congregations may be roughly divided into tw o classes. In
some, such as Fulneck, Fairfield, Ockbrook, Bristol, and other
older congregations, the old customs are retaine d ; in others
they are quite unknow n. In so me we still find such things as
Love-feasts,
festivals,
the
the
divisio n
o bservance
into
of
choirs,
Moravian
the
regular
Me morial
choir
Days;
in
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
others, especially in those only recently establishe d, these
things ar e abse nt; and the co nsequence 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 L itany; in the Hymn -book he w ill find some
hymns not found in o ther co l lections; but in o ther respects he
would see no thing specially distinctive.
Meanwhile, the Brethren have ado pted new institutions. As the
old methods of church -work fe ll into disuse , new methods
gradually took their place ; and here the Brethre n followed th e
example of their Anglican and N onconformist fr iends. Instead
of the special meetings for Single Brethren and Single Sisters,
we now find the Christian Endeavour, and Men’s and Wo men’s
Guilds; instead of the Boys’ Economy, the B oys’ 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 -schoo l Annive rsary.
But the most important change o f all is the altered conception
of
the
Church’s
mission.
At
the
Provincial
Synod
held
in
Bedford the Brethren devo ted much of the ir time to the Home
Missio n problem {1863.}; and John England, w ho had been
commissioned to write a pape r on “Our Aim and Calli ng,”
defined the Chur ch’s mission in the words: “Such, then, I take
to be our peculiar calling. As a Church to preach Chr ist and
Him crucified, every minister and every member. As a Chur ch
to evange lize, every minister and every member.” From that
moment those w ords were accepted as a kind of motto ; and
soon a great change was seen in the character of the Home
Missio n Work. In the first half of the nine teenth century nearly
all the new causes begun were in quiet countr y villages; in the
second half, with tw o exceptio ns, they were all in growing
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
towns
and
populous
distr icts.
In
1859
new
work
was
commence d at Baltonsborough, in Somerset, and Crook, in
Durham; in 1862 at Pr iors Marsto n, Nor thamptonshire; in 1867
at Horton, Bradford; in 1869 at Westwood, in Oldh am; in 1871
at
University
Road,
Belfast;
in
1874
at
Heckmondwike,
Yorkshire; in 1888 at Wellfie ld, near Shiple y; in 1890 at Perth
Street, Belfast; in 1896 at Queen’s Park, Bedfor d; in 1899 at
Openshaw, near Manchester , and at Swindon, the home of the
Great Western Railw ay Works; in 1907 at Twerton, a grow ing
suburb o f Bath; and in 1908 in Hornsey, London. Of the places
in this list, all e xcept Balto nsbor ough and Priors Marsto n are
in thickly populated districts; and thus during the last fifty
years the Mora vians have been brought more into touch with
the British working man.
Meanwhile there has been a gro wing freedom of speech. The
new movement began in the College at Fairfie ld. For the first
time in the histo ry of the British Province a number of radical
Moravians co mbined to express their opinions in print; and,
led and inspired by Maurice O’Co nnor, they now (1890) issued
a breezy pamphlet, entitled Defe cts o f Mo dern Mo ravianism. In
this pamphle t they were both critical and constr uctive. 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
syste matically inspecte d; (d) that th e monthly magazine, The
Messenger , be improved, enlarged, and changed into a weekly
paper; (e) that in the future the energies of the Church be
concentrate d on work in large towns and cities; (f) and that
all defects in the work of the C hurch be openly sta ted and
discussed.
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
The success o f the pamphle t 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 o f this pamphlet. It mar ks the
beginning of a new and brighter era in the histor y 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 acco rdance with a fine suggestion
brought forward at B edford two years before, and ardently
supported by Jo hn Taylor, the Advo catus Fr atr um in Angliâ,
they be gan the practice of ho lding Annual Synods. In the
second
place,
the
Brethren
altered
the
character
of
their
official church magazine. For twe nty -seve n years it had been a
monthly of very modest dimensions. It w as known as The
Messenger ; it w as founded at the Bedford Synod (1863); and
for some years it was well edited by Bishop Sutcliffe. But now
this magazine became a for tnightly, known as The Moravian
Messenger . As soon as the magazine change d its form it
increase d bo th 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
ar ticles
of
the
most
outspoken natur e. And thirdly, the Brethren now resolved that
henceforth the ir Theological Students sho uld be allowed to
study at some o ther Theological College .
But the influe nce of the pamphlet did not end here. At the
Horton
Synod
(1904)
arrangements
were
made
for
the
establishment of a teaching profession, and at B aildon (1906)
for the inspectio n of the Boarding Schools; and thus nearly all
the suggestions of the pamphle t have now been carried out.
Finally, the various c hanges me ntioned have all contributed,
more or less, to alter the tone of the Moravian pulpit. As long
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
as the work was mostly in country villages the preaching was
naturally o f the Pietistic type. B ut the Moravian preachers of
the present day are more in t o uch w ith the pr oblems o f city
life. They belo ng to a democratic Church; they are brought
into
constant
contact
with
the
working
classes;
they
are
interested in modern social pro blems; the y be lieve that at
botto m all social problems are religio us; and, the refore, they
not only foster such institutions as to uch the daily life of the
masses, but also in their sermo ns 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 herse lf.
Chapter 4
“Moravians in America”
In America the progress was of a similar kind. As soon as the
American Brethr en had gaine d Home Rule, the y organized
their
forces
in
a
master ly
manner;
arrange d
that
their
Provincial Synod should meet o nce in three year s; se t apart
£5,000
for
their
Theological
C ollege
at
Bethlehem;
and,
casting aside the Diaspora ideas of Zinzendorf, devoted their
powers to the syste matic extensio n of the ir Home Missio n
work. It is well to no te the exact nature of their policy. With
them Home Mission work meant syste matic Church extension.
At each new Home Mission station they generally place d a fully
ordaine d
minister;
that
minister
was
grante d
the
same
privileges as the minister of any other congregation; the new
cause w as encouraged to strive for self support; and, as soon
as possible, it w as allowed to se nd a deputy to the Syno d. At
Syno d after Synod Church exte nsio n was the main to pic of
discussio n; and the discussion nearly always ended in some
practical proposal. For example, at the Synod of 1876 the
Brethren formed a Church Exte nsio n Board; and that Board
was entrusted w ith the task of raising £10,000 in the next
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
three years. Again, in 1885, they resolved to build a new
Theological College, elected a Building Committee to collect
the mone y, and raised the sum required so rapidly that in
1892 they were able to ope n Co menius Hall at B ethle hem, free
of debt. Meanw hile the number of new congre gations w as
increasing with some rapidity. At the end of fifty years of
Home Rule the Moravians in No rth America had one hundred
and two congregatio ns; and of these no fewer than sixty -fo ur
were established since the separatio n of the Pr ovinces. The
moral is obvious. As soon as the Americans obtaine d 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 Harbo ur City; in 1862 at
South Bethlehem; in 1863 at Palmyra; in 1865 at Riverside ; in
1866 at Elizabe th, Freedom, Gracehill, and Be thany; in 1867
at He bron and Kernersville; in 1 869 at Northfie ld, Philadelphia
and Har mony; in 1870 at Mamre and Unionville ; in 1871 at
Philadelphia; in 1872 at Stur geon Bay; in 1873 at Zoar and
Gerah; in 1874 at Berea; in 1877 at Philadelphia and East
Sale m; 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
Staple ton
and
Calvary;
in
1890
at
Spring
Grove
and
Clemmo ns; in 18 91 at Bethel, Eden and Bethesda; in 1893 at
Fulp and Wachovia Har bour; in 1 894 at Moravia and Alpha; in
1895 at Bruederfeld and Bruederheim; in 1896 at Heimthal,
Mayodo n 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 German y Church extension is almost unknow n;
in England it is still in its infancy; in Amer ica it is practically
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
an annual event; and thus there are now more Moravians in
America than in England and Germany co mbined. 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 curio us 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
standar d work, that the American congre gations are lacking in
cohesio n, in bro therly character, and in sympathy with tr ue
Moravian principles.161 But t o this criticism several answers
may be given. In the first place, it is well to note what we
mean by Moravian ideals. If Mo ravian ideals ar e Zinzendorf’s
ideals, the criticism is true . In Germany, the Brethren still
pursue Zinzendorf’s po licy; in England and America that po licy
has been rejected. In Germany the Moravians still act as a
“Church within the Church”; in England and Amer ica such work
has been fo und impo ssible . But Zinzendorf’s “C hurch w ithin
the Church” idea is no Moravian “essential.” It was n ever one
of the ideals of the Bohemian Brethren; it spr ang, not from
the
Moravian
Church,
but
fr om
German
Pietism;
and,
therefore, if the American Brethr en reject it they canno t justly
be accused of disloyalty to original Moravian principles.
For
those
pr inciples
they
are
as
zealous
as
any
other
Moravians. They have a deep reverence for the past. At their
Theological Seminary in Bethlehem systematic instr uction in
Moravian history is given; and the American Br ethren have
their own Histor ical Society. For tw enty years Bishop Edmund
de Schweinitz le ctured to the students on Moravian history;
and, finally, in his “Histor y of the Unitas Fratrum,” he gave to
the public the fullest acco unt of the Bohemian Brethren in the
History of the Moravian Church by J.E Hutton
English
language;
and
in
rece nt
years
Dr.
H amilto n,
his
succesor , has narrated in detail the history of the Renewed
Church of the Brethren. Se cond, the Americans, when put to
the test, showed practical sympathy w ith German Brethren in
distress.
As
so on
as
the
German
refugees
arrived
from
Volhynia, the American Moravians took up their cause with
enthusiasm, pro vide d them w ith ministers, he lped them w ith
money, and thus founded the ne w Moravian congregatio ns in
Alberta.
And
third,
the
Amer icans
have
the ir
share
of
Missio nary zeal. They have their own “Society for Propagating
the Gospel”; they have their own Missio nary magazine s; and
during the last quar ter of a century th