“I can add no more on this too tender subject, except, that, the ever dear to me and devout Aspasia carries herself with inimitable discretion, meekness, nay, Christian cheerfulness and resignation, under this heavy stroke and unpleasant posture of affairs. We both salute you in the tenderest and most hearty manner; and, with eager desires, look forward to the next happy month that promises us the blessing of seeing, and conversing with so choice, so beloved a friend. Be not afraid to step into the house of mourning. We will, for awhile, lay aside our garments of heaviness, and anoint ourselves with the oil of gladness, to welcome you on your arrival in England; and, by prayers and best wishes for your future happiness, we will add our mites to the crown of joy upon a certain affair that promises you an abundance of happiness.
“I am, my dear Theophilus,[267] your friend,
“Thomas Broughton.”
It is a well-known fact, that, at this period, the vagaries of the Moravians created great excitement in the religious world. Gambold openly joined the Brethren, as Ingham had already done before him. Fickle Westley Hall was tainted with their heresy; and even Charles Wesley, for a season, was in danger of subsiding into their unscriptural stillness. An effort was made to re-unite Wesley’s London Societies with the Moravians at Fetter Lane; and Wesley and Zinzendorf had a memorable conference in Gray’s Inn public promenade. Whitefield, also, for the time being, was so out of favour with the Brotherhood, that James Hutton, who had been his publisher, refused to have any further transactions with him; and, to add to his annoyance, “the people of the world,” he says, “fled from him as from a viper,” because of his “injudicious and too severe expressions against Archbishop Tillotson, the author of the old Duty of Man.” Hooker, the mendacious editor of the Weekly Miscellany, in his trenchant style, was attacking both Moravians and Methodists indiscriminately; and a Mr. Hopson, one of the twelve stewards of the Religious Societies, pronounced excommunication, from their fellowship, against all the members who were guilty of the crime of hearing the Moravian Brethren, or Wesley, or Whitefield preach.
In this miserable fracas, Broughton was not an uninterested spectator. It is said, that, Mr. Hopson, just mentioned, was instigated by the Bishop of London, and, that, his lordship also entertained the idea of bringing the Moravian proceedings under the notice of Parliament. It is also alleged, that, Broughton became one of his most active agents; and, that, to accomplish the bishop’s scheme of stamping out the Moravian heresy, he availed himself of the services of Mr. Bray, an ex-Moravian, who “made it his business to go among the Brethren, construing all they did to suit his purpose, and then spreading calumnies concerning them.” Be that as it might, a pamphlet was printed, but not published, against both the Methodists and Moravians, containing, among other things, a letter, which Spangenberg had formerly addressed to Bray, and which was now made to tell against the Brotherhood. With what correctness we know not, the author of the “Memoirs of James Hutton” writes,—
“This pamphlet, which had been chiefly managed by Mr. Broughton, was not published, but industriously circulated among the Religious Societies in the metropolis. Broughton is charged with writing statements in it against the Brethren, altogether at variance with his personal knowledge and conviction, from fear lest the world should look upon him as one of the Brethren. Brother Gambold was deputed to visit him, and point out the consequences of such duplicity; and the result of Gambold’s visit appears in the following memorandum of the 2nd of January, 1742: ‘Mr. Broughton is much prejudiced against us, and he and Ziegenhagen’ (chaplain at the court of George II.) ‘lay their heads together to find fault, and the pamphlet, now printed, is read in all the Religious Societies in town.’”
No doubt there is some truth in this. Broughton was incapable of the cowardice and misrepresentation alleged against him; but there can be no question, that, he strongly disapproved of some of the doctrines and usages of the Moravians; and no fault can be found with him for this. Like all new religious movements, Moravianism was inexperienced, excitable, and, to some extent, erratic. Infancy cannot be expected to possess the perfection of manhood. With the best intentions, many of the Brethren said and did foolish things. Broughton censured this, and so also did his old friends, Wesley and Whitefield; but it is possible, that, he was desirous of going further than they. Wesley and Whitefield would have weeded Moravianism; Broughton and the Bishop of London would have totally uprooted it.
Nor is there anything in this to excite surprise. Broughton was full of religious zeal and intensely earnest; but he was a rigid Churchman, and, therefore, not in favour of sectarists. Besides, while firmly holding most of the leading doctrines of the Christian faith, he had a strong antipathy, as already seen, to those dogmas of the Brethren, which the Wesley brothers had been taught by Böhler. To what extent his opposition to Methodism and Moravianism was carried, it is impossible to determine. Neither can it be ascertained, whether he cherished his repugnance to Wesley’s newly-found doctrines to the end of life. Charles Wesley, on visiting Newgate prison, in 1743, observes,—
“I found the poor souls turned out of the way by Mr. Broughton. He told them, ‘There is no knowing our sins forgiven; and, if any could expect it, not such wretches as they, but the good people, who had done so and so. As for his part, he had it not himself; therefore, it was plain they could not receive it.’”