Chapter 5 - 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 demands were granted the unity of the Moravian Church would be destroyed; and next year they met in a German Provincial Synod, condemned the American proposals as unsound, and pathetically requested the American Brethren to reconsider their position {1856.}. And now, to make the excitement still keener, an anonymous writer, who called himself "Forscher" (Inquirer), issued a pamphlet hotly attacking some of the time-honoured institutions of the Church.

He called his pamphlet, "Die Brüderkirche: Was ist Wahrheit?" i.e., The Truth about the Brethren's Church, and in his endeavour to tell the truth he penned some stinging words. He asserted that far too much stress had been laid on the "Chief Eldership of Christ"; he denounced the abuse of the Lot; he declared that the Brethren's settlements were too exclusive; he criticized Zinzendorf's "Church within the Church" idea; he condemned the old "Diacony" system as an unholy alliance of the secular and the sacred; and thus he described as sources of evil the very customs which many Germans regarded as precious treasures. As this man was really John Henry Buchner, he was, of course, a German in blood; but Buchner was then a missionary 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 felt that a crisis in the Church had arrived. For all loyal Moravians the question now was whether the Moravian Church could stand the strain; and, in order to preserve the true spirit of unity, some Brethren at Gnadenfeld prepared and issued an "Appeal for United Prayer." "At this very time," they declared, "when the Church is favoured with an unusual degree of outward prosperity, the enemy of souls is striving to deal a blow at our spiritual union by sowing among us the seeds of discord and confusion"; and therefore they besought their Brethren-German, English and American alike-to banish all feelings of irritation, and to join in prayer every Wednesday evening for the unity and prosperity of the Brethren's Church.

At length, June 8th, 1857, the General Synod met at Herrnhut {1857.}. In his opening sermon Bishop John Nitschmann struck the right note. He reminded his Brethren of the rock from which they were hewn; he appealed to the testimony of history; and he asserted that the testimony of history was that the Moravian Church had been created, not by man, but by God. "A word," he said, "never uttered before at a Brethren's Synod has lately been heard among us-the word 'separation.' Separation among Brethren! The very sound sends a pang to the heart of every true Brother!" With that appeal ringing in their ears, the Brethren addressed themselves to their difficult task; a committee was formed to examine the American proposals; the spirit of love triumphed over the spirit of discord; and finally, after much discussion, the new constitution was framed.

If the unity of the Church was to be maintained, 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 constitution of the General Synod was changed. It was partly an official and partly an elected body. On the one hand, there were still a number of ex-officio members; on the other a large majority of elected deputies. Thus the General Synod was now composed of: (1) Ex-officio members: i.e., the twelve members of the U.E.C.; all Bishops of the Church; one member of the English and one of the American P.E.C.; the Secretarius Unitatis Fratrum in Anglia; the administrators of the Church's estates in Pennsylvania and North Carolina; the Director of the Warden's Department; the Director of the Missions Department; the Unity's Librarian. (2) Elected members: i.e., nine deputies from each of the three Provinces, elected by the Synods of these Provinces. As these twenty-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 as great as the number of deputies. The functions of the General Synod were defined as follows: (a) To determine the doctrines of the Church, i.e., to decide all questions which may arise upon this subject. (b) To decide as to all essential points of Liturgy. (c) To prescribe the fundamental rules of order and discipline. (d) To determine what is required for membership in the Church. (e) To nominate and appoint Bishops. (f) To manage the Church's Foreign Missions and Educational Work. (g) To inspect the Church's general finances. (h) To elect the U.E.C. (i) To form and constitute General Synods, to fix the time and place of their meetings, and establish the basis of their representation. (j) To settle everything concerning the interests of the Moravian Church as a whole.

As the U.E.C. were elected by the General Synod, it was natural that they should still possess a large share of administrative power; and therefore they were now authorized to manage all concerns of a general nature, to represent the Church in her dealings with the State, and with other religious bodies, and to see that the principles and regulations established by the General Synod were carried out in every department of Church work. For the sake of efficiency the U.E.C. were divided into three boards, the Educational, Financial, and Missionary; 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 the Church. Thus the first part of the problem was solved, and the unity of the Moravian Church was maintained.

The next task was to satisfy the American demand 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 hold its own Provincial Synod; and that each of the three Provincial Synods should have power to make laws, provided these laws did not conflict with the laws laid down by a General Synod. As the U.E.C. superintended the work in Germany, there was no further need for a new arrangement there; but in Great Britain and North America the Provincial Synod in each case was empowered to elect its own P.E.C., and the P.E.C., when duly elected, managed the affairs of the Province. They had the control of all provincial property. They appointed ministers to their several posts; they summoned Provincial Synods when they thought needful; and thus each Province possessed Home Rule in all local affairs.

For the next twenty-two years this constitution-so skilfully drawn-remained unimpaired. At best, however, it was only a compromise; and in 1879 an alteration was made {1879.}. As Mission work was the only work in which the whole Church took part as such, it was decided that only the Mission Department of the U.E.C. should be elected by the General Synod; the two other departments, the Educational and Financial, were to be nominated by the German Provincial Synod; and in order that the British and American Provinces should have a court of appeal, a new board, called the Unity Department, was created. It consisted of six members, i.e., the four members of the Missions Department, one from the Educational Department, and one from the Finance Department. At the same time the U.E.C., divided still into its three departments, remained the supreme Board of Management.

But this arrangement was obviously doomed to failure {1890.}. In the first place it was so complex that few could understand it, and only a person of subtle intellect could define the difference between the functions of the U.E.C. and the functions of the Unity Department; and, in the second place, it was quite unfair to the German Brethren. In Germany the U.E.C. still acted as German P.E.C.; of its twelve members four were elected, not by a German Provincial Synod, but by the General Synod; and, therefore, the Germans were ruled by a board of whom only eight members were elected by the Germans themselves. At the next General Synod, therefore (1889), the U.E.C. was divided into two departments: first, the Foreign Mission Department, consisting of four members, elected by the General Synod; second, the German P.E.C., consisting of eight members, elected by the German Provincial Synod. Thus, at last, thirty-two years after the British and American Provinces, did the German Province attain Provincial independence.

But even this arrangement proved unsatisfactory. As we thread our way through these constitutional changes, we can easily see where the trouble lay. At each General Synod the problem was, how to reconcile the unity of the Church with the rights of its respective Provinces; and so far the problem had not been solved. The flaw in the last arrangement is fairly obvious. If the U.E.C. was still the supreme managing board, it was unfair to the Americans and Britons that eight of its twelve members should be really the German P.E.C., elected by the German Provincial Synod.

The last change in the constitution was of British origin {1898.}. At a Provincial Synod held in Mirfield, the British Moravians sketched a plan whereby the U.E.C. and the Unity Department would both cease to exist; and when the next General Synod met at Herrnhut, this plan was practically carried into effect. At present, therefore, the Moravian Church is constituted as follows {1899.}: First, the supreme legislative body is still the General Synod; second, the Church is divided into four Provinces, the German, the British, the American North, and the American South; third, each of these four Provinces holds its own Provincial Synods, makes its own laws, and elects its own P.E.C.; fourth, the foreign mission work is managed by a Mission Board, elected by the General Synod; and last, the supreme U.E.C., no longer a body seated in Germany and capable of holding frequent meetings, is now composed of the Mission Board and the four governing boards of the four independent Provinces. In one sense, the old U.E.C. is abolished; in another, it still exists. It is abolished as a constantly active Directing Board; it exists as the manager of certain Church property,[156] as the Church's representative in the eyes of the law, and as the supreme court of appeal during the period between General Synods. As some of the members of this composite board live thousands of miles from each other, they are never able to meet all together. And yet the Board is no mere fiction. In theory, its seat is still at Berthelsdorf; and, in fact, it is still the supreme administrative authority, and as such is empowered to see that the principles laid down at a General Synod are carried out in every branch of the Moravian Church.[157] And yet, though the Moravian Church is still one united ecclesiastical body, each Province is independent in the management of its own affairs. For example, let us take the case of the British Province. The legislative body is the Provincial Synod. It is composed of, first, all ordained ministers of the Church in active congregation service; second, the Advocatus Fratrum in Anglia and the Secretarius Fratrum in Anglia; third, lay deputies elected by the congregations. At a recent British Provincial Synod (1907) the rule was laid down that every congregation possessing more than one hundred and fifty members shall be entitled to send two deputies to the Synod; and thus there is a tendency in the British Province for the lay element to increase in power. In all local British matters the power of the Provincial Synod is supreme. It has power to settle the time and place of its own meetings, to supervise the administration of finances, to establish new congregations, to superintend all official Church publications, to nominate Bishops, and to elect the Provincial Elders' Conference. As the U.E.C. act in the name and by the authority of a General Synod, so the P.E.C. act in the name and by the authority of a Provincial Synod. They see to the execution of the laws of the Church, appoint and superintend all ministers, pay official visits once in three years to inspect the state of the congregations, examine candidates for the ministry, administer the finances of the Province, and act as a Court of Appeal in cases of dispute.

The same principles apply in individual congregations.

As each Province manages its own affairs subject to the general laws of the Church, so each congregation manages its own affairs subject to the general laws of the Province. As far as its own affairs are concerned, each congregation is self-ruling. All members over eighteen years who have paid their dues are entitled to a vote. They are empowered to elect a deputy for the Provincial Synod; they elect also, once in three years, the congregation committee; and the committee, in co-operation with the minister, is expected to maintain good conduct, honesty and propriety among the members of the congregation, to administer due discipline and reproof, to consider applications for membership, to keep in order the church, Sunday-school, minister's house, and other congregation property, and to be responsible for all temporal and financial concerns.

Thus the constitution of the Moravian Church may be described as democratic. It is ruled by committees, conferences and synods; and these committees, conferences and synods all consist, to a large extent, of elected deputies. As the Moravians have Bishops, the question may be asked, what special part the Bishops play in the government of the Church? The reply may be given in the words of the Moravians themselves. At the last General Synod the old principle was reasserted, that "the office of a Bishop imparts in and by itself no manner of claim to the control of the whole Church or of any part of it; the administration of particular dioceses does therefore not belong to the Bishops." Thus Moravian Bishops are far from being prelates. They are authorized to ordain the presbyters and deacons; they examine the spiritual condition of the ordinands; and, above all, they are called to act as "intercessors in the Church of God." But they have no more ruling power as such than any other minister of the Church.

Finally, a word must be said about the use of the Lot. As long as the Lot was used at all, it interfered to some extent with the democratic principle; but during the last twenty or thirty years it had gradually fallen into disuse, and in 1889 all reference to the Lot was struck out of the Church regulations; and while the Brethren still acknowledge the living Christ as the only Lord and Elder of the Church, they seek His guidance, not in any mechanical way, but through prayer, and reliance on the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

BOOK FOUR. - THE MODERN MORAVIANS, 1857-1907.

When the Brethren made their maiden speech in the Valley of Kunwald four hundred and fifty years ago, they little thought that they were founding a Church that would spread into every quarter of the civilized globe. If this narrative, however, has been written to any purpose, it has surely taught a lesson of great moral value; and that lesson is that the smallest bodies sometimes accomplish the greatest results. At no period have the Brethren been very strong in numbers; and yet, at every stage of their story, we find them in the forefront of the battle. Of all the Protestant Churches in England, the Moravian Church is the oldest; and wherever the Brethren have raised their standard, they have acted as pioneers. They were Reformers sixty years before Martin Luther. They were the first to adopt the principle that the Bible is the only standard of faith and practice. They were among the first to issue a translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek into the language of the people. They led the way, in the Protestant movement, in the catechetical instruction of children. They published the first Hymn Book known to history. They produced in Comenius the great pioneer of modern education. They saved the Pietist movement in Germany from an early grave; they prepared the way for the English Evangelical Revival; and, above all, by example rather than by precept, they aroused in the Protestant Churches of Christendom that zeal for the cause of foreign missions which some writers have described as the crowning glory of the nineteenth century. And now we have only one further land to explore. As the Moravians are still among the least of the tribes of Israel, it is natural to ask why, despite their smallness, they maintain their separate existence, what part they are playing in the world, what share they are taking in the fight against the Canaanite, for what principles they stand, what methods they employ, what attitude they adopt towards other Churches, and what solution they offer of the social and religious problems that confront us at the opening of the twentieth century.

Section I.-MORAVIAN PRINCIPLES-If the Moravians have any

distinguishing principle at all, that principle is one which goes back to the beginnings of their history. For some years they have been accustomed to use as a motto the famous words of Rupertus Meldenius: "In necessariis unitas; in non-necessariis libertas; in utrisque caritas"-in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in both, charity. But the distinction between essentials and non-essentials goes far behind Rupertus Meldenius. If he was the first to pen the saying, he was certainly not the first to lay down the principle. For four hundred and fifty years this distinction between essentials and non-essentials has been a fundamental principle of the Brethren. From whom, if from any one, they learned it we do not know. It is found in no medi?val writer, and was taught neither by Wycliffe nor by Hus. But the Brethren held it at the outset, and hold it still. It is found in the works of Peter of Chelcic;[158] it was fully expounded by Gregory the Patriarch; it was taught by the Bohemian Brethren in their catechisms; it is implied in all Moravian teaching to-day. To Moravians this word "essentials" has a definite meaning. At every stage in their history we find that in their judgment the essentials on which all Christians should agree to unite are certain spiritual truths. It was so with the Bohemian Brethren; it is so with the modern Moravians. In the early writings of Gregory the Patriarch, and in the catechisms of the Bohemian Brethren, the "essentials" are such things, and such things only, as faith, hope, love and the doctrines taught in the Apostles' Creed; and the "non-essentials," on the other hand, are such visible and concrete things as the church on earth, the ministry, the sacraments, and the other means of grace. In essentials they could allow no compromise; in non-essentials they gladly agreed to differ. For essentials they often shed their blood; but non-essentials they described as merely "useful" or "accidental."

The modern Moravians hold very similar views. For them the only "essentials" in religion are the fundamental truths of the Gospel as revealed in Holy Scripture. In these days the question is sometimes asked, What is the Moravian creed? The answer is, that they have no creed, apart from Holy Scripture. For the creeds of other churches they have the deepest respect. Thy have declared their adherence to the Apostles' Creed. They confess that in the Augsburg Confession the chief doctrines of Scripture are plainly and simply set forth; they have never attacked the Westminster Confession or the Articles of the Church of England; and yet they have never had a creed of their own, and have always declined to bind the consciences of their ministers and members by any creed whatever. Instead of binding men by a creed, they are content with the broader language of Holy Scripture. At the General Synod of 1857 they laid down the principle that the "Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are, and shall remain, the only rule of our faith and practice"; and that principle has been repeatedly reaffirmed. They revere the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God; they acknowledge no other canon or rule of doctrine; they regard every human system of doctrine as imperfect; and, therefore, they stand to-day for the position that Christians should agree to unite on a broad Scriptural basis. Thus the Moravians claim to be an Union Church. At the Synod of 1744 they declared that they had room within their borders for three leading tropuses, the Moravian, the Lutheran and the Reformed; and now, within their own ranks, they allow great difference of opinion on doctrinal questions.

Meanwhile, of course, they agree on certain points. If the reader consults their own official statements-e.g., those laid down in the "Moravian Church Book"-he will notice two features of importance. First, he will observe that (speaking broadly) the Moravians are Evangelicals; second, he will notice that they state their doctrines in very general terms. In that volume it is stated that the Brethren hold the doctrines of the Fall and the total depravity of human nature, of the love of God the Father, of the real Godhead and the real Humanity of Jesus Christ, of justification by faith, of the Holy Ghost and the operations of His grace, of good works as the fruit of faith, of the fellowship of all believers with Christ and with each other, and, finally, of the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead to condemnation or to life. But none of these doctrines are defined in dogmatic language, and none of them are imposed as creeds. As long as a man holds true to the broad principles of the Christian faith, he may, whether he is a minister or a layman, think much as he pleases on many other vexed questions. He may be either a Calvinist or an Arminian, either a Higher Critic or a defender of plenary inspiration, and either High Church or Methodistic in his tastes. He may have his own theory of the Atonement, his own conception of the meaning of the Sacraments, his own views on Apostolical Succession, and his own belief about the infallibility of the Gospel records. In their judgment, the main essential in a minister is not his orthodox adherence to a creed, but his personal relationship to Jesus Christ. For this reason they are not afraid to allow their candidates for the ministry to sit at the feet of professors belonging to other denominations. At their German Theological College in Gnadenfeld, the professors systematically instruct the students in the most advanced results of critical research; sometimes the students are sent to German Universities; and the German quarterly magazine-Religion und Geisteskultur-a periodical similar to our English "Hibbert Journal," is edited by a Moravian theological professor. At one time an alarming rumour arose that the Gnadenfeld professors were leading the students astray; the case was tried at a German Provincial Synod, and the professors proved their innocence by showing that, although they held advanced views on critical questions, they still taught the Moravian central doctrine of redemption through Jesus Christ. In England a similar spirit of liberty prevails. For some years the British Moravians have had their own Theological College; it is situated at Fairfield, near Manchester; and although the students attend lectures delivered by a Moravian teacher, they receive the greater part of their education, first at Manchester University, and then either at the Manchester University Divinity School, or at the Free Church College in Glasgow or Edinburgh, or at any other suitable home of learning. Thus do the Moravians of the twentieth century tread in the footsteps of the later Bohemian Brethren; and thus do they uphold the principle that when the heart is right with Christ, the reasoning powers may be allowed free play.

In all other "non-essentials" they are equally broad. As they have never quarrelled with the Church of England, they rather resent being called Dissenters; as they happen to possess Episcopal Orders, they regard themselves as a true Episcopal Church; and yet, at the same time, they live on good terms with all Evangelical Dissenters, exchange pulpits with Nonconformist ministers, and admit to their Communion service members of all Evangelical denominations. They celebrate the Holy Communion once a month; they sing hymns describing the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ; and yet they have no definite doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They practise Infant Baptism; but they do not hold any rigid view about Baptismal Regeneration. They practise Confirmation;[159] and yet they do not insist on confirmation as an absolute condition, in all cases, of church membership. If the candidate, for example, is advanced in years, and shrinks from the ordeal of confirmation, he may be admitted to the Moravian Church by reception; and members coming from other churches are admitted in the same way. They practise episcopal ordination, but do not condemn all other ordinations as invalid; and a minister of another Protestant Church may be accepted as a Moravian minister without being episcopally ordained. At the Sacraments, at weddings and at ordinations, the Moravian minister generally wears a surplice; and yet there is no reference to vestments in the regulations of the Church. In some congregations they use the wafer at the Sacrament, in others ordinary bread; and this fact alone is enough to show that they have no ruling on the subject. Again, the Moravians observe what is called the Church year. They observe, that is, the seasons of Advent, Lent, Easter, Whitsuntide, and Trinity; and yet they do not condemn as heretics those who differ from them on this point. If there is any season specially sacred to Moravians, it is Holy Week. To them it is generally known as Passion Week. On Palm Sunday they sing a "Hosannah" composed by Christian Gregor; at other services during the week they read the Passion History together, from a Harmony of the Four Gospels; on the Wednesday evening there is generally a "Confirmation"; on Maundy Thursday they celebrate the Holy Communion; on Good Friday, where possible, they have a series of special services; and on Easter Sunday they celebrate the Resurrection by an early morning service, held in England about six o'clock, but on the Continent at sunrise. Thus the Brethren are like High Churchmen in some of their observances, and very unlike them in their ecclesiastical principles. As the customs they practise are hallowed by tradition, and have often been found helpful to the spiritual life, they do not lightly toss them overboard; but, on the other hand, they do not regard those customs as "essential." In spiritual "essentials" they are one united body; in "non-essentials," such as ceremony and orders, they gladly agree to differ; and, small though they are in numbers, they believe that here they stand for a noble principle, and that some day that principle will be adopted by every branch of the militant Church of Christ. According to Romanists the true bond of union among Christians is obedience to the Pope as Head of the Church; according to some Anglicans, the "Historic Episcopate"; according to Moravians, a common loyalty to Scripture and a common faith in Christ; and only the future can show which, if any, of these bases of union will be accepted by the whole visible Church of Christ. Meanwhile, the Brethren are spreading their principles in a variety of ways.

Section II.-THE MORAVIANS IN GERMANY.-In Germany, and on the Continent

generally, they still adhere in the main to the ideal set up by Zinzendorf. We may divide their work into five departments.

First, there is the ordinary pastoral work in the settlements and congregations. In Germany the settlement system still flourishes. Of the twenty-six Moravian congregations on the Continent, no fewer than twelve are settlements. In most cases these settlements are quiet little Moravian towns, inhabited almost exclusively by Moravians; the Brethren's Houses and Sisters' Houses are still in full working order; the very hotel is under direct church control; and the settlements, therefore, are models of order, sobriety, industry and piety. There the visitor will still find neither poverty nor wealth; there, far from the madding crowd, the angel of peace reigns supreme. We all know how Carlyle once visited Herrnhut, and how deeply impressed he was. At all the settlements and congregations the chief object of the Brethren is the cultivation of personal piety and Christian fellowship. We can see this from the number of services held. At the settlements there are more services in a week than many a pious Briton would attend in a month. In addition to the public worship on Sunday, there is a meeting of some kind every week-night. One evening there will be a Bible exposition; the next, reports of church work; the next, a prayer meeting; the next a liturgy meeting; the next, another Bible exposition; the next, an extract from the autobiography of some famous Moravian; the next, a singing meeting. At these meetings the chief thing that strikes an English visitor is the fact that no one but the minister takes any prominent part. The minister gives the Bible exposition; the minister reads the report or the autobiography; the minister offers the prayer; and the only way in which the people take part is by singing the liturgies and hymns. Thus the German Moravians have nothing corresponding to the "prayer meetings" held in England in Nonconformist churches. In some congregations there are "prayer unions," in which laymen take part; but these are of a private and unofficial character.

Meanwhile, a good many of the old stern rules are still strictly enforced, and the Brethren are still cautious in welcoming new recruits. If a person not born in a Moravian family desires to join the Moravian Church, he has generally to exercise a considerable amount of patience. He must first have lived some time in the congregation; he must have a good knowledge of Moravian doctrines and customs; he must then submit to an examination on the part of the congregation-committee; he must then, if he passes, wait about six months; his name is announced to the congregation, and all the members know that he is on probation; and, therefore, when he is finally admitted, he is a Moravian in the fullest sense of the term. He becomes not only a member of the congregation, but a member of his particular "choir." The choir system is still in force; for each choir there are special services and special labourers; and though the Single Brethren and Single Sisters are now allowed to live in their own homes, the choir houses are still occupied, and still serve a useful purpose.

Second, there is the "Inner Mission." In this way each congregation cares for the poor and neglected living near at hand. There are Bible and tract distributors, free day schools, Sunday schools, work schools, technical schools, rescue homes, reformatories, orphanages and young men's and young women's Christian associations. In spite of the exclusiveness of settlement life, it is utterly untrue to say that the members of the settlements live for themselves alone. They form evangelistic societies; they take a special interest in navvies, road menders, pedlars, railwaymen and others cut off from regular church connection; they open lodging-houses and temperance restaurants; and thus they endeavour to rescue the fallen, to fight the drink evil, and to care for the bodies and souls of beggars and tramps, of unemployed workmen, and of starving and ragged children.

Third, there is the work of Christian education. In every Moravian congregation there are two kinds of day schools. For those children who are not yet old enough to attend the elementary schools, the Brethren provide an "Infant School"; and here, having a free hand, they are able to instil the first principles of Christianity; and, secondly, for the older children, they have what we should call Voluntary Schools, manned by Moravian teachers, but under Government inspection and control. At these schools the Brethren give Bible teaching three hours a week; special services for the scholars are held; and as the schools are open to the public, the scholars are instructed to be loyal to whatever Church they happen to belong. In England such broadness would be regarded as a miracle; to the German Moravians it is second nature. In their boarding-schools they pursue the same broad principle. At present they have nine girls' schools and five boys' boarding-schools; the headmaster is always a Moravian minister; the teachers in the boys' schools are generally candidates for the ministry; and, although in consequence of Government requirements the Brethren have now to devote most of their energy to purely secular subjects, they are still permitted and still endeavour to keep the religious influence to the fore. For more advanced students they have a P?dagogium at Niesky; and the classical education there corresponds to that imparted at our Universities. At Gnadenfeld they have a Theological Seminary, open to students from other churches.

Fourth, there is the Brethren's medical work, conducted by a Diakonissen-Verband, or Nurses' Union. It was begun in 1866 by Dr. Hermann Plitt. At Gnadenfeld the Brethren have a small hospital, known as the Heinrichstift; at Emmaus, near Niesky, are the headquarters of the Union; the work is managed by a special committee, and is supported by Church funds; and on the average about fifty nurses are employed in ministering to the poor in twenty-five different places. Some act as managers of small sick-houses; others are engaged in teaching poor children; and others have gone to tend the lepers in Jerusalem and Surinam.

Fifth, there is the Brethren's Diaspora work, which now extends all over Germany. There is nothing to be compared to this work in England. It is not only peculiar to the Moravians, but peculiar to the Moravians on the Continent; and the whole principle on which it is based is one which the average clear-headed Briton finds it hard to understand. If the Moravians in England held services in parish churches-supposing such an arrangement possible-formed their hearers into little societies, visited them in their homes, and then urged them to become good members of the Anglican Church, their conduct would probably arouse considerable amazement. And yet that is exactly the kind of work done by the Moravians in Germany to-day. In this work the Brethren in Germany make no attempt to extend their own borders. The Moravians supply the men; the Moravians supply the money; and the National Lutheran Church reaps the benefit. Sometimes the Brethren preach in Lutheran Churches; sometimes, by permission of the Lutheran authorities, they even administer the Communion; and wherever they go they urge their hearers to be true to the National Church. In England Zinzendorf's "Church within the Church" idea has never found much favour; in Germany it is valued both by Moravians and by Lutherans. At present the Brethren have Diaspora centres in Austrian Silesia, in Wartebruch, in Neumark, in Moravia, in Pomerania, in the Bavarian Palatinate, in Würtemburg, along the Rhine from Karlsruhe to Düsseldorf, in Switzerland, in Norway and Sweden, in Russian Poland, and in the Baltic Provinces. We are not, of course, to imagine for a moment that all ecclesiastical authorities on the Continent regard this Diaspora work with favour. In spite of its unselfish purpose, the Brethren have occasionally been suspected of sectarian motives. At one time the Russian General Consistory forbade the Brethren's Diaspora work in Livonia {1859.}; at another time the Russian Government forbade the Brethren's work in Volhynia; and the result of this intolerance was that some of the Brethren fled to South America, and founded the colony of Brüderthal in Brazil (1885), while others made their way to Canada, appealed for aid to the American P.E.C., and thus founded in Alberta the congregations of Brüderfeld and Brüderheim. Thus, even in recent years, persecution has favoured the extension of the Moravian Church; but, generally speaking, the Brethren pursue their Diaspora work in peace and quietness. They have now about sixty or seventy stations; they employ about 120 Diaspora workers, and minister thus to about 70,000 souls; and yet, during the last fifty years, they have founded only six new congregations-Goldberg (1858), Hansdorf (1873), Breslau (1892), and Locle and Montmirail in Switzerland (1873). Thus do the German Moravians uphold the Pietist ideals of Zinzendorf.

Section III.-THE MORAVIANS IN GREAT BRITAIN.-For the last fifty years

the most striking feature about the British Moravians is the fact that they have steadily become more British in all their ways, and more practical and enthusiastic in their work in this country. We can see it in every department of their work.

They began with the training of their ministers. As soon as the British Moravians became independent, they opened their own Theological Training Institution; and then step by step they allowed their students to come more and more under English influences. At first the home of the Training College was Fulneck; and, as long as the students lived in that placid abode, they saw but little of the outside world. But in 1874 the College was removed to Fairfield; then the junior students began to attend lectures at the Owens College; then (1886) they began to study for a degree in the Victoria University; then (1890) the theological students were allowed to study at Edinburgh or Glasgow; and the final result of this broadening process is that the average modern Moravian minister is as typical an Englishman as any one would care to meet. He has English blood in his veins; he bears an English name; he has been trained at an English University; he has learned his theology from English or Scotch Professors; he has English practical ideas of Christianity; and even when he has spent a few years in Germany-as still happens in exceptional cases-he has no more foreign flavour about him than the Lord Mayor of London.

Again, the influence of English ideas has affected their public worship. At the Provincial Synods of 1878 and 1883, the Brethren appointed Committees to revise their Hymn-book; and the result was that when the next edition of the Hymn-book appeared (1886), it was found to contain a large number of hymns by popular English writers. And this, of course, involved another change. As these popular English hymns were wedded to popular English tunes, those tunes had perforce to be admitted into the next edition of the Tune-book (1887); and thus the Moravians, like other Englishmen, began now to sing hymns by Toplady, Charles Wesley, George Rawson and Henry Francis Lyte to such well-known melodies as Sir Arthur Sullivan's "Coena Domini," Sebastian Wesley's "Aurelia," and Hopkins's "Ellers." But the change in this respect was only partial. In music the Moravians have always maintained a high standard. With them the popular type of tune was the chorale; and here they refused to give way to popular clamour. At this period the objection was raised by some that the old chorales were too difficult for Englishmen to sing; but to this objection Peter La Trobe had given a crushing answer.[160] At St. Thomas, he said, Zinzendorf had heard the negroes sing Luther's fine "Gelobet seiest"; at Gnadenthal, in South Africa, Ignatius La Trobe had heard the Hottentots sing Grummer's "Jesu, der du meine Seele"; in Antigua the negroes could sing Hassler's "O Head so full of bruises"; and therefore, he said, he naturally concluded that chorales which were not above the level of Negroes and Hottentots could easily be sung, if they only tried, by Englishmen, Scotchmen and Irishmen of the nineteenth century. And yet, despite this official attitude, certain standard chorales fell into disuse, and were replaced by flimsier English airs.

Another proof of the influence of English ideas is found in the decline of peculiar Moravian customs. At present the British congregations may be roughly divided into two classes. In some, such as Fulneck, Fairfield, Ockbrook, Bristol, and other older congregations, the old customs are retained; in others they are quite unknown. In some we still find such things as Love-feasts, the division into choirs, the regular choir festivals, the observance of Moravian Memorial Days; in others, especially in those only recently established, these things are absent; and the consequence is that in the new congregations the visitor of to-day will find but little of a specific Moravian stamp. At the morning service he will hear the Moravian Litany; in the Hymn-book he will find some hymns not found in other collections; but in other respects he would see nothing specially distinctive.

Meanwhile, the Brethren have adopted new institutions. As the old methods of church-work fell into disuse, new methods gradually took their place; and here the Brethren followed the example of their Anglican and Nonconformist friends. Instead of the special meetings for Single Brethren and Single Sisters, we now find the Christian Endeavour, and Men's and Women's Guilds; instead of the Boys' Economy, the Boys' Brigade; instead of the Brethren's House, the Men's Institute; instead of the Diacony, the weekly offering, the sale of work, and the bazaar; and instead of the old Memorial Days, the Harvest Festival and the Church and Sunday-school Anniversary.

But the most important change of all is the altered conception of the Church's mission. At the Provincial Synod held in Bedford the Brethren devoted much of their time to the Home Mission problem {1863.}; and John England, who had been commissioned to write a paper on "Our Aim and Calling," defined the Church's mission in the words: "Such, then, I take to be our peculiar calling. As a Church to preach Christ and Him crucified, every minister and every member. As a Church to evangelize, every minister and every member." From that moment those words were accepted as a kind of motto; and soon a great change was seen in the character of the Home Mission Work. In the first half of the nineteenth century nearly all the new causes begun were in quiet country villages; in the second half, with two exceptions, they were all in growing towns and populous districts. In 1859 new work was commenced at Baltonsborough, in Somerset, and Crook, in Durham; in 1862 at Priors Marston, Northamptonshire; in 1867 at Horton, Bradford; in 1869 at Westwood, in Oldham; in 1871 at University Road, Belfast; in 1874 at Heckmondwike, Yorkshire; in 1888 at Wellfield, near Shipley; in 1890 at Perth Street, Belfast; in 1896 at Queen's Park, Bedford; in 1899 at Openshaw, near Manchester, and at Swindon, the home of the Great Western Railway Works; in 1907 at Twerton, a growing suburb of Bath; and in 1908 in Hornsey, London. Of the places in this list, all except Baltonsborough and Priors Marston are in thickly populated districts; and thus during the last fifty years the Moravians have been brought more into touch with the British working man.

Meanwhile there has been a growing freedom of speech. The new movement began in the College at Fairfield. For the first time in the history of the British Province a number of radical Moravians combined to express their opinions in print; and, led and inspired by Maurice O'Connor, they now (1890) issued a breezy pamphlet, entitled Defects of Modern Moravianism. In this pamphlet they were both critical and constructive. Among other reforms, they suggested: (a) That the Theological Students should be allowed to study at some other Theological College; (b) that a Moravian Educational Profession be created; (c) that all British Moravian Boarding Schools be systematically inspected; (d) that the monthly magazine, The Messenger, be improved, enlarged, and changed into a weekly paper; (e) that in the future the energies of the Church be concentrated on work in large towns and cities; (f) and that all defects in the work of the Church be openly stated and discussed.

The success of the pamphlet was both immediate and lasting. Of all the Provincial Synods held in England the most important in many ways was that which met at Ockbrook a few months after the publication of this pamphlet. It marks the beginning of a new and brighter era in the history of the Moravian Church in England. For thirty years the Brethren had been content to hold Provincial Synods every four or five years {1890.}; but now, in accordance with a fine suggestion brought forward at Bedford two years before, and ardently supported by John Taylor, the Advocatus Fratrum in Anglia, they began the practice of holding Annual Synods. In the second place, the Brethren altered the character of their official church magazine. For twenty-seven years it had been a monthly of very modest dimensions. It was known as The Messenger; it was founded at the Bedford Synod (1863); and for some years it was well edited by Bishop Sutcliffe. But now this magazine became a fortnightly, known as The Moravian Messenger. As soon as the magazine changed its form it increased both in influence and in circulation. It was less official, and more democratic, in tone; it became the recognised vehicle for the expression of public opinion; and its columns have often been filled with articles of the most outspoken nature. And thirdly, the Brethren now resolved that henceforth their Theological Students should be allowed to study at some other Theological College.

But the influence of the pamphlet did not end here. At the Horton Synod (1904) arrangements were made for the establishment of a teaching profession, and at Baildon (1906) for the inspection of the Boarding Schools; and thus nearly all the suggestions of the pamphlet have now been carried out.

Finally, the various changes mentioned have all contributed, more or less, to alter the tone of the Moravian pulpit. As long as the work was mostly in country villages the preaching was naturally of the Pietistic type. But the Moravian preachers of the present day are more in touch with the problems of city life. They belong to a democratic Church; they are brought into constant contact with the working classes; they are interested in modern social problems; they believe that at bottom all social problems are religious; and, therefore, they not only foster such institutions as touch the daily life of the masses, but also in their sermons speak out more freely on the great questions of the day. In other words, the Moravian Church in Great Britain is now as British as Britain herself.

Section IV.-THE MORAVIANS IN AMERICA.-In America the progress was of

a similar kind. As soon as the American Brethren had gained Home Rule, they organized their forces in a masterly manner; arranged that their Provincial Synod should meet once in three years; set apart ￡5,000 for their Theological College at Bethlehem; and, casting aside the Diaspora ideas of Zinzendorf, devoted their powers to the systematic extension of their Home Mission work. It is well to note the exact nature of their policy. With them Home Mission work meant systematic Church extension. At each new Home Mission station they generally placed a fully ordained minister; that minister was granted the same privileges as the minister of any other congregation; the new cause was encouraged to strive for self support; and, as soon as possible, it was allowed to send a deputy to the Synod. At Synod after Synod Church extension was the main topic of discussion; and the discussion nearly always ended in some practical proposal. For example, at the Synod of 1876 the Brethren formed a Church Extension Board; and that Board was entrusted with the task of raising ￡10,000 in the next three years. Again, in 1885, they resolved to build a new Theological College, elected a Building Committee to collect the money, and raised the sum required so rapidly that in 1892 they were able to open Comenius Hall at Bethlehem, free of debt. Meanwhile the number of new congregations was increasing with some rapidity. At the end of fifty years of Home Rule the Moravians in North America had one hundred and two congregations; and of these no fewer than sixty-four were established since the separation of the Provinces. The moral is obvious. As soon as the Americans obtained Home Rule they more than doubled their speed; and in fifty years they founded more congregations than they had founded during the previous century. In 1857 they began new work at Fry's Valley, in Ohio; in 1859 at Egg Harbour City; in 1862 at South Bethlehem; in 1863 at Palmyra; in 1865 at Riverside; in 1866 at Elizabeth, Freedom, Gracehill, and Bethany; in 1867 at Hebron and Kernersville; in 1869 at Northfield, Philadelphia and Harmony; in 1870 at Mamre and Unionville; in 1871 at Philadelphia; in 1872 at Sturgeon Bay; in 1873 at Zoar and Gerah; in 1874 at Berea; in 1877 at Philadelphia and East Salem; in 1880 at Providence; in 1881 at Canaan and Goshen; in 1882 at Port Washington, Oakland, and Elim; in 1886 at Hector and Windsor; in 1887 at Macedonia, Centre Ville, and Oakgrove; in 1888 at Grand Rapids and London; in 1889 at Stapleton and Calvary; in 1890 at Spring Grove and Clemmons; in 1891 at Bethel, Eden and Bethesda; in 1893 at Fulp and Wachovia Harbour; in 1894 at Moravia and Alpha; in 1895 at Bruederfeld and Bruederheim; in 1896 at Heimthal, Mayodon and Christ Church; in 1898 at Willow Hill; in 1901 at New York; in 1902 at York; in 1904 at New Sarepta; and in 1905 at Strathcona. For Moravians this was an exhilarating speed; and the list, though forbidding in appearance, is highly instructive. In Germany Church extension is almost unknown; in England it is still in its infancy; in America it is practically an annual event; and thus there are now more Moravians in America than in England and Germany combined. In Germany the number of Moravians is about 8,000; in Great Britain about 6,000; in North America about 20,000.

From this fact a curious conclusion has been drawn. As the American Moravians have spread so rapidly, the suspicion has arisen in certain quarters that they are not so loyal as the Germans and British to the best ideals of the Moravian Church; and one German Moravian writer has asserted, in a standard work, that the American congregations are lacking in cohesion, in brotherly character, and in sympathy with true Moravian principles.[161] But to this criticism several answers may be given. In the first place, it is well to note what we mean by Moravian ideals. If Moravian ideals are Zinzendorf's ideals, the criticism is true. In Germany, the Brethren still pursue Zinzendorf's policy; in England and America that policy has been rejected. In Germany the Moravians still act as a "Church within the Church"; in England and America such work has been found impossible. But Zinzendorf's "Church within the Church" idea is no Moravian "essential." It was never one of the ideals of the Bohemian Brethren; it sprang, not from the Moravian Church, but from German Pietism; and, therefore, if the American Brethren reject it they cannot justly be accused of disloyalty to original Moravian principles.

For those principles they are as zealous as any other Moravians. They have a deep reverence for the past. At their Theological Seminary in Bethlehem systematic instruction in Moravian history is given; and the American Brethren have their own Historical Society. For twenty years Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz lectured to the students on Moravian history; and, finally, in his "History of the Unitas Fratrum," he gave to the public the fullest account of the Bohemian Brethren in the English language; and in recent years Dr. Hamilton, his succesor, has narrated in detail the history of the Renewed Church of the Brethren. Second, the Americans, when put to the test, showed practical sympathy with German Brethren in distress. As soon as the German refugees arrived from Volhynia, the American Moravians took up their cause with enthusiasm, provided them with ministers, helped them with money, and thus founded the new Moravian congregations in Alberta. And third, the Americans have their share of Missionary zeal. They have their own "Society for Propagating the Gospel"; they have their own Missionary magazines; and during the last quarter of a century they have borne nearly the whole burden, both in money and in men, of the new mission in Alaska. And thus the three branches of the Moravian Church, though differing from each other in methods, are all united in their loyalty to the great essentials.

Section V.-BONDS OF UNION.-But these essentials are not the only bonds

of union. At present Moravians all over the world are united in three great tasks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Vicit Agnus noster: Eum sequamur."

(Our Lamb has conquered: Him let its follow.)

THE END.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

I.-THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

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

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

Johann Loserth: Wyclif and Hus.

Anton Gindely: Geschichte der B?hmischen 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 B?hmischen Brüder. A collection of documents, dealing chiefly with the Brethren's relations with Luther.

Anton Gindely: Geschichte des dreiszig-j?hrigen Krieges. (Vol. IV.)

Jaroslav Goll: Quellen und Untersuchung zur Geschichte der B?hmischen 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 B?hmischen 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-Unit?t (Herrnhut. 1889).

J. T. Müller: "Gemeindeverfassung der B?hmischen 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 religi?se Leben in den ersten Zeiten der Brüderunit?t, in the Zeitschrift für Brüder-Geschichte (Herrnhut, NO. 1, 1907.)

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

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

II.-JOHN AMOS COMENIUS.

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

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

Daniel Benham: The School of Infancy.

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

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

III.-MORAVIANS IN GERMANY.

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

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

Bernhard Becker: Zinzendorf und sein Christentum im Verh?ltnis zum kirchlichen und religi?sen 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, Unit?ts-Buchhandlung, 1889).

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

Hermann R?mer: Nicolaus Ludwig, Graf von Zinzendorf (Gnadau, Unit?ts-Buchhandlung. 1900).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV.-MORAVIANS IN ENGLAND.

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

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

Daniel Benham: Memoirs of James Hutton (Hamilton, Adams and Co. 1856).

J. P. Lockwood: Life of Peter Boehler (Wesleyan Conference Office. 1868).

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

John Wesley's Journal.

Charles Wesley's Journal.

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

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

V.-MORAVIANS IN AMERICA.

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

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

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

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

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

VI.-THE FOREIGN MISSIONS.

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

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

FOOTNOTES

1 (return)

[ De Ecclesia.]

2 (return)

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

3 (return)

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

4 (return)

[ A common saying in Peter's day.]

5 (return)

[ Pronounced Rockitsanna.]

6 (return)

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

7 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ These settled, not at Kunwald, but close by.]

9 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

11 (return)

[ 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 "B?hmische-Brueder" in Hauck's Real-Encyclop?die.]

12 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

14 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

(1) Matthew v. 22: Thou shalt not be angry with thy brother.

(2) Matthew v. 28: Thou shalt not look upon a woman to lust after

her.

(3) Matthew v. 32: Thou shalt not commit adultery, or divorce thy

wife.

(4) Matthew v. 34: Thou shalt not take an oath.

(5) Matthew v. 39, 40: Thou shalt not go to law.

(6) Matthew v. 44: Thou shalt love thine enemy.

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

(1) Origin.-On this point three opinions have been held: (a) For many years it was stoutly maintained by Palacky, the famous Bohemian historian, by Anton Gindely, the Roman Catholic author of the "Geschichte der B?hmischen 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 medi?val Bishops has high claims to historical validity it is, as Dr. D?llinger has shown (in his Beitr?ge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters), the line to which Waldensian Stephen belonged.

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

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

(1) That Gregory the Patriarch and his fellow Brethren were

satisfied with Bishop Stephen's statement.

(2) That they acted honestly according to their light, and desired

to be true successors of the Primitive Church.

(3) That the Waldensian Episcopate was of ancient order.

(4) That no break in the Brethren's Episcopal succession has ever

been absolutely proved.

(5) That, during the whole course of their history the Brethren

have always endeavoured to preserve the Episcopal office

intact.

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

16 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

18 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ This tract, however, was probably a later Waldensian production.]

22 (return)

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

23 (return)

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

24 (return)

[ Jednota Rimska.]

25 (return)

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

26 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

28 (return)

[ This letter was probably written by Luke of Prague.]

29 (return)

[ Müller's Katechismen, page 231.]

30 (return)

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

31 (return)

[ From the German edition of 1522; printed in full in Müller's "Die deutschen Katechismen der B?hmischen Brüder."]

32 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Letter to the Brethren, 1523.]

34 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

36 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Gindely's na?ve 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 (return)

[ The Unitarians were specially strong in Poland.]

41 (return)

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

42 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

44 (return)

[ It had been presented in 1564.]

45 (return)

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

46 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

48 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

50 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Printed in full in J. Müller's "Katechismen."]

53 (return)

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

54 (return)

[ In his "Labyrinth of the World."]

55 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Surely a poetic exaggeration.]

57 (return)

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

58 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Hymn No. 851 in the present German Hymn-book.]

60 (return)

[ Collegia pietatis.]

61 (return)

[ Ecclesiol? in ecclesia.]

62 (return)

[ Ante is to be construed as an adverb.]

63 (return)

[ 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 Verh?ltnis zum kirchlichen und religi?sen Leben seiner Zeit, and secondly by Joseph Müller in his Zinzendorf als Erneuerer der alten Brüderkirche (1900).]

64 (return)

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

65 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ The phrase inscribed upon her tombstone at Herrnhut.]

67 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ In his treatise, "The German Mass," published in 1526 (see K?stlin's "Life of Luther," p. 295; Longmans' Silver Library).]

69 (return)

[ August, 1738.]

70 (return)

[ See page 58.]

71 (return)

[ Not to be confounded with Kunwald in Bohemia.]

72 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

74 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Zinzendorf's expression.]

76 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 Disciplin?. But the "Injunctions" and "Statutes" were read out on May 12th, and the "Ratio" was not discovered till July.]

78 (return)

[ There was, however, no community of goods.]

79 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

83 (return)

[ Luke xxii. 17.]

84 (return)

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

85 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

89 (return)

[ See Book I., pp. 74-5.]

90 (return)

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

91 (return)

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

92 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

94 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ i.e. By the Lot.]

96 (return)

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

97 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

99 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

101 (return)

[ For want of a better, I use this word to translate the German "L?mmlein"; but, in common justice, it must be explained that "L?mmlein" 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 (return)

[ Cross-air-soaring in the atmosphere of the Cross.]

103 (return)

[ See Chapter XIV., p. 384.]

104 (return)

[ See Chapter III., p. 208.]

105 (return)

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

106 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

108 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

110 (return)

[ See, e.g., Overton, Evangelical Revival p. 15; Fisher, History of the Church, p. 516; Wakeman, History of the Church of England, p. 438.]

111 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Precise date uncertain.]

113 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

119 (return)

[ See Moravian Hymn-book, No. 846.]

120 (return)

[ A nickname afterwards applied to John Wesley.]

121 (return)

[ Now called Bishop Street.]

122 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ There was no real truth in these allegations.]

124 (return)

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

125 (return)

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

126 (return)

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

127 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Contents of a Folio History, 1750.]

129 (return)

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

130 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

132 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

135 (return)

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

136 (return)

[ Translated by Samuel Jackson, 1838.]

137 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ Referred to hereafter as U.E.C.]

139 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

141 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

144 (return)

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

145 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ At the special invitation of William Hunt, a farmer.]

148 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

152 (return)

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

153 (return)

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

154 (return)

[ P. 431. See the transactions of the Synod of 1818.]

155 (return)

[ 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 (return)

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

157 (return)

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

158 (return)

[ See Goll, Quellen und Untersuchungen, II., pp. 78 and 85, and Müller, Die deutschen Katechismen der B?hmischen Brüder, p. 112.]

159 (return)

[ 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 (return)

[ See preface to Moravian Tune Book, large edition.]

161 (return)

[ Burkhardt: Die Brüdergemeine, Erster Theil, p. 189.]