A History of the Moravian Church Part 30

(2) Matthew v. 28: Thou shalt not look upon a woman to l.u.s.t 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 Bohmischen Bruder," 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. Muller 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 mediaeval Bishops has high claims to historical validity it is, as Dr. Dollinger has shown (in his Beitrage 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 inst.i.tuted 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, Muller's "Bischoftum," where the whole evidence is critically handled.]

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

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

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

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

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

p. 241.]

[Footnote 21: This tract, however, was probably a later Waldensian production.]

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

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

[Footnote 24: Jednota Rimska.]

[Footnote 25: Jednota Lutherianska. For the Church Universal they used another word: Cirkey, meaning thereby all those elected by G.o.d.]

[Footnote 26: I desire to be explicit on this point. It is, of course, true enough that when the Brethren in later years began to use the Latin language they used the term "Unitas Fratrum" as the equivalent of Jednota Bratrska, but in so doing they made an excusable blunder. The translation "Unitas Fratrum" is misleading. It is etymologically correct, and historically false. If a Latin term is to be used at all, it would be better to say, as J. Muller suggests, "Societas Fratrum,"

or, better still, in my judgment, "Ecclesia Fratrum." But of all terms to describe the Brethren the most offensive is "sect." It is inconsistent for the same writer to speak of the "sect" of the Bohemian Brethren and of the "Church" of Rome. If the Roman Communion is to be described as a "Church," the same term, in common courtesy, should be applied to the Brethren.]

[Footnote 27: De Schweinitz. (p. 126) actually sees in this pa.s.sage the doctrine of justification by faith. I confess that I do not.]

[Footnote 28: This letter was probably written by Luke of Prague.]

[Footnote 29: Muller's Katechismen, page 231.]

[Footnote 30: This was actually reported to the Pope as a fact by his agent, Henry Inst.i.toris. See Muller's Katechismen, p. 319.]

[Footnote 31: From the German edition of 1522; printed in full in Muller's "Die deutschen Katechismen der Bohmischen Bruder."]

[Footnote 32: Compare our Queen Elizabeth's view:--

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

[Footnote 33: Letter to the Brethren, 1523.]

[Footnote 34: There is no doubt whatever on this last point. If the student will consult any standard work on the history of the early Christian Church, he will see how closely the inst.i.tutions of the Brethren were modelled on the inst.i.tutions of the first three centuries as pourtrayed, not only in the New Testament, but also in such doc.u.ments as the Didache, the Canons of Hippolytus, and the Apostolic Const.i.tutions. For English readers the best guide is T. M. Lindsay's The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries; and the following references will be of special interest: (1) For the Brethren's conception of priesthood, see p. 35; (2) for their rule that the clergy should learn a trade, p. 203; (3) for their ministry of women, p. 181; (4) for their contempt of learning, p.

182; (5) for their preference for unmarried ministers, p. 179; (6) for the term "Brotherhood" (Jednota) a synonym for "Church," p. 21; (7) for Acoluths and their duties, p. 355; (8) for their system of discipline, Matthew xviii. 15-17; (9) for Beginners, Proficients, and Perfect--(a) Heb. v. 13, (b) Heb. v. 14, vi. 1, (c) 1 Cor. ii. 6, 2 Cor. vii. 1, Rom.

xv. 14, Philipp iii. 15.]

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

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

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

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

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

p. 330.)]

[Footnote 40: The Unitarians were specially strong in Poland.]

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

[Footnote 42: The fallacy underlying this argument is well known to logicians, and a simple ill.u.s.tration will make it clear to the reader:--

All Hottentots have black hair.

Mr. Jones has black hair.

Therefore, Mr. Jones is a Hottentot.]

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

[Footnote 44: It had been presented in 1564.]

[Footnote 45: Confess...o...b..hemica; there is a copy in the archives at 32 Fetter Lane, E.C.]

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

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

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