Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Books, poems, drama…

History of the Moravian Church by J. E. Hutton

Part 9 out of 9

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 0.9 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

magazines; and during the last quarter of a century they have borne
nearly the whole burden, both in money and in men, of the new
mission in Alaska. And thus the three branches of the Moravian
Church, though differing from each other in methods, are all united
in their loyalty to the great essentials.

Section V.--BONDS OF UNION.--But these essentials are not the only
bonds of union. At present Moravians all over the world are united
in three great tasks.

First, they are united in their noble work among the lepers at
Jerusalem. It is one of the scandals of modern Christianity that
leprosy is still the curse of Palestine; and the only Christians who
are trying to remove that curse are the Moravians. At the request
of a kind-hearted German lady, Baroness von Keffenbrink-Ascheraden,
the first Moravian Missionary went out to Palestine forty years ago
(1867). There, outside the walls of Jerusalem, the first hospital
for lepers, named Jesus Hilfe, was built; there, for some years, Mr.
and Mrs. Tappe laboured almost alone; and then, when the old
hospital became too small, the new hospital, which is standing
still, was built, at a cost of £4,000, on the Jaffa Road. In this
work, the Moravians have a twofold object. First, they desire to
exterminate leprosy in Palestine; second, as opportunity offers,
they speak of Christ to the patients. But the hospital, of course,
is managed on the broadest lines. It is open to men of all creeds;
there is no religious test of any kind; and if the patient objects
to the Gospel it is not forced upon him. At present the hospital
has accommodation for about fifty patients; the annual expense is
about £4,000; the Managing Committee has its headquarters in
Berthelsdorf; each Province of the Moravian Church has a Secretary
and Treasurer; the staff consists of a Moravian Missionary, his
wife, and five assistant nurses; and all true Moravians are expected
to support this holy cause. At this hospital, of course, the
Missionary and his assistants come into the closest personal contact
with the lepers. They dress their sores; they wash their clothes;
they run every risk of infection; and yet not one of the attendants
has ever contracted the disease. When Father Damien took the
leprosy all England thrilled at the news; and yet if England rose to
her duty the black plague of leprosy might soon be a thing of the

Again, the Moravian Church is united in her work in Bohemia and
Moravia. At the General Synod of 1869 a strange coincidence
occurred; and that strange coincidence was that both from Great
Britain and from North America memorials were handed in suggesting
that an attempt be made to revive the Moravian Church in her ancient
home. In England the leader of the movement was Bishop Seifferth.
In North America the enthusiasm was universal, and the petition was
signed by every one of the ministers. And thus, once more, the
Americans were the leaders in a forward movement. The Brethren
agreed to the proposal. At Pottenstein (1870), not far from
Reichenau, the first new congregation in Bohemia was founded. For
ten years the Brethren in Bohemia were treated by the Austrian
Government as heretics; but in 1880, by an Imperial edict, they were
officially recognized as the "Brethren's Church in Austria." Thus
is the prayer of Comenius being answered at last; thus has the
Hidden Seed begun to grow; thus are the Brethren preaching once more
within the walls of Prague; and now, in the land where in days of
old their fathers were slain by the sword, they have a dozen growing
congregations, a monthly Moravian magazine ("Bratrske Litsz"), and a
thousand adherents of the Church of the Brethren. Again, as in the
case of the Leper Home, the Managing Committee meets at Herrnhut;
each Province has its corresponding members; and all Moravians are
expected to share in the burden.

Above all, the Moravian Church is united in the work of Foreign
Missions. For their missions to the heathen the Moravians have long
been famous; and, in proportion to their resources, they are ten
times as active as any other Protestant Church. But in this book
the story of Moravian foreign missions has not been told. It is a
story of romance and thrilling adventure, of dauntless heroism and
marvellous patience; it is a theme worthy of a Froude or a Macaulay;
and some day a master of English prose may arise to do it justice.
If that master historian ever appears, he will have an inspiring
task. He will tell of some of the finest heroes that the Christian
Church has ever produced. He will tell of Matthew Stach, the
Greenland pioneer, of Friedrich Martin, the "Apostle to the
Negroes," of David Zeisberger, the "Apostle to the Indians," of
Erasmus Schmidt, in Surinam, of Jaeschke, the famous Tibetan
linguist, of Leitner and the lepers on Robben Island, of Henry
Schmidt in South Africa, of James Ward in North Queensland, of Meyer
and Richard in German East Africa, and of many another grand herald
of the Cross whose name is emblazoned in letters of gold upon the
Moravian roll of honour. In no part of their work have the Brethren
made grander progress. In 1760 they had eight fields of labour,
1,000 communicants, and 7,000 heathen under their care; in 1834,
thirteen fields of labour, 15,000 communicants, and 46,000 under
their care; in 1901, twenty fields of labour, 32,000 communicants,
and 96,000 under their care. As the historian traces the history of
the Moravian Church, he often finds much to criticize and sometimes
much to blame; but here, on the foreign mission field, the voice of
the critic is dumb. Here the Moravians have ever been at their
best; here they have done their finest redemptive work; here they
have shown the noblest self-sacrifice; and here, as the sternest
critic must admit, they have always raised from degradation to glory
the social, moral, and spiritual condition of the people. In these
days the remark is sometimes made by superior critics that foreign
missionaries in the olden days had a narrow view of the Gospel, that
their only object was to save the heathen from hell, and that they
never made any attempt to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. If
that statement refers to other missionaries, it may or may not be
true; but if it refers to Moravians it is false. At all their
stations the Moravian Missionaries looked after the social welfare
of the people. They built schools, founded settlements, encouraged
industry, fought the drink traffic, healed the sick, and cast out
the devils of robbery, adultery and murder; and the same principles
and methods are still in force to-day.

At the last General Synod held in Herrnhut the foreign mission work
was placed under the management of a General Mission Board; the
Board was elected by the Synod; and thus every voting member of the
Church has his share in the control of the work. In each Province
there are several societies for raising funds. In the German
Province are the North-Scheswig Mission Association, the Zeist
Mission Society, and the Fünf-pfennig Verein or Halfpenny Union. In
the British Province are the Society for the Furtherance of the
Gospel, which owns that famous missionary ship, the "Harmony"; the
Juvenile Missionary Association, chiefly supported by pupils of the
boarding schools; the Mite Association; and that powerful
non-Moravian Society, the London Association in aid of Moravian
Missions. In North America is the Society for Propagating the
Gospel among the Heathen. In each Province, too, we find periodical
missionary literature: in Germany two monthlies, the Missions-Blatt
and Aus Nord und Süd; in Holland the Berichten uit de Heidenwereld;
in Denmark the Evangelisk Missionstidende; in England the quarterly
Periodical Accounts and the monthly Moravian Missions; and in North
America two monthlies, Der Missions Freund and the Little
Missionary. In Germany the missionary training College is situated
at Niesky; in England at Bristol. In England there is also a
special fund for the training of medical missionaries. Of the
communicant members of the Moravian Church one in every sixty goes
out as a missionary; and from this fact the conclusion has often
been drawn that if the members of other churches went out in the
same proportion the heathen world might be won for Christ in ten
years. At present the Mission field contains about 100,000 members;
the number of missionaries employed is about 300; the annual
expenses of the work are about £90,000; and of that sum two-thirds
is raised by the native converts.

There are now fourteen Provinces in the Mission field, and
attractive is the scene that lies before us. We sail on the
"Harmony" to Labrador, and see the neatly built settlements, the
fur-clad Missionary in his dog-drawn sledge, the hardy Eskimos, the
squat little children at the village schools, the fathers and
mothers at worship in the pointed church, the patients waiting their
turn in the surgery in the hospital at Okak. We pass on to Alaska,
and steam with the Brethren up the Kuskokwim River. We visit the
islands of the West Indies, where Froude, the historian, admired the
Moravian Schools, and where his only complaint about these schools
was that there were not enough of them. We pass on to California,
where the Brethren have a modern Mission among the Red Indians; to
the Moskito Coast, once the scene of a wonderful revival; to
Paramaribo in Surinam, the city where the proportion of Christians
is probably greater than in any other city in the world; to South
Africa, where it is commonly reported that a Hottentot or Kaffir
Moravian convert can always be trusted to be honest; to German East
Africa, where the Brethren took over the work at Urambo at the
request of the London Missionary Society; to North Queensland, where
the natives were once so degraded that Anthony Trollope declared
that the "game was not worth the candle," where Moravians now supply
the men and Presbyterians the money, and where the visitor gazes in
amazement at the "Miracle of Mapoon"; and last to British India,
near Tibet, where, perched among the Himalaya Mountains, the
Brethren in the city of Leh have the highest Missionary station in
the world.

As the Moravians, therefore, review the wonderful past, they see the
guiding hand of God at every stage of the story. They believe that
their Church was born of God in Bohemia, that God restored her to
the light of day when only the stars were shining, that God has
opened the door in the past to many a field of labour, and that God
has preserved her to the present day for some great purpose of his
own. Among her ranks are men of many races and many shades of
opinion; and yet, from Tibet to San Francisco, they are still one
united body. As long as Christendom is still divided, they stand
for the great essentials as the bond of union. As long as lepers in
Palestine cry "unclean," they have still their mission in the land
where the Master taught. As long as Bohemia sighs for their Gospel,
and the heathen know not the Son of Man, they feel that they must
obey the Missionary mandate; and, convinced that in following these
ideals they are not disobedient to the heavenly vision, they
emblazon still upon their banner the motto encircling their old
episcopal seal:--

"Vicit Agnus noster: Eum sequamur."
(Our Lamb has conquered: Him let its follow.)




A. H. Wratislaw: John Hus (S.P.C.K. 1882).

H. B. Workman: The Letters of Hus (Hodder and Stoughton).

Johann Loserth: Wyclif and Hus.

Anton Gindely: Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. For the external
fortunes of the Brethren, Gindely's narrative is excellent; but his
account of their inner life is poor and inaccurate.

Anton Gindely: Quellen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. A
collection of documents, dealing chiefly with the Brethren's
relations with Luther.

Anton Gindely: Geschichte des dreiszig-jährigen Krieges. (Vol. IV.)

Jaroslav Goll: Quellen und Untersuchung zur Geschichte der
Böhmischen Brüder (1882). Specially useful for Peter of Chelcic.

Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz: History of the Unitas Fratrum
(Bethlehem, Pa. 1885). This is the standard English work on the
Bohemian Brethren. It must, however, be used with caution. The
author occasionally betrays a tendency to make out the Brethren more
evangelical than they really were. Further, since Gindely and de
Schweinitz wrote, many new discoveries have been made; their
conclusions must be tested by the recent researches of J. T. Müller,
the Brethren's Archivar at Herrnhut.

J. T. Müller: Die deutschen Katechismen der Böhmischen Brüder
(Berlin: A. Hofmann and Comp., 1887). Absolutely indispensable. No
book ever written gives so full a description of the Brethren's
principles and methods, or so true an estimate of the great part
they played in the Reformation.

J. T. Müller: Die Gefangenschaft des Johann Augusta (Leipzig,
Friedrich Jansa. 1895). A translation, with introduction and notes,
of Jacob Bilek's narrative. It throws quite a new light on
Augusta's policy and character.

J. T. Müller: Das Bischoftum der Brüder-Unität (Herrnhut. 1889).

J. T. Müller: "Gemeindeverfassung der Böhmischen Brüder," in
Monatshefte der Comenius-Gesellschaft, 1896.

L. G. Hassé and E. Walder: "Report of the Committee appointed by the
Synod of the Moravian Church in Great Britain for the purpose of
inquiring into the possibility of more friendly relations on the
part of this Church with the Anglican Church" (Moravian Publication
Office, 32, Fetter Lane, E.C.). Complete statement of the evidence
on the Brethren's Episcopal Orders.

Eugen Borgius: Aus Posens und Polens kirchlicher Vergangenheit
(Berlin, 1898. Wiegandt und Grieben). Contains a discussion (pp.
46-51) of Müller's Das Bischoftum.

Lützow, Count: History of Bohemian Literature (William Heinemann;
new edition, 1907). Contains useful information on the Brethren's
literary activities.

Benjamin Seifferth (Moravian Bishop): Church Constitution of the
Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (W. Mallalieu and Co., 97, Hatton
Garden. 1866). Translation of the Ratio Disciplinae, with original
text and notes.

Walther E. Schmidt: Das religiöse Leben in den ersten Zeiten der
Brüderunität, in the Zeitschrift für Brüder-Geschichte (Herrnhut,
NO. 1, 1907.)

J. T. Müller: Ueber eine Inquisition gegen die Waldenser in der
Gegend von Altenburg und Zwichau, in the Zeitschrift für Brüd.
Gesch. (Herrnhut. 1908).

Zeitschrift für Brüder-Geschichte. An historical half-yearly
magazine, edited by J. T. Müller and Gerhard Reichel. Scientific
and scholarly; complete guide to the most recent works on Brethren's


S. S. Laurie: John Amos Comenius, his Life and Educational Works
(Cambridge, Pitt Press Series. 1895).

M. W. Keatinge: The Great Didactic (Edinburgh, A. and C. Black).
The introduction contains a good life of Comenius, perhaps the
fullest in the English language.

Daniel Benham: The School of Infancy.

Count Lützow: The Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the
Heart (Dent's Temple Classics. 1907). Translation, with brief

Monatshefle der Comenius-Gesellschaft (Berlin, R. Gaertner's
Verlagsbuchandlung). Founded 1892. See especially Vol. VII.
(1898), Nos. 3 and 4, for articles on the Gymnasium at Lissa and on
"Comenius und die Volksschule."


Albrecht Ritschl: Geschichte des Pietismus (Vol. III. 1889). By
English historians Ritschl's great work is generally regarded as a
classic. But his account of Zinzendorf and the Brethren is one of
the most inaccurate narratives ever written. It is bigoted in tone,
careless in details, and based on second-hand evidence; and
absolutely misleading in the general impression that it gives. It
is not serious history; it is rather a theological romance. (For
examples, see notes passim.)

J. T. Müller: Zinzendorf als Erneuerer der alten Brüder-Kirche
(Leipzig, Friedrich Jansa. 1900). The only complete exposition of
Zinzendorf's policy. His exposure of Ritschl's fictions is

Bernhard Becker: Zinzendorf und sein Christentum im Verhältnis zum
kirchlichen und religiösen Leben seiner Zeit (Leipzig, Friedrich
Jansa, 1886; second edition, 1900). A profound treatise; shows
Zinzendorf's greatness and originality as a theologian.

Theodor G. Schmidt: Zinzendorfs soziale Stellung (Basel, Adolf
Geering. 1900). Deals with Zinzendorf's social policy.

Guido Burkhardt: Zinzendorf und die Brüdergemeine (Leipzig,
Friedrich Jansa. 1865 and 1901).

Guido Burkhardt: Die Brüdergemeine, Erster Theil (Gnadau,
Unitäts-Buchhandlung, 1889).

Gneomar Ernst von Natzmer: Die Jugend Zinzendorfs (Eisenach, M.
Wilckens. 1894).

Hermann Römer: Nicolaus Ludwig, Graf von Zinzendorf (Gnadau,
Unitäts-Buchhandlung. 1900).

E. W. Croeger: Geschichte der erneuerten Brüder-Kirche (Gnadau,
Unitäts-Buchhandlung. 1852-1854).

David Cranz: Ancient and Modern History of the Brethren (translated
by Benjamin La Trobe. 1780). By no means out of date for
Zinzendorf's times.

John Beck Holmes: History of the Protestant Church of the United
Brethren (Vol. II. 1830).

J. Taylor Hamilton: History of the Moravian Church during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Bethlehem, Pa. Times Publishing
Co. 1900).

Augustus Gottlieb Spangenberg: Life of Zinzendorf (English
translation by Samuel Jackson. 1836).

Gerhard Reichel: August Gottlieb Spangenberg, Bischof der
Brüderkirche (Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1906. Of exceptional value
and delightfully candid.)

Original Sources: For lack of space these cannot be enumerated here,
but the student may find them all referred to in the foregoing works
by Becker, Müller, Schmidt, Cranz, and Reichel.


Gerhard Wauer: Beginnings of the Brethren's Church in England.
Translated by John Elliott. (32, Fetter Lane, E.C. 1901.)

Bishop A. C. Hassé: The United Brethren in England (32, Fetter Lane,

Daniel Benham: Memoirs of James Hutton (Hamilton, Adams and Co.

J. P. Lockwood: Life of Peter Boehler (Wesleyan Conference Office.

Daniel Benham: Life of Rev. John Gambold (Mallalieu and Co., 97,
Hatton Garden. 1865).

John Wesley's Journal.

Charles Wesley's Journal.

Of the sources in the Moravian Archives at Fetter Lane, those that I
have found most useful are the following: (1) A miscellaneous
collection, entitled "Pamphlets"; (2) MS. and Note-books, containing
congregation diaries, copied out by the late Bishop A. C. Hassé; (3)
Minutes of British Provincial Synods.

For other sources see: (1) The above work by Gerhard Wauer, (2) My
own article, "The Moravian Contribution to the Evangelical Revival
in England," in the Owens College "Historical Essays" (Manchester
University Press. 1907). (3) My own John Cennick; a sketch (32,
Fetter Lane, E.C. 1906). (4) Catalogue of the Moravian Archives at
32, Fetter Lane, E.C. (5) L. Tyerman: Life and Times of John Wesley.
(6) L. Tyerman: The Oxford Methodists.


W. C. Reichel: Memorials of the Moravian Church (Philadelphia,
Lippincott and Co. 1870).

L. T. Reichel: Moravians in North Carolina (Salem, N. C. O. A.
Keehln. 1857).

L. T. Reichel: Early History of United Brethren in North America
(Nazareth, Pa. 1888).

Abraham Ritter: Moravian Church in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, C.
Sherman. 1857).

Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society (Nazareth, Pa. 1859
to 1907).


J. T. Hamilton: History of the Missions of the Moravian Church
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Moravian Publishing
Office, 32, Fetter Lane, E.C. 1900).

Adolf Schulze: Abrisz einer Geschichte der Brüder-Mission (Herrnhut,
Missionsbuchhandlung. 1901). This is the standard work on the
subject. It contains an elaborate bibliography.


1 De Ecclesiâ.

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

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

4 A common saying in Peter's day.

5 Pronounced Rockitsanna.

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

7 Rockycana's character is rather hard to judge. Some of his
sermons have been preserved, and they have the ring of sincerity.
Perhaps, like Erasmus in later years, he wished to avoid a schism,
and thought that the Church could be reformed from within.

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

9 For many years there has been a tradition that the Moravian Church
was founded on March 1st, 1457; but this date is only a pious
imagination. We are not quite sure of the year, not to speak of the
day of the month. If the Moravian Church must have a birthday,
March 1st, 1457, will do as well as any other; but the truth is that
on this point precise evidence has not yet been discovered.

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

11 De Schweinitz (p. 107) says that the Brethren now took the title
of "Fratres Legis Christi," i.e., Brethren of the Law of Christ.
This is a mistake. This title is not found till towards the close
of the sixteenth century, and was never in general use; see Müller's
"Böhmische-Brueder" in Hauck's Real-Encyclopædie.

12 The best way to understand the Brethren's attitude is to string
together their favourite passages of Scripture. I note, in
particular, the following: Matthew xviii. 19, 20; Jeremiah iii. 15;
John xx. 23; Revelation xviii. 4, 5; Luke vi. 12-16; Acts iv. 32.

13 And this raises an interesting question: If the lot had decided
against the Brethren, what would they have done? They have given us
the answer themselves. If the inscribed slips had remained in the
vase, the Brethren would have waited a year and then tried again.
The final issue, in fact, did not depend on the use of the lot at
all. They used it, not to find out God's will, but simply to
confirm that faith in their cause which had already been gained in

14 It is here stated by De Schweinitz (p. 137), on Gindely's
authority, that the members of the Synod were now re-baptized. The
statement is not correct. It is based on a letter written by
Rockycana; but it is unsupported by any other evidence, and must,
therefore be rejected. As the Brethren have often been confounded
with Anabaptists (especially by Ritschl, in his Geschichte des
Pietismus), I will here give the plain facts of the case. For a
number of years the Brethren held that all who joined their ranks
from the Church of Rome should be re-baptized; and the reason why
they did so was that in their judgment the Romanist baptism had been
administered by men of bad moral character, and was, therefore,
invalid. But in 1534 they abandoned this position, recognised the
Catholic Baptism as valid, and henceforth showed not a trace of
Anabaptist views either in theory or in practice.

15 1. The "Six Commandments" are as follows:--

(1) Matthew v. 22: Thou shalt not be angry with thy brother.
(2) Matthew v. 28: Thou shalt not look upon a woman to lust after
(3) Matthew v. 32: Thou shalt not commit adultery, or divorce thy
(4) Matthew v. 34: Thou shalt not take an oath.
(5) Matthew v. 39, 40: Thou shalt not go to law.
(6) Matthew v. 44: Thou shalt love thine enemy.

2. Moravian Episcopal Orders.--For the benefit of those, if such
there be, who like a abstruse historical problems, and who,
therefore, are hungering for further information about the origin,
maintenance and validity of Moravian Episcopal Orders, I here append
a brief statement of the case:--

(1) Origin.--On this point three opinions have been held: (a) For
many years it was stoutly maintained by Palacky, the famous Bohemian
historian, by Anton Gindely, the Roman Catholic author of the
"Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder," and also Bishop Edmund de
Schweinitz in his "History of the Unitas Fratrum," that Stephen, the
Waldensian, was made a Bishop at the Catholic Council of Basle, and
that thus Moravian Episcopal Orders have a Roman Catholic origin.
But this view is now generally abandoned. It is not supported by
adequate evidence, and is, on the face of it, entirely improbable.
If Stephen had been a Romanist or Utraquist Bishop the Brethren
would never have gone near him. (b) In recent years it has been
contended by J. Müller and J. Koestlin that Stephen was consecrated
by the Taborite Bishop, Nicholas von Pilgram. But this view is as
improbable as the first. For Nicholas von Pilgram and his rough
disciples the Brethren had little more respect than they had for the
Church of Rome. Is it likely that they would take their orders from
a source which they regarded as corrupt? (c) The third view--the
oldest and the latest--is that held by the Brethren themselves.
They did not believe that Bishop Stephen had any connection, direct
or indirect, with the Church of Rome. They believed that he
represented an episcopate which had come down as an office of the
Church from the earliest Christian days. They could not prove, of
course, up to the hilt, that the Waldensian succession was unbroken;
but, as far as they understood such questions, they believed the
succession to be at least as good as that which came through Rome.
And to that extent they were probably right. There is no such thing
on the field of history as a proved Apostolic succession; but if any
line of mediæval Bishops has high claims to historical validity it
is, as Dr. Döllinger has shown (in his Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte
des Mittelalters), the line to which Waldensian Stephen belonged.

(2) Maintenance.--We now come to another question: Has the Church of
the Brethren maintained the succession from the time of Stephen to
the present day? Here again the historian has a very tight knot to
untie. At one point (if not two) in the history of the Brethren's
Church, 1500 and 1554, there is certainly the possibility that her
Episcopal succession was broken. For the long period of eleven
years the Brethren had only one Bishop, John Augusta; and Augusta
was a prisoner in Purglitz Castle, and could not, therefore,
consecrate a successor. What, then, were the Brethren to do? If
John Augusta were to die in prison the line of Bishops would end.
Meanwhile the Brethren did the best they could. As they did not
wish the office to cease, they elected Bishops to perform Episcopal
functions for the time being. Now comes the critical question: Did
John August, some years later, consecrate these elected Bishops or
did he not? There is no direct evidence either way. But we know
enough to show us the probabilities. It is certain that in 1564
John Augusta came out of prison; it is certain that in 1571 two
Bishops-elect, Israel and Blahoslav, consecrated three successors;
it is certain that Augusta was a stickler for his own authority as a
Bishop; it is not certain that he raised an objection to the conduct
of Israel and Blahoslav; and, therefore, it is possible that he had
consecrated them himself. If he did, the Moravian succession is
unbroken; and, at any rate, it is without a flaw from that day to

(3) Validity.--Is the Moravian Episcopacy valid? The answer depends
on the meaning of the word "Validity." If the only valid Bishops in
the Church of Christ are those who can prove an unbroken descent
from the Apostles, then the Brethren's Bishops are no more valid
than the Bishops of any other Church; and all historians must
honestly admit that, in this sense of the word "Valid," there is no
such thing as a valid Bishop in existence. But the word "Validity"
may have a broader meaning. It may mean the desire to adhere to New
Testament sanctions; it may mean the honest and loyal endeavour to
preserve the "intention" of the Christian ministry as instituted by
Christ; and if this is what "Validity" means the Moravian Episcopate
is just as valid as that of any other communion. Meanwhile, at any
rate, the reader may rest content with the following conclusions:--

(1) That Gregory the Patriarch and his fellow Brethren were
satisfied with Bishop Stephen's statement.
(2) That they acted honestly according to their light, and desired
to be true successors of the Primitive Church.
(3) That the Waldensian Episcopate was of ancient order.
(4) That no break in the Brethren's Episcopal succession has ever
been absolutely proved.
(5) That, during the whole course of their history the Brethren
have always endeavoured to preserve the Episcopal office

For a further discussion of the whole question see "The Report of
the Committee appointed by the Synod of the Moravian Church in Great
Britain for the purpose of inquiring into the possibility of more
friendly relations on the part of this Church with the Anglican
Church"; see also, in German, Müller's "Bischoftum," where the whole
evidence is critically handled.

16 For the later history of the Brethren's Church this entrance of
German-speaking Waldenses was of fundamental importance; of far
greater importance, in fact, than is recognised either by Gindely or
de Schweinitz. As these men spoke the German language, the
Brethren, naturally, for their benefit, prepared German editions of
their Confessions, Catechisms, and Hymn-books; and through these
German editions of their works they were able, a few years later, to
enter into closer contact with the Reformation in Germany. But that
is not the end of the story. It was descendants of this German
branch of the Church that first made their way to Herrnhut in 1722,
and thus laid the foundations of the Renewed Church of the Brethren.

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

18 We are, therefore, justified in regarding the year 1495 as a
turning-point in the history of the Brethren. The revolution was
thorough and complete. It is a striking fact that Luke of Prague,
whose busy pen was hardly ever dry, did not back up a single passage
by appealing to Peter's authority; and, in one passage, he even
attacked his character and accused him of not forgiving an enemy.

19 And here I beseech the reader to be on his guard. It is utterly
incorrect to state, with de Schweinitz, that at this period the
Brethren held the famous doctrine of justification by faith, as
expounded by Martin Luther. Of Luther's doctrine, Luke himself was
a vigorous opponent (see p. 69).

20 Taine, History of English Literature, Book II. cap. V. For a good
defence of Alexander's character, see Cambridge Modern History, Vol
I. p. 241.

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

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

23 A corruption of Beghard. The term, however, appears to have been
used very loosely. It was simply a vulgar term of abuse for all who
had quarrelled with the Church of Rome. John Wycliffe was called a

24 Jednota Rimska.

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

26 I desire to be explicit on this point. It is, of course, true
enough that when the Brethren in later years began to use the Latin
language they used the term "Unitas Fratrum" as the equivalent of
Jednota Bratrska, but in so doing they made an excusable blunder.
The translation "Unitas Fratrum" is misleading. It is
etymologically correct, and historically false. If a Latin term is
to be used at all, it would be better to say, as J. Müller suggests,
"Societas Fratrum," or, better still, in my judgment, "Ecclesia
Fratrum." But of all terms to describe the Brethren the most
offensive is "sect." It is inconsistent for the same writer to
speak of the "sect" of the Bohemian Brethren and of the "Church" of
Rome. If the Roman Communion is to be described as a "Church," the
same term, in common courtesy, should be applied to the Brethren.

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

28 This letter was probably written by Luke of Prague.

29 Müller's Katechismen, page 231.

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

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

32 Compare our Queen Elizabeth's view:--

Christ was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what that Word did make it,
That I believe, and take it.

33 Letter to the Brethren, 1523.

34 There is no doubt whatever on this last point. If the student
will consult any standard work on the history of the early Christian
Church, he will see how closely the institutions of the Brethren
were modelled on the institutions of the first three centuries as
pourtrayed, not only in the New Testament, but also in such
documents as the Didache, the Canons of Hippolytus, and the
Apostolic Constitutions. For English readers the best guide is T.
M. Lindsay's The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries; and
the following references will be of special interest: (1) For the
Brethren's conception of priesthood, see p. 35; (2) for their rule
that the clergy should learn a trade, p. 203; (3) for their ministry
of women, p. 181; (4) for their contempt of learning, p. 182; (5)
for their preference for unmarried ministers, p. 179; (6) for the
term "Brotherhood" (Jednota) a synonym for "Church," p. 21; (7) for
Acoluths and their duties, p. 355; (8) for their system of
discipline, Matthew xviii. 15-17; (9) for Beginners, Proficients,
and Perfect--(a) Heb. v. 13, (b) Heb. v. 14, vi. 1, (c) 1 Cor. ii.
6, 2 Cor. vii. 1, Rom. xv. 14, Philipp iii. 15.

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

36 An important point. It shows that the scheme which Augusta
afterwards sketched in prison was a long-cherished design, and not a
new trick to regain his liberty. (See Chapter XI.)

37 It is perfectly clear from this prayer that the Brethren tried to
reconcile their loyalty to Ferdinand with loyalty to their faith.
The prayer is printed in full in J. Müller's "Gefangenshaft des
Johann Augusta."

38 Gindely's narrative here is quite misleading. For no reason
whatever he endeavours to make out that the Brethren were the chief
authors of the conspiracy against Ferdinand. For this statement
there is not a scrap of evidence, and Gindely produces none. It is
not often that Gindely romances, but he certainly romances here, and
his biting remarks about the Brethren are unworthy of so great an
historian! (See Vol I., p. 293.)

39 Gindely's naïve remark here is too delightful to be lost. He
says that the rich Brethren had not been corrupted by their contact
with Luther's teaching, and that, therefore, they still possessed a
little of the milk of human kindness for the refreshment of the
poor. (See Vol. I. p. 330.)

40 The Unitarians were specially strong in Poland.

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

42 The fallacy underlying this argument is well known to logicians,
and a simple illustration will make it clear to the reader:--

All Hottentots have black hair.
Mr. Jones has black hair.
Therefore, Mr. Jones is a Hottentot.

43 I must add a brief word in honour of Jacob Bilek. As that
faithful secretary was thirteen years in prison (1548-61), and
endured many tortures rather than deny his faith, it is rather a
pity that two historians have branded him as a traitor. It is
asserted both by Gindely (Vol. I., p. 452) and by de Schweinitz (p.
327) that Bilek obtained his liberty by promising, in a written
bond, to renounce the Brethren and adhere to the Utraquist Church.
But how Gindely could make such a statement is more than I can
understand. He professes to base his statement on Bilek's
narrative; and Bilek himself flatly denies the charge. He admits
that a bond was prepared, but says that it was handed to the
authorities without his knowledge and consent. For my part, I see
no reason to doubt Bilek's statement; and he certainly spent his
last days among the Brethren as minister of the congregation at

44 It had been presented in 1564.

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

46 This was doubtless an exaggeration, but it shows that the
Brethren were more powerful than the reader would gather from most
histories of the Reformation.

47 A copy of this may be seen in the College at Fairfield. The copy
is a second edition, dated 1596. There are two columns to a page.
The "title page," "preface," and "contents" are missing in this

48 This point is ignored by most English historians, but is fully
recognised by Count Lutzow. "It can be generally stated," he says,
in his "History of Bohemian Literature," p. 201, "that with a few
exceptions all the men who during the last years of Bohemian
independence were most prominent in literature and in politics
belonged to the Unity."

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

50 J. Müller puts the estimate still higher. He thinks that at this
time at least half of the Protestants in Bohemia were Brethren; and
that in Moravia their strength was even greater.

51 Prepared 1609; published 1616; republished in Latin, 1633; and
translated and published in England in 1866, by Bishop Seifferth.
There is one point in this treatise to which special attention may
be drawn. It contains no allusion to the fact that among the
Brethren the ministers had to earn their living by manual labour.
The reason is obvious. The practice ceased in 1609, as soon as the
Charter was granted, and from that time the Brethren's ministers in
Bohemia (though not in Moravia and Poland) stood on the same footing
as the other evangelical clergy.

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

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

54 In his "Labyrinth of the World."

55 I commend this book to the reader. It has recently been
translated into English by Count Lützow, and is included now in
Dent's "Temple Classics."

56 Surely a poetic exaggeration.

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

58 It is stated in most biographies of Zinzendorf that Spener stood
sponsor at his baptism; but Gerhard Wauer, in his recent work,
Beginnings of the Moravian Church in England, says that Spener's
name is not to be found in the baptismal register. And this, I
imagine, should settle the question.

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

60 Collegia pietatis.

61 Ecclesiolæ in ecclesia.

62 Ante is to be construed as an adverb.

63 In his classic Geschichte des Pietismus (Vol. III. p. 203),
Albrecht Ritschl says that Zinzendorf's unwillingness to be a
missionary was due to his pride of rank. The statement has not a
shadow of foundation. In fact, it is contradicted by Zinzendorf
himself, who says: "ihre Idee war eigentlich nicht, dieses und
dergleichen selbst zu bewerkstelligen, denn sie waren beide von den
Ihrigen in die grosse Welt destiniert und wussten von nichts als
gehorsam sein." I should like here to warn the student against
paying much attention to what Ritschl says about Zinzendorf's
theology and ecclesiastical policy. His statements are based on
ignorance and theological prejudice: and his blunders have been
amply corrected, first by Bernhard Becker in his Zinzendorf und sein
Christentum im Verhältnis zum kirchlichen und religiösen Leben
seiner Zeit, and secondly by Joseph Müller in his Zinzendorf als
Erneuerer der alten Brüderkirche (1900).

64 For further details of Zinzendorf's stay at Wittenberg I must
refer to his interesting Diary, which is now in course of
publication in the Zeitschrift für Brüdergeschichte. It is written
in an alarming mixture of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, and French;
but the editors have kindly added full explanatory notes, and all
the student requires to understand it is a working knowledge of

65 This picture is now in the Pinakothek at Münich. It is wonderful
how this well-known incident has been misrepresented and misapplied.
It is constantly referred to now in tracts, sermons, and popular
religious magazines as if it was the means of Zinzendorf's
"conversion"; and even a scholar like the late Canon Liddon tells us
how this German nobleman was now "converted from a life of careless
indifference." (Vide Passiontide Sermons. No. VII., pp. 117, 118.)
But all that the picture really accomplished was to strengthen
convictions already held and plans already formed. It is absurd to
talk about the "conversion" of a youth who had loved and followed
Christ for years.

66 The phrase inscribed upon her tombstone at Herrnhut.

67 The Smalkald Articles were drawn up in 1537; and the clause to
which Zinzendorf appealed runs as follows: "In many ways the Gospel
offers counsel and help to the sinner; first through the preaching
of the Word, second, through Baptism, third, through the Holy
Communion, fourth through the power of the keys, and, lastly,
through brotherly discussion and mutual encouragement, according to
Matthew xviii., 'Where two or three are gathered together.'" The
Count, of course, appealed to the last of these methods. For some
reason, however, unknown to me, this particular clause in the
Articles was always printed in Latin, and was, therefore, unknown to
the general public.

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

69 August, 1738.

70 See page 58.

71 Not to be confounded with Kunwald in Bohemia.

72 It is probable that the Neissers were descendants of the
Brethren's Church, but we cannot be quite certain about it. About
the third band, that arrived in 1724, there is no doubt whatever.
(See the next chapter, p. 200.)

73 "Hutberg"; i.e., the hill where cattle and sheep were kept
secure. The name "Hutberg" was common in Germany, and was applied,
of course, to many other hills. For the payment of a small rent the
landlords often let out "Hutbergs" to the villagers on their

74 Ps. lxxxiv. 3. The spot where David felled the first tree is now
marked by a monument, inscribed with the date and the text; and the
date itself is one of the Brethren's so-called "Memorial Days."

75 Zinzendorf's expression.

76 These "Injunctions and Prohibitions" are now printed for the
first time by J. Müller, in his Zizendorf als Erneuerer der alten
Bruder-Kirche (1900). They must not be confounded with the
"Statutes" printed in the Memorial Days of the Brethren's Church.

77 Here again Ritschl is wrong. He assumes (Geschichte des
Pietismus, III. 243) that when Zinzendorf drew up his "Injunctions
and Prohibitions" and "Statutes" he was already acquainted with the
Ratio Disciplinæ. But the "Injunctions" and "Statutes" were read
out on May 12th, and the "Ratio" was not discovered till July.

78 There was, however, no community of goods.

79 I am not exaggerating. In one of his discourses he says: "I
regard the Augsburg Confession as inspired, and assert that it will
be the creed of the Philadelphian Church till Christ comes again."
See Müller, Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, p. 90, and Becker, p. 335.

80 As I write these words a copy of the first Text-book lies before
me. It has only one text for each day, and all the texts are taken
from the New Testament.

81 It is often referred to in the English Congregation Diaries. It
was abandoned simply because it was no longer valued; and no one was
willing to take part.

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

83 Luke xxii. 17.

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

85 Was this true to Luther, or was it not? According to Ritschl it
was not (Geschichte des Pietismus, III. 248); according to J. T.
Müller, it was (Zinzendorf als Erneuerer, p. 40). I agree with the
latter writer.

86 It is not clear from the evidence who suggested the use of the
Lot. According to Zinzendorf's diary it was the Brethren; but I
suspect that he himself was the first to suggest it. There is no
proof that the Brethren were already fond of the Lot; but there is
plenty of proof that the Pietists were, and Zinzendorf had probably
learned it from them. (See Ritschl II., 434, etc.)

87 And here I correct a popular misconception. It has often been
stated in recent years that the first Moravian missionaries actually
became slaves. The statement is incorrect. As a matter of fact,
white slavery was not allowed in any of the West Indian islands.

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

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

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

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

92 The vessel referred to was the Harmony. It belonged to the
Brethren's "Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel," and carried
their missionaries and goods to and from Labrador.

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

94 See 1 Peter i. 1: "Peter to the strangers scattered." The Greek
word is diaspora; this is the origin of the Moravian phrase,
"Diaspora Work."

95 i.e. By the Lot.

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

97 But this applied to Europe only. In America Bishop Spangenberg
was still Chief Elder; and Christ was not recognized as Chief Elder
there till 1748. What caused this strange incongruity? How could
the Brethren recognize a man as Chief Elder in America and the Lord
Christ as Chief Elder in Europe? The explanation is that in each
case the question was settled by the Lot; and the Brethren
themselves asked in bewilderment why our Lord would not at first
consent to be Chief Elder in America.

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

99 It was a little green book, with detachable leaves; each leaf
contained some motto or text; and when the Count was in a
difficulty, he pulled out one of these leaves at random.

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

101 For want of a better, I use this word to translate the German
"Lämmlein"; but, in common justice, it must be explained that
"Lämmlein" in German does not sound so foolish as "Lambkin" in
English. In German, diminutives are freely used to express
endearment. (See James Hutton's sensible remarks in Benham's
Memoirs, p. 563.)

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

103 See Chapter XIV., p. 384.

104 See Chapter III., p. 208.

105 It has often been urged, in Zinzendorf's defence, that he did
not know what was happening at Herrnhaag. But this defence will not
hold good. He was present, in 1747, when some of the excesses were
at their height; and during the summer of that year he delivered
there a series of thirty-four homilies on his "Litany of the

106 See, e.g., Kurtz's Church History. Dr. Kurtz entirely ignores
the fact that the worst features of the "Sifting Time" were only of
short duration, and that no one condemned its excesses more severely
than the Brethren themselves.

107 Canon Overton's sarcastic observations here are quite beside the
point. He says (Life of John Wesley, p. 55) that Spangenberg
subjected Wesley to "a cross-examination which, considering the
position and attainments of the respective parties, seems to an
outsider, in plain words, rather impertinent." I should like to
know where this impertinence comes in. What were "the position and
attainments of the respective parties?" Was Spangenberg Wesley's
intellectual inferior? No. Did Spangenberg seek the conversation?
No. "I asked his advice," says Wesley, "with regard to my own

108 Thus Overton, e.g., writes: "If John Wesley was not a true
Christian in Georgia, God help millions of those who profess and
call themselves Christians." Life of John Wesley, p. 58.

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

110 See, e.g., Overton, Evangelical Revival p. 15; Fisher, History
of the Church, p. 516; Wakeman, History of the Church of England, p.

111 This clause is omitted by John Wesley in his Journal! He gives
the fundamental rules of the Society, but omits the clause that
interfered most with his own liberty. See Journal, May 1st, 1738.

112 Precise date uncertain.

113 What did the Brethren mean by this? We are left largely to
conjecture. My own personal impression is, however, that the
Brethren feared that if Wesley took Communion with them he might be
tempted to leave the Church of England and join the Moravian Church.

114 Mr. Lecky's narrative here (History of England, Vol. II., p. 67,
Cabinet Edition) is incorrect. He attributes the above two speeches
to Moravian "teachers." No Moravian "teacher," so far as I know,
ever talked such nonsense. John Bray was not a Moravian at all. I
have carefully examined the list of members of the first Moravian
congregation in London; and Bray's name does not occur in the list.
He was an Anglican and an intimate friend of Charles Wesley, and is
frequently mentioned in the latter's Journal. It is easy to see how
Lecky went wrong. Instead of consulting the evidence for himself,
he followed the guidance of Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, Vol. I.,
p. 302-5.

115 Cur religionem tuam mutasti? Generally, but wrongly, translated
Why have you changed your religion? But religio does not mean
religion; it means Church or denomination.

116 I believe I am correct in stating that the Watch-Night Service
described in this chapter was the first held in England. As such
services were held already at Herrnhut, where the first took place
in 1733, it was probably a Moravian who suggested the service at
Fetter Lane; and thus Moravians have the honour of introducing
Watch-Night Services in this country. From them the custom passed
to the Methodist; and from the Methodist to other Churches.

117 This letter was first discovered and printed by the late Rev. L.
G. Hassé, B.D., in 1896. See Moravian Messenger, June 6th, 1896.

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

119 See Moravian Hymn-book, No. 846.

120 A nickname afterwards applied to John Wesley.

121 Now called Bishop Street.

122 The congregations which owe their existence to the labours of
Cennick are as follows:--In England: Bristol, Kingswood, Bath,
Devonport, Malmesbury, Tytherton, Leominster; in Wales:
Haverfordwest; in Ireland:--Dublin, Gracehill, Gracefield,
Ballinderry, Kilwarlin, Kilkeel, Cootehill.

123 There was no real truth in these allegations.

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

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

126 The case of Gomersal may serve as an example. The certificate
of registration runs as follows: "14th June, 1754. These are to
certify that the New Chapel and House adjoining in Little Gumersall,
in the Parish of Birstall, in the County and Diocese of York, the
property of James Charlesworth, was this day Registered in the
Registry of his Grace the Lord Archbishop of York, for a place for
Protestant Dissenters for the public worship of Almighty God.


"Deputy Registrar."

127 Consolatory Letter to the Members of the Societies that are in
some connection with the Brethren's Congregations, 1752. I owe my
knowledge of this rare pamphlet to the kindness of the late Rev. L.
G. Hassé.

128 Contents of a Folio History, 1750.

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

130 His other works were: (a) A Solemn Call on Count Zinzendorf
(1754); (b) Supplement to the Candid Narrative (1755); (c) A Second
Solemn Call on Mr. Zinzendorf (1757); (d) Animadversions on Sundry
Flagrant Untruths advanced by Mr. Zinzendorf (no date).

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

132 At one time I could not resist the conviction that Frey had
overdrawn his picture (see Owens College Historical Essays, p. 446);
but recently I have come to the conclusion that his story was
substantially true. My reason for this change of view is as
follows:--As soon as the settlement at Herrnhaag was abandoned a
number of Single Brethren went to Pennsylvania, and there confessed
to Spangenberg that the scandals at Herrnhaag were "ten times as
bad" as described by Frey. See Reichel's Spangenberg, p. 179.
Frey's book had then appeared in German.

133 Their chief apologetic works were the following: (1)
Peremptorischen Bedencken: or, The Ordinary of the Brethren's
Churches. Short and Peremptory Remarks on the Way and Manner
wherein he has been hitherto treated in Controversies (1753), by
Zinzendorf. (2) A Modest Plea for the Church of the Brethren (1754),
anonymous. (3) The Plain Case of the Representatives of the Unitas
Fratrum (1754), anonymous. (4) A Letter from a Minister of the
Moravian Branch of the Unitas Fratrum to the Author of the
"Moravians Compared and Detected," (1755), probably by Frederick
Neisser. (5) An Exposition, or True State of the Matters objected in
England to the People known by the name of Unitas Fratrum (1755), by
Zinzendorf. (6) Additions, by James Hutton. (7) An Essay towards
giving some Just Ideas of the Personal Character of Count Zinzendorf
(1755), by James Hutton. (8) A Short Answer to Mr. Rimius's Long
Uncandid Narrative (1753), anonymous.

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

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

136 Translated by Samuel Jackson, 1838.

137 Zinzendorf's Robe.--At a conference at Friedberg Zinzendorf
suggested (Nov. 17th, 1747) that a white robe should be worn on
special occasions, to remind the Brethren of Rev. vii. 9, 13; and,
therefore, the surplice was worn for the first time at a Holy
Communion, at Herrnhaag, on May 2nd, 1748, by Zinzendorf himself,
his son Renatus, two John Nitschmanns, and Rubusch, the Elder of the
Single Brethren. This is the origin of the use of the surplice by
the modern Moravians.

138 Referred to hereafter as U.E.C.

139 A rule repeatedly broken by the rebellious British. It is
frequently recorded in the Synodal Minutes, "the British deputies
turned up without having had their election ratified by the Lot."

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

141 But this was not the case in England. Only a few children were
educated at Broadoaks, Buttermere, and Fulneck; and the parents of
the children at Fulneck were expected to pay for them if they could.
I am indebted to Mr. W. T. Waugh for this information.

142 For a fuller discussion of this fascinating subject see Bernhard
Becker's article in the Monatshefte der Comenius Gesellschaft, 1894,
p. 45; Prof. H. Roy's articles in the Evangelisches Kirchenblatt für
Schlesien, 1905, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6; and Meyer, Schleiermachers und C.
G. v. Brinkmanns Gang durch die Brüdergemeine, 1905.

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

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

145 John Wesley, in his Journal, does not tell the story properly.
He makes no mention of the Love-feast, and says it was not the
Moravian custom to invite friends to eat and drink. The facts are
given by Hegner in his Fortsetzung of Cranz's Brüdergeschichte, part
III., p. 6.

146 The cause in Ayr was started in 1765 by the preaching of John
Caldwell, one of John Cennick's converts. It was not till 1778 that
Ayr was organized as a congregation; and no attempt was ever made to
convert the other societies into congregations.

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

148 For complete list of the Brethren's societies in Scotland, see
the little pamphlet, The Moravian Church in Ayrshire, reprinted from
the Kilmarnock Standard, June 27th, 1903; and for further details
about abandoned Societies, see Moravian Chapels and Preaching Places
(J. England, 2, Edith Road, Seacombe, near Liverpool).

149 In all this, the object of the Brethren was to be true to the
Church of England, and, to place their motives beyond all doubt, I
add a minute from the London Congregation Council. It refers to
United Flocks, and runs as follows: "April 11th, 1774. Our Society
Brethren and Sisters must not expect to have their children baptized
by us. It would be against all good order to baptize their
children. The increase of this United Flock is to be promoted by
all proper means, that the members of it may be a good salt to the
Church of England."

150 The certificate was as follows: "This is to certify, that the
Bearer, ----, of ----, in the Parish of ----, in the County of ----,
is a Member of the Protestant Episcopal Church, known by the name of
Unitas Fratrum or United Brethren, and such is entitled to the
Privileges granted by an Act of Parliament [22 Geo. II. cap. 120] in
the year 1749; and also by an Act of Parliament [43 Geo. III. cap
120] in the year 1803, exempting the members of the said Church from
personal Military Services. Witness my Hand and Seal this ---- day
of ---- One Thousand Eight Hundred ----."

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

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

153 P.E.C.=Provincial Elders' Conference--i.e., the Governing Board
appointed by the U.E.C.; known till 1856 as Provincial Helpers'

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

155 N.B.--The Moravians in America are not to be confounded with
another denomination known as the "United Brethren," founded in 1752
by Philip William Otterbein (see Fisher's "Church History," p. 579).
It is, therefore, quite misleading to call the Moravians the
"United Brethren." The term is not only historically false, but
also leads to confusion.

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

157 It was also settled in 1899 that the Advocatus Fratrum in Angliâ
and the Secretarius Fratrum in Angliâ should no longer be ex-officio
members of the General Synod.

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

159 In the Moravian Church the rite of Confirmation is generally
performed, not by a Bishop, but by the resident minister; and
herein, I believe, they are true to the practice of the early
Christian Church.

160 See preface to Moravian Tune Book, large edition.

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

Book of the day: