Page 6 - Moravian Messenger October 2018

In Essentials, Unity; 1 In Non-Essentials, Liberty;
In all things, Charity: This is the first in a four part series about the Moravian motto.
Introduction
The formula, “In essentials, unity, in non- essentials, liberty, in all things, charity,” is not a confessional statement but it functions virtually as one in the Moravian Church. The formula has a curious history, a clarification of which may help us to value it even the more. Unlike J. H. Blanford, who in 1930 Moravian Messenger article denied Moravian ownership of the formula, this paper will show that it has a credible Moravian pedigree. The paper is divided into two parts, Part 1 will look at the formula before and during the Great Reformation period. Part 2 will explore the use in the Post- Reformation period. For the benefit of those who would like to follow-up the views expressed in the paper, a series of endnotes are included.
For over two hundred years Moravians have claimed it as uniquely theirs, associating with John Amos Comenius who lived in the seventeenth century. Quoting Comenius in a 1914 publication on Moravian theology August Schultze said: “Our guiding principle is the motto of the Moravian Bishop and Educator, Comenius: 'In essentials unity, in non- essentials liberty, in all things charity'.” However, a Moravian pedigree of the formula is brought into question by the fact that it does not appear in any of the very early official publications of the Unity Synods of the Church. The formula does not appear in the Church Order of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum), the official publication that outlines the main theological positions of the worldwide Moravian Unity. It appeared in the American editions of the Church Orders of 1907, 1911, and 1924 but it is not clear why the formula was excluded from the official publications after 1924. Moravian attitude towards the formula seemed to have changed after a 1930 article in Moravian Messenger In that article the writer, Blanford, noted that the formula belongs to the period of the Reformation. Blanford argued that the
Moravians were mistaken in thinking that the formula was “[their] own invention and property”. Nevertheless, the formula has enjoyed a privileged place in the piety and popular perceptions of the Church. If, then, the Moravians did not develop this formula, to what or whom must we credit its origin? This is the issue we will investigate.
Evidence of the Formula in the Pre-reformation period
One of the earliest allusions to the formula actually comes from the Pre- Reformation period of the Moravian Church. In the period between the time of the founding of the Church in 1457 and the inauguration of the Lutheran Reformation 1517, the Moravian Church developed a distinction between necessary things and non-necessary things, relating to doctrines and practices of the church. In a document called The Apology of 1503, one of the oldest documents of the Moravian Church, the distinction was said to be needed because of the general confusion prevailing throughout the church. The Bohemian distinctions, as we may call them, were made between three orders or levels of beliefs and practices. There were the “essentials” (essentialia), the “auxiliary” (ministrative, ministerialia) and the “accidental” (accidentialia). Although the categories of “auxiliary” and “accidental” have no exact parallel in the formula in question, one can see clearly the principle that gleams through the formula that refers to essentials and non- essentials. The distinction between things essential to salvation and things ministrative, that is, serving the “essentials”, together with the further delineation of things that are merely “accidental” “may be called the formal principle of the early Moravian theology.”
Having arisen in the Bohemian region it may be called the Bohemian formula of the Moravian Church. The essential things were divided into things on the part of God and things on the part of human beings. On the part of God the essential things were the grace of the Father, the merit of Christ and the gifts of the Holy
Spirit. On the part of human beings the essential things were faith, love and hope, which are similar to the framework in which the Catechism of a century earlier was constructed. The things that were auxiliaries included the Word of God, the keys , (ordained ministry) and the sacraments. These things were given as the means whereby the essentials became known: the word of God reveals, the keys assign and the sacraments seal. The auxiliaries were in the service of the essentials, to ensure that the faith was kept true. The accidentals of Christianity were those things relating to the time, place and mode of worship, which included the ceremonies and the external rites of religion. These things, which Comenius would later called the accessories, should be practised with liberty and prudence, and “in a manner that they might not only prove no obstacle to faith, love and hope, but rather than they might serve to illustrate and impress them.” The Essentials and the Auxiliaries were commonly held among Christians but the Accidents were drawn from practices in the primitive church and various indications in Holy Scripture. Although they were to be treated with a measure of flexibility, the recognition of Accidentals was not a license for individuals to change and introduce ceremonies and opinions without subjecting them to proper general examination.
This three-tiered, hierarchical system may have been derived from an interpretation of the biblical text in 1Cor 13:13. This is evident from the catechism for children published under the title, “EIN CHRISTLICHE UNTTERWEYSUNG DER KLAYNEN KINDER JM GELAUBEN, DURCH EIN WEYSZ EINER FRAG. M.D.X.X.I [I]. When translated this means, “Christian Instruction in the Faith, in the Form of Questions, for Little Children. 1522.” In response to the question, “Upon what does thy salvation depend?” the catechism gives the answer, “Faith, love and hope.” It then quotes 1Cor 13:13 as proof and support. In the dealing with hope we see again allusions to the hierarchy as follows:
114