Amid the many excellent and helpful books on the Unitas Fratrum and the later Moravians, Craig Atwood's 2009 - The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius, stands out. At a little over 400 pages, many will find it a heavy read. My frustration was that it was too short. I often wished for more contextualisation and greater detail.
That said, this work of historical theology is invaluable in providing an overview of the Brethren's theology and its development from the time of Hus in the 15th century to the death of Comenius near the end of the 17th. Atwood argues that the Unitas Fratrum or Unity of the Brethren effectively died or came to an end at that time and that the Moravians which emerged in the early 18th century represented something different. This actually flies in the face of the common narrative and the fact that there is a demonstrable succession of superintendents or bishops.
That said, there is a case to be made as the group which emerged was more or less an expression of Lutheran Pietism albeit with certain idiosyncratic tendencies harking back to its Bohemian-Hussite roots. This is why they're Moravians - not Lutherans.
The argument surprises me somewhat given that Atwood acknowledges and treats the fact that the Brethren were profoundly affected by the Protestant Reformation and went through a Lutheran phase as well as a later Reformed phase. One could argue that the surviving elements at the dawn of the 18th century simply moved back into a Lutheran orientation and that the great shift took place with the Reformation itself. But that would fail to tell the full story.
The truth is the Brethren never really fit into these boxes. In some respects they were always closer to the Lutherans and yet in other aspects, the Reformed. Atwood argues at the beginning of the work that they represent a Third Way - which is why his conclusion is somewhat baffling. What is the Third Way? Basically they were neither Lutheran, Reformed, or Anabaptist (the major wings of the Protestant Reformation) but were unique, even while in some respects they found degrees of affinity with all three.
They were not Anabaptists and thus are almost unique in their paedobaptistic witness among the so-called Peace Churches. In many respects they held to similar ethics when it came to questions of violence, the state, and money. And yet their complicated history testifies they were never entirely consistent on any of these points. But in terms of a general ethical slant and spirit - they were always on a different trajectory than either the Lutheran or Reformed camps.
Another irony is the fact that Comenius is viewed as the great preserver and defender of the Brethren, their last and perhaps greatest shepherd. And yet in many respects he more than any other previous leader undermined their beliefs and practices at key points. He's an interesting figure that I cannot help but respect, but he's also very disappointing at times.
Atwood marches through their history, the early days under the leadership of Řehoř (or Gregory) as well as the influence of Petr Chelčický, and the partial rejection of both of these teachers under the leadership of Lucas of Prague (d.1528). It was under Lucas that the Brethren came into contact with the Magisterial Reformation and had to weigh its claims. They were both encouraged and disheartened by these developments with Lucas explicitly rejecting Luther's gospel formulation as an unbiblical cheapening of grace.
The Thirty Years War was in many respects the seminal event for the Brethren and Comenius (1592-1670). Apart from some remnant groups which at times were literally meeting in the woods and caves, the Brethren were forced out of Bohemia and Moravia (today's Czech Republic). A significant group survived in Hungary but Poland became a primary base. Comenius' decision to back the Swedes who were invading Poland proved disastrous. When the Swedes retreated in 1656, the Poles poured out their vengeance on Leszno which was the Brethren's base. Everything was burned. Comenius was destitute and ended up in the Netherlands until his death fourteen years later.
Another great irony is the fact that while Comenius decried war and violence he was forced to rely on the patronage of a Dutch arms manufacturer. Additionally his reliance on prophets and contemporary prophecy greatly discredited him. I find it both sad and ironic that he was effectively mocked by the Huguenot Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) in his famous Dictionary. Atwood argues this destroyed Comenius' reputation throughout the 18th century. Today, the assessments of Pansophism, the pet project of Comenius are mixed. He is respected as a pioneer in education and yet few moderns would embrace his pansophic view. That said, it was a forerunner of the kind of Unified Theory that later philosopher-scientists would seek and continue to do so in our day. While different than modern Christian expressions of 'worldview' which does not stem from Pansophism's Baconian roots, there is some overlap.
For those who wish to capture perhaps a bit of the 'feel' of the times, in 2021 Vistafilm released 'Comenius' which is available on YouTube. It's in Czech with English subtitles. Many believe Rembrandt's Portrait of an Old Man is in fact of Comenius, though it cannot be proven. Painted around 1665, the time and place match up and the figure does look remarkably like Comenius. The movie uses this hypothetical meeting as a narrative framework for telling the story of Comenius and his life. Though low-budget it's well done and the scenes in Rembrandt's studio almost seem (ironically perhaps) like a Vermeer painting come to life. The movie is helpful in that it touches on the influence of Mikulas Drabik as well as some other prophecy-related episodes that continue to cast a shadow over Comenius' judgment - such as the time he sent Kristina Poniatowska to utter anti-Habsburg prophetic denunciations against Albrect von Wallenstein (Waldstein in the film), an event that could have resulted in her death. The fall of the Habsburgs and the restoration of the Brethren to Bohemia was an obsession that often clouded his judgment. Tolerance would come with the Enlightened rule of Joseph II in 1782 - though his edict required them to register as Calvinists or Lutherans. Under the 1782 edict, Protestant churches were tolerated but still restricted in terms of activities, buildings, and the like. It was not until 1861 that Protestants were finally granted full standing in the Habsburg lands. The Habsburg collapse (long the dream of many Central European Protestants) did not occur until 1918. By then many of these Protestants had already succumbed to theological liberalism and were more concerned with democratic ideals and social rights than Christian doctrine.
Atwood has a tendency to read Brethren ethics in light of contemporary frameworks concerning questions of social justice. I find this especially irksome when it comes to his commentary on Chelčický. While they did (especially in their early days) eschew certain types of work because of its exploitative nature, this ethic is not the same, nor is it born of Enlightenment Liberalism. As such, there is some commentary within the work that can deemed anachronistic and thus potentially unhelpful.
That said, the book is invaluable as he draws from multiple sources to explain the nature of Brethren thought and doctrine. Thinking of other readers, I found myself wishing for deeper historical explanation to provide context, but admittedly the period is complicated and so (to some extent) readers who wish to truly and understand and benefit from the Brethren's struggles will need to spend some time familiarizing themselves with the history and geography of the period.
This work will certainly be given a prominent place on my shelf alongside Rican's History of the Unity of the Brethren, Kaminsky's History of the Hussite Revolution, as well as his work on Chelčický's writings on the social order found in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, Volume 1 (1964).
Other worthwhile Hussite-related studies I can recommend are Chelčický's Net of Faith (at least the portion that has been translated into English), as well as Murray Wagner's 1983 biography on Chelčický - A Radical Separatist in Hussite Bohemia, published as part of a series on Anabaptist and Mennonite history. The book is invaluable despite Wagner's sometimes poorly reasoned arguments and critiques (a point also raised by Atwood). Wagner is clearly burdened by the fact that despite some affinities, Chelčický was not an Anabaptist. He not only retained paedobaptism, he argued for the real presence in the Eucharist in terms more akin to later Lutheranism.
Another book located nearby on my shelf (though of less value) is Karl Kautsky's Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation, published in English in 1897 and still readily available by means of a Forgotten Books facsimile. It has significant sections dealing with the Brethren.
Another volume that I've often cited is Malcolm Lambert's 1998 work Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation. This book has an extensive section on the Hussites. The author is unfriendly to these groups but also treats the Lollards, Waldenses, Spiritual Franciscans, Cathars, and others. It's a frustrating but invaluable resource as well.
It's a little difficult to find, but I have a copy of The History of the Church Known as the Unitas Fratrum; or, The Unity of the Brethren, Founded by the Followers of John Hus, published in 1885 by EA de Schweinitz, who was ordained a Moravian Bishop in 1870. As with many 19th century works the prose is dense and a general knowledge of history is assumed. As such, some will find the book to be rather challenging. I also recommend his 1870 work on the missionary David Zeisberger.
Earl Olmstead's 1991 work on Zeisberger (Blackcoats Among the Delaware: David Zeisberger on the Ohio Frontier) is also helpful and for some to be preferred as the history is condensed (750 pages vs. 296 pages). Olmstead also wrote a longer biography on Zeisberger in 1997. Of course I am to some extent mixing apples and oranges as Zeisberger (1721-1808) belongs to the later Moravian phase. On a final note in connection to Zeisberger, I have written in very critical terms of Eric Sterner's 2020 work on Gnadenhutten in which he (in attempting to defend the moral integrity of the American militia) places the blame for the 1782 massacre on Zeisberger and the other missionaries. It's a piece of American nationalist and anti-Christian trash.
I also have a copy of FG Heymann's 1965 biography George of Bohemia: King of Heretics, a book that deals extensively with Hussitism in the 15th century. George of Podiebrad (though an Utraquist) was a sometime friend of the Brethren, who would later turn against them. The book is tedious, but if one wishes to delve this period of history from Hus and Sigismund to Albert Habsburg, the regency of Ladislaus the Posthumous and finally the reign of the only Hussite King - as well as his struggles and final war with Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, you won't find a better work in the English language. It's a rare and somewhat pricey work that I managed to pick up (in hardback form) for less than $10 at a used book store. It remains one of my great finds.
Another helpful read is Peter Brock's The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of Czech Brethren in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries, a work that Atwood interacts with throughout his volume. He often seems to disagree with Brock as to the legacy of Lucas and the ethical shift that began under his tenure. Brock is particularly interested in questions of pacifism and non-violence.
I wish the now retired Atwood would produce a similar volume on the Moravians but the history is complicated by some ugly chapters due to the influence of Count Zinzendorf, as well as basically their commercial success and (I would argue) spiritual decline in the United States over the course of the 19th century. The 20th century led to their embrace of theological modernism/liberalism which I think for Atwood is a complicated subject. In some respects he's very devoted to traditional Moravian theology and constantly expresses a concern for activism in the realm of social justice. He would be among those that treat the Scriptures as supernatural and yet not at all in the same way a Fundamentalist would. Portions of the New Testament such as the Sermon on the Mount are prioritised even while other explicit doctrines taught by Paul and others are downplayed. The truth is the Moravians have not stayed faithful to their heritage - a point Atwood might dispute, but one complicated enough that I'm guessing there's a degree of hesitancy. He's an honest historian and commentator and so it would be difficult to cover this history without undermining key Moravian narratives and running the risk of inviting scandal in connection to the 18th century.
I still hope the book will be written and though I find myself often disagreeing with Atwood, and to an even greater degree in connection with some of his other writings, I still think he's a voice worth listening to and this work certainly commands both admiration and respect.
Finally, this study led me to pursue a brief but interesting experiment. Using the basic AI search function I played around with doctrinal combinations such as a high view of the sacraments, paedobaptism, combined with separatism and the like. I asked the AI what church am I looking for?
The AI report insisted the combinations I was looking for do not exist. Doctrinally I'm looking for churches in the Anglican and Lutheran tradition but with Anabaptist ethics.
It's an unfortunate read of history and exhibits a poor grasp of theology - but then again AI doesn't actually 'grasp' such things does it? I kept fine-tuning and then it came up with a different answer - as AI often does.
It then said there was one exception to this pattern in Church history and that was the Unitas Fratrum who held to high doctrine (a term I'm consolidating), a high view of the sacraments (and infant baptism) along with more pacifist ethics. I was impressed that it was able (in part) to differentiate the Unitas and the shift that took place after Zinzendorf - when they became the Moravians.
Of course it's also noteworthy that the Unitas in 15th century experienced considerable cross-fertilization and migrational influx from the Waldensian community.
The AI was correct - the Unitas Fratrum represents (at least in the broad strokes) the kind of theology, the kind of Church I'm looking for and continue to advocate for in my writings etc. As such I continue to argue for the First Reformation in contrast to the later Magisterial Reformation. The latter won the day and yet its history is not at all glorious as its advocates would argue, let alone a return to Apostolic Christianity. And for the most part it self-destructed and has undergone considerable change even among those that champion these narratives.
A new Reformation is needed now more than ever. I won't see it in my life time but I can keep working toward it and planting seeds.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-heretic-king-of-bohemia.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-unity-of-brethren-and-magisterial.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-bohemian-brethren-and-crowning-of.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-hussite-spectrum.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-unity-of-brethren-before-thirty.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2018/11/petr-chelcicky-medieval-biblicist-and.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/07/comenius-and-swedish-occupation-of-lissa.html